My Dad was on HMS Indomitable, out in the Pacific.. he died in 2010. It's a shame he never got the chance to see these wonderful films on you tube.

@mgadavered

4 ай бұрын

My Dad was also on Lusty 810 squadron, air frame fitter.

As a proud U.S. NAVY veteran I salute the Royal British Navy. We wouldn't have won the war without them. ✌🇺🇸

@duanerice-mason2115

2 ай бұрын

IN A WORD”BULL#*€£”😅

The British Pacific Fleet (BPF) consisted of over 160 Commonwealth combat ships, including 19 aircraft carriers, over 750 aircraft of the Fleet Air Arm (FAA) and a fleet supply train of 54 oilers and large supply and repair ships. The BPF was made up of the Royal Navy (RN), Royal Australian Navy (RAN), Royal New Zealand Navy (RNZN), and Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) ships and was based at Sydney. It was one of the largest fleets ever assembleded by the RN.

@RNVRDThomas

2 жыл бұрын

Fantastic bit of information about this impressive array of naval strength. Here's hoping some degree of commonwealth unity prevails long into the future!

My Dad was a radar operator in HMS Barfleur, a Battle class Destroyer, attached to the screen of the Indefatigable. They were out there from just after VE Day until mid 1947. He had many stories. I miss him every day.

My Uncle served on HMS Slinger, an escort carrier during the BPF operations as a radar operator, we talked lot's about his time on the Slinger and the places he visited in later years. He gave me his medals and his photo album laden with pictures of the ship during operations which were taken mostly by the ship's photographer. He must be one of a very few sailors to have taken surrender of a Japanese Soldier. This was in Kowloon Harbour Hong Kong after war had ended pickinf up Australian POW's for repatriation home! He was on a launch party waiting alone on the harbour side with launch waiting for the ship's pilot to return to bring the ship into dock. He was unarmed but luckily the soldier just wanted to surrender. I still have the bayonet the Japanese soldier surrendered to him! Sadly like a lot of his generation he has passed away, but we in the free world owe his generation a great debt for their selfless actions. God bless them all.

@bobmetcalfe9640

4 жыл бұрын

My father served on HMS Newfoundland, which was mostly used I think as an anti-aircraft cruiser to help protect the fleet. Although they did bombard parts of Japan at times, including a brewery for some strange reason. My dad was one of the few British sailors to actually shoot to Japanese soldier - albeit after the war had ended. They were tasked to guard an ammunition dump, and some Japanese climbed over the wall (allegedly) with grenades and was shot by the guards including my dad.

@HUMPTYNUGGET

4 жыл бұрын

God bless your uncle

@erepsekahs

4 жыл бұрын

Where are the pics?

@XPLAlN

4 жыл бұрын

My father was not a sailor but a soldier (although he was pleased when I joined the RN). He was still serving in the Pacific a month after the war ended, specifically the Philippines, but was evacuated home with TB at that point. As those with an interest in the conflict know the operation to round up 'the Nips' continued long after that. These days a hospital is considered the "frontline". The best thing about that generation - they didn't go on youtube complaining about everything and being too scared to cope.

@spencerbaldwin8589

4 жыл бұрын

@@XPLAlN Hi, thanks for liking my comment. It's interesting that your Father was in the Philippines at the war's ending and bad luck getting TB. HMS Slinger along with the rest of the fleet stopped off in Leyte Philippines in 1944 after its liberation. Incidentally I visit the Philippines regularly as my Girlfriend's Family are there, a great people. Rounding up the Japanese Forces was no easy task. On Okinawa some carried on the fight until late 1945 in the country side. You are spot on with your comment about that generation just getting on with things, just "bashing on" was the saying.

Excellent job our beloved British!!!

Baggy white shorts and a knotted handkerchief - magnificent !!!

