Deck Landing A Royal Navy Instructional Film (1942)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 лип 2024
- This is one of 3 WW2 instructional films available on DVD
RN12 Forties Navy - Flying Machines
The Royal Navy's flying capabilities developed rapidly during World War Two. This programme reflects the development by way of three Royal Navy training films from the film archives of the Imperial War Museum.Catapult Ships (1940), Deck Landing (1942), Carrier Flying (1946)Black and White 76 mins
"Fantastic" Flypast September 2005
"A high quality, educative programme totally devoid of gimmicks" Aircraft Illustrated August 2005
Available from Beulah at www.eavb.co.uk/store/index.html - Наука та технологія
One of the most entertaining WW2 training films I have seen. From an age when men were really men. British carriers had steel decks, that's why the Wildcat did little damage. On a US carrier with a wooden deck the plane would have really torn things up. Hats off to the Royal Navy.
I think the Americans used wooden decks because it allowed them to carry more aircraft, but I stand to be corrected! Great film.
You mean enemy bombers/kamikaze. The Wildcat/hellcat/Corsair didn't damage the wooden deck(s) whilst landing. British ships with armored decks were much more resistant to enemy bombs however, as proved in the pacific where a Kamikaze hit simply called for a team of "broomsmen", whereas on the american ships, it was a catastrophe.
@@Nghilifa There were definitely trade offs. American Carriers, as were IJN carriers, were designed to operate in the largest battle space on earth. The first American fleet carriers, the Lexington and Saratoga had armored flight decks. They were converted from battle cruisers and the limited number of aircraft they could contain, about 50, was a serious problem in the Pacific. American Yorktown and Essex class carrier air groups were between 90 and 100 aircraft with up to 30 more suspended between the flight deck trusses in the hanger deck as well as spare parts. The hanger deck was 35 feet tall for this reason. Bare in mind that from Hawaii to Wake Island for example was 2000 miles making aircraft and parts replacement difficult.
Two things were paramount, 1. A Carrier had to be able to deliver a large air assault force to the enemy and
2. A carrier had to still retain a large fighter force to protect itself while it's own air assault group was on a mission.
British carrier air groups were about 50 aircraft. The British carriers didn't enter the Pacific theatre until 1945 and the only battle they faced swarms of Kamikaze was at Okinawa. To say the armored carrier was impervious to Kamikaze is not true. HMS Illustrious:
" Hit by two kamikaze aircraft, her armored flight deck withstood, but hull progressively warped, adding to the permanent damage that would have her designated to training and trial service post war, until her decommissioning in late 1954.
Here's a good read:
THE British Pacific Fleet:
www.armouredcarriers.com/task-force-57-iceberg-i-british-pacific-fleet
Three hundred sixty three ships were hit by Kamikaze at Okinawa. My fathers was one of them.
@@nicksellens272 Due to various naval treaties at the time another reason for wooden decks was to meet allowable weight standards. In WWIII,the USN learned the wooden decks burned nicely when attacked by Japanese bombers. Yet some older ships were still wooden decked well into the 1970's. Go figure.
British carriers were designed to operate close to enemy shores, so they had an armoured hangar, even though that meant a smaller air group. It also meant that a hangar fire would damage the hull. That was why several British fleet carriers had to be scrapped soon after the war.
The USN emphasized a large air group, so they accepted hangars with wooden ceilings and open sides. Although they were easily damaged, they were also easy to repair.
I knew a pilot who flew Spitfires off carriers, he said they would put a block of wood to keep the flaps slightly drooped and then after take off lower the flap to discard the block of wood.
That's a wonderful bodge.
You won't find that sort of thing in the manuals
'S true. This was the trick used to get Spitfires reinforcing Malta airborne from carriers. The Spit didn't have the ability to lower partial flap for take off, it was either up or fully down for landing. The pilots realised that they would benefit from extra lift on take off so the block of wood was used to wedge the flaps at about 30 degrees (I think), once in the air the flaps were lowered, the block of wood fell out and the flaps were raised.
Jolly good show !
Love to see the FM-2 Marlet in action...
Really fascinating!
Nicely relevant film for me as I received "Wings on my sleeve" the autobiography of Eric Brown, the test pilot who made well over 2000 carrier landings in his career. This film shows the barrier which is mentioned several times in the book, and several of the hundreds of types he flew.
Eric Brown a great pilot and excellent writer his books on flying naval aircraft and Luftwaffe types are well worth reading
Fascinating!
excellent
"and the control offier, who never sleeps of course"--- Gotta love the dry british humour 😂
Good to see the Martlet and the Seafire.
Pity the Hawker Sea Fury never made it into WW2, would have been great seeing them in the video.
15:14 interesting to see ship following the carrier is using the signal lamp to send a message.
The amp was used together with torches at night..quite why he was wear"ing it in daytime I dont know...never saw it when I was on the flight deck alongside "Bats" in the RN/FAA
The Martlet was the US-designed and built Grumman F4F, known as the Wildcat.
I visited HMS Eagle in Istanbul harbor and still write to the sailor I met in Istanbul.
Damn thats a lot of spinning props and men on foot close together.
Fabulous Fairey Swordfish footage.
IT WAS A DEATH TRAP FOR THREE PEOPLE......................MR ADAM.......
@@tasospatriwtis396 I don't see how it could sink the axis so bad if it was that bad of an aircraft...
@@casual_boredom7195 THAT ADAMS ''FABULOUS''MAKES ME CRAZY..
