So glad to be appreciated! I wanted to do something for the Battle of Midway, but everything is so much old hat. I as well really enjoyed researching this one, that's for sure. The more obscure, the better!
Thanks again! I was lucky enough to find records of her movements and deployments, to be honest. If not for that, it would have been a difficult presentation to assemble.
Very cool! If you're doing anything up to Midway, I've recently read she did have a complement of Rufes in Operation MO. I've had it in my head since that it would be neat to see what intercepting Fujita's seaplane tender group would be like, especially with torpedo planes. Chitose had sixteen Rufes and Kamikawa Maru had eight. Figure they could probably keep a good number airborne with the four-hour cruising duration. If I had people around here with whom to play naval minatures again, I'd definitely try it out again. I've created it with the scenario editor in Great Naval Battles 3, but it doesn't play out quite right thanks to the weak AI. Keep me updated with how it plays out!
Once more, you've done a video on a topic that was new to me. I'm amazed, again, at the detail you've been able to present. The photos are new to me and the graphics really tell the story. Thank you so much for the special, unique, and most interesting content.
😊 Very much appreciated! The topic was new to me, as well. I only knew of the ship from using her in miniatures games and in GNB3. When I learned about her little part to play in Coral Sea and I knew the date was approaching, it gave me a great opportunity to make another short. I'm glad to hear that my choices in graphics were a good call as this video was literally thrown together last minute! It takes a lot to make each video and for that I'm grateful for all the support you and the other subscribers, members, and patrons offer! Cheers, Mark! 😘
Once again, well done. I have never given much thought to Seaplane Tenders and their usage. My compliments on the pronunciations of the Japanese vessels. Your narration is very easy to listen to.
Thanks! I only stumbled across the ship's rôle the other day and I found it interesting enough to warrant a video. I'm glad to hear it's being enjoyed!
Thanks for this. I don't think our gaming or histrorians account for the critical work of the Seaplanes that were critical to reconaissance in the Pacific, and even strikes. It would be interesting to hear more about their operations, logistics movements. Sure there is ALOT of talk about the Catalina but these Tender and Cruiser carried aircraft are always a side note. However, like the modern USN SH-60 Seahawk Helicopter these aircraft were obviously true workhorses and jack-of-all-trades, and shouldered a huge burden during the war.
Thank you! I've wargamed as the IJN many times and I love spending on seaplane tenders and catapult-equipped merchant ships. They never let me down! A friend of mine was particularly miffed in a Solomons-based scenario when I used them in coordination with destroyer forces. Jakes scout the enemy out, Rufes defend the destroyers, and let the torpedoes do the rest. If only the Japanese were that smart. So much of their naval resources just went to waste and it's a shame because it ended up with these forces scattered everywhere with little hope of supply let alone defence. Japanese strategy was all based on the idea of a six-month war and it showed.
Nice video of an obscure but important topic. The IJN, more than any other WWII navy, recognized the value of sending uo these snooper planes in the hope of discovering where the enemy fleet lay. Given the lack of radar in the IJN, floatplanes and their tenders were second only to the carriers themselves in terms of tactical value. For the IJN, there was no other option for discovering the enemy fleet and tracking its movements. Planes like the Jake could loiter at 15,000 feet for several hours, and were equipped with powerful radios, allowing them to communicate back to their tender or land base. One of the reasons for the rush to develop and supply USN vessels with the 5"/38 DP gun was the newest Japanese floatplanes were able to cruise high enough that the standard USN medium AA gun of 1939, the 3"/50, was right at the edge of its range trying to deal with aircraft like the Jake. A few rounds from a 5"/38 could generally drive off a snooper. However, the battle of the Coral Sea also showed that you could have too many aircraft reports, with too many errors, and no way to objectively decide which reports were right. That later became one of the primary advantages of an effective radar system. The lack of radar would become something to haunt the IJN all the way to the end of the war.
The Dinah, Jake, and Paul are perhaps the best examples of both Japanese reconnaissance prowess and how they remained ahead of the US in those fields. As much as radar is lauded, very few sets were installed in 1941 and the American use of scouts and scout bombers was never quite perfected. Food for thought.