When the Corsair was flight tested, its undercarriage was found to be far too active. It had to be long and stiff to make sure the huge propellor cleared the deck. Unfortunately this made it very bouncy on landing and they used to jump over the arrestor wires. Many expensive solutions failed to fix the problem so the USN put Hellcats on the carriers, gave Corsairs to ground based Marine squadrons and offloaded the rest onto the Royal Navy. The RN having nothing else to use had to find a solution. A bright young artificer came up with an embarrassingly simple idea. He took a drill and made a couple of tiny holes in the upper part of the Oleo pneumatic chamber. The force of landing caused the air to escape slowly rather than compress like a spring and the Corsair sank into the deck rather than bounce. This made the undercarriage too short to fit back into the wheel wells. But when the aircraft took off next time the weight of the wheels would extend the oleos and pull the air back in the chamber ready for the next landing. The USN was told about this solution and the Corsairs were cleared for USN Carrier ops.

@anthonywilson4873

4 жыл бұрын

Thanks for that makes complete sense. I knew they had fixed the undercarriage but did not know how. I also read that they changed leading edge of wings as Corsair had high stall speed. I know that they developed a constant turn approach so the pilot could see the deck right up to point of landing by looking down through the dip in the wings. Thanks again

@pensans1

4 жыл бұрын

Better than the bi planes we had

@paoloviti6156

4 жыл бұрын

Thanks for the info as I didn't know how simple and cheap the solution was! Actually I knew that the Corsair had problems landing on a carrier exactly what problem I never understood! 👍👍👍

@ericgrace9995

4 жыл бұрын

It's a little like that young ladies orifice !

@nicholasburns729

4 жыл бұрын

The Royal Navy was given Seafires for the Pacific. They were too fragile and did not have the range required for Pacific Operations.

This has been brought to the attention of the general public its a shame it was not sooner as i was there in all the Action, my ship was the H.M.S.Indefatigable an Aircraft Carrier i was in 894 SEAFIRE SQUADRON and my Squadron was very Active in all the attacks on the Japanese held Islands including OKINAWA where we was hit by a Kamikazi Plane and after one hour after all the decks was cleared of Debris we was back in Action Again many died in the attack .We then carried on attacking other islands untul the day came when we was told that all Hostilities will cease for one day .we then sailed to a safe Area and after a restful day ,ther news came that an Atomic Bomb had been dropped on Japan .this we did not know at the time what an Atomic Bomb was: Later on we then sailed on to Tokio Bay under orders.We was known as the British Pacific Fleet and played a big part in the war against Japan but little was known of of Actions and now you know as notice has been taken by bringing it to the Forefront and about time .

4 жыл бұрын

Thank you, Sir.

@petere115

4 жыл бұрын

My father served on the H.M.S. Indefatigable, as a pom pom gunner. He's 95 in June

@petere115

4 жыл бұрын

@Keith Schick not true about island campains,British carriers at Saipan and Okinowa

@petere115

4 жыл бұрын

@Keith Schick SAIPAN, OKINOWA Indifatigable was first ship hit by Japanese Suicide attacks, personally i didn't invade any pacific islands did you?

@petere115

4 жыл бұрын

@Keith Schick never said RN was there from 1941, anyway Uk had been fighting since 1939 you yanks were late as usual, plus the Enterprise was not the only CV in the pacific, Saratoga was available and Midway soon after.

Brave guys the lot of them.

@robertlemaster7525

3 жыл бұрын

The cream of the UK crop, without a doubt.

Often called the "forgotten fleet." Made a useful contribution to the Pacific War.

Watching this and then comparing to our navy today breaks my heart

@HH-qs9zf

5 жыл бұрын

Yep... What navy today.

@tomterific390

5 жыл бұрын

Deep down you should probably be grateful that there has been less need for a navy of 1945 size. But keep your hopes up--with Trump sitting on his golden throne, tweeting out shitballs, wanting to pull out of NATO, and with Big Mac grease on his fingers, maybe they'll slip and press the button. Also, with the insane rise of nationalism and your eagerness to withdraw from the EU, maybe you'll get your wish, and your Nat'l Health Service will be eliminated and that money re-directed to build warships. You can only hope...I guess... Maybe that would that make you happy?

