Always amusing how political correctness can manifest in so many different ways. Aircraft Carrier is an offensive term to some Japanese, so a large ship specialized for operating aircraft is...a destroyer! Hai!
One of the big reasons for US escort carrier conversions was an insufficiency of steam turbine engines, they used triple expansion reciprocating steam engines.
they were all conversations from commercial ships so of course they had insufficient power…but they were only meant to ESCORT ships with their aircraft doing the fighting at a distance and their destroyers doing the fighting close by
A weird piece of trivia. 2 of Sapain's Captains were William "Bill" I Martin and William R "Killer" Kane. Who both served in Enterprise's Air Group 10 during World War 2. Martin as first XO and later CO of VS-10 and later VT-10, where masterminded the night attack portion of Operation Hailstone. Before being made CO of Night Air Group 90. Kane was XO and later CO of VF-10 "Grim Reapers" before taking over as Air Group Commander. Also, when the US Navy was working on its night carrier doctrine. Independence was the first carrier deployed with a whole Night Air Group (Air Group 41). Admiral King's original idea was for Independence, Bataan, and Enterprise to be loaded with Night Air Groups. But this was reduced to Independence and Enterprise. Later operational issues with doing Night Operations from a Light Carrier caused the US Navy to bring back Saratoga from training duties and later assign Bonhomme Richard to the roles to back up Enterprise.
The planned end date of WW 2 was 1948. No one realized the effects of nuclear bombs and Soviet involvement would have on the Japanese. That's why you see the Siapans and the Midways completing too late to see service in the war. Not to mention aircraft like the F8F, F7F, P 82 and Consolidated's B 32 which arrived just in time to fly a few missions.
Talking about cruiser conversions, there were some interesting developments in Spain during the post-war era that didn't go much further from the drawing board: the first one was to convert the heavy cruiser Canarias into a light fleet carrier. The second one was to acquire from Italy the Trieste's heavy cruiser salvaged hull (with her surprisingly well preserved machinery) and convert her into a light carrier. There was even a project for an escort carrier based on an oiler's hull. None of these projects went ahead, being the Trieste one so obscure that is barely known even in Spain.
The Invincible class "through deck cruisers" nickname in the Royal Navy was "See through cruisers" (later ASW cruisers) as after the cancellation of the larger carrier replacement program everyone knew that they were "backdoor" carriers ! Useful though........
There was a study, a comparison, of the Through Deck Cruiser and the planned Sea Control Ship (SCS). The INVINCIBLE Class CVL and the SCS were an interesting comparison. The bizarre point of the SCS was that the design depended upon the success of the development of the XFV-12 VSTOL aircraft. The SCS concept was tried out on amphibious warfare platforms, notably the LPHs. The sensor and EW suite of the SCS seems to have been adopted for use on all of the LHA and LHD types. It seems that the failure of the SCS program was tied to the failure of the XFV-12 VSTOL fighter. Although the AV-8A HARRIER was tested aboard the LPHs as proof-of-concept for the air wing aboard the SCS a platform, the USN could not envision any other solution than the XFV-12. The airwing of the SCS was not envisioned as being much more than a short squadron of XFV-12 and a squadron of SH-3 SEA KINGs. Little mention was made of tanker, COD, VS, EW assets. The tanker needs could be met with buddy stores carried by VSTOL aircraft. COD aboard SCS ships would probably be met only by UH-3. The EW assets would only be met by dedicated rotary-wing assets optimized for fleet defense. This has seen a repeat in the ZUMWALT Class DDGs where the failure of the main gun armament and the lackluster performance of the missile armament has resulted in the failure of the program.
The escort carriers were meant to escort convoys and supply the air cover that was such a bane to U-boats. Preventing a U-boat from successfully attacking was as much a victory as actually sinking that self-same U-boat. Certainly, they could, if called upon, provide a small strike force and did so on a number of occasions during WWII but that was not their purpose and they did so at their peril. The light carriers WERE meant to be in the "thick of it" and proved their worth despite their limitations in size. The light carrier program arose when the timing of the arrival of the new Essex class flat tops was in some doubt.
My takeaway is the USA light carrier got more yards building carriers. In 1943 all the mattered was having more. Had Roosevelt been listened to in the first design study imagine how much better usa would have done with 4-5 more CVLs.
The development of STOVL aircraft is changing that. The performance of the Harriers during the Falklands War was an eye-opener. Given what the F-35B can do, it's entirely possible that nuclear supercarriers are losing their value. Larger fleets of smaller conventional carriers may well be more practical in the future.
@@Cailus3542 the problem with smaller carriers is that the aircraft on them have significantly reduced maximum takeoff weight, even with STOVL capabilities. They are currently excellent for defending an area or supporting an amphibious landing but not nearly as capable of projecting power like a supercarrier (less aircraft, less aircraft range, less ship range/speed because of no nuclear reactor). This might change though with advancements in STOVL technology or drones that are light enough to take off at full weight from a shorter runway.