@@TheWarbirdMistress The USN and IJN looked at capital ship based float planes very differently. The Japanese wanted one that was fast, so the Jake was as fast as many 1939 carrierborne fighters of the the time at 234 mph. Compare that to its sluggardly USN counterpart, the Kingfisher, at 171 mph. They didn't want it to be fast to use as a fighter, however, a fantasy still held by the USN. While they wasted weight and logistics on a forwarded firing .30 cal machinegun, the Japanese never mounted a forward firing machinegun on the Jake. They only wanted a high top speed for single reason - to get the plane to and from its patrol zone as fast as possible. The USN and IJN had different ideas about float planes. The USN believed float planes were really only valuable for gunfire spotting and maybe to scare off other snoopers. Thier ceiling was a paltry 16,000 feet, and range was only 908 miles. The Jake had a service ceiling of some 28,000 feet with a range of 1300 miles. On top of that, the Jake had an endurance of almost 15 hours, something barely marched by, for example, the twin engine PBY-2 Catalina. It's one of the reasons the Jake carried three crew members, the third often being a navigator/pilot, to allow long missions to be flown. The USN assumed long range scouting would be done by the large flying boats, not shipboard floatplanes. Both navies envisaged different role for their floatplanes, and both did well in those roles. [Edited to correct my numerous typos]
When you read about the Battles of the pacific there is often mention a seaplane tender was around somewhere. I guess it not all that glamorous to discuss a Non Combat ship off an obscure island somewhere to go into detail about it. Thanks for bringing this up and keep up the good work on those obscure tidbits that we never hear about.
@@rhondohslade I would agree that it's definitely in the combat vessel category, but in the way that it deploys with the fleet. However, they're not designed to be involved in engagements like a carrier, even an escort carrier, would be designed to be. It's an awkward position between being a ship of the line and a support ship as they do not themselves fight nor could they engage an enemy, but they support aircraft that support the fleet. It's certainly a unique niche to fill.
Please talk about her early career in the attack on Malaysia And we have used her air compliment, quite a bit in a war games of Mustangs & Messershmitts and more recently blood red skies Matter fact, I have a battle report on my channel focusing on the attack by Dutch Martin b-10s intercepted by her Pete’s
Thank you - this is good content. It was easy to click on a short video and now I kinda want more - but the smaller bites will always get an instant click while I may postpone a larger 30+ minute bit. Cheers!
Glad you enjoyed it! 😊 The "Walk through the War" series is all about 5 to 8 minutes or so, and I try to keep short subjects to about 10 to 12. Longer subjects I'm having a hard time putting together because of the effort. I was trying to put out a 30- to 60-minute video every other week. However, times change, and with what now working a 40-hour gig that rotates between opening and closing shifts, I just don't have it in me like I did when I had my own business and worked from home. Amazing how the body can remind a girl she's not in her 20s any longer! lol
The early years of the war the influence of small numbers of troops and aircraft are fascinating. As escort carriers multiplied on the Allied side the usefulness of sea pl as he tendered declined.
In wargames, I've found the speed of the Chitose and Chiyoda more useful in scouting than the Allied light and escort carriers. This is especially slow when one considers the high speeds some tenders could reach compared to the Woolworth flattops. What I've wondered where the real world is considered is how useful seaplane tenders might have been in expanding the scope of floatplanes patrolling the waters between bomber bases and Japanese home waters for downed aircrew and things of that sort. More expendable than a cruiser and with four to eight times the aircraft capacity let alone medical and surgical treatment facilities, eh? With air superiority, they wouldn't even have had to be marked as rescue ships, thereby also permitting them to act in combat support.
FANTASTIC. Please--Any and all that you can do on any and all seaplanes and floatplanes would much welcomed. I look foward to all of your video's. I am on them no more than 10 minutes after the come out, Again, Thank you
Once again, you've provided details that help to make sense of the larger picture. Now we know the mechanism by which the IJN discovered American forces and initiated the Battle of the Coral Sea. This is the first time, I think, that I've seen that battle in context. Brava!