@wayinfront1

5 жыл бұрын

@@tomterific390 Idiot. With the military threat posed by Russia, China, and smaller non-democratic nations like Iran and North Korea which we could potentially face in war, plus ever-morphing terrorism like Daesh, we need strong armed forces - including a strong Royal Navy, especially in regard to keeping open vital 'choke points' on sea trading routes. Your kind of blind, militant pacifism is what left us weak in the 1930s - when we were still immeasurably stronger than today. Without adequate armed forces there is ultimately nothing to protect the NHS or anything else. The EU has been a huge financial drain on this country. We get back just 60% of the money we pay in. It is worth being a member of NATO, but the EU has become increasingly problematic for Britain. We would have left it sooner or later anyhow. As other countries will too - but there's every chance that it will implode through sheer dysfunctionalism anyway.

@GI.Jared1984

5 жыл бұрын

@@tomterific390 fuck the NHS

@affectionatepunch

5 жыл бұрын

@@GI.Jared1984 Because?

The Brits made use of the Corsair! Brilliant! They could see the greatness of that bird not to mention the cool gull wings that made it look dope

@elykeom1

4 жыл бұрын

you mean the curved cut of the wings! *puts on monocle*

@ingurlund9657

3 жыл бұрын

America built some great aircraft and the Corsair was one of them. Us Brits apparently loved it.

@stevetheduck1425

10 ай бұрын

US Marines made good use of the Corsair later, but the USN may not have wanted to change how carrier landings were taught. @@ingurlund9657

I wrote my undergraduate dissertation on the British Pacific Fleet, the kind of war that the pilots and crews had to fight out there, against constant Kamakazie attack was utterly relentless. It's a shame really what little knowledge people have of Britain's war effort in the East doesn't extend much beyond the fall of Singapore, once the Royal Navy had dealt with the Regia Marina and the Kriegsmarine it spared no time in settling the score with Japan. It also helped solidify a close relationship with the USN that exists to this day.

@doug6500

7 жыл бұрын

I did mine on a couple of Battalions (one regular and one territorial) fighting in the Burma Campaign from the retreat through to the defeat of the IJA in South East Asia. An infantryman's campaign with very little fire support, certainly not like the overwhelming fire support available to Allied troops in the Pacific.

@victoriajames9393

6 жыл бұрын

read A Stokers Log - HMS Whelp The British forgotten Fleet - Victoria L Short

@NightHeronProduction

6 жыл бұрын

I've always been curious about the RN's and Fleet Air Arm's role in the pacific, there's so little good material focussed on it out there. Since you seem to know at least more than most on the subject, may I ask what do think the royal navy could have done to have been better prepared for a war in the pacific against Imperial Japan?, if you can't answer this thats fine I'd just like to hear someones option on that question. Thanks have a good one! :)

@NightHeronProduction

6 жыл бұрын

Oh I'm well aware of that (not being snooty btw) I'm just curious for lets say an alternate timeline sort of event, what would the the royal navy and navy's of the commonwealth of had to have done or had to do, to have made a war in the pacific more practical and effective from the onset of the hostilities with Japan In Dec 41 (you know things like more Oiler's? better strategy's that didn't rely on base's/ports to fight from as much ). Thanks for the reply though, one is always appreciated :)

@TheFreshman321

5 жыл бұрын

Jack Tanner A

Although the Corsair was an American aircraft , it was the Royal Navy that showed us how to use the aircraft efficiently from an aircraft carrier.

@shenanigansandstuff1114

6 жыл бұрын

i'm surprised there are no salty Americans swarming this comment.

@eddiegaltek

5 жыл бұрын

Logistics, where do you get spares and replacement aircraft?

@UKOGBN

5 жыл бұрын

@@eddiegaltek From an aircraft carrier fender and maintenance carrier

@DrJones20

5 жыл бұрын

Lol that's so bullshit

@jammer3618

5 жыл бұрын

What a crock. Corsair was in American carrier long before Brits got to pacific.

God bless the Brits after almost six years of war in Europe, came and fought in the Pacific against the Japanese.

@neinnein9306

5 жыл бұрын

For GB and FRA the war really startet in May 1940. So they had 5 years of war (which is not easier btw, just saying). From September '39 on to May '40 nothing dramatically happend at Germany's western front.

