Pacific War Carrier Operations

[old_pop2000]

How about discussing the most important weapon system in the Pacific War; the carrier and its aircraft. It gave both sides the mobility to move beyond land based air support, strike Pearl Harbor, Guadalcanal, and the islands in the Central Pacific during the early six months of the war. I allowed for the swift movement of Japanese invasion forces to take Java, the Phillippines, Rabaul and other key locations. Discussion should include carrier operations, battles, carrier deck operations, aircraft etc.

[old_pop2000]

One possibly overlooked aspect of naval operations in the Pacific is the role of the land based patrol aircraft. In my readings, both sides had good two engined and four engined patrol aircraft, well trained crews and good search strategies for these land based aircraft. I use the term land based to include the Mavis and Catalina flying boats. It was a valuable adjunct to carrier operations as conducted by both sides.

Three of the most important carrier operations in the first six months of the war; Coral Sea, Midway and Guadalcanal were aided and initiated by the search capability of the sea based flying boats of both sides.

In the initial carrier raids against the Marshalls, Wake and New Guinea, the US carrier's had a constant nemesis; the Mavis flying boats. Many of these aircraft were shot down by CAP F4F's to protect the carrier task forces. However, in the case of Coral Sea, it was the dilegence of the Mavis crews that provided the whereabouts of Fletcher's task force and led to the confrontation in the Coral Sea.

The same holds true for Midway. Our PBY search aircraft flying out of FFS and Midway are the aircraft that detected both the 1st Striking force and the invasion force as they closed on Midway.

In Operation Watchtower, the three task forces and the invasion force timed their approach to the Solomons to coincide with the Mavis search aircraft return leg back to Tulagi. Only the low clouds and weather actually prevented the Japanese from getting a two to four hour advanced knowledge of the coming invasion. Four were launched to head south then turn left and make a 60 degree search pattern. Two passed with a short distance of the carriers but due to weather, missed detecting the force. F4F's on CAP did search.

After the invasion was effected, US catalina flying boats out of Espiritu Santo and Tulagi performed an excellent search and warning system up the slot and around the whole Solomon's chain.

Overall, carrier operations were greatly aided by these patrol aircraft. Both sides benefited from the diligence of these crews. I hope that the simulations being produced to simulate naval operations depict these land based patrol operations. They were valuable to both sides.

[Kyle Holgate]

The older computer games - all had land based search fairly well done in my view. The H6K Mavis and the even better H8K Emily really take a lot of pressure off the carrier based search aircraft. The Japanese carrier forces also greatly benefit from cruiser and battleship based float planes - something not used much if at all by the US.
Personally - I think the H8K was the finest of its catagory in the war. It had excellent range, very good perfomance (for a float plane/flying boat) and unlike many Japanese aircraft, was pretty durable and sported good defensive armament. It was the "Flying Porcupine" of the Pacific.

I think the excellent long range flying boats are what kept the allies from doing more merchant raiding. It always stuck me that the long distance between bases in the Pacific made it ideal for raiding. US cruisers - with their excellent range could have raised quite some havoc you'd think. Didn't happen though, & I wonder why. Heh heh, warning - thread hijacking in progress!

[Warship NWS]

If the Japanese had better armed forces cooperation their maritime patrol aircraft could have worked well to help combat our submarines that were ravaging their merchant ships. The Japanese had the ability to seriously prolong their war effort if they had just recognized submarines as a serious threat to their supply lines -- you would think that WW1 and the early WW2 years would have gotten their attention as the raid on Toranto did in regards to attacking a port. They watched the British attack a port but completely ignored the ability of the British to defend against subs much like they ignored the value of the radio in a fighter plane making it a worthwhile CAP aircraft, thus the lessons of the Battle of Britain.

Thanks.

[old_pop2000]

I agree about antisubmarine patrols by the flying boats. I wonder how much of that was actually accomplished? The land based patrol aircraft did good work in locating our surface ships. I wonder if their land based aircraft performed SCAP.

[Warship NWS]

I agree about antisubmarine patrols by the flying boats. I wonder how much of that was actually accomplished? The land based patrol aircraft did good work in locating our surface ships. I wonder if their land based aircraft performed SCAP.

