What does your 1941-1942 carrier plane force look like?

[MacArther]

Fighter= F4F-3
Bomber/attack= Dautless (which ever one was the most recent)
Nightfighter= Fairy Fulmar

[FLYBOYJ]

F4F-3 fighter
Dive Bomber - SBD
Torpedo/ Strike - TBM
ASW/ Observation - Kingfisher

[syscom3]

I didnt think Kingfishers operated off of carriers. Werent they BB and CA based?

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by syscom3

I didnt think Kingfishers operated off of carriers. Werent they BB and CA based?

No, they were land based as well

"At the time of Pearl Harbor, all the Navy's battleships were equipped with the OS2U. Additionally, the carriers Saratoga, Wasp, and Hornet as well as the seaplane tenders Albemarle, Barnegat, Biscayne, Casco, Curtiss, Heron, Humbolt, Pocomoke, Tangier, and Wright, used the type for utility work."

[Gnomey]

Fighter - F4F3/Zero
Divebomber - SBD Dauntless
Torpedo - Swordfish

[rebel8303]

Fighter:Seafire
Torpedo Bomber:Swordfish
Dive Bomber: SBD

[R Leonard]

". . . Additionally, the carriers Saratoga, Wasp, and Hornet as well as the seaplane tenders Albemarle, Barnegat, Biscayne, Casco, Curtiss, Heron, Humbolt, Pocomoke, Tangier, and Wright, used the type for utility work."

But when they’re talking about carrier use what they’re neglecting to say is that these ships carried one, at most, two, of these types. All the prewar carriers carried at least one utility aircraft, usually a seaplane type such as OS2U or the SOC; all were referred to as “hacks”.

Some squadrons also carried on their books ‘squadron hacks,” but they were usually the result of transitioning from one type to another. For example Ranger’s VS-41 was redesignated VF-42 in March 1941. They had been operating SBCs, but with the new designation transitioned to F4F-3s. When the dust settled, they still had one SBC which they left behind when they transferred over to Yorktown. RAG turned in the SBC because they already had an SOC.

Some squadrons (especially VFs) carried SNJs in their organizations for use as hacks. These utililty planes gave them dedicated two-seaters for use as needed.

So, when you read that these carriers were operating these planes, don’t get the idea that they were being included in operations, because they weren’t.

Their use was limited to in-port generated flights or while operating from land and their primary purposes was transporting folks from one place to another, one-by-one, or for specific training purposes. For example in August 1942, when my father was in VF-11, his next assignment after the Battle of Midway, he used the squadron hack, SNJ #01905, on four occasions. One was a courier flight to March Army Air Field. The other three were for instrument proficiency re-qualifications; once for himself and twice where he re-qualified others. Later, in December 1942, while still in VF-11, he borrowed the VF-3 hack, a SNJ, #01858, for a round trip from Maui NAS to Ford Island NAS to attend an awards ceremony for Midway action.

Just as a point of interest, types such as the SOC or OS2U were delivered with fixed landing gear and hard points for installation of floats. The floats were manufactured separately (by Elco, I seem to remember) and installed by Navy maintenance facilities as needed.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by R Leonard

But when they’re talking about carrier use what they’re neglecting to say is that these ships carried one, at most, two, of these types. All the prewar carriers carried at least one utility aircraft, usually a seaplane type such as OS2U or the SOC; all were referred to as “hacks”.

Some squadrons also carried on their books ‘squadron hacks,” but they were usually the result of transitioning from one type to another. For example Ranger’s VS-41 was redesignated VF-42 in March 1941. They had been operating SBCs, but with the new designation transitioned to F4F-3s. When the dust settled, they still had one SBC which they left behind when they transferred over to Yorktown. RAG turned in the SBC because they already had an SOC.

Some squadrons (especially VFs) carried SNJs in their organizations for use as hacks. These utililty planes gave them dedicated two-seaters for use as needed.

So, when you read that these carriers were operating these planes, don’t get the idea that they were being included in operations, because they weren’t.

Their use was limited to in-port generated flights or while operating from land and their primary purposes was transporting folks from one place to another, one-by-one, or for specific training purposes. For example in August 1942, when my father was in VF-11, his next assignment after the Battle of Midway, he used the squadron hack, SNJ #01905, on four occasions. One was a courier flight to March Army Air Field. The other three were for instrument proficiency re-qualifications; once for himself and twice where he re-qualified others. Later, in December 1942, while still in VF-11, he borrowed the VF-3 hack, a SNJ, #01858, for a round trip from Maui NAS to Ford Island NAS to attend an awards ceremony for Midway action.

Just as a point of interest, types such as the SOC or OS2U were delivered with fixed landing gear and hard points for installation of floats. The floats were manufactured separately (by Elco, I seem to remember) and installed by Navy maintenance facilities as needed.

As usual, great information Len! - my point was the Kingfisher did operate off carriers (with fixed gear of course). I've seen photos of one landing on the Saratoga (I think)....