@kyngo550

4 жыл бұрын

The British did fight against Japan after Pearl Harbor due to the Japanese invasion of British colonies in Asia (Malaya, Hong Kong, Burma, and Singapore). The British (as well as other Commonwealth troops such as Australian, New Zealander, and Indian) also fought Japan in the China-Burma-India, Southwest Pacific, and Indian Ocean theatres as well.

@73Trident

4 жыл бұрын

@nein nein and Ky Ngo I know all of that. Can't you just let me thank the Royal Navy for their contribution in the Pacific.

@davidgillettuk9638

4 жыл бұрын

Ky Ngo Absolutely, and for the record my uncle Leslie Lintott was killed by a zero attack at Mingaladon airfield Burma in December 1940.

@YARROWS9

4 жыл бұрын

Thank you.

The HMS Indefatigable. My favourite Royal Navy ship of all time. I think I just like the word.

There is a fantastic book called Task Force 57, The British Pacific Fleet 1944-45 by Peter C Smith that details RN operations and lists the ships, submarines, squadrons and fleet auxiliaries. Costs £10.95. If you want to know more about the RN in the far East then you won't go wrong reading this.

@Encounter85

4 жыл бұрын

My fathers war began on the 6th June 1944, when everyone else seemed to be heading to the coast, he boarded a train with thousands of Naval ratings bound for Glasgow. Their, he began the Journey to the Pacific in a commandeered steamer which he remembered with some pleasure, but the 2nd stage of the journey was in an ageing Russian Freighter, a truly unpleasant experience, took him to Trincomalee, Ceylon (Sri Lanka), where he joined and served on HMS Quilliam. This Q Class destroyer often ran with Task Force 57. He was a quiet man, never cruel but hard to impress, and rarely would talk of his struggles as a 19 year old at war. I found myself straining at the grainy images lest I should see him.

@trevorhart545

4 жыл бұрын

Thank you for this information.

@taylormartyn

4 жыл бұрын

I just ordered the book a couple days ago. Waiting patiently and looking forward to learning more.

This was the largest fleet in British history,we had so many aircraft carrier ,battleships, cruisers, destroyers ,subs, and other naval vessels. In a great part due to Australia, new Zealand and Canada.

@shelbyseelbach9568

4 жыл бұрын

And were absolutely dwarfed by the US Navy's Pacific fleet. Dwarfed.

@zizapeg18

4 жыл бұрын

@@shelbyseelbach9568 before you make a uneducated remark like that you should check your facts for instance in 1941 your Pacific fleet had only 3 carriers while the british had 6 fleet carriers,4 light carriers 2 aircraft maintenance carriers ,9 escort carriers so all in all your remark is in accurate.

@shelbyseelbach9568

4 жыл бұрын

@@zizapeg18 just turn the page in your history book to 1945. Then bring your uneducated self back and we'll talk.

@shelbyseelbach9568

4 жыл бұрын

@@zizapeg18 Having trouble finding that chapter in your history book? If you are, just look at anything between them and now. You'll pretty much see the same thing. The USA, being a global superpower, eclipsed the royal navy from then until present day. Just look at any date in your history book since 1944, but prepare to be disappointed. Our Pacific fleet alone in 1945 was bigger than your entire navy at that time. It is funny how you throw the term "uneducated" around like that though. LMFAO!

