The escort carrier was more or less a British invention. During the interwar period, one of the major strategic issues for the British was trade protection. With the increasing power of naval aviation among the major and some of the smaller naval powers, there would be a need for a carrier, not particularly large or fast, given it would primarily support convoy operations. It would have three missions. Scouting and screening for surface raiders, ASW patrols against submarines and fighter cover. Such ships would be converted from the many medium sized passenger liners able to sustain 17-21kts, basically the same merchant marine resources that would provide armed merchant cruisers. This was especially important in areas beyond the ability of land-based aircraft to operate. In the crisis of the Battle of the Atlantic and the demand for troop movements, the initial conversions, like HMS Audacity, were somewhat "rough and ready". Also British and Empire shipbuilding and repair infrastructure was operating at maximum output, making the provision of such carriers difficult. Enter, stage right, the US. Even before the US entered the war, the British were seeking the production of a line of medium, fast cargo ships for conversion as necessary. The Japanese had, since 1931, a "shadow" fleet program of commercial ships which could be converted to warships. The need to keep the fleet flight decks in the fight against the Americans pushed the conversion of 21kt passenger ships into small carriers for training and aircraft transport. They were not intended as escort carriers for ASW ops, but the increasing successful American submarine trade war campaign would draw them in. Finally, the US had a program of auxiliary carrier construction as part of the "War Plan Orange" plan. The USN recognized the critical need for flight decks to support the fight across the Pacific. This was the XCV (auxiliary aircraft carrier) program for converting US passenger ships. The USN started developing conversion plans for likely candidates while purchasing long term components like catapults, elevators and arrester gear. These were not the flush deck carriers the US eventually mass produced for WW2. These were intended to operate as auxiliary FLEET carriers. The conversions would be along the lines of the RM's Aquila and the IJN's Junyo and Hiyo. The primary candidate was SS Leviathan, a former German North Atlantic passenger ship. Over 900' long and having been converted to oil fired boilers, she could sustain 25kts at full load as a passenger liner. In 1939, she would have been 15 years old, but with the Depression and her WW1 service, she was considered a "moneypit" and went to the breakers in 1938. In Friedman's book on the development of US carriers, there's an internal profile of what such a conversion would look like, in this case the SS President Hoover and SS President Coolidge.
The escort carrier is about 80% of the way to a Ro-Ro ship and not very far away from a container ship. I’ve wondered what the impact would’ve been on Bolero and other buildups if the Allies could have made that conceptual leap.
Essentially an LST was a proto- RO-RO and container ship. In the RO-RO function you simply had to perform one of the rolls backwards. As a proto-container ships, when resupplying forward areas, LSTs would come in with trucks loaded with supplies. They would off-load at the destination and then return to port with empty trucks to complete the cycle.
Don't forget about USS Long Island, she was designed and designated to deliver aircraft across Pacific bases in 1941, she was noticeably delivered aircraft to Guadalcanal for Cactus Air Force in August 1942, further strengthening the island defenses.
My love of naval history goes back to the 50s and George Humphreys' (my late Dad) WWII memories. He told me then about seeing HMS Dasher hit by a Swordfish and exploding. Many years later I saw the first Steele book, and bought it for him. He was surprised that the book descnribed the loss as a mystery. He wrote to the Steeles who didn't deign to reply until their follow up book was published, when they invited him to buy one. He was appalled to discover that his account was peremptorally dismissed. He took this as an implication of lying, and this drove a passionate advocacy for Dasher's company until his death. He always maintained that Dasher was a considerable distance from the wreck location when it exploded and that it did not sink in the official 8 minutes. I've read the official papers at the Navy history branch in Portsmouth. I can't reconcile Dad's account with the official one, and put this down to him seeing such a traumatic event. But it does fit your account, which is new to me. What are your sources? I've always thought the suppressed papers contained Anglo-US recriminations, perhaps with very serious malpractice by the RN. My son is an accademic historian, and I well understand your difficulties with tenure. Love your content and your book. John Humphreys
My source for the account I gave honestly is an agregate, as said in the video it is something I've kept touching on from different angles, but have never focused on enough to produce my one work. One of the things that interested me was the Rosyth Constructors Team (for want of a better description of them), and some of the information they give in the report their report could only have worked with the ship being afloat for at least some time before it sank. An opinion which me and my father came to seperately, during the time he wasn't speaking to us for a decade, he researched it far more than I as he was a naval architect and these events always interested him. However, I will further emphasies that it is again based on agregate as compiled by me and the reports are often missing sections it seems and lots of information has not survived or is of dubious quality. I'd also add that a raging fire and people jumping off with potential burns into the water fits more with the time line of the bodies, than a ship rapidly sinking - as normally under those circumstances the crew get trapped inside without the time to get out from the engine room spaces etc. Again though, this is all based on the information I have seen so far; I reserve the right to change my mind should I gather more information, because honestly this is one event I doubt we will ever fully get to the bottom of. Probably as you say due to the trauma of the event. Hope that helped. Good luck to your son! Scuttlebutt 4
10/10 audio as for modern carrier conversions, the super tankers and container ships could serve as large helicopter and amphibious support carriers - it would take quite a bit of time for conversions though but still quicker than new constructions in times of war - but smaller ships would present a much less risk for that and not take away perhaps critical ships for those roles, with the current drone hype, most nations would probably prefer more numerous and smaller ships for those role
I think the Royal Navy's new Multi Role Support Ships might come closest to a 2020s/2030s CVE concept. They would likely operate rotary assets in the main but smaller fixed wing UAS might also feature. I think any fighter or strike aircraft is unlikely on anything below a Fleet Carrier (QEC, CdeG/PANG and Izumi classes). As for a merchant type hull for a CVE type conversion I think the best starting point is probably a car carrier.