The Japanese had their Mavises in Rabaul, their Jakes aboard their cruisers, and then these: just happens to have fallen to the little tender that could 😊
Excellent video. A great topic. There is a GREAT book. "Ugly Ducklins Japan's WWII Liberty Type Standarf Ship" by S.C Heal Excellent source of information. Again, great video. Thank you for all your work putting this video together.
Oooh. A book I've not heard of yet! I'll check it out. Thanks for the heads up on the book and I'm glad you enjoyed the video! This one was pretty quick to do, too, and I had a lot of fun doing it. Cheers!
Happy to hear! I thought it was just enough of an odd duck to be interesting and it surprised me to make a video that was more than just a few minutes lol Cheers!
Sorry I just saw this! The top speed and operational speed varied, as did the capability of the ship over time. Japanese ships' performance ratings were often much lower in real life compared to what they were when rated during the shakedown period. I can't find my original script notes for the video right now, but I believe I used Conroy's for my reference. Regarding capacity, I believe it refers to twenty-four small floatplanes that could be broken down for storage or twelve that were assembled or partially broken-down for operational use. For data on what she carried, I consulted the Japanese order of battle for Operation MO and other Japanese records of her operational history. As for updating videos, UA-cam does not, unfortunately, allow one to do so. I wish it did!
A series of sorts on early Allied campaign in pacific would be interesting, considering not much is flowers, but is more about staying in the fight. Not sure if it has been done before but would be cool
@@TheWarbirdMistress I have, missed a couple of episodes because of me being lazy. It's unique cos it covers the more "unglamorous" parts of war, relocations, staffing etc. I'm more interested in cbi since well, I'm from that region and i haven't found any info online. So it's welcome to see cbi getting attention aside from doolittle raid
I've read of her in the past. Saw the Naval Institute has an article on her, too. The US saved a lot of space on having a crane and maintenance deck but no extensive hangars.
Not in this case, no. There were times that tenders would meet up with flying boats, but these were not truly designed for that purpose. For example, in Operation K, submarines were used rather than tenders. The superior American recon and patrol capabilities made Japanese tenders very vulnerable, severely curtailing their deployment beyond convoy duty and coastal support. From the moment the war began, the Japanese were unable to patrol deep into American waters without being detected by PBYs or B-24s, and there was little need to do so, either.
I try to pronounce them properly according to Japanese pronunciation standards rather than murder them like many other channels do, so please don't think I'm mocking them by trying an "accent." I understand what you mean, though, how one might be used to hearing them pronounced as if they were English words. Certainly something I'll keep in mind. Hope it didn't ruin the video for you! Cheers!
![A Forgotten Hero of The Pacific War | Vought-Sikorsky OS2U ‘Kingfisher’ [Historical Deep-Dive]](/img/n.gif)
Absolutely brilliant research and interesting material. Thank you Claire, you don’t disappoint 🍁
So glad to be appreciated! I wanted to do something for the Battle of Midway, but everything is so much old hat. I as well really enjoyed researching this one, that's for sure. The more obscure, the better!
Again, first-fate diligence on a topic largely overlooked by the historians. Please keep up the great work.
Thanks again! I was lucky enough to find records of her movements and deployments, to be honest. If not for that, it would have been a difficult presentation to assemble.
You are the obvious source for the obscure! Thank you, again!
I try! Why cover what's been done to death when I can go bushwhacking in the jungles of the forgotten for lost treasures? 😁
@@brucermarino were all the good stuff is hidden. Thank you again
Thanks for covering the obscure. I'm currently modelling this ship for a mod for War on the Sea - if you gamed GNB you might like it.
Sorry I missed your comment! I still play GNB lol. Nobody with whom to play miniatures, so it's the closest one can get.
Great story. I also appreciate the obscure. I have a group that does miniatures with 1/72 models and we are working up a campaign around her!