@frankanderson5012

4 жыл бұрын

@@shelbyseelbach9568 You also fail to mention that the Royal Navy was spread out with duties all around the world due to it's then empire - South Atlantic, Mediterranean, Indian Ocien and predominantly still in the North Atalantic and home waters. Had the war with Japan lasted longer, the Pacific fleet would have been larger. The bulk of the US navy was in the Pacific and had been during the war, which made sense. It's why most of the naval ships during the Normandy landings were British. Being 'educated' isn't just about knowing facts and figures, it's also about atitude and behaviour, something you are not demonstrating very impressively so don't congradulate yourself too quickly on being able to read a chapter in a book. It's well known around the world that Americans tend to have a very narrow and insulated viewpoint of historical events and you are just demonstrating the sterotypical 'Trump' style American of 'USA, USA, we won the war. Thankfuly not all Americans are like you and realise the contribution the Royal Navy made in the Pacific, something unique to it's ability. Was the US navy larger? Of course it was. Andy wasn't saying otherwise. America was a vastly larger country with vastly more resources a larger population and a county not bombed, threatened with invasion and threatened with starvation not to mention, had already been in the war for two years more. For the size of it's country, Britain had a remarkbly large and powerful navy for houndreds of years which proved itself time and time again, often against the odds. Finally, why even watch this video and then make such a toll remark? It would be very easy to get into a slanging match and say every nation has it's day and America, as that happened with Britain, is now on the decline with China now taking over dominance.

At 5:50 a kamikaze with a liferaft - there's optimism

Total respect for all these men. I can't imagine being in a situation like this but I hope I'd have the balls to do my bit.

I love the Brits of WW2. They were at a great group of men with a “can do” attitudes. I’d kill to have the lightly damaged Corsair.

When Kamikazes hit a US Navy carrier, they had to get the wood and hammers out to fix the damaged decks...when it hit a Riyal Navy carrier, all the sailors did was get the brooms out...RN carriers equipped with steel decks.

@jlvfr

4 жыл бұрын

Yes, but that came with a price: RN carriers were considerably smaller than USN's, and so carried fewer arcraft. Tradeoffs caused by the design demands of both navies prewar.

@TheArgieH

4 жыл бұрын

@@jlvfr I think it was more the case that the confined armoured box of the RN carrier hangar deck compared unfavourably with the open sided hangars and of the USN ships, when it came to aircraft stowage. Different design philosophy, the RN assumed that the enemy was going to get within gunfire and bombing range of its ships, the USN anticipated action at a distance like at Midway. The RN carriers were armoured against 8" shell fire. It might even be down to the distinction between action in relatively confined European waters and the open vast areas of the Pacific.

@jlvfr

4 жыл бұрын

@@TheArgieH at the time both navies designed the basic layouts of the carriers, the RN was faced with the possibility of attacks from heavy, land based bombers, coming from european enemies. This mean heavy bombs hiting. A single bomb could cause catastrophic damage. Since this was the pre-radar era, being hit was thought to be inevitable. So, thick armour. Add the need to follow treaties and shortage of cash, and you get tough carriers with small groups. By contrast the USN was facing (allready in the 1920s/30s) the possiblity of fighting the IJN. So the main threat would be the carrier _light_ bombers of the late 20s/early-mid 30s. So the USN figured they wouldn't do much damage; speed and good damage control would save the ship. Who was right? At the time they were designed, for their anticipated enemy, I'd say *both*. And then future reality, starting with radar, changing everything

@TheArgieH

4 жыл бұрын

@@jlvfr. Thanks. Yes, there's some very good information in this whole series of posts, see the earlier ones on the threats to carriers. As well as air attack, the RN had to worry about cruisers, it is not what the other guys say they will do but what the hardware they have (or could lose to someone else) could do. There were a lot of fast modern 8" and 6" cruisers in European waters at the time the fleet carriers were being built - German, Italian, French even Dutch and others. (Courageous was unlucky to meet someone with 11" guns.) The USN had an interesting object lesson, thanks to the Washington treaty the two battlecruisers under construction, Lexington and Saratoga, were completed as carriers. So they had early practical experience of operating big carriers with seriously large air groups.

@jlvfr

4 жыл бұрын

@@TheArgieH yes, the USN got very lucky with that. On a side note, related to "having experience", the design of the german "Graf Zepelin" carrier. Despite being designed latter than "Ark Royal", not only it has no dual-purpose gus, it features WWI-style _barbette_ gun mounts. Talk about being behind the curve...

Interesting, first time I ever heard of this Fleet. Not enough attention is paid to British, Dutch and Aussie, Anzac Naval Forces.