Not to sound dumb here.. but what is SCAP? I have probably heard the acronym before but it is not ringing an immediate bell in my head.

[old_pop2000]

Screen Combat Air Patrols-Flights designed to cover out to 60 to 70 miles from the fleet, normally used to cover cruiser-destroyer units and transports. At Guadalcanal, VF-6 flew SCAP as did VF-3 and VF-5 over the transports and the cruisers guarding them. Example:

August 8,1942 Guadalcanal

4 F4F's flew over transports screen- Led by Lt. Vorse landed back on the Enterprise at 0813

4 SBD's on inner patrol - landed back on Enterprise at 0928

4 F4F's flew over transports screen- Landed back at 0926 Patrolled at 20,000 ft.

8 F4F's L.H. Bauer leader, Combat air Patrol over carriers. Landed all planes aboard at 1012

Excerpt from CV 6 Action log dtd 24 August 1942

As you can see, they were launching SCAP, inner patrols and CAP. The inner patrols were submarine patrols. All missions were two hours.

Hope that helps.

[Warship NWS]

Screen Combat Air Patrols

That part was all I needed to refresh my memory. Should have clicked in my mind with the CAP part. ;) Too many darned acronyms out there to remember.

[old_pop2000]

Work for the government for 34 years and see how many acronyms you get. I still think in the phonetic alphabet and acronyms.

[Mike Malanaphy]

Work for the government for 34 years and see how many acronyms you get. I still think in the phonetic alphabet and acronyms.

Hi Dennis,

I'm surrpised a man of your experience is not familiar with "MUAP" or Minimize Use of Acronyms Program. : )

[old_pop2000]

The Navy never heard of that program, it invented the use of acronyms. I bet the USNA has a special course in its curriculum for acronyms.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hi Dennis,

I'm surrpised a man of your experience is not familiar with "MUAP" or Minimize Use of Acronyms Program. : )

Mike, Dennis and Chris:

Every time I write a memo at work, I find myself engulfed in acronyms. Our standard practice is to fully spell out the term and put the acronym in parentheses. After that we use the acronym and hope the reader can keep up.;)

[old_pop2000]

Mike, Dennis and Chris:

Every time I write a memo at work, I find myself engulfed in acronyms. Our standard practice is to fully spell out the term and put the acronym in parentheses. After that we use the acronym and hope the reader can keep up.;)
That is how you are supposed write and use acronym's. You spell it out once and then use the acronym after that. Another way is to provide an appendix with all acronym's spelled out and explained. Then, on the preface, provide the reader the location of all acronym's used. In this media, that is almost impossible. So, you probably either have to use the first procedure, hope that everyone knows typical acronym's or spell it out each time.

[old_pop2000]

For those of you who might not understand the problems with fighter escort and CAP ranges here is an example of the problem with the F4F aircraft.

The calculated combat radius of the F4F-4, based on combat experience was 105 miles without drop tanks. With one drop tank, the range is 245 miles, with two drop tanks, the range is 325 miles. The drop tanks were not available until the Guadalcanal operation and were not selfsealing.

This was calculated based on the following:

20 min. warm-up and idle
1 min. Take-off
10 min. rendezvous at 60% normal sea level power or NSP in auto rich fuel setting
Climb to 15,000 ft at 60% NSP in auto lean to cool the engine.
Cruise out at 15,000 ft at V for max range and auto lean ( V is cruising speed)
20 min. of combat at 15000 ft. at full military power (FMP)
Descent
Cruise back at Sea Level at V for max range and auto lean
60 min. rendezvous, landing and reserve at V for max range and auto lean
Range includes distance covered in climb out but not in descent.

From this list of parameters, it should be apparent that fuel management by the pilot and flight leader is absolutely important to maximize max range. The mission will not always conform to procedure exactly. The ready CAP may have an immediate takeoff due to incoming enemy aircraft, and may use 100% FMP to gain the necessary altitude prior to intercept. The slow climbing ability of the F4F-4, in this instance, was a tremendous hinderance. The short combat radius of the fighters, caused the TF commander to move the carriers closer to their intended target and thereby risk the carriers. Many times they refused to do this and simply sent the bombers without fighter escort.