With regard to what ships the USMC built during WW2, their longest ship's WERE C5's, but they were a modified Bethlehem design for ore carrier, meant to bring iron ore from Chile to the US, and they only built around 10. Since the war, the Marad has built ships up to C8 and possibly C9 size. With regard to Escort Aircraft Carriers, (or perhaps Light Aircraft Carriers), I have come to the conclusion that the next USN Cruiser design should be a catamaran, with one hull being roughly a frigate (or destroyer) in rough design, and the other hull being an aircraft carrier. It would have two primary separate missions. First, it would serve to maintain and augment the helicopters found onboard its supporting destroyers, carrying additional helicopters in the event a helicopter assigned to a destroyer is lost or requires major repair. Its second mission would be to act as a kind of Light Aircraft Carrier. A super carrier could utilize the capability of said ship as a fuel stop, thusly allowing the super carrier to strike targets much further away from it. I'm not suggesting that the Cruiser-Carrier type ship that I am talking about be able to LAND aircraft from the super carrier, but rather, it would serve as the base from which aerial refueling aircraft could operate from. Said ship could also be used (albeit slightly over capacity) as a true escort carrier, serving and supporting hunter-killer antisubmarine groups, though granted, a slightly austere version would probably be more profitably in such case.
I don't think the US has a MARCON equivalent today. I think the best conversion hull would be one of the smaller container ships. I don't know enough about them to actually pick one though.
Doctor Clarke, thank you for your many informative and entertaining videos. I would like to comment on the modern light carrier. In my opinion, C551 Guiseppe Garibaldi is the perfect light carrier and should be kept in service via purchase or transfer to available allied navies. Otherwise, light, escort carriers can be easily adapted from retired American LHA's. They can carry 12 AV-8B Harrier II+ for attack, as well as 4 F-35B Lightning II for fleet defense. They already have the fuel transfer and crew support infrastructure to fulfill the role and conduct extended air operations. The well-deck of the LHA, instead of handling amphibious operations, can easily handle ocean-based resupply, as well as allow it to perform "mothership" style operations for boat-launches special operations, and other types of mission necessary watercraft.
I would opinion that these hulls are the most immediately available, as well as can be adapted to pure air operations in the least amount of time. To build a light carrier from the hull up, rather than repurpose the surplus hulls sitting around rusting in American mothball fleets, seems grossly inefficient to this observer.
i would argue that the modern light carrier, perhaps without the benefit of a catapult, is greatly put at risk by the lack of a carrier-launched AWACS style aircraft, such the E-2 Hawkeye. A small AWACS can be mounted to a naval helicopter, but the endurance of this system is very limited. Military memory recalls that the addition of a simple aircraft crane, in the old tradition, allows the modern carrier to crane a radar equipped flying boat... specifically the DHC-515, modified for carrier duty with folding wings and extra fuel. This aircraft has the endurance to perform effective AWACS missions for the modern light carrier. Thus equipped, the light carrier becomes almost a micro-Supercarrier
your comments about the uses of light carriers during WWII, in which they were used to protect invasion beaches allowing fleet carriers to release to other duties, makes perfect sense even when mentally transposed to the modern era. the light carriers of Taffy 3, for example, proved their effectiveness in defending those beachheads even against vastly superior forces... the loss of Johnson, Hoel and Gambier Bay, notwithstanding.
As a final note, I would like to add that Japan and America seem to be aggressively embracing the modern light-carrier concept through adaption of their amphibious warships into so called, "Lightning-Carriers," to improve available flight-decks throughout the Western Pacific, as well as get around existing laws prohibiting aircraft-carrier operations.
When it comes to the concept of a modern escort carrier, why would we assume these would be conversions? The CVEs and CVLs by the end of WWII had progressed to non-fleet carriers built from the keel up with aviation operations in mind, albeit still based on the T3 Tanker and Baltimore-class CA designs respectively. So, rather than asking which merchant ships would be converted, isn't the operative question what dimensions would a modern CVE or CVL need to be? Looking at current carriers around the world, the size requirement seems to be between a Yorktown's 809-ft flight deck and Essex's 872-ft flight deck, though 1000 ft minimum seems more apt for CATOBAR carriers as only the Charles de Gaulle is shorter than 1000 ft in length. The French probably manage to operate a 857-ft long CATOBAR carrier only because the Rafale-M has a slightly higher maximum takeoff weight (54000-lbs) than the F/A-18A/B/C/D (51900-lbs). The F/A-18E/F are dramatically heavier, with a maximum takeoff weight of 66000-lbs, and the F-35B/C and J-15 (the Chinese Navy's fixed wing carrier fighter) are heavier still (70000+-lbs). So, does this indicate a modern CVE or CVL would require a flight deck the size of a supercarrier's? The question of powerplant also needs to be asked, as modern CATOBAR carriers are at minimum 27-knot ships (again, Charles de Gaulle's top speed, as all other CATOBAR carriers exceed 30 knots). With the exception of the French, all modern CATOBAR carriers have a minimum of 200000 shp. Operating fixed-wing aircraft from modern carriers apparently requires a supercarrier in every respect, unless the French Navy is resurrecting the CVE or CVL in this scenario, both because of the size of the Rafale-M and the fact that the French are the only navy with a recently-retired carrier fighter that is smaller still--the Super Etendard, with a ~26,500-lb maximum takeoff weight which was retired in 2016 in favor of the Rafale-M. The last American equivalent in size to the Super Etendard was the A-4 Skyhawk, which left USN service in 2003 but was withdrawn from frontline carrier combat roles when the last Essex-class carrier was retired in 1976 (excepting the training carrier USS Lexington, which extensively used A-4s to train naval aviators until 1991). So, what about V/TOL aircraft instead of CATOBAR? These are still going to be pretty big, as the Wasp-class LHDs and America-class LHAs show that an 844-ft long flight deck on a PANAMAX hull (the 1914 standard, as New Panamax became effective eight years after LHA-6 was laid down) is ideal for operating 20 USMC F-35Bs...so a modern CVE would be an amphibious assault ship? Probably, because no other CVE role in WWII is applicable. The aircraft ferry mission began to disappear in 1950 with the advent of the KC-97, which set the standard of the USAF operating at least 800 aerial refueling tankers. In some ways the deployment of combat aerial refueling beginning in 1951 over Korea mimicked the experience of CVE and CVL conversions in 1942, with B-29 and B-50 piston-engined bombers being converted into KB-29 and KB-50 tankers, soldiering on into the 1960s. The USN got into the action with the KA-3 by Vietnam, and eventually it became standard for all NATO navies and air forces to be able to interoperably refuel in the air every other alliance-member's combat aircraft. Seven decades on, the original AVG mission of the escort carrier has been fully supplanted by K-prefix aircraft, which can and do refuel NATO fighters abd bombers in the air to 'transport' squadrons or entire wings across the Atlantic or Pacific. The ASW mission for carriers is also largely gone as well, due to teardrop-shaped Albacore submarine hulls, nuclear power and (most importantly) VLS tubes. With the ability to sail at 30+ knots submerged almost indefinitely, SSNs and, worse, SSGNs like the Oscar-class have made the close-in ASW mission almost exclusively helicopter-driven. Supercarriers gave up the distant ASW mission over 20 years ago when the S-3 replaced the KA-6 in the aerial refueling role while distant ASW became primarily the mission of P-3 and P-8 land-based patrol aircraft. Given modern escort carriers would be prime SSGN targets, their mission might be more akin to Patton's Ghost Army than their CVE forefathers.