Very cool! If you're doing anything up to Midway, I've recently read she did have a complement of Rufes in Operation MO. I've had it in my head since that it would be neat to see what intercepting Fujita's seaplane tender group would be like, especially with torpedo planes. Chitose had sixteen Rufes and Kamikawa Maru had eight. Figure they could probably keep a good number airborne with the four-hour cruising duration. If I had people around here with whom to play naval minatures again, I'd definitely try it out again. I've created it with the scenario editor in Great Naval Battles 3, but it doesn't play out quite right thanks to the weak AI. Keep me updated with how it plays out!
Once more, you've done a video on a topic that was new to me. I'm amazed, again, at the detail you've been able to present. The photos are new to me and the graphics really tell the story. Thank you so much for the special, unique, and most interesting content.
😊 Very much appreciated!
The topic was new to me, as well. I only knew of the ship from using her in miniatures games and in GNB3. When I learned about her little part to play in Coral Sea and I knew the date was approaching, it gave me a great opportunity to make another short. I'm glad to hear that my choices in graphics were a good call as this video was literally thrown together last minute! It takes a lot to make each video and for that I'm grateful for all the support you and the other subscribers, members, and patrons offer! Cheers, Mark! 😘
Once again, well done. I have never given much thought to Seaplane Tenders and their usage. My compliments on the pronunciations of the Japanese vessels. Your narration is very easy to listen to.
Always happy to hear that I've shed some light on a relatively unknown topic!
Thanks for your support!! 😘
Very cool information one does not generally find these lesser known but important bits. Thank you, keep up the great work.
Thanks! I only stumbled across the ship's rôle the other day and I found it interesting enough to warrant a video. I'm glad to hear it's being enjoyed!
@@TheWarbirdMistress Thank you for your interest and diligence in bringing us this fascinating information. Great work!
@@rhondohslade * curtsies in gratitude *
Thanks for this. I don't think our gaming or histrorians account for the critical work of the Seaplanes that were critical to reconaissance in the Pacific, and even strikes. It would be interesting to hear more about their operations, logistics movements. Sure there is ALOT of talk about the Catalina but these Tender and Cruiser carried aircraft are always a side note. However, like the modern USN SH-60 Seahawk Helicopter these aircraft were obviously true workhorses and jack-of-all-trades, and shouldered a huge burden during the war.
Thank you! I've wargamed as the IJN many times and I love spending on seaplane tenders and catapult-equipped merchant ships. They never let me down! A friend of mine was particularly miffed in a Solomons-based scenario when I used them in coordination with destroyer forces. Jakes scout the enemy out, Rufes defend the destroyers, and let the torpedoes do the rest.
If only the Japanese were that smart. So much of their naval resources just went to waste and it's a shame because it ended up with these forces scattered everywhere with little hope of supply let alone defence. Japanese strategy was all based on the idea of a six-month war and it showed.
Nice video of an obscure but important topic. The IJN, more than any other WWII navy, recognized the value of sending uo these snooper planes in the hope of discovering where the enemy fleet lay. Given the lack of radar in the IJN, floatplanes and their tenders were second only to the carriers themselves in terms of tactical value. For the IJN, there was no other option for discovering the enemy fleet and tracking its movements. Planes like the Jake could loiter at 15,000 feet for several hours, and were equipped with powerful radios, allowing them to communicate back to their tender or land base. One of the reasons for the rush to develop and supply USN vessels with the 5"/38 DP gun was the newest Japanese floatplanes were able to cruise high enough that the standard USN medium AA gun of 1939, the 3"/50, was right at the edge of its range trying to deal with aircraft like the Jake. A few rounds from a 5"/38 could generally drive off a snooper. However, the battle of the Coral Sea also showed that you could have too many aircraft reports, with too many errors, and no way to objectively decide which reports were right. That later became one of the primary advantages of an effective radar system. The lack of radar would become something to haunt the IJN all the way to the end of the war.
The Dinah, Jake, and Paul are perhaps the best examples of both Japanese reconnaissance prowess and how they remained ahead of the US in those fields. As much as radar is lauded, very few sets were installed in 1941 and the American use of scouts and scout bombers was never quite perfected. Food for thought.