Takeoff in an F4F or any prop driven aircraft is done with full flaps, fine pitch on the prop for max RPM's, auto rich for max power. If external tanks are attached, the fuel switch will be set to reserve, to use that fuel first. If in combat, the tanks were released. Many times they failed to release, then the F4F was in serious trouble.

I've provided this information because flight sims or strategy games tend to gloss over and simplify this aspect of the operation. Authors tend to do the same thing. They make the whole idea of carrier aviation look incredibly simple. Which it was not. Many pilots and aircraft were lost due to operational losses; simply running out of gas or getting lost. The Navy has four categories in its stats from WWII; Losses due to AAA, enemy aircraft, operational and non-operational. The Navy lost more aircraft due to operational losses than they did for enemy aircraft or AAA. Fuel management and navigation were extremely important. Even after the addition of CVE's providing extra aircraft or spares on board the fleet carriers.

Source: Flight test conducted at NAS Anacostia, flight report.:p

[john964]

The calculated combat radius of the F4F-4, based on combat experience was 105 miles without drop tanks. With one drop tank, the range is 245 miles, with two drop tanks, the range is 325 miles. The drop tanks were not available until the Guadalcanal operation and were not selfsealing.

This was calculated based on the following:

20 min. warm-up and idle
1 min. Take-off
10 min. rendezvous at 60% normal sea level power or NSP in auto rich fuel setting
Climb to 15,000 ft at 60% NSP in auto lean to cool the engine.
Cruise out at 15,000 ft at V for max range and auto lean ( V is cruising speed)
20 min. of combat at 15000 ft. at full military power (FMP)
Descent
Cruise back at Sea Level at V for max range and auto lean
60 min. rendezvous, landing and reserve at V for max range and auto lean
Range includes distance covered in climb out but not in descent.

From this list of parameters, it should be apparent that fuel management by the pilot and flight leader is absolutely important to maximize max range. The mission will not always conform to procedure exactly. The ready CAP may have an immediate takeoff due to incoming enemy aircraft, and may use 100% FMP to gain the necessary altitude prior to intercept. The slow climbing ability of the F4F-4, in this instance, was a tremendous hinderance. The short combat radius of the fighters, caused the TF commander to move the carriers closer to their intended target and thereby risk the carriers. Many times they refused to do this and simply sent the bombers without fighter escort.

What size drop tanks the info I have is the F4F-4 used 2 different types either a 42gal or a 58gal. The 42 added about 150nm and the 58 about 200nm.

[old_pop2000]

What size drop tanks the info I have is the F4F-4 used 2 different types either a 42gal or a 58gal. The 42 added about 150nm and the 58 about 200nm.
The initial drop tanks were 42 gal. developed at Pearl Harbor and the 58 gal developed by Grumman. The 58 gal. tanks were the best of the two, and were slung underneath each wing against the fuselage. The 42 gal tanks were very heavy and the aircraft could barely climb out, using an excessive amount of fuel to do so.

[Ed Rotondaro]

For those of you who might not understand the problems with fighter escort and CAP ranges here is an example of the problem with the F4F aircraft.

The calculated combat radius of the F4F-4, based on combat experience was 105 miles without drop tanks. With one drop tank, the range is 245 miles, with two drop tanks, the range is 325 miles. The drop tanks were not available until the Guadalcanal operation and were not selfsealing.

This was calculated based on the following:

20 min. warm-up and idle
1 min. Take-off
10 min. rendezvous at 60% normal sea level power or NSP in auto rich fuel setting
Climb to 15,000 ft at 60% NSP in auto lean to cool the engine.
Cruise out at 15,000 ft at V for max range and auto lean ( V is cruising speed)
20 min. of combat at 15000 ft. at full military power (FMP)
Descent
Cruise back at Sea Level at V for max range and auto lean
60 min. rendezvous, landing and reserve at V for max range and auto lean
Range includes distance covered in climb out but not in descent.