@alanbrooke144

6 жыл бұрын

The British Pacific Fleet was made up of the RN, RCN, RNZN and RAN - this Commonwealth fleet included 6 fleet carriers, 4 light carriers, 2 aircraft maintenance carriers and 9 escort carriers, with a total of more than 750 aircraft, 4 battleships, 11 cruisers, 35 destroyers, 14 frigates, 44 smaller warships, 31 submarines, and 54 large vessels in the fleet train.

@jimbobjones1858

6 жыл бұрын

Hey, you're forgetting the huge contribution made by SANF (South African Naval Forces) - We sent the pride of our navy, the boom defence vessel HMSAS Barbrake!! ;) OK, we also manned 2 frigates, HM Ships Swale and Teviot as well as HMS Salvestor (salvage vessel). HMSAS Natal arrived just too late, and two more frigates were on their way when the Americans spoiled our fun by dropping the atom bombs.

@daveclose4935

4 жыл бұрын

that would be because the yanks won world war 2 didnt you know that us british didnt have to turn up for dday at all coz america won the european theater also god bless america roflmao

@daveclose4935

4 жыл бұрын

@Din Djarin i guess i wasnt sarcastic enough i know this i am british mate.

@daveclose4935

4 жыл бұрын

@No1 Jack i was being sarcastic mate maybe not enough as america win everything including corona virus. sarcastic enough now?

Fantastic , loved the aircraft firefighting , multiple foam branches in use right up close n toasty 👍

5:44 The same Japanese dingy is on display in the Imperial War Museum: object MAR 595

@d.b.cooper7290

5 жыл бұрын

Thanks to the Brits for upgrading the Corsair landing gear, making them truly efficient on carriers.

@lina-zz9kk

4 жыл бұрын

Thanks for that

@Outofcontrol39

4 жыл бұрын

A dinghy for a suicide mission? I suppose even a Kamikaze might need rescuing if he couldn't reach his target, so that he could have another go at dying!

The British sent a fleet to the Pacific to make sure they had a presence in that theatre at the war’s end. The Americans, with a much bigger pacific fleet, knew what the British were up to and didn’t want the British fleet there for exactly that reason. Though through gritted teeth they eventually admitted that the British fleet did come in useful. The British carriers had armoured decks which American carriers didn’t, which meant the British carriers were far less likely be be taken out of action by a kamikaze strike.

@idleonlooker1078

4 жыл бұрын

Very true!! The Americans always sidelined the BFP at every opportunity. The BFP going cap in hand to almost beg for something to do. Perhaps this stemmed from America's sense of national guilt early in the war, of being pro-Nazi, sitting on their arses while they hoped Hitler would win another "European war" - until they got a rude wake up call in Oahu, at 7.55am, 7 Dec 1941!! 👍

@photoisca7386

4 жыл бұрын

And just what were the British up to? I think you'll find that the answer to your question is Admiral King not wanting the British in the Pacific or anywhere. If its intrigue that you want, look into FDR and Stalin's cosy little chat in the dacha in the Soviet embassy in Tehran.

@idleonlooker1078

4 жыл бұрын

@@photoisca7386 No intrigue at all!! Just facts and some truths that the US are still uncomfortable in accepting: 1) www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2019/02/20/695941323/when-nazis-took-manhattan 2) www.google.com/amp/s/time.com/5414055/american-nazi-sympathy-book/%3famp=true 3) - and a very well researched and critically acclaimed book by a US historian: www.thehistoryreader.com/modern-history/hitlers-american-friends-henry-ford-and-nazism/ Enjoy!! 😘👍

@daniellastuart3145

4 жыл бұрын

@@idleonlooker1078 no it was more down to the USA wanting to totally control the Pacific area with out European intervening after the war

@idleonlooker1078

4 жыл бұрын

@@daniellastuart3145 Well, as today's "global policeman" the US has set out to achieve that since 1945. But lately they've started bitching about how the rest of the world now expects them to fix the problems at their (the US') expense! I suppose that's a consequence that comes with the territory of being the pre-eminent "super power" these days.

