Not sure I would classify it as a war movie, so to speak.
Can anyone here tell me why the U.S. didn't use aircraft carriers in the European theatre?
WWII Movies
- Thread starter Trekker4747
- Start date
Not sure I would classify it as a war movie, so to speak.
Can anyone here tell me why the U.S. didn't use aircraft carriers in the European theatre?
The USN did use escort carriers in the Atlantic to protect convoys crossing the Atlantic from U-boats. I think the USS Ranger (one of the early USN carriers) was also used in the convoy escort role. As for why no full size carriers? Well why bother? The Germans had no surface fleet to speak of, the Japanese certainly did. Also we had a huge unsinkable carrier sitting off the coast of France throughout the entire war, one that we could operate four engined bombers from. We called it England.
My personal favorite WW2 movie is They Were Expendable, which is set in the Philippines.
While the war in the Pacific was the US public's A-Number One priority in 1942, it was inevitably eclipsed by the European war to the point that most Americans today have little understanding of how that part of the war unfolded. Part of that was the Navy's fault, their leadership was temperamentally adverse to publicity in the first place, and concerns about maintaining the secrecy of codebreaking made them even more tight-lipped. Few Americans today, for example, know that what German submarines tried and failed to do to Britain, US submarines succeeded in doing to Japan. The "Silent Service, " not just because subs are quiet.
The war in Europe is basically more understandable and relatable for most Americans. We bomb the Germans every day, the Brits bomb them every night, the Russians slug it out with them in the East, we knock Germany out of Africa and come at them up through Italy, and finally send an army across the channel to drive to Berlin. The Pacific, on the other hand... Where is Guadalcanal? How far apart are the Gilberts and the Carolines? Why were the Army and the Navy/Marines fighting separately? Why are the Marianas so important? Why are any of these dots important? Why did Japan want to fight the US in the first place? These things are still pretty murky for most potential US viewers.
The Japanese air forces had very high-quality training, but a very short-sighted program for training replacement aircrews, and never rotated experienced crews out of combat to train newcomers. They fought till they were killed. Also, unlike the USN, Japanese carrier air groups were part of the crew of that particular carrier. If a carrier was damaged and in port, the squadrons stayed with it. If a carrier lost too many planes, it had to basically rebuild its air group from the bottom up with replacement crews. The USN just shuffled squadrons around from carrier to carrier as needed, and had plenty of "spare" replacement squadrons.
They did, they were just the small, slow escort variety to chase subs and support amphibious landings. German naval strength lay in the U-boats; she did not have a major surface battle fleet, and what she did (plus Italy's) the Royal Navy could handle quite well. Germany also had very little in the way of naval aviation. Japan, on the other hand, was a major naval power, with a very potent fleet of modern, sophisticated and high-quality warships, and a fast carrier striking force that was stronger than the USN's at the beginning of the war, plus a major land-based naval air force scattered around the Pacific. So, the US fast carriers were very much needed against Japan.
--Justin
While the war in the Pacific was the US public's A-Number One priority in 1942, it was inevitably eclipsed by the European war to the point that most Americans today have little understanding of how that part of the war unfolded. Part of that was the Navy's fault, their leadership was temperamentally adverse to publicity in the first place, and concerns about maintaining the secrecy of codebreaking made them even more tight-lipped. Few Americans today, for example, know that what German submarines tried and failed to do to Britain, US submarines succeeded in doing to Japan. The "Silent Service, " not just because subs are quiet.
The war in Europe is basically more understandable and relatable for most Americans. We bomb the Germans every day, the Brits bomb them every night, the Russians slug it out with them in the East, we knock Germany out of Africa and come at them up through Italy, and finally send an army across the channel to drive to Berlin. The Pacific, on the other hand... Where is Guadalcanal? How far apart are the Gilberts and the Carolines? Why were the Army and the Navy/Marines fighting separately? Why are the Marianas so important? Why are any of these dots important? Why did Japan want to fight the US in the first place? These things are still pretty murky for most potential US viewers.