Good video Thanks for remembering the RCN Those carriers were the basis for the RCNs postwar thrust for naval aviation. As for a modern escort carrier hull. Years ago, I came across the North Star, a Ro/Ro Container Carrier used on the CONUS Alaska Run. It’s not the biggest ship but that would work well for an escort carrier. Smaller is of course a relative term but it’s supposedly a decent ship. And having it capable of operating an F35B would pay dividends not just for operations but for the support of the fleet carriers. Atlantic Conveyor carried a bunch of Harriers from Ascension and the British were fortunate they were dispersed before the Exocets hit her.
Why are there differences in History? My field is Marine/Evolutionary Ecology, most of our arguments are not about the broad scale, but the little differences.... I am absolutely not surprised that Historians are the same!
I think the best ships for an escort carrier conversion would be a medium sized car transporter to operate helicopters and drones. The multiple car decks provide hanger space, extra crew accommodation and possible maintenance space. The large mostly clear top decks are the flight deck. The chief difficulty is fuelling facilities and magazines.
The issue with a modern Escort Carrier in the WWII converted merchant style hull style is finding a good hull for it. Some of the small "feeder" type container ships, well below panamax, might work and some of the other ships in that category might as well but a lot of those hulls are old and only slowly being replaced. Frankly, the reduction of merchant shipping to a relatively few massive ships causes a lot of problems for convoys and similar capabilities. I would argue that NATO should develop, as a group, a standard general purpose hull for rapid construction in any extended war (or near threat of war) which can be used for escort carriers, merchant ships, fleet auxiliaries, and troop transports. Such a hull would allow multiple countries to build these ships to a similar, or identical, set of capabilities and thus limit the problems caused if something were to happen to any of the relatively few remaining shipbuilding facilities available in the modern construction environment. As for what such a carrier would carry, while fixed wing VTOL aircraft might be possible the jets in particular require extra deck strength and heat resistance to make work so it might be advisable to build only for helicopters and V/STOL drones to allow these ships to be brought into service rapidly if needed.
@@allangibson8494 Oh, I know about Atlantic Conveyor, the usage was different. What they were trying to do was use that ship as an ersatz fleet carrier in the front line of a conflict, not as a ship for transport/escort roles. She was an essentially unmodified merchant ship, a proper escort carrier is going to be based on a merchant hull with deeper modifications rather than a ship taken up from active commercial service and partially converted. That would be more like the MAC ships with their dual cargo hauling and lightweight flight facilities. She was basically a MAC ship being thrust into a battlefield role where she had no business being, even a true escort carrier would have had a greater chance of not having that happen. The RN were too short of fleet carrier hulls to make the plan work and lacked the time to build anything even close to appropriate for the mission, so off she went.
44:00 You sir are a standout channel on this platform. I thoroughly admire how seriously and considerately you treat your business. Thank you for everything you do!
As I see it from your brilliant presentation, the main difference in the Royal Navy's use of the Escort Class Carriers and the US Navy's use is based on the enemy threats they faced, the theaters they operated in, and the experiences gained by both navies as their use developed. The US Navy too faced a LBA threat, but it was nowhere in the same league as the German and Italian threats. The one exception was the use of the Kamikaze by Japan. All the modifications made to the Aviation Fuel Management Systems with all the good will intended just could not keep up with that type of damage. The armored flight decks of British Fleet Carriers could cope with it, but not so with the American Fleet Carriers, let alone the Light and Escort Carriers. What are your thoughts please? Good question about what hull types might be used for a modern Escort or Light Carrier today. I think the British may have a lead in this with the HMS Hermes with VSTOL aircraft such as the Harrier and Helicopters for ASW and rescue work may be a model. Traditional Jet Aircraft require big flight decks, whereas Ships like Hermes used in the Falkland Islands Campaign seem more suitable in that role. What British Merchant Types might be converted into such Light or Escort Carriers? Perhaps this is a vessel in which the UK might take the lead in building. Excuse the long post, but it is such an interesting subject.
What a lovely comment, I hope you don't mind but I'll save my response for scuttlebutt 4(my comment response series for non key ships videos) - should be out first Wednesday of August, as the written response would be expansive.