@@TheWarbirdMistress The USN and IJN looked at capital ship based float planes very differently. The Japanese wanted one that was fast, so the Jake was as fast as many 1939 carrierborne fighters of the the time at 234 mph. Compare that to its sluggardly USN counterpart, the Kingfisher, at 171 mph. They didn't want it to be fast to use as a fighter, however, a fantasy still held by the USN. While they wasted weight and logistics on a forwarded firing .30 cal machinegun, the Japanese never mounted a forward firing machinegun on the Jake. They only wanted a high top speed for single reason - to get the plane to and from its patrol zone as fast as possible.
The USN and IJN had different ideas about float planes. The USN believed float planes were really only valuable for gunfire spotting and maybe to scare off other snoopers. Thier ceiling was a paltry 16,000 feet, and range was only 908 miles. The Jake had a service ceiling of some 28,000 feet with a range of 1300 miles. On top of that, the Jake had an endurance of almost 15 hours, something barely marched by, for example, the twin engine PBY-2 Catalina. It's one of the reasons the Jake carried three crew members, the third often being a navigator/pilot, to allow long missions to be flown. The USN assumed long range scouting would be done by the large flying boats, not shipboard floatplanes. Both navies envisaged different role for their floatplanes, and both did well in those roles.
[Edited to correct my numerous typos]
When you read about the Battles of the pacific there is often mention a seaplane tender was around somewhere. I guess it not all that glamorous to discuss a Non Combat ship off an obscure island somewhere to go into detail about it. Thanks for bringing this up and keep up the good work on those obscure tidbits that we never hear about.
That's the stuff I love!
I would think that a seaplane tender actually is a combat vessel, albeit more of a second tier type. Just my 2¢ worth. But what do I really know.
@@rhondohslade I would agree that it's definitely in the combat vessel category, but in the way that it deploys with the fleet. However, they're not designed to be involved in engagements like a carrier, even an escort carrier, would be designed to be. It's an awkward position between being a ship of the line and a support ship as they do not themselves fight nor could they engage an enemy, but they support aircraft that support the fleet. It's certainly a unique niche to fill.
Great to have you back doing these shorts about obscure war stories. They have been missed! 🙂👍
Thank you much!
It's been rough going lately but there's going to be more of these!
Please talk about her early career in the attack on Malaysia
And we have used her air compliment, quite a bit in a war games of Mustangs & Messershmitts and more recently blood red skies
Matter fact, I have a battle report on my channel focusing on the attack by Dutch Martin b-10s intercepted by her Pete’s
Oooh! Definitely going to give that a look-see!
(For others reading this, here's the link:
ua-cam.com/video/jFSEb3u5uKk/v-deo.html )
@@TheWarbirdMistress that’s very nice of you. Thank you for all your hard work. Looking forward to your next video.
clair is good.thank you ms clair...............................................
Very nice. I enjoyed this.
Thank you! Hope you check out the rest of the channel, too. Plenty of maritime aviation if that's what caught your eye!
Thank you - this is good content.
It was easy to click on a short video and now I kinda want more - but the smaller bites will always get an instant click while I may postpone a larger 30+ minute bit.
Cheers!
Glad you enjoyed it! 😊
The "Walk through the War" series is all about 5 to 8 minutes or so, and I try to keep short subjects to about 10 to 12. Longer subjects I'm having a hard time putting together because of the effort. I was trying to put out a 30- to 60-minute video every other week. However, times change, and with what now working a 40-hour gig that rotates between opening and closing shifts, I just don't have it in me like I did when I had my own business and worked from home. Amazing how the body can remind a girl she's not in her 20s any longer! lol
@@TheWarbirdMistress Take care of yourself first!
Thank you
The early years of the war the influence of small numbers of troops and aircraft are fascinating. As escort carriers multiplied on the Allied side the usefulness of sea pl as he tendered declined.