The B-29, of course, saw combat only in the Pacific. Likewise the SB2C, as neither the USAAF or the British had the patience to work out the bugs that the USN did. The Corsair saw some action in the Europe/Atlantic theater, but under British colors only. The F6F, I believe, made only one combat appearance in the ETO, Operation Anvil, as the Atlantic Fleet jeep carriers stuck with the F4F/FM. The C-46 was kind of the reverse of the P-51, making its name in the CBI and Pacific theaters then making an appearance in the ETO just before the end.
The Japanese air forces had very high-quality training, but a very short-sighted program for training replacement aircrews, and never rotated experienced crews out of combat to train newcomers. They fought till they were killed. Also, unlike the USN, Japanese carrier air groups were part of the crew of that particular carrier. If a carrier was damaged and in port, the squadrons stayed with it. If a carrier lost too many planes, it had to basically rebuild its air group from the bottom up with replacement crews. The USN just shuffled squadrons around from carrier to carrier as needed, and had plenty of "spare" replacement squadrons.
They did, they were just the small, slow escort variety to chase subs and support amphibious landings. German naval strength lay in the U-boats; she did not have a major surface battle fleet, and what she did (plus Italy's) the Royal Navy could handle quite well. Germany also had very little in the way of naval aviation. Japan, on the other hand, was a major naval power, with a very potent fleet of modern, sophisticated and high-quality warships, and a fast carrier striking force that was stronger than the USN's at the beginning of the war, plus a major land-based naval air force scattered around the Pacific. So, the US fast carriers were very much needed against Japan.
--Justin
Last edited:
The USN did use escort carriers in the Atlantic to protect convoys crossing the Atlantic from U-boats. I think the USS Ranger (one of the early USN carriers) was also used in the convoy escort role. As for why no full size carriers? Well why bother? The Germans had no surface fleet to speak of, the Japanese certainly did. Also we had a huge unsinkable carrier sitting off the coast of France throughout the entire war, one that we could operate four engined bombers from. We called it England.
Yeah, for the Allies, the main goal of the naval campaign in the Atlantic was countering the U-Boat threat, and you really didn't need a fleet carrier to do that. All you really needed were a couple dozen planes on patrol around convoys to force submarines to submerge, coupled with destroyers to ensure that the boats couldn't maneuver any closer while underwater. A fleet carrier would have been just too valuable for that kind of role.
McHale's Navy and the Blacksheep versus Hogan's Heroes and 12 OLClock High.
One problem is that in Europe you have ordinary people in danger. Pacific stories feature colonial overlords losing their privilages to the Japanese.
Curious because before Das Boot there were a large number of US submarine movies my favorite Run Silent Run Deep and ending with The Winds Of War mini series.
I just got a cracked copy of They Were Expendable from Netflix last weekend. Anyone in the LA gets it Wednesday then we will know Netflix ignored the report.
Another tv one that I thought was well worth a watch was Heroes series 1 & 2. Unfortunately, they also seem to be impossible to find on dvd here though VHS versions can be obtained from amazon uk for a price
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095297/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099765/
They were based on Operations Jaywick and Rimau which involved raids on Singapore Harbour.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095297/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099765/
They were based on Operations Jaywick and Rimau which involved raids on Singapore Harbour.
Truthfully, though, I think the negative version of this is almost more true: what the Japanese navy failed at (anti-submarine warfare) was something that the Allied forces were incredibly successful with.
That's not to take anything away from American submariners or their equipment (most American boats by the end of the war were at least as good as the Type XII), but I think if the Japanese had been as good as the Allies at ASW, the American submarine campaign would have been a lot rougher.
To amend my previous statement now that I thought about it. US sub movies normally had the US attacking merchantmen in order to lure out the Japanese warships. Cutting the economic lifeline like shooting down Japanese who could not fly in a Turkey Shoot does not make for a heroic movie.