From this list of parameters, it should be apparent that fuel management by the pilot and flight leader is absolutely important to maximize max range. The mission will not always conform to procedure exactly. The ready CAP may have an immediate takeoff due to incoming enemy aircraft, and may use 100% FMP to gain the necessary altitude prior to intercept. The slow climbing ability of the F4F-4, in this instance, was a tremendous hinderance. The short combat radius of the fighters, caused the TF commander to move the carriers closer to their intended target and thereby risk the carriers. Many times they refused to do this and simply sent the bombers without fighter escort.

Takeoff in an F4F or any prop driven aircraft is done with full flaps, fine pitch on the prop for max RPM's, auto rich for max power. If external tanks are attached, the fuel switch will be set to reserve, to use that fuel first. If in combat, the tanks were released. Many times they failed to release, then the F4F was in serious trouble.

I've provided this information because flight sims or strategy games tend to gloss over and simplify this aspect of the operation. Authors tend to do the same thing. They make the whole idea of carrier aviation look incredibly simple. Which it was not. Many pilots and aircraft were lost due to operational losses; simply running out of gas or getting lost. The Navy has four categories in its stats from WWII; Losses due to AAA, enemy aircraft, operational and non-operational. The Navy lost more aircraft due to operational losses than they did for enemy aircraft or AAA. Fuel management and navigation were extremely important. Even after the addition of CVE's providing extra aircraft or spares on board the fleet carriers.

Source: Flight test conducted at NAS Anacostia, flight report.:p

Dennis:

Absolutely superb work here! Unlike like land based aircraft that could send off several planes at once, carriers had to launch their strike force and let it form up which wasted fuel. Every battle account I've read of carrier ops has planes ditching from lack of fuel.

[Ed Rotondaro]

The initial drop tanks were 58 gal. developed at Pearl Harbor and the 42 gal developed by Grumman. The 42 gal. tanks were the best of the two, and were slung underneath each wing against the fuselage. The 58 gal tanks were very heavy and the aircraft could barely climb out, using an excessive amount of fuel to do so. It somewhat negated the extra fuel that they carried. They were good for long range patrols or ferrying the aircraft.

Dennis:

Were those tanks made out of paper like late war ones were? Just curious.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

Were those tanks made out of paper like late war ones were? Just curious.
Not paper. I am not certain, but I believe they were metal. The navy used high octane fuel and it might have corroded the paper and wooden tanks. I will check and get back with an answer.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

Absolutely superb work here! Unlike like land based aircraft that could send off several planes at once, carriers had to launch their strike force and let it form up which wasted fuel. Every battle account I've read of carrier ops has planes ditching from lack of fuel.
There were three kinds of launches; emergency, normal and delay. In the first, you launched the strike and every squadron made its own way to the target, no rendezvous. In the second, the bombers would rendezvous and then head towards the target, with the fighters catching up later. In the later, all rendezvoused, a flew together. At Midway, the launch was normal.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Not paper. I am not certain, but I believe they were metal. The navy used high octane fuel and it might have corroded the paper and wooden tanks. I will check and get back with an answer.

Dennis:

Did the navy use higher octane fuel than the Army Air Force? I was under the impression that the US avgas was the highest octane in the world and helped contribute to the performance of its aircraft.

[old_pop2000]

I believe that the navy used fuel with an octane of at least 95 and higher. I think it was 115/145 or 100/130 octane.

[john964]

Not paper. I am not certain, but I believe they were metal. The navy used high octane fuel and it might have corroded the paper and wooden tanks. I will check and get back with an answer.Drop tanks were made of cheap thin guage aluminum they were desgned to be disposable, a friend said that they were about twice as thick as a aluminum can

[Ed Rotondaro]

I believe that the navy used fuel with an octane of at least 95 and higher. I think it was 115/145 or 100/130 octane.

Thanks Dennis. Didn't you post many moons ago that the drop tanks used in Europe by the USAAF were made of a composite paper material? Mainly being cheaper and and not using scare war materials.

[old_pop2000]

Yes, but they did not have to land on a carrier deck. I will continue to research and confirm the use of metal. But to my knowledge, they were aluminum.