I think it's missing 2 things: 1) light carrier's weren't order because of time or construction but for slipway availability. Fleet carriers needed bigger facilities. 2. Please give the names of the ships servicing on other navies. USS Cabot(CVL-28)/ SPS Dedalo. USS Langley (CVL-27)/FSLa Fayette (R96) USS Belleau Wood (CV-24/CVL-24)/FS Bois Belleau (R97) Keep on you're doing great !
@@josephpadula2283 No, he transferred off the ship when it was refit at Pearl. When he left the ship, he managed to "take" a souvenir with him. A ship's fire axe that I now have in my possession.
The premise that the Essex carriers would take three years to build was proven wrong. Applying the "Kaiser" method used in building escort carriers resulted in a shorter build time. The smaller escort carriers used reciprocating steam engines instead of turbines, had no armor or anti-torpedo bulkheads. The crews considered them to be floating coffins, yet only a few were sunk. The escort carriers served a very useful purpose, escorting convoys and transporting aircraft plus being used to support ground attack aircraft. The light carriers actually racked up some surprising victories, fighting well above their weight class.
Good overview; what was a 'normal' CVL air wing? Given their size, I'd think packing them with smaller fighters would free up the big decks for more strike aircraft.
My father served on the USS Belleau Wood CVL24. Her Skipper was Rear Admiral Pride .He was in aviation torpedo man and was a turret Gunner in both TBF and TBM torpedo planes. His general quarter station was on aft starboard 40 mm anti-aircraft gun director. The Bellwood was part of task force 58. The Belleau Wood was in 13 major battles in 18 months where she was awarded a presidential unit citation medal. My father was later transferred to the USS Haraden DD 585 approximately one week before a Kamikaze plane flew through a hanger bay opening and detonated in the torpedo shop killing all of the men that my father worked with except for one who had gone above deck to get coffee. Before my father passed away, I took him to see the WWII Memorial in Washington, DC. He looked at the battles that were carved in stone and told me he was in all but three on the Pacific side. After the war my father was on a destroyer for a year in China, removing Japanese minds from Rivers and harbors and bays. Additionally, he served on the USS Sperry AS12 in the Korean conflict.
I'd always heard the Invincibles were originally called through deck cruisers just so they could get funded, as parliament saw carriers as too expensive.
The United States built the Light Carriers on 10,000 ton Cleveland Class Light Cruiser hulls. I have always believed and said that they should have been built on 13,000 ton Baltimore Class Heavy Cruiser hulls.
Be careful that you aren't overtaken taken by new designs and that she doesn't decommission you and have you scrapped, though that does beat being a museum ship in certain contexts.
the carriers were simply done with what they had on hand and they worked in their role, they bridged the air gap in fighting U-boats and gave needed air cover for landings…they were a desperate move but in doing so they might have been exactly what was needed to save multiple nations from collapse
The Japenese totally not a carrier bit at the end made me chuckle 😂
Always amusing how political correctness can manifest in so many different ways. Aircraft Carrier is an offensive term to some Japanese, so a large ship specialized for operating aircraft is...a destroyer! Hai!
@@genericpersonx333 It's even funnier in Japanese as every ship is called an "escort ship (護衛艦)" (destroyer is an English naval term).
@@benlex5672 Good point!
Your point that CVL gave USN a larger build capacity during the critical 1942-3 is well made. Interesting and appreciated. Thanks
One of the big reasons for US escort carrier conversions was an insufficiency of steam turbine engines, they used triple expansion reciprocating steam engines.
@@montanahiker48 I was talking about escort carriers, not the light fleet carriers.
they were all conversations from commercial ships so of course they had insufficient power…but they were only meant to ESCORT ships with their aircraft doing the fighting at a distance and their destroyers doing the fighting close by
Great vid. The Ryujo is my favorite Japanese carrier. Unique design and served as well as she could before her loss.
A weird piece of trivia. 2 of Sapain's Captains were William "Bill" I Martin and William R "Killer" Kane. Who both served in Enterprise's Air Group 10 during World War 2. Martin as first XO and later CO of VS-10 and later VT-10, where masterminded the night attack portion of Operation Hailstone. Before being made CO of Night Air Group 90. Kane was XO and later CO of VF-10 "Grim Reapers" before taking over as Air Group Commander.
Also, when the US Navy was working on its night carrier doctrine. Independence was the first carrier deployed with a whole Night Air Group (Air Group 41). Admiral King's original idea was for Independence, Bataan, and Enterprise to be loaded with Night Air Groups. But this was reduced to Independence and Enterprise. Later operational issues with doing Night Operations from a Light Carrier caused the US Navy to bring back Saratoga from training duties and later assign Bonhomme Richard to the roles to back up Enterprise.
