Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Marines CV trained ?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Marines CV trained ? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Marines CV trained ? - 3/24/2003 3:01:31 AM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		hi guys, lots of posts here keep pointing out that Marines should not be able to fly off of CV's as they were not trained to land on CV's

I ran across this reading about Galer from VMF-224

On 29 August 1940, he and his squadron mates of VMF-2 were trying to carrier qualify off San Diego. On the downwind leg his engine failed and he had to ditch his Grumman F3F. This was his first unplanned water landing; there would be more.

In January 1941 VMF-2 moved to Ewa, Hawaii, a new Marine air base. Here it was redesignated VMF-211. One of its first missions was to qualify for carrier landings. In a military SNAFU, VMF-211's CO expected a landing signal officer (LSO) to be assigned to the squadron for this task. Two weeks before the deadline CINCPAC informed him that no LSO would be forthcoming and that VMF-211 was still required to qualify. The CO recalled that Galer had spent much of the outbound voyage in the company of the LSO on the carrier that transported them to Hawaii. He summoned Galer, who readily admitted spending many hours wiht his buddy, the LSO. When he further confessed some familiarity with the LSO's duties, that was it. He ws the new LSO for the squadron. The squadron qualified on schedule.

so while I am not saying all VMF's were CV trained, they did have to learn how to take off and land on CV's before the war

HARD_Sarge

_____________________________
Post #: 1
- 3/24/2003 5:16:02 AM   
osullmi

 

Posts: 14
Joined: 12/28/2002
From: Iran
Status: offline 		Weren't Navy F4Fs and other planes configured differently for carrier landings -- i.e. tailhoooks and reinforced landing gear?

_____________________________

Mine eyes have seen the glory
Of the coming of the Lord;
He is trampling out the vintage
Where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning
Of His terrible swift sword;
His truth is marching on.

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 2
marines at sea - 3/24/2003 4:58:54 PM   
strawb

 

Posts: 90
Joined: 1/13/2003
From: Grongardville
Status: offline 		Dunno about F4F but ...I thought USN/USM decided Corsairs (which is what Marines used largely yes?) too tricky to land on CVs until us Brits sorted out the old long curve landing trick AND fiiddled with the under-carriage to reduce bounce. (We SO wanted to replace those Fulmars...) So sort of yes, Corsairs used on CVs had been modified a bit, but more about new skills.

And of course any aircraft goimg to sea had to have a hook fitted (Even F4Fs are not that STOL)

SO may be Marines had CV training on other planes pre-war ( I know not) but not on the aircraft that became their main mount until much later as casualty rate on CV landing was too high to start with.

Still no putting Corsairs on CVEs though please....

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 3
- 3/24/2003 7:11:12 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		Well since the Marines don't get the F4u until after 43, I believe the idea is, are the Marines flying F4F4's (maybe F4F3) trained to fly off of and land on CV's ?

most people here have been saying that they were not carrier trained until late in the war, and I have been saying they were trained before the war to do just that

but more and more is showing that the early pilots were trained, since the worked with and for the Navy

with the F4u, it was the brass back home who said it couldn't land, the pilots who flew it believed it could, they also, didn't think it could carry the bomb load that it ended the war flying with

which from some of what I have read, I do believe the land based planes, were worked on, wing fold mech. taken out, wings welded, hook removed, but I think the stock models were the same

HARD_Sarge

_____________________________


(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 4
- 3/25/2003 4:54:15 AM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline 		It is my understanding that pretty much all Marine pilots were carrier trained at the beginning of the war. However as the campaign developed in 1942, very few actually got any practice and the skill level degraded fast with attrition and so forth taking it's toll.

In 1944 when they started to put Marine squadrons back on carriers, the were first sent back for carrier training or retraining in many of the cases. (See Black Sheep Squadron).

I would think that in 1942, most Marine squadrons could operate off of carriers if need be.