The USN did use escort carriers in the Atlantic to protect convoys crossing the Atlantic from U-boats. I think the USS Ranger (one of the early USN carriers) was also used in the convoy escort role. As for why no full size carriers? Well why bother? The Germans had no surface fleet to speak of, the Japanese certainly did. Also we had a huge unsinkable carrier sitting off the coast of France throughout the entire war, one that we could operate four engined bombers from. We called it England.
Ok, this makes sense except for one thing. I always hear about until late in the war we had trouble fielding fighter aircraft with the range to accompany bombers all the way from England to Germany. Wouldn't positioning a carrier close enough to provide fighters for escort duty be a good idea?
I agree, plus the very widespread use of radar by US subs. But these advantages may be a offset somewhat by early US torpedo problems, the distances US subs traveled and the number of island passage "choke points" they had to transit. And Japanese ASW, although always lacking in numbers, learned quickly in the war and could be quite effective. Fifty-two US boats never returned from war patrol, a little over 20% of the submarine force. While far smaller than the U-boat casualty rate (something around 75%!), it was the highest casualty percentage of any branch of the US armed forces.
And at the beginning, too. The US fleet submarine was as good as anything in the world, and although they were too big and slow-diving for work in the Atlantic or Mediterranean, they were designed very well for the vast distances of the Pacific. And the US Torpedo Data Computer was miles ahead of anything the U-boats had.
Yes, exactly. The very things we hated about the U-boats in both World Wars, the underhanded way they struck without warning and left the oil-soaked merchant sailors clinging to their life rafts, that was exactly what US submarines were doing enthusiastically from the day the war began. More palatable for most people to think of the submarines as an underwater assist to the carriers and battleships, practicing down-the-throat shots against cunning destroyers.
1. To get closer to the heart of Germany than England, the carrier would have to be in some very unfriendly, U-boat infested waters, steaming in pretty predictable patterns while they launched and recovered aircraft. A good way to lose carriers, in other words.
2. Because of design compromises related to carrier space and the ruggedness that had to be built into an aircraft to make repeated carrier landings, land-based aircraft were generally better performers. It was a lot more cost-effective to design and build a long range land-based plane than to use carriers, which were needed much more elsewhere.
--Justin
Rii
Rear Admiral
The Thin Red Line (1998) was an excellent film and far superior to Hollywood's darling Saving Private Ryan, the latter's superlative Normandy sequence aside. Of course, TTRL is not a film that appeals to the usual audience for war films.
At this point I find it difficult to envision a traditional war film which would attract my interest. The only war films I've bothered to check out in the last half-decade or so are Downfall (German) and The Messenger (Israeli). That said, I'm vaguely curious about another recent Israeli film (Lebanon) and wouldn't mind seeing another, better adaptation of The War of the Rats (filmed as Enemy at the Gates).
At this point I find it difficult to envision a traditional war film which would attract my interest. The only war films I've bothered to check out in the last half-decade or so are Downfall (German) and The Messenger (Israeli). That said, I'm vaguely curious about another recent Israeli film (Lebanon) and wouldn't mind seeing another, better adaptation of The War of the Rats (filmed as Enemy at the Gates).
Do what I did, skip the first DVD and go right to the second. I didn't even know wasserface was in the movie!
I just wanted to see the two hot guys flying their planes around wearing their hula shirts.
Do what I did, skip the first DVD and go right to the second. I didn't even know wasserface was in the movie!
Wait...you want me to buy the DVD?
Wow, Leonard Pierce of The AV Club praises The Pacific while burying Band of Brothers:
I hope that I too like The Pacific a good deal more than Band of Brothers, because I lost interest in that about halfway through.
I hope that I too like The Pacific a good deal more than Band of Brothers, because I lost interest in that about halfway through.
Do what I did, skip the first DVD and go right to the second. I didn't even know wasserface was in the movie!
Someone once described Pearl Harbor as "a two-hour movie squeezed into three hours."
It's the only movie where I've ever left the theatre to return to the concession stand and get my popcorn refilled, confident that nothing interesting or important would happen until I got back.
And I was right. The attack on Pearl Harbor didn't begin until I got back. I got to enjoy the only interesting part of the movie with a full sack of popcorn.