Met flt lt scott of the indifaticable a few years back doing some building work at his sons house.he signed my book too.god bless him RIP

My granddad was a Kamikaze pilot , just not a good one. He come back every time saying "Something bit him in the cockpit"

Fantastic footage. I confess to not knowing about the British in Okinawa.

@daniellastuart3145

4 жыл бұрын

That because US historian have all but written British involvement I defeating the Japanese out of the history books for last 70 years

@BelloBudo007

4 жыл бұрын

@@daniellastuart3145 Why don't the British tell their own story? We hear about Singapore, so it's only fair to learn about the victories too.

@daniellastuart3145

4 жыл бұрын

@@BelloBudo007 I wish we would But they are reason why with have not Some down to our own imbassment But also a lot history told after ww2 was not totally honest buy all side specially the USA that openly try take all the credit for defeating the Japan

@thebrothers3971

4 жыл бұрын

@@BelloBudo007 Because we don't normally blow our own trumpet. And according to Hollwood only the USA were fighting the war. The USSR lost millions of people.

I notice American built aircraft on British Carriers, the very best we had to offer, too. Too bad our history books didn't include the actions of the Royal Navy in the Pacific. A lot of my ancestors came from Britain in the 1800's on my Mother's side, so my interests in the Royal Navy are important.

@dovetonsturdee7033

3 жыл бұрын

Mainly Corsairs, Avengers, & Hellcats. British built aircraft included Seafires & Fireflies. The Fleet Air Arm had to rely on American aircraft for much of the war because between the wars, until early 1939, FAA aircraft procurement was controlled by the RAF, who spent vast amounts on bombers and, later, on short range fighters, and almost nothing on Coastal Command or the Fleet Air Arm. That is what happens when your greatest rival is given control of your finances!

Great Men with Huge Hearts.

Their was more than one occasion when the only aircraft carriers available to protect the Americans were British with their armoured steel decks.

My Dad was a navigator/ radio operator on an Avenger operating from HMS Shah out in the Pacific. He was shot down and the crew survived

The Forgotton Fleet a massive understatement as i fought in that Fleet on H.M.S.INDEFATIGABLE an Aircraft Carrier we gave it that name because of the opposition we had from others in the Pacific as saying this is there War we do not need you lot .We had allready fought in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean and North Sea and Russian Convoys i was on these prior to being sent out the the Pacific as when we finished off in these Theatres of War we was sent out to Form a Fleet in Colombo Ceylon but we was not wanted as we was outdated in our Equipment and Ships we had been fighting the Europe War and defending our own countries .So when we arrived it was a new type of Warfare which we soon leant we had to know how to cope with the KAMIKAZI the distance of the Pacific Ocean the supplies the Fleet trains etc .So we said give us a job and they did to test us it was Sumatra Palambang Japanese oil wells ,we attacked and destroyed them from then on we was the good guys and many more operations to follow we was at Okinawa island supporting the American Marines in there Landings and there we was hit by Kamikazi Planes but after clearing all the decks and debis we was back in Action within one hour into combat again .i witnessed these attacks by the Kamikazi Planes but owing to our Armour Plated Decks we was save from serious problems the American Carrier had Teak Decks .One Observer on board my ship witness these attacks and a very famous quote was made history .He said when an american carrier gets hit by a Kamikazi it is six months in PEARL HARBOUR for repairs ,But when a limey Aircraft Carrier gets hit its Sweepers and Brooms and carry on fighting ...

@wretchedfibs4306

4 жыл бұрын

I'm annoyed they didn't mention my father's ship, Formidable.

@jackkruese9929

4 жыл бұрын

Harry Anderson Thanks for your service sir

@davidgillettuk9638

4 жыл бұрын

Harry Anderson Thank you for your service Harry, God bless you sir.

My wife's father served in the Navy in the Pacific. He always told us that he was training for the invasion of Japan but the A-bombs put an end to that.

The RN did well, of course, but there was a period of adaptation-to operating far from home without big bases, and pilots navigating over long distances open ocean. But they managed, with a little help from their friends!