Light Carriers always made for good ships that can carry a substantial if not formidable fighter force while also remaining relatively cheap.
Not to mention quicker to build. Nice in 1942!
The planned end date of WW 2 was 1948. No one realized the effects of nuclear bombs and Soviet involvement would have on the Japanese. That's why you see the Siapans and the Midways completing too late to see service in the war. Not to mention aircraft like the F8F, F7F, P 82 and Consolidated's B 32 which arrived just in time to fly a few missions.
Always good to see what's arguably my favorite light carrier, Cabot/Dedalo, get mentioned in a naval video!
Talking about cruiser conversions, there were some interesting developments in Spain during the post-war era that didn't go much further from the drawing board: the first one was to convert the heavy cruiser Canarias into a light fleet carrier.
The second one was to acquire from Italy the Trieste's heavy cruiser salvaged hull (with her surprisingly well preserved machinery) and convert her into a light carrier.
There was even a project for an escort carrier based on an oiler's hull.
None of these projects went ahead, being the Trieste one so obscure that is barely known even in Spain.
Japan and their "Not real carriers, we swear" ships. Something's never change.
Times change. Also Japan is facing a rising China and a resurgent Russia. Plus, the pressures from the United States.
Excellent breakdown of this class of ship.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The Invincible class "through deck cruisers" nickname in the Royal Navy was "See through cruisers" (later ASW cruisers) as after the cancellation of the larger carrier replacement program everyone knew that they were "backdoor" carriers ! Useful though........
There was a study, a comparison, of the Through Deck Cruiser and the planned Sea Control Ship (SCS). The INVINCIBLE Class CVL and the SCS were an interesting comparison. The bizarre point of the SCS was that the design depended upon the success of the development of the XFV-12 VSTOL aircraft. The SCS concept was tried out on amphibious warfare platforms, notably the LPHs. The sensor and EW suite of the SCS seems to have been adopted for use on all of the LHA and LHD types. It seems that the failure of the SCS program was tied to the failure of the XFV-12 VSTOL fighter. Although the AV-8A HARRIER was tested aboard the LPHs as proof-of-concept for the air wing aboard the SCS a platform, the USN could not envision any other solution than the XFV-12. The airwing of the SCS was not envisioned as being much more than a short squadron of XFV-12 and a squadron of SH-3 SEA KINGs. Little mention was made of tanker, COD, VS, EW assets. The tanker needs could be met with buddy stores carried by VSTOL aircraft. COD aboard SCS ships would probably be met only by UH-3. The EW assets would only be met by dedicated rotary-wing assets optimized for fleet defense.
This has seen a repeat in the ZUMWALT Class DDGs where the failure of the main gun armament and the lackluster performance of the missile armament has resulted in the failure of the program.
The escort carriers were meant to escort convoys and supply the air cover that was such a bane to U-boats. Preventing a U-boat from successfully attacking was as much a victory as actually sinking that self-same U-boat. Certainly, they could, if called upon, provide a small strike force and did so on a number of occasions during WWII but that was not their purpose and they did so at their peril. The light carriers WERE meant to be in the "thick of it" and proved their worth despite their limitations in size. The light carrier program arose when the timing of the arrival of the new Essex class flat tops was in some doubt.
My takeaway is the USA light carrier got more yards building carriers. In 1943 all the mattered was having more. Had Roosevelt been listened to in the first design study imagine how much better usa would have done with 4-5 more CVLs.
Very interesting topic. A lot of great ideas for many nations especially allies and Axis ships.
Good choice. Light carriers are often treated as an after thought; The two biggest drawbacks being cramped and lightly protected.
The development of STOVL aircraft is changing that. The performance of the Harriers during the Falklands War was an eye-opener. Given what the F-35B can do, it's entirely possible that nuclear supercarriers are losing their value. Larger fleets of smaller conventional carriers may well be more practical in the future.
@@Cailus3542 the problem with smaller carriers is that the aircraft on them have significantly reduced maximum takeoff weight, even with STOVL capabilities. They are currently excellent for defending an area or supporting an amphibious landing but not nearly as capable of projecting power like a supercarrier (less aircraft, less aircraft range, less ship range/speed because of no nuclear reactor). This might change though with advancements in STOVL technology or drones that are light enough to take off at full weight from a shorter runway.
I think it's missing 2 things: 1) light carrier's weren't order because of time or construction but for slipway availability. Fleet carriers needed bigger facilities.
2. Please give the names of the ships servicing on other navies. USS Cabot(CVL-28)/ SPS Dedalo.
USS Langley (CVL-27)/FSLa Fayette (R96)
USS Belleau Wood (CV-24/CVL-24)/FS Bois Belleau (R97)
Keep on you're doing great !