I am writing from memory here and have no hard facts, if anyone can support it or know differently, chime right in.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 5
- 3/25/2003 10:45:28 AM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		Actually, some Marine squadrons were trained in carrier landings in 1942, but it was ]relatively few. And not that it really requires pointing out (but I will anyway), but taking off a carrier didn't mean that the Marines were capable of LANDING on a carrier (I realize noone necessarily tried to make that connection). For example, the Marines at Wake (VMF-221?) were NOT carrier qualified, however, they had gotten a ride to Wake from Enterprise (or was it Hornet) a few weeks before.

It was actually in 1943 that Marine squadrons began to receive carrier training. The USN began to realize the utility (or better said, "safety") of adding an addtional fighter squadron to their carriers. Many carriers were re-equpped in 1943 with an additional fighter squadron. Since Naval squadrons were often in short supply, it was often VMF squadrons (flying Navy planes anyways) that were hastily trained in carrier landings. A good example is that of the VMF-214 (better known as the "The Black Sheep". The original squadron of the Solomons under Boyington were NOT carrier qualified. However, after the squadron was reformed in 1944, it's new pilots were carrier qualified. Unfortunately for them, I believe it was Bunker Hill that they were assigned to, when it was hit by a Kamikaze. Most of the pilots were in the air, but the plane hit pretty much on top of their wardroom, killing many of their service crews and administrative personnel.

Forgive me if I got the squadron numbers wrong, I'm doing this from memory.

Regarding the F4U. Yes, it was initially designed for the Navy, but was poo-poo'd because of it's long nose. The long nose greatly inhibited the pilot's ability to see carrier's deck below him. Since the F6f was now coming out in droves, the Navy elected to surplus the F4Us to it's Marines squadrons. Not to say that NO Navy squadron flew them, they did appear on some carriers (but I can't give you an example at the moment). Ironically, it was the British that like the Corsair so much that they were determinded to figure out how to "make it work" for their carriers. In short, they ended up approaching paralell to the CV (whil still behind), and then side-slipping onto the deck at the last minute. It took a bit of practice, but it did work.

In the case of UV, my opininon is that Marine Squadrons SHOULD be able to fly off of USN CVs. Do I think it's historically accurate? "NO". But conversly, the IJN player has several squadrons of land-based air (with Naval capable planes). Were they naval squadrons? Were they Marines? Were they Army? Did they have any carrier training? Few, if any of us actually speak Japanese, and know what a "Daitai" is. Most IJN players have no qualms about putting any of the squadrons onto their CVs. Would that be historical? Probably not actually. But to be fair to the USN player, they should probably be able put the Marine squadrons onto their carriers, just like the IJN squadrons.

Regards,
-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 6
- 3/25/2003 7:00:48 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		Hi Feinder

but taking off a carrier didn't mean that the Marines were capable of LANDING on a carrier (I realize noone necessarily tried to make that connection).

ahhh, do you know what a LSO is ?
and again from the story on Galer

"One of its first missions was to qualify for carrier landings"

the CV you are talking about I believe is the Franklin, and I believe it was a scout plane that happened to fly by and make a lucky drop, as nobody picked it up (just like one of the early CVL's that the IJN lost, a scout SBD, happened to drop out of a cloud, see it and attack, then pull back into the clouds and report where it was)

well, just trying to point out, that "some" of the VMF's were trained

:)
HARD_Sarge

_____________________________


(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 7
- 3/26/2003 5:14:15 AM   
Mush Morton

 

Posts: 10
Joined: 12/2/2002
From: Virginia
Status: offline 		LSO - Landing Signal Officer. Nicknamed 'Paddles' due to the pingpong type paddles they held in each hand to signal pilots whether they were hi, lo, etc...