[syscom3]

Swordfish over the Avenger.

Thats an interesting pick, for 2nd half of 1942 at least.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Swordfish over the Avenger.

Thats an interesting pick, for 2nd half of 1942 at least.

I agree - the Swordfish was a great old bird and served well in the theaters it was deployed, but it definitely was not as good as the Avenger.

[delcyros]

I wonder why nobody mentiones the japanese planes. They should be a reasonable option for 1941-42 (incl. training).
Plane by plane the Zeke outmatches the F4F Wildcat and the B5N isn´t a worse torpedo bomber, also.
The SBD however beats the D3A, no doubt.
Carrier task forces also include tactics and ships, so up to lets say Midway, the japanese did a heavy toll with their toys in 41/42, or am I wrong?

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by delcyros

I wonder why nobody mentiones the japanese planes. They should be a reasonable option for 1941-42 (incl. training).
Plane by plane the Zeke outmatches the F4F Wildcat and the B5N isn´t a worse torpedo bomber, also.
The SBD however beats the D3A, no doubt.
Carrier task forces also include tactics and ships, so up to lets say Midway, the japanese did a heavy toll with their toys in 41/42, or am I wrong?

The F4F really wasn't outclassed by the zero (especially the A6M2) if flown right, that's been proven. The TBM was WAY superior to the B5N -

The only heavy toll was Pearl Harbor - Coral Sea was sought of a draw (and the zero barley managed 2 to 1 kill ratio over the F4F, a supposedly "inferior" aircraft) and Midway was the beginning of the end of the JIN. I didn't pick any Japanese aircraft because I felt they were all inferior and burnt very easy!

[delcyros]

Zekes were light designs but better armed, too. And the F4F could come about equal only by use of superior tactics, this has nothing to do with the planes performances. In any way it did not dominate over the Zeke in 41-42.
The TBM Avanger wasn´t statisfying in 42 also. It´s first operations weren´t that encouraging. Some pre production units entered service in june 42, they were often mauled by Zekes: All six in Midway get lost, in august 7 out of 26 Avangers were lost in a single sortie at the Salomons, in Santa Cruise all 18 Avangers were lost, at least they managed to sink the crippled Hiei at Guadacanal) Usual production of TBM1 began in spetember 42, that´s very late for 41-42, or isn´t it? The total production quantities are therefore low in our timeframe:
up to Nov. 42 only 165 TBF and a single TBM was produced.
If we consider the poor quality of US torpedo´s in this timeframe I would generally prefer the B5N Kate. Avangers were often forced to do bomb attacks because the torpedos were crap.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by delcyros

Zekes were light designs but better armed, too. And the F4F could come about equal only by use of superior tactics, this has nothing to do with the planes performances. In any way it did not dominate over the Zeke in 41-42.

After Midway the F4F attained about a 2 to 1 kill ratio over the Zero. Eventually it rose to about 4 to 1. We posted this before, only about 190 F4Fs were lost in air-to-air combat, I'm sure Leonard will chime in here soon. The Zero was only a killer under 300 mph, over that it was dead meat! At higher speeds the F4F was able to out-dive, out roll and in some cases out turn the mythical Zero!

Originally Posted by delcyros

The TBM Avanger wasn´t statisfying in 42 also. It´s first operations weren´t that encouraging. Some pre production units entered service in june 42, they were often mauled by Zekes: All six in Midway get lost, in august 7 out of 26 Avangers were lost in a single sortie at the Salomons, in Santa Cruise all 18 Avangers were lost, at least they managed to sink the crippled Hiei at Guadacanal) Usual production of TBM1 began in spetember 42, that´s very late for 41-42, or isn´t it? The total production quantities are therefore low in our timeframe:
up to Nov. 42 only 165 TBF and a single TBM was produced.
If we consider the poor quality of US torpedo´s in this timeframe I would generally prefer the B5N Kate. Avangers were often forced to do bomb attacks because the torpedos were crap.

The TBM was eventually used as a light bomber, bombing from altitude, I say that was a plus for this aircraft that carried 1,000 pounds more than the Kate. The battles you site where they were "mauled" occurred because the USN did not have full aerial superiority at the time and the IJN was able to put up a sizable force of fighters, the USN in all did not have a numerical superiority. The TBM could take a beating, was very strong and robust, the Kate way typical of Japanese aircraft, light, fragile, and it burned very easily...

But yes, the torpedoes were crap!

[delcyros]

Yep, using bombing the Avenger is way better, but it was placed as torpedo bomber here. In this very role it was way inferior to the B5N, even if we suppose that this belongs to the torpedos more than to the airplane. Both belongs together. The production figures are low also, so I would choose some hundred B5N with well trained crews (avaiable in 41-42) instead of a few dozen Avengers with crap torpedos and crews which only began to realize this planes full potential. (just for this role)
And I would stick with the Zeke, since it dominated over the F4F for almost a year, while the F4F eventually reached maturity in deployment with better tactics in late 42 (when our timeframe closes).