I know pronunciation could be hell but... Give us something to mock you 😂
I had one uncle (mother's brother) on the USS Belleau Wood CVL 24, and another uncle (father's brother) on the USS Princeton CVL 23.
Did your uncle on Princeton fight at Leyte Gulf where she was damaged and sunk by our ships?
@@josephpadula2283 No, he transferred off the ship when it was refit at Pearl. When he left the ship, he managed to "take" a souvenir with him. A ship's fire axe that I now have in my possession.
Thank you .
My dad was there in a supply
Ship USS Triangulum for the battle .
Well tonight rent The Wings of Eagles and watch to see John Wayne invent the Jeep carrier as Spig Weed!
Call me crazy, but that "Flight Deck Cruiser" would be sort of ideal for convoy escort duty, especially if the guns were dual purpose surface/AA guns.
that’s exactly their role during the war, with their use as air support being a help alongside that
“Kaiser’s Coffins” was their nickname!
That nickname is referred to escort carriers (CVE), not light carriers (CVL).
The premise that the Essex carriers would take three years to build was proven wrong. Applying the "Kaiser" method used in building escort carriers resulted in a shorter build time. The smaller escort carriers used reciprocating steam engines instead of turbines, had no armor or anti-torpedo bulkheads. The crews considered them to be floating coffins, yet only a few were sunk. The escort carriers served a very useful purpose, escorting convoys and transporting aircraft plus being used to support ground attack aircraft. The light carriers actually racked up some surprising victories, fighting well above their weight class.
Good overview; what was a 'normal' CVL air wing? Given their size, I'd think packing them with smaller fighters would free up the big decks for more strike aircraft.
Independence’s shake down Cruise was 12 F4F, 9 SBD’s, and 9 TBF’s. but I’d imagine by late war it was probably just f6fs and tbfs
@@acescalemodelingThanks!
@@acescalemodelinglate war configurations were 24 F6Fs and 9 TBFs.
My grandfather was on the USS Belleau Wood CVL 24.
My father served on the USS Belleau Wood CVL24. Her Skipper was Rear Admiral Pride .He was in aviation torpedo man and was a turret Gunner in both TBF and TBM torpedo planes. His general quarter station was on aft starboard 40 mm anti-aircraft gun director. The Bellwood was part of task force 58. The Belleau Wood was in 13 major battles in 18 months where she was awarded a presidential unit citation medal. My father was later transferred to the USS Haraden DD 585 approximately one week before a Kamikaze plane flew through a hanger bay opening and detonated in the torpedo shop killing all of the men that my father worked with except for one who had gone above deck to get coffee.
Before my father passed away, I took him to see the WWII Memorial in Washington, DC. He looked at the battles that were carved in stone and told me he was in all but three on the Pacific side. After the war my father was on a destroyer for a year in China, removing Japanese minds from Rivers and harbors and bays. Additionally, he served on the USS Sperry AS12 in the Korean conflict.
I'd always heard the Invincibles were originally called through deck cruisers just so they could get funded, as parliament saw carriers as too expensive.
Well tonight rent The Wings of Eagles and watch to see John Wayne invent the Jeep carrier as Spig Weed!
The idea was to plug the gap of losing Yorktown, Hornet and Wasp and Damn near Enterprise along with Sara going to the Yards
Don’t forget Lexington.
An Interesting video but omitting the sea control ship studies of the 1960/70s, and the Spanish and Thai vessels based on that design
My Dad was on WINDAHM BAY CVE 92 In the mid 50s
Not an Aircraft carrier we swear. Second ship of the class? JS KAGA. Lol.
The United States built the Light Carriers on 10,000 ton Cleveland Class Light Cruiser hulls. I have always believed and said that they should have been built on 13,000 ton Baltimore Class Heavy Cruiser hulls.
That JPNs carrier that had no island tower was a good carrier
How do they manage the operations?
Am I right in thinking the Ventico de Mayo was a CVL?
Iirc Argentina purchased a Colossus and Majestic class light carrier, both heavily modified but originally WW2 light carrier designs yes.
My side piece also says I give good service.
Be careful that you aren't overtaken taken by new designs and that she doesn't decommission you and have you scrapped, though that does beat being a museum ship in certain contexts.
My grandfather told me that the St low was hit and the kamakize plane went right threw too the other side and went up like a tinder box
America class is the new CVL. While Soviet Kiev class were CVL. JSDF Kaka Is a CVL
So many comments here about CVEs..... the video is about LIGHT CARRIERS CVL. 😢
CVE = Combustible Vulnerable and Expendable
They were so perfect during the Battle of the Atlantic.
Wrong ships
the carriers were simply done with what they had on hand and they worked in their role, they bridged the air gap in fighting U-boats and gave needed air cover for landings…they were a desperate move but in doing so they might have been exactly what was needed to save multiple nations from collapse
Never trust a nipper about materiel!
鳳翔