SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

Escort Carriers

1109 views
6 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    March 2010
Escort Carriers
Posted by Bocks Suv on Wednesday, June 1, 2011 10:12 AM

I like these smaller versions of carriers, but I have a question. How did planes take off on such a short deck? Whenever I see a built model, the deck is covered with planes further reducing the deck length. In operation, did they keep the deck mostly clear and elevator up planes one or 2 at a time?   

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, June 1, 2011 10:53 AM

Typically an entire strike was spotted on the deck prior to launching...catapults helped a lot on these smaller carriers...

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: EG48
Posted by Tracy White on Wednesday, June 1, 2011 12:15 PM

Manstein's mostly got it for you. Catapults were used for heavier loaded aircraft, but they slowed down operations, so they weren't always used. The smaller carriers had less elevator capacity in both size and speed (as well as lacking the side elevator the Essex class had which enabled them to operate while aircraft were landing and taking off if necessary) so the decks were pretty much fully spotted for a strike.

Wind over the deck helped. Order of aircraft was also a factor; CAP fighters would be spotted first as they had less load and needed a shorter run. The smaller CVEs also generally operated older aircraft, such as the FM-2 Wildcat, which needed less of a take-off roll than the larger, heavier F6F Hellcat.

Tracy White Researcher@Large

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: Mansfield, TX
Posted by EdGrune on Wednesday, June 1, 2011 3:54 PM

Then there is also the mission to consider.    In the Atlantic the CVEs were generally doing Escort/ASW and would launch a couple Hunter-Killer teams of 1 or 2 FM-2s and a TBM/TBF.    There were few, if any, deck load 'alpha strikes' (that is a later mission description but used here for convenience) launched in the Atlantic

In the Pacific,  the CVEs couldn't keep up with the fast carriers.   Their mission was generally local ASW,   augment the CAP over the fleet, and be the farm team for replacement pilots and aircraft for combat losses on the fast carriers.    There too you wouldn't be handling a full deck of aircraft.

  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Carmel, CA
Posted by bondoman on Wednesday, June 1, 2011 4:07 PM

In fact, in the Pacific aircraft transport was a primary mission, with the Carrier Transport Squadron. I have no idea what percentage, and there were a lot of CVE's but many of them did nothing but. That usually accounts for the pictures with crowded decks.

They served as such all through the Korean conflict as well. There's a picture on page 33 of the Squadron booklet with CVE-64 USS Tripoli with her flight deck full of F-86D's.

 

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Sonora Desert
Posted by stikpusher on Wednesday, June 1, 2011 4:11 PM

CVE's were also tasked with CAS for the initial phase of amphibious assaults. This was one of the issues at Leyte Gulf during the Battle Off Samar. One of the reasons that the fast carriers could go off chasing the Japanese fleet and not be tied to supporting a beachhead. The Taffy pilots did not have anti shipping ordinance (torpedos, AP bombs) and were not trained to fly anti shiping strikes.

There was a seperate group of CVEs tasked with providing replacement pilots and aircraft for the fast carriers.

 The FM-2 was a "hot rod" version of the original F4F design with a more powerful engine, which helped on the smaller CVE flight decks

 

F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

N is for NO SURVIVORS...

       - Plankton

LSM

 

  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Carmel, CA
Posted by bondoman on Wednesday, June 1, 2011 4:17 PM

stikpusher

 The FM-2 was a "hot rod" version of the original F4F design with a more powerful engine, which helped on the smaller CVE flight decks

Also, because of a number of factors related to what we are discussing here- proximity to the fight, numbers, degraded opposition, and a good design- the most "successful" fighter in WW2.

JOIN OUR COMMUNITY!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

SEARCH FORUMS
FREE NEWSLETTER
By signing up you may also receive reader surveys and occasional special offers. We do not sell, rent or trade our email lists. View our Privacy Policy.