@@DrAlexClarke Thanks for the reply. I am looking forward to the scuttlebutt response. BTW I never understood the concept of putting hundreds and even thousands of men aboard a floating conveyance without access to alcohol. It never really stopped the US Navy Bluejacket from managing to obtain it whenever he could. LOL
It's honestly hard to find someone around me who is up for a good historical debate. Most get pissy about it. Im willing to debate and discuss but not argue. A lot of my fellow Americans dont like it when I say MacArthur was a fool, and Eisenhower was a crap general but a good president. Edit: oh and you were right on about NCOs 😂😂😂😂
With you on MacArthur in particular. He just had a really good PR machine behind him... Which is the case of many of the biggest, most favorably-viewed names in recent history. It's all too often that the people who get remembered well are remembered well precisely because they spent a lot of their time actively trying to get remembered well. Meanwhile, the people who were spending most of their time actually doing the real work get forgotten all too often.
@don_5283 Well said. His staff was great from what I could find out. I forget the name( and that proves our point ) of one of his aides, but he was the true mastermind. He never lost a battle. I was just a simple E5, so I guess I'm predisposed to pay attention to the lower ranks. Lol.
I suggest that a modern day "escort carrier" should be something that carries nothing but helicopters. If it can handle half a dozen Merlin, SH-60, Lynx, Cobra, Apache that will be enough for convoy escort protection against subs and small surface vessels, air defence against drones, and supporting amphibious or peacekeeping missions on the shore. Not for full intensity fleet combat, but as Dr Clarke points out that wasn't what they were wanted for in WW2 either. In the civilian world there are luxury yachts and offshore oil rig support vessels that have helipads, so the civilian shipbuilding industry should be able to build or convert something.
I'm not sure about your argument that the lack of a full length flight deck was due to the fact that the escort carriers were designed as aircraft ferries. I'm pretty sure you do not think the Independence class were ever considered as aircraft ferries, however, they also lack a full length flight deck.
There are lots of carriers which don't have full length flight decks, especially war emergency ships, it's usually depending upon how much they have built up the bow and whether it can support the weight - as always engineering will trump everything when it comes to ship design if the nation is sensible. Thanks for the comment, and I hope that answered your question.
@@DrAlexClarke Thanks very much for the kind response. You sort of answered my question. So, did the lack of a full length flight deck on escort carriers come from a pre-war notion of their primary utility or the engineering concern of the lack of a built-up bow?
I'd add the Bogue class flight deck is 440ft by 82ft, the Independence class is 552ft by 109ft 2in - even without going to the bow, the Independence gives it's air group a lot more space - for them going Bow to stern would add 70ft 6in, which would have been nice, but they had enough space for a full air group to be arrange on deck for a 'deck load'/'alpha strike' doctrine (the Essex class flight deck was 870ft by 109ft 2in)... For a Bogue the difference would have been an extra 55ft, roughly the same 12.5% growth as available on an Independence, but a world of difference operationally as it would have got them very close to 500ft long, which if you consider air group operations, is the point at which things start to become a little easier in landing terms. So that's another reason whilst I feel comfortable making the point I did - although it is a point which I feel is better made in terms of writing than speaking. At least in this video's context. Scuttlebutt 4
@@DrAlexClarke I forgot to mention that your answer on strength of bows really solved a riddle that I have had for a long time, so thanks for that! It makes sense in that the Independence bows were cruiser bows and thus not strong enough to support the weight directly on the bow.
love your banter ! opinions are like a$$holes ... everyone's got one (or more ?) you must like "Yes, Minister" (with Humphrey "coaching" Hacker) cheers
Question - what other navies considered inexpensive/escort carriers between the wars? I’m guessing in the biplane era it would look far more promising. The South American nations, Turkiye, Thailand, there were a number of smaller powers that could conceivably have had a use, I’m wondering if you know whether any of them looked into this.
maybe better coastal asw, but honestly not much, potentially worse as if they were doing the aircraft to island runs, the fleet carriers might be in harbour at pearl...
@@felixtheswiss They aren’t VLCS’s. It’s in the name “Very Large Container Ship”. Not to be confused with “Very Large Crude Carrier” (same basic design but tanks rather than containers racks). No-one in the U.S. or Europe has built either in decades - the current generation are all out of Asian shipyards. (That’s why there are less than 100 ocean going ships on the U.S. registry).
uh? Is this about nations looking at conversions, because to my count in the 1920s/30s it goes RN, USN, IJN, Soviet Navy and French... the Italians really don't start looking at them till war is almost upon them.
Well technically it's the last one, my understanding is the USN finally payed attention to reality if not the Royal Navy. Also my impression was Italy was doing it as more of a oh Sugar we should have been at least thinking about this program
The escort carrier was more or less a British invention. During the interwar period, one of the major strategic issues for the British was trade protection. With the increasing power of naval aviation among the major and some of the smaller naval powers, there would be a need for a carrier, not particularly large or fast, given it would primarily support convoy operations. It would have three missions. Scouting and screening for surface raiders, ASW patrols against submarines and fighter cover. Such ships would be converted from the many medium sized passenger liners able to sustain 17-21kts, basically the same merchant marine resources that would provide armed merchant cruisers. This was especially important in areas beyond the ability of land-based aircraft to operate. In the crisis of the Battle of the Atlantic and the demand for troop movements, the initial conversions, like HMS Audacity, were somewhat "rough and ready". Also British and Empire shipbuilding and repair infrastructure was operating at maximum output, making the provision of such carriers difficult. Enter, stage right, the US. Even before the US entered the war, the British were seeking the production of a line of medium, fast cargo ships for conversion as necessary.
