Aircraft Carrier with Force Z 1941

[lordroel]

Question, if the Germans still mange to have carriers in 1941 when the United States entered the war, would the United States deploy some fleet carrier to hunt them ore are escort/light carriers tofeghter with the Royal Navy enough.

On 7 Dec 1941 the US Atlantic Fleet had the following carriers:-

CV-4 Ranger
CV-5 Yorktown (left for the Pacific 16 Dec 1941)
CV-7 Wasp (departed for the Pacific 6 June 1942 after spending April/May operating with British fleets)
CV-8 Hornet (worked up in the Atlantic until leaving for the Pacific 4 March 1942).
CVE-1 Long Island (Training Carrier until leaving for the Pacific 10 May 1942)


The first 3 were engaged on Neutrality patrols while they remained in the Atlantic so would have been available to hunt down enemy raiders of any variety. Problem however was that Ranger and Wasp only carried a handful of torpedo bombers (c4 IIRC)

Enough to handle any German carrier, so no need to send in a Essex and keep them where they can be the most effective, that is the Pacific theater.

[Carl Schwamberger]

CV 9, Essex was launched 21 July 1942 and operational Spring 1943. One hopes the Graf Zepplin is dealt with before then.

Id say this German carrier is just as likely to be torpedoed by a submarine, except the US torpedos were near useless in 1942. It would have to be a Brit or maybe French or Dutch submarine. Since the likely air wing is so small the likely bomber strike won't be able to deal with multiple warships. A USN cruiser TF of four mixed 8" & 6" gun cruisers and 4-6 destroyers would take some damage & then finish with a gunfight. Its very unlikely one of the old standard BB like the New York or Maryland would catch this ship. They are just too slow. This discussion reminds me of the several USN vs Bismarck or German navy speculation discussions.

[Richard Anderson]

The first 3 were engaged on Neutrality patrols while they remained in the Atlantic so would have been available to hunt down enemy raiders of any variety. Problem however was that Ranger and Wasp only carried a handful of torpedo bombers (c4 IIRC)

For Ranger, three TBD were assigned to VS-42 with pilots drawn from VT-3 to begin working up a new squadron in late 1941 and operated as VS, for the very simple reason that Ranger had no torpedo stowage until it was authorized 17 October 1941. The torpedo stowage was physically installed during her refit at Norfolk, which is where she was putting into on 7 December 1941. When she left the yard on 23 December 1941 she had torpedo stowage, torpedoes, and three additional TBD, the six being the embryo of VT-4, which was stood up 10 January 1942. They began converting to TBF in August 1942, and began carrier qualifying on 8 September 1942.

For Wasp, she received six TBD for VT-7 on 26 December 1941 and three more by 2 January 1942. Then it got complicated by the replacement of the TBD by the TBF, so on 25 June 1942, VT-7 had one TBD and seven TBF. By the time she was dispatched to participate in WATCHTOWER, VT-7 had a full complement of TBF.

[Lethl215]

The first 3 were engaged on Neutrality patrols while they remained in the Atlantic so would have been available to hunt down enemy raiders of any variety. Problem however was that Ranger and Wasp only carried a handful of torpedo bombers (c4 IIRC)

For Ranger, three TBD were assigned to VS-42 with pilots drawn from VT-3 to begin working up a new squadron in late 1941 and operated as VS, for the very simple reason that Ranger had no torpedo stowage until it was authorized 17 October 1941. The torpedo stowage was physically installed during her refit at Norfolk, which is where she was putting into on 7 December 1941. When she left the yard on 23 December 1941 she had torpedo stowage, torpedoes, and three additional TBD, the six being the embryo of VT-4, which was stood up 10 January 1942. They began converting to TBF in August 1942, and began carrier qualifying on 8 September 1942.

For Wasp, she received six TBD for VT-7 on 26 December 1941 and three more by 2 January 1942. Then it got complicated by the replacement of the TBD by the TBF, so on 25 June 1942, VT-7 had one TBD and seven TBF. By the time she was dispatched to participate in WATCHTOWER, VT-7 had a full complement of TBF.

To piggyback on this excellent observation, AirLant ops sheets from Dec 41 through Jan 42:

http://www.ww2f.com/threads/uss-wasps-a ... ost-890080

[Carl Schwamberger]

Rereading this thread reminds me the focus has been exclusively on defending Force Z. But a carrier present raises another possibility. As pointed out Phillips is going to make some different decisions at one point or another. One of these possibilities is a air attack on the transport force off Kohota Bahru. The initial landing waves went ashore during darkness & the transports were empty and departing shortly after dawn. Nailing those does not accomplish much. The transports with th follow on landing forces were stood off a bit and did not move in to discharge until long after day break. I doubt Phillips can be in rage to interdict either of those. But the subsequent deliveries might be found and attacked. If a few attacks by torpedo plane flights scatter the transports of the next serials of following forces it leaves the landing force incomplete and less capable of the mischief of OTL.

Here Im thinking of the USN carrier attack on the Japanese transportconvdoy off Lae three months later. There only one transport was hit, but the others scattered like flushed Quail. It took over a week for the cargo ships to be rounded up and deliveries resumed.

Would that outcome weaken the landing force a Kohota Bahru enough to give the Commonwealth a fighting chance?

Another outcome is the torpedo strike forces find and nail a Cruiser or two.