@@tasospatriwtis396 the same deathtrap that crippled the Bismarck?
@@mjbaricua7403 I KNOW THAT..BUT IAM TALKING ABOUT FOR THE CREW CACRIFICE...ITS LIKE CHURCHILL..MATILDA AND SHERMAN TANKS..SAME FU...ING DEATH TRAPS..
Interesting 👍
you see Nigel
on old ass carriers you need to cut your throttle at touch down
on modern carriers you need to yeet full speed at touch down
A good British documentary about landing American aircraft on something we invented 😅
At 16:42, didn't the batsman give him the cut signal and not a waveoff?
Looks like controlled chaos to me!
instruction film 80 years ago has better puns than my teacher
Has there EVER been a bow-landing incident, though? :P
Its a good thing America produced grate aircraft.
Great*
What happens to HMS Prince of Wales?
15:28 whats his job's name?
These commentary voices became instinct by 1968.
Or even 'extinct'. Which makes your 'right-on' social comment look rather stupid, really, doesn't it?
Why specifically 1968?
Is the Martlet a US Grumman Wildcat?
Yeah - it was just (yet) another 'bird' name they gave it (like 'Osprey' as a navalised Hawker Hart)
Eventually, someone higher up, saw sense & it then got retro-named WILDCAT to fall in line (with US)
Ikut ptunjuk
Great film, amazing to think that the Navy thought it was fine to send men out in the 'Stringbag' in a modern war theatre, noting the crews did a fantastic job.
They were used in areas where fighter opposition was unlikely, and they were so lightly constructed that AAA shells would often pass through without exploding. Flight crews actually preferred the older Swordfish over the Albacore, since it was more maneuverable after releasing the torpedo.
@@westlock I have a couple of biographies of stringbag pilots including 'To War in a Stringbag' by Cdr Charles Lamb. Amazing what thy achieved in these machines which offered no protection against the elements or shells. It's a throwback to when men were totally expendable. At least the albacore was a little faster and shielded from the elements, but it was also obsolete.
The Swordfish wasn't that old when ww2 started. As previously stated, it was an excellent and rugged carrier aircraft.
The spit was totally unsuitable for carrier ops, the undercarriage was far too narrow and flimsy and the in line engine made the nose too long for the pilot to have the necessary viz.. The US wildcats and hellcats witj their rugged undercarriage and radial engines were designed for carrier ops and proved themselves wonderfully in the Pacific theater.
The Wildcat`s undercarriage was also very narrow, probably narrower than the Spitfire's.
@@paulabraham2550 Don't think so, and the wildcat was designed specifically to operate off carriers. Furthermore, even if something could have been done to improve the landing gear, you can't get away from the fact that when you are making an approach to a carrier a thumping great merlin up front seriously obstructs your view. The radial engine, was always more successful in this regard. The spit was (IMHO) an absolute legend, just not a carrier aircraft.
@@davidbarlow431 I don't dispute the overall thrust of the argument. It's only the question of the undercarriage track that I am querying. I am sure that the Martlet's short nose and rugged undercart made it more suitable as a carrier based aircraft than the Seafire. But undercarriage width... ? I am much less sure about that.
@@paulabraham2550 TBH I don't know the exact figures (you may well be correct), I would have to do a bit of digging. The other thing that would come into play would be the wingspan sitting over the gear. A wider span would be less stable over narrow gauge gear and I think (emphasise think) the wildcat had a shorter wingspan. I'm sure we can agree they were both excellent aircraft in the appropriate theater of operation. The wildcat and hellcat was used to great effect by the yanks in the Pacific theater, and the spitfire's story will still be told by historians a hundred years from now.
@@davidbarlow431 Firstly, the Spitfire didnt do any combat operations from carriers. It was the Seafire. But i admit it was not ideal for carrier operations. But not all radial powered fighters were suited to carrier operations. Perfect example, the F4U corsair. Infact, until Captain Brown and the British FAA found a way to land corsairs successfully on carrier decks, the US were operating them from land based runways only. The British came up with the famous curved approach. Which in some form is still used and taught today......
Nurjaman
Perfect film except for "obedience" on the end. The word they were looking for was communal cooperation. Ah, the Brits. Americans had their posh kids as well - different style.
(democratic) USA would have called it 'teamwork"
Dennis Mason different age. Obedience meant obedience.
Back then, they did not sugar-coat the words to please sensitive fuckwits like you :D
In US Naval Aviation NATOPS for carrier recovery make LSO commands , as legal valid binding orders, to be obeyed without hesitation. For recovering aviator in the 'groove' LSO is his or her commanding and superior officer . Failiure to obey LSO instruction often sends the aviator and his squadron CO to CAG office or carrier's commanding officer. Discipline can range from butt chewing, disqualification, relief from flying duty. In worst cases where there is damage to aircraft, ship, casualties , Admiral's Mast or General Court Martial can result. 'Dereliction of duty' , 'Failiure to obey lawfull order' . Military discipline! Worst offense is failiure to follow 'Wave Off'. Treat LSO instructions, in and out of cockpit, as G*d's Holy Commandments. Don't argue, don't deny, don't second guess, don't talk back Just do. Say "Yes Sir!" and carry on.
@@dkoz8321 - I was perhaps emphasizing the Band of Brothers aspect of the military. The details of discipline are not lost on me. Thank you, sir.
This British remake of _Top_ _Gun_ is sooooooooo lame....