The Japanese had, since 1931, a "shadow" fleet program of commercial ships which could be converted to warships. The need to keep the fleet flight decks in the fight against the Americans pushed the conversion of 21kt passenger ships into small carriers for training and aircraft transport. They were not intended as escort carriers for ASW ops, but the increasing successful American submarine trade war campaign would draw them in.
Finally, the US had a program of auxiliary carrier construction as part of the "War Plan Orange" plan. The USN recognized the critical need for flight decks to support the fight across the Pacific. This was the XCV (auxiliary aircraft carrier) program for converting US passenger ships. The USN started developing conversion plans for likely candidates while purchasing long term components like catapults, elevators and arrester gear. These were not the flush deck carriers the US eventually mass produced for WW2. These were intended to operate as auxiliary FLEET carriers. The conversions would be along the lines of the RM's Aquila and the IJN's Junyo and Hiyo. The primary candidate was SS Leviathan, a former German North Atlantic passenger ship. Over 900' long and having been converted to oil fired boilers, she could sustain 25kts at full load as a passenger liner. In 1939, she would have been 15 years old, but with the Depression and her WW1 service, she was considered a "moneypit" and went to the breakers in 1938. In Friedman's book on the development of US carriers, there's an internal profile of what such a conversion would look like, in this case the SS President Hoover and SS President Coolidge.
Put three historians in a room and lock the door! When you let them out you'll have five different versions of history!
Five... no, you'll have at least 6, and after they've had a day to think about it, another six on top of that.
@@DrAlexClarke I bow to your greater experience.
Not sure I'd class it as greater experience... but I do carry some actual physical scars from conference debates...
@@DrAlexClarke And you are not even in Central and East European history :P
@@DrAlexClarke You've clearly been hanging out with the tudor historians too much.
The escort carrier is about 80% of the way to a Ro-Ro ship and not very far away from a container ship. I’ve wondered what the impact would’ve been on Bolero and other buildups if the Allies could have made that conceptual leap.
Essentially an LST was a proto- RO-RO and container ship. In the RO-RO function you simply had to perform one of the rolls backwards. As a proto-container ships, when resupplying forward areas, LSTs would come in with trucks loaded with supplies. They would off-load at the destination and then return to port with empty trucks to complete the cycle.
The earliest escort carriers were armed tankers with aircraft on the top deck. They actually served as tankers to the fleets they were attached to.
Don't forget about USS Long Island, she was designed and designated to deliver aircraft across Pacific bases in 1941, she was noticeably delivered aircraft to Guadalcanal for Cactus Air Force in August 1942, further strengthening the island defenses.
My love of naval history goes back to the 50s and George Humphreys' (my late Dad) WWII memories. He told me then about seeing HMS Dasher hit by a Swordfish and exploding. Many years later I saw the first Steele book, and bought it for him. He was surprised that the book descnribed the loss as a mystery. He wrote to the Steeles who didn't deign to reply until their follow up book was published, when they invited him to buy one. He was appalled to discover that his account was peremptorally dismissed. He took this as an implication of lying, and this drove a passionate advocacy for Dasher's company until his death.
He always maintained that Dasher was a considerable distance from the wreck location when it exploded and that it did not sink in the official 8 minutes. I've read the official papers at the Navy history branch in Portsmouth. I can't reconcile Dad's account with the official one, and put this down to him seeing such a traumatic event. But it does fit your account, which is new to me. What are your sources?
I've always thought the suppressed papers contained Anglo-US recriminations, perhaps with very serious malpractice by the RN.
My son is an accademic historian, and I well understand your difficulties with tenure. Love your content and your book.
John Humphreys
My source for the account I gave honestly is an agregate, as said in the video it is something I've kept touching on from different angles, but have never focused on enough to produce my one work. One of the things that interested me was the Rosyth Constructors Team (for want of a better description of them), and some of the information they give in the report their report could only have worked with the ship being afloat for at least some time before it sank. An opinion which me and my father came to seperately, during the time he wasn't speaking to us for a decade, he researched it far more than I as he was a naval architect and these events always interested him. However, I will further emphasies that it is again based on agregate as compiled by me and the reports are often missing sections it seems and lots of information has not survived or is of dubious quality. I'd also add that a raging fire and people jumping off with potential burns into the water fits more with the time line of the bodies, than a ship rapidly sinking - as normally under those circumstances the crew get trapped inside without the time to get out from the engine room spaces etc. Again though, this is all based on the information I have seen so far; I reserve the right to change my mind should I gather more information, because honestly this is one event I doubt we will ever fully get to the bottom of. Probably as you say due to the trauma of the event. Hope that helped. Good luck to your son!
Scuttlebutt 4
10/10 audio
as for modern carrier conversions, the super tankers and container ships could serve as large helicopter and amphibious support carriers - it would take quite a bit of time for conversions though but still quicker than new constructions in times of war - but smaller ships would present a much less risk for that and not take away perhaps critical ships for those roles, with the current drone hype, most nations would probably prefer more numerous and smaller ships for those role
Thanks,👍 been loving the Carrier programmes, a fascinating subject!!
Alex, you asked about the sound quality. I didn't notice anything wrong with the sound quality in this video.
I think the Royal Navy's new Multi Role Support Ships might come closest to a 2020s/2030s CVE concept. They would likely operate rotary assets in the main but smaller fixed wing UAS might also feature. I think any fighter or strike aircraft is unlikely on anything below a Fleet Carrier (QEC, CdeG/PANG and Izumi classes). As for a merchant type hull for a CVE type conversion I think the best starting point is probably a car carrier.
With regard to what ships the USMC built during WW2, their longest ship's WERE C5's, but they were a modified Bethlehem design for ore carrier, meant to bring iron ore from Chile to the US, and they only built around 10. Since the war, the Marad has built ships up to C8 and possibly C9 size.