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 8
Re: marines at sea - 3/26/2003 11:45:16 AM   
CynicAl


Posts: 327
Joined: 7/27/2001
From: Brave New World
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by strawb
[B]Dunno about F4F but ...I thought USN/USM decided Corsairs (which is what Marines used largely yes?) too tricky to land on CVs until us Brits sorted out the old long curve landing trick AND fiiddled with the under-carriage to reduce bounce. (We SO wanted to replace those Fulmars...) So sort of yes, Corsairs used on CVs had been modified a bit, but more about new skills. [/B][/QUOTE]
There were a couple of other factors involved in the USN selection of Hellcats over Corsairs in 42-43, too. The biggest one: Grumman could build Hellcats faster than Vought and Goodyear could build Corsairs, which gave the Hellcat a big logistics edge. If those huge numbers of Hellcats hadn't already been in the pipeline, the Corsair would have become the main USN CV-based fighter starting in very early 1943, tricky landings or no tricky landings. (And since none of the modifications that resulted in the later Corsairs' improved behavior were very technically demanding, they might well have found their way into the -1A in 1943 rather than waiting for the -1D in 1944 as they did historically.)
[B][QUOTE]And of course any aircraft goimg to sea had to have a hook fitted (Even F4Fs are not that STOL)[/B][/QUOTE]
Well, yes, of course. But all the aircraft we're talking about here were originally designed and built to Navy specs for carrier-based types. (The USMC hasn't operated very many fixed-wing types that didn't start life as Navy designs.)
[B][QUOTE]Still no putting Corsairs on CVEs though please.... [/B][/QUOTE]
And why not? The US and Brits both did it during the war. Yes, they did so. Don't look at me like that, it's true! It's no more preposterous than putting Seafires on CVEs. (Speaking of aircraft being unsuitable for carrier duty! IIRC, more Seafires were lost to undercarriage failure in deck landings than to enemy action.)

_____________________________

Some days you're the windshield.
Some days you're the bug.

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 9
- 3/26/2003 10:26:03 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		Yes Hard_Sarge,

I'm actually quite familiar with what an LSO is. However, there's a bit more to it than just watching a guy in white skull-cap waving paddles at you. It takes a bit of practice (ie training).

I do think tho, that we're debating the same point Hard_Sarge. I agree that some VMF squadrons were trained in carrier landings in 42 and 43. However, it was the exception and not the rule. I'm just saying that, it became more common in 44 which is beyond the scope of UV.

However, for the purposes of UV, I feel that Marine Squadrons -should- be allowed to fly off carriers, because the IJN player has no idea whether his land-based Kate/Val/A6M2/A6M3 squadrons were carrier trained, but you can be fairly sure that you'll eventually be seeing them on the Shokaku.

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 10
- 3/26/2003 10:32:33 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		Hi Feinder
well seems we disagreeing on terms more then ideas

was just pointing out that he says they were carrier trained and needed a LSO to get some training in, where you were saying it is one thing to take off and another to land, from that story, they were training to land

I think most of the "old" VMF's were trained, it was the ones that were rushed into action that were not, plus I think some of the ones we see, are also renamed

which yes, from most of what I have read here, putting Zeros on a IJN ship is not frown on, but putting Marines on US ships is

HARD_Sarge

_____________________________


(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 11
- 3/29/2003 1:53:28 AM   
panda124c

 

Posts: 1692
Joined: 5/23/2000
From: Houston, TX, USA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hard Sarge
[B]Hi Feinder
well seems we disagreeing on terms more then ideas

was just pointing out that he says they were carrier trained and needed a LSO to get some training in, where you were saying it is one thing to take off and another to land, from that story, they were training to land

I think most of the "old" VMF's were trained, it was the ones that were rushed into action that were not, plus I think some of the ones we see, are also renamed

which yes, from most of what I have read here, putting Zeros on a IJN ship is not frown on, but putting Marines on US ships is

HARD_Sarge [/B][/QUOTE]
IIRC the Marines were 'Carrier Qualified' but were not used on carriers because the Navy did not need the additional squadrons. However later in the war the need for more carrier pilots made the Navy's foresight (having Marines Pilots Carrier Qualified) paid off because the transition time for the Marine Pilots was much, much shorter than training new pilots.

So if you run short of Navy fliers by all means use Marines. Just think of the extra experience they will have after defending GC.:D

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 12
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Marines CV trained ? Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.717