In wargames, I've found the speed of the Chitose and Chiyoda more useful in scouting than the Allied light and escort carriers. This is especially slow when one considers the high speeds some tenders could reach compared to the Woolworth flattops. What I've wondered where the real world is considered is how useful seaplane tenders might have been in expanding the scope of floatplanes patrolling the waters between bomber bases and Japanese home waters for downed aircrew and things of that sort. More expendable than a cruiser and with four to eight times the aircraft capacity let alone medical and surgical treatment facilities, eh? With air superiority, they wouldn't even have had to be marked as rescue ships, thereby also permitting them to act in combat support.
Excellent.
FANTASTIC. Please--Any and all that you can do on any and all seaplanes and floatplanes would much welcomed. I look foward to all of your video's. I am on them no more than 10 minutes after the come out, Again, Thank you
Glad to hear my work is awaited with such bated breath! I'll have to be sure to do a few more maritime topics. Cheers 😘
Once again, you've provided details that help to make sense of the larger picture. Now we know the mechanism by which the IJN discovered American forces and initiated the Battle of the Coral Sea. This is the first time, I think, that I've seen that battle in context. Brava!
The Japanese had their Mavises in Rabaul, their Jakes aboard their cruisers, and then these: just happens to have fallen to the little tender that could 😊
Well done my Mistress and thank you
Excellent video. A great topic. There is a GREAT book. "Ugly Ducklins
Japan's WWII Liberty Type Standarf Ship" by S.C Heal
Excellent source of information.
Again, great video. Thank you for all your work putting this video together.
Oooh. A book I've not heard of yet! I'll check it out. Thanks for the heads up on the book and I'm glad you enjoyed the video! This one was pretty quick to do, too, and I had a lot of fun doing it. Cheers!
@@TheWarbirdMistress Excellent work.
Very Nice Indeed 👌
Happy to hear! I thought it was just enough of an odd duck to be interesting and it surprised me to make a video that was more than just a few minutes lol Cheers!
Strange, wikipedia says 28 knots for Kamikawa Maru, 12 + 24 in storage seaplanes. Maybe you can update info in video, somehow?
Sorry I just saw this! The top speed and operational speed varied, as did the capability of the ship over time. Japanese ships' performance ratings were often much lower in real life compared to what they were when rated during the shakedown period. I can't find my original script notes for the video right now, but I believe I used Conroy's for my reference. Regarding capacity, I believe it refers to twenty-four small floatplanes that could be broken down for storage or twelve that were assembled or partially broken-down for operational use. For data on what she carried, I consulted the Japanese order of battle for Operation MO and other Japanese records of her operational history.
As for updating videos, UA-cam does not, unfortunately, allow one to do so. I wish it did!
A series of sorts on early Allied campaign in pacific would be interesting, considering not much is flowers, but is more about staying in the fight.
Not sure if it has been done before but would be cool
Have you been watching the Walk through the War playlist? That's exactly what it is, but from the USAAF perspective.
@@TheWarbirdMistress I have, missed a couple of episodes because of me being lazy. It's unique cos it covers the more "unglamorous" parts of war, relocations, staffing etc. I'm more interested in cbi since well, I'm from that region and i haven't found any info online. So it's welcome to see cbi getting attention aside from doolittle raid
Google USS Biscayne. Amazing ship
I've read of her in the past. Saw the Naval Institute has an article on her, too. The US saved a lot of space on having a crane and maintenance deck but no extensive hangars.
did mavis or emilys or mavis planes aboard?
Not in this case, no. There were times that tenders would meet up with flying boats, but these were not truly designed for that purpose. For example, in Operation K, submarines were used rather than tenders. The superior American recon and patrol capabilities made Japanese tenders very vulnerable, severely curtailing their deployment beyond convoy duty and coastal support. From the moment the war began, the Japanese were unable to patrol deep into American waters without being detected by PBYs or B-24s, and there was little need to do so, either.
The pronouncement of the ship's names using the Japanese accent makes them less than understandable to the American ear.
I try to pronounce them properly according to Japanese pronunciation standards rather than murder them like many other channels do, so please don't think I'm mocking them by trying an "accent." I understand what you mean, though, how one might be used to hearing them pronounced as if they were English words. Certainly something I'll keep in mind. Hope it didn't ruin the video for you! Cheers!