With regard to Escort Aircraft Carriers, (or perhaps Light Aircraft Carriers), I have come to the conclusion that the next USN Cruiser design should be a catamaran, with one hull being roughly a frigate (or destroyer) in rough design, and the other hull being an aircraft carrier. It would have two primary separate missions. First, it would serve to maintain and augment the helicopters found onboard its supporting destroyers, carrying additional helicopters in the event a helicopter assigned to a destroyer is lost or requires major repair. Its second mission would be to act as a kind of Light Aircraft Carrier. A super carrier could utilize the capability of said ship as a fuel stop, thusly allowing the super carrier to strike targets much further away from it. I'm not suggesting that the Cruiser-Carrier type ship that I am talking about be able to LAND aircraft from the super carrier, but rather, it would serve as the base from which aerial refueling aircraft could operate from. Said ship could also be used (albeit slightly over capacity) as a true escort carrier, serving and supporting hunter-killer antisubmarine groups, though granted, a slightly austere version would probably be more profitably in such case.
I don't think the US has a MARCON equivalent today.
I think the best conversion hull would be one of the smaller container ships. I don't know enough about them to actually pick one though.
Doctor Clarke, thank you for your many informative and entertaining videos. I would like to comment on the modern light carrier. In my opinion, C551 Guiseppe Garibaldi is the perfect light carrier and should be kept in service via purchase or transfer to available allied navies. Otherwise, light, escort carriers can be easily adapted from retired American LHA's. They can carry 12 AV-8B Harrier II+ for attack, as well as 4 F-35B Lightning II for fleet defense. They already have the fuel transfer and crew support infrastructure to fulfill the role and conduct extended air operations. The well-deck of the LHA, instead of handling amphibious operations, can easily handle ocean-based resupply, as well as allow it to perform "mothership" style operations for boat-launches special operations, and other types of mission necessary watercraft.
I would opinion that these hulls are the most immediately available, as well as can be adapted to pure air operations in the least amount of time. To build a light carrier from the hull up, rather than repurpose the surplus hulls sitting around rusting in American mothball fleets, seems grossly inefficient to this observer.
i would argue that the modern light carrier, perhaps without the benefit of a catapult, is greatly put at risk by the lack of a carrier-launched AWACS style aircraft, such the E-2 Hawkeye. A small AWACS can be mounted to a naval helicopter, but the endurance of this system is very limited. Military memory recalls that the addition of a simple aircraft crane, in the old tradition, allows the modern carrier to crane a radar equipped flying boat... specifically the DHC-515, modified for carrier duty with folding wings and extra fuel. This aircraft has the endurance to perform effective AWACS missions for the modern light carrier. Thus equipped, the light carrier becomes almost a micro-Supercarrier
your comments about the uses of light carriers during WWII, in which they were used to protect invasion beaches allowing fleet carriers to release to other duties, makes perfect sense even when mentally transposed to the modern era. the light carriers of Taffy 3, for example, proved their effectiveness in defending those beachheads even against vastly superior forces... the loss of Johnson, Hoel and Gambier Bay, notwithstanding.
As a final note, I would like to add that Japan and America seem to be aggressively embracing the modern light-carrier concept through adaption of their amphibious warships into so called, "Lightning-Carriers," to improve available flight-decks throughout the Western Pacific, as well as get around existing laws prohibiting aircraft-carrier operations.
Just wanted to let you know that I got your book the other day as a show of support and appreciation.
Thank you for everything you do on your channel.
When it comes to the concept of a modern escort carrier, why would we assume these would be conversions? The CVEs and CVLs by the end of WWII had progressed to non-fleet carriers built from the keel up with aviation operations in mind, albeit still based on the T3 Tanker and Baltimore-class CA designs respectively. So, rather than asking which merchant ships would be converted, isn't the operative question what dimensions would a modern CVE or CVL need to be? Looking at current carriers around the world, the size requirement seems to be between a Yorktown's 809-ft flight deck and Essex's 872-ft flight deck, though 1000 ft minimum seems more apt for CATOBAR carriers as only the Charles de Gaulle is shorter than 1000 ft in length.
The French probably manage to operate a 857-ft long CATOBAR carrier only because the Rafale-M has a slightly higher maximum takeoff weight (54000-lbs) than the F/A-18A/B/C/D (51900-lbs). The F/A-18E/F are dramatically heavier, with a maximum takeoff weight of 66000-lbs, and the F-35B/C and J-15 (the Chinese Navy's fixed wing carrier fighter) are heavier still (70000+-lbs). So, does this indicate a modern CVE or CVL would require a flight deck the size of a supercarrier's?
The question of powerplant also needs to be asked, as modern CATOBAR carriers are at minimum 27-knot ships (again, Charles de Gaulle's top speed, as all other CATOBAR carriers exceed 30 knots). With the exception of the French, all modern CATOBAR carriers have a minimum of 200000 shp. Operating fixed-wing aircraft from modern carriers apparently requires a supercarrier in every respect, unless the French Navy is resurrecting the CVE or CVL in this scenario, both because of the size of the Rafale-M and the fact that the French are the only navy with a recently-retired carrier fighter that is smaller still--the Super Etendard, with a ~26,500-lb maximum takeoff weight which was retired in 2016 in favor of the Rafale-M. The last American equivalent in size to the Super Etendard was the A-4 Skyhawk, which left USN service in 2003 but was withdrawn from frontline carrier combat roles when the last Essex-class carrier was retired in 1976 (excepting the training carrier USS Lexington, which extensively used A-4s to train naval aviators until 1991).
So, what about V/TOL aircraft instead of CATOBAR? These are still going to be pretty big, as the Wasp-class LHDs and America-class LHAs show that an 844-ft long flight deck on a PANAMAX hull (the 1914 standard, as New Panamax became effective eight years after LHA-6 was laid down) is ideal for operating 20 USMC F-35Bs...so a modern CVE would be an amphibious assault ship? Probably, because no other CVE role in WWII is applicable.
The aircraft ferry mission began to disappear in 1950 with the advent of the KC-97, which set the standard of the USAF operating at least 800 aerial refueling tankers. In some ways the deployment of combat aerial refueling beginning in 1951 over Korea mimicked the experience of CVE and CVL conversions in 1942, with B-29 and B-50 piston-engined bombers being converted into KB-29 and KB-50 tankers, soldiering on into the 1960s.
The USN got into the action with the KA-3 by Vietnam, and eventually it became standard for all NATO navies and air forces to be able to interoperably refuel in the air every other alliance-member's combat aircraft. Seven decades on, the original AVG mission of the escort carrier has been fully supplanted by K-prefix aircraft, which can and do refuel NATO fighters abd bombers in the air to 'transport' squadrons or entire wings across the Atlantic or Pacific.
The ASW mission for carriers is also largely gone as well, due to teardrop-shaped Albacore submarine hulls, nuclear power and (most importantly) VLS tubes. With the ability to sail at 30+ knots submerged almost indefinitely, SSNs and, worse, SSGNs like the Oscar-class have made the close-in ASW mission almost exclusively helicopter-driven. Supercarriers gave up the distant ASW mission over 20 years ago when the S-3 replaced the KA-6 in the aerial refueling role while distant ASW became primarily the mission of P-3 and P-8 land-based patrol aircraft. Given modern escort carriers would be prime SSGN targets, their mission might be more akin to Patton's Ghost Army than their CVE forefathers.
Good video
Thanks for remembering the RCN
Those carriers were the basis for the RCNs postwar thrust for naval aviation.
As for a modern escort carrier hull. Years ago, I came across the North Star, a Ro/Ro Container Carrier used on the CONUS Alaska
Run. It’s not the biggest ship but that would work well for an escort carrier. Smaller is of course a relative term but it’s supposedly a decent ship. And having it capable of operating an F35B would pay dividends not just for operations but for the support of the fleet carriers.
Atlantic Conveyor carried a bunch of Harriers from Ascension and the British were fortunate they were dispersed before the Exocets hit her.
Why are there differences in History? My field is Marine/Evolutionary Ecology, most of our arguments are not about the broad scale, but the little differences....
I am absolutely not surprised that Historians are the same!
I think the best ships for an escort carrier conversion would be a medium sized car transporter to operate helicopters and drones. The multiple car decks provide hanger space, extra crew accommodation and possible maintenance space. The large mostly clear top decks are the flight deck. The chief difficulty is fuelling facilities and magazines.
The issue with a modern Escort Carrier in the WWII converted merchant style hull style is finding a good hull for it. Some of the small "feeder" type container ships, well below panamax, might work and some of the other ships in that category might as well but a lot of those hulls are old and only slowly being replaced. Frankly, the reduction of merchant shipping to a relatively few massive ships causes a lot of problems for convoys and similar capabilities. I would argue that NATO should develop, as a group, a standard general purpose hull for rapid construction in any extended war (or near threat of war) which can be used for escort carriers, merchant ships, fleet auxiliaries, and troop transports. Such a hull would allow multiple countries to build these ships to a similar, or identical, set of capabilities and thus limit the problems caused if something were to happen to any of the relatively few remaining shipbuilding facilities available in the modern construction environment. As for what such a carrier would carry, while fixed wing VTOL aircraft might be possible the jets in particular require extra deck strength and heat resistance to make work so it might be advisable to build only for helicopters and V/STOL drones to allow these ships to be brought into service rapidly if needed.
Look up “Atlantic Conveyor” for the counter argument.
The British used a container ship as an aircraft carrier during the Falklands War.
@@allangibson8494 Oh, I know about Atlantic Conveyor, the usage was different. What they were trying to do was use that ship as an ersatz fleet carrier in the front line of a conflict, not as a ship for transport/escort roles. She was an essentially unmodified merchant ship, a proper escort carrier is going to be based on a merchant hull with deeper modifications rather than a ship taken up from active commercial service and partially converted. That would be more like the MAC ships with their dual cargo hauling and lightweight flight facilities. She was basically a MAC ship being thrust into a battlefield role where she had no business being, even a true escort carrier would have had a greater chance of not having that happen. The RN were too short of fleet carrier hulls to make the plan work and lacked the time to build anything even close to appropriate for the mission, so off she went.
Number 3 is the cheese storage room.
Thanks a million!
44:00 You sir are a standout channel on this platform. I thoroughly admire how seriously and considerately you treat your business. Thank you for everything you do!
As I see it from your brilliant presentation, the main difference in the Royal Navy's use of the Escort Class Carriers and the US Navy's use is based on the enemy threats they faced, the theaters they operated in, and the experiences gained by both navies as their use developed. The US Navy too faced a LBA threat, but it was nowhere in the same league as the German and Italian threats. The one exception was the use of the Kamikaze by Japan. All the modifications made to the Aviation Fuel Management Systems with all the good will intended just could not keep up with that type of damage. The armored flight decks of British Fleet Carriers could cope with it, but not so with the American Fleet Carriers, let alone the Light and Escort Carriers. What are your thoughts please? Good question about what hull types might be used for a modern Escort or Light Carrier today. I think the British may have a lead in this with the HMS Hermes with VSTOL aircraft such as the Harrier and Helicopters for ASW and rescue work may be a model. Traditional Jet Aircraft require big flight decks, whereas Ships like Hermes used in the Falkland Islands Campaign seem more suitable in that role. What British Merchant Types might be converted into such Light or Escort Carriers? Perhaps this is a vessel in which the UK might take the lead in building. Excuse the long post, but it is such an interesting subject.
What a lovely comment, I hope you don't mind but I'll save my response for scuttlebutt 4(my comment response series for non key ships videos) - should be out first Wednesday of August, as the written response would be expansive.
@@DrAlexClarke Thanks for the reply. I am looking forward to the scuttlebutt response. BTW I never understood the concept of putting hundreds and even thousands of men aboard a floating conveyance without access to alcohol. It never really stopped the US Navy Bluejacket from managing to obtain it whenever he could. LOL
I would say the closest thing to an escort carrier in recent history was the Atlantic Conveyor.
It's honestly hard to find someone around me who is up for a good historical debate. Most get pissy about it. Im willing to debate and discuss but not argue. A lot of my fellow Americans dont like it when I say MacArthur was a fool, and Eisenhower was a crap general but a good president.
Edit: oh and you were right on about NCOs 😂😂😂😂
With you on MacArthur in particular. He just had a really good PR machine behind him... Which is the case of many of the biggest, most favorably-viewed names in recent history. It's all too often that the people who get remembered well are remembered well precisely because they spent a lot of their time actively trying to get remembered well. Meanwhile, the people who were spending most of their time actually doing the real work get forgotten all too often.
@don_5283 Well said. His staff was great from what I could find out. I forget the name( and that proves our point ) of one of his aides, but he was the true mastermind. He never lost a battle. I was just a simple E5, so I guess I'm predisposed to pay attention to the lower ranks. Lol.
Thank you for the respect shown to the RCN’s contribution. Often overlooked.
BZ, thanks!
I would submit that the Juan De Austrias design would be the ideal CVE that could be mass produced using merchant standards of construction.
I suggest that a modern day "escort carrier" should be something that carries nothing but helicopters. If it can handle half a dozen Merlin, SH-60, Lynx, Cobra, Apache that will be enough for convoy escort protection against subs and small surface vessels, air defence against drones, and supporting amphibious or peacekeeping missions on the shore. Not for full intensity fleet combat, but as Dr Clarke points out that wasn't what they were wanted for in WW2 either.
In the civilian world there are luxury yachts and offshore oil rig support vessels that have helipads, so the civilian shipbuilding industry should be able to build or convert something.
An F-35B can take off from a helipad.
I'm not sure about your argument that the lack of a full length flight deck was due to the fact that the escort carriers were designed as aircraft ferries. I'm pretty sure you do not think the Independence class were ever considered as aircraft ferries, however, they also lack a full length flight deck.
There are lots of carriers which don't have full length flight decks, especially war emergency ships, it's usually depending upon how much they have built up the bow and whether it can support the weight - as always engineering will trump everything when it comes to ship design if the nation is sensible. Thanks for the comment, and I hope that answered your question.
@@DrAlexClarke Thanks very much for the kind response. You sort of answered my question. So, did the lack of a full length flight deck on escort carriers come from a pre-war notion of their primary utility or the engineering concern of the lack of a built-up bow?
I'd add the Bogue class flight deck is 440ft by 82ft, the Independence class is 552ft by 109ft 2in - even without going to the bow, the Independence gives it's air group a lot more space - for them going Bow to stern would add 70ft 6in, which would have been nice, but they had enough space for a full air group to be arrange on deck for a 'deck load'/'alpha strike' doctrine (the Essex class flight deck was 870ft by 109ft 2in)... For a Bogue the difference would have been an extra 55ft, roughly the same 12.5% growth as available on an Independence, but a world of difference operationally as it would have got them very close to 500ft long, which if you consider air group operations, is the point at which things start to become a little easier in landing terms. So that's another reason whilst I feel comfortable making the point I did - although it is a point which I feel is better made in terms of writing than speaking. At least in this video's context.
Scuttlebutt 4
@@DrAlexClarke I forgot to mention that your answer on strength of bows really solved a riddle that I have had for a long time, so thanks for that! It makes sense in that the Independence bows were cruiser bows and thus not strong enough to support the weight directly on the bow.
Luckily history is usually logical and consistent. Things hardly ever manifest out of nothing.
love your banter !
opinions are like a$$holes ... everyone's got one (or more ?)
you must like "Yes, Minister" (with Humphrey "coaching" Hacker)
cheers
20:35 why do the aircraft in the bow of the Barnes look like Grievous personal starfighter?
Question - what other navies considered inexpensive/escort carriers between the wars? I’m guessing in the biplane era it would look far more promising.
The South American nations, Turkiye, Thailand, there were a number of smaller powers that could conceivably have had a use, I’m wondering if you know whether any of them looked into this.
What sort of impacts do you think the USN having dozen plus escort carriers at the start of its entry into WWII would have been?
maybe better coastal asw, but honestly not much, potentially worse as if they were doing the aircraft to island runs, the fleet carriers might be in harbour at pearl...
0:01:30 ...and then we not even accounted for the efforts of rewriting history...
Why not use those giant VLCS you could start Hercules from it. Maybe fit two parallel angled flight decks.
Container ships are now bigger…
@@allangibson8494 Not all, there are small Coastal ones too
@@felixtheswiss They aren’t VLCS’s. It’s in the name “Very Large Container Ship”. Not to be confused with “Very Large Crude Carrier” (same basic design but tanks rather than containers racks).
No-one in the U.S. or Europe has built either in decades - the current generation are all out of Asian shipyards. (That’s why there are less than 100 ocean going ships on the U.S. registry).
@@allangibson8494 ecactly and now want protection from Houtis. They can ask Liberia to protect them.
@@felixtheswiss Or China (after all that’s who built them and filled them with cargo).
Rum flavoured ice cream.
Comment for the Almighty comment god!
...you may have forgoten one.
uh? Is this about nations looking at conversions, because to my count in the 1920s/30s it goes RN, USN, IJN, Soviet Navy and French... the Italians really don't start looking at them till war is almost upon them.
Well technically it's the last one, my understanding is the USN finally payed attention to reality if not the Royal Navy.
Also my impression was Italy was doing it as more of a oh Sugar we should have been at least thinking about this program