@zzirSnipzz1

3 жыл бұрын

I would say the homing beacon if they still used that in the pacific was helpful

A good book to read is 'Carrier Pilot' by Norman Hanson. What is not mentioned here is that shortly after the Dinghy from the Kamikazi landed on the deck, the Japanese Pilots head did. Mr Hanson also mentions the Corsair hitting the Island. A great read.

Great Footage.

There were those in the US high command, particularly Adm. Ernest King, in Washington who didn't want any role for the RN in the Pacific. But President Roosevelt shut that down right away. Over the years I have had to correct many of my countrymen who were shocked to hear that the Royal Navy also faced the kamikazes. And the British carriers seemed to weather the kamikaze storm better than ours did. Bottom line our old ally was there with our guys in that hell.

@AmericasChoice

4 жыл бұрын

armored decks...

@chitlika

4 жыл бұрын

British carriers on the outside of the USN fleet because of their armoured decks, The few Kamikaze that got past the guns Corsairs and Seafires of the RN still had to face the Hellcats. although some still got through . It would have been a hell of a lot worse without the Brits

@willbee6785

3 жыл бұрын

In it together. Always will be.

Jolly splendid I say!

The guy 2nd from the right at 7.11-15 looks like Lt Cmdr Norman Hanson, DSC, who wrote a superb book on his Corsair flying: "Carrier Pilot". It's worth a read! 👍

At 7:13 I believe that is Lt Cdr Norman Hanson DSC RNVR, CO of 1833 Squadron on HMS Illustrious. Known as Hans, he wrote the book Carrier Pilot. Great read. Those to his right are Parli and Twigg two of many New Zealanders who served in the Fleet Air Arm.

@Climpus

4 жыл бұрын

David Rendall - I think I have that book - was it about raids on Japanese facilities and was the pilot killed at the end or was blacking out in the cockpit at the end of the book? Must have read it 20 years' ago, so bit hazy.

@davidrendall7195

4 жыл бұрын

@@Climpus Hanson had a bad landing accident coming aboard once, drank a lot of the Indian ocean, but he survived the war. One memorable bit was training in America. Young Sub.Lt Montieth came off a target drogue with a bit too much roll. One .50cal round flew a couple of miles downrange and hit the bathtub of an elderly gentleman in a hotel . The chap survived but now had two extra plugholes which ruined his bath. Monteith later died scrambling to catch a shadower. His wing fold wasn't locked down and the corsair fell off the bows like a torpedo and was run over.

@adambracegirdle

3 жыл бұрын

My grandfather, Sub Lt John "Wong" Lee, flew in 1833 with Hans. He appears in a couple of plates in Carrier Pilot and he is mentioned as being handsome. I'm trying to work out if there is any footage of him, don't think he's in that one though,

@davidrendall7195

3 жыл бұрын

Have you seen: www.armouredcarriers.com great resource with loads of footage I hadn't seen before. Do you know how he got the name Wong?

@adambracegirdle

3 жыл бұрын

@@davidrendall7195 yeah, from his surname, i.e. Wong Lee.

Incredible footage, really pleased to have seen it. Praise KZread. I read Norman Hanson’s ‘Carrier Pilot’ recently - he commanded a Corsair squadron on the Illustrious during the Ryukyu Islands campaign, might even be in this footage. Think he mentions the dinghy incident at one point though with one important detail the film misses - the kamikaze in question had flown over the deck out of of control and hit the Illustrious’ bridge with its wing, this caused it to nose down and hit the sea. Apparently amongst the various aircraft debris found on the deck was the pilots head! Well worth a read as it’s a superb book.

good show

British ships had no Air con. US did. It would have been bloody hot on board. I read of US liaison officer on one of the British Carriers and he said it was hell to work on.

Amazing bravery and such cheerfulness going into action. it makes me feel like a worm

@lina-zz9kk

4 жыл бұрын

Well thats telling me no doubt from a real man? i can tell that by the crocodile dundee hat.

During the Battle of Okinawa the RN downed the majority of Japanese planes. Further the RN carriers were made with steel decks so were virtually impermeable to kamikaze attack.

The 'Jeps'...like the 'Jairmans' certainly took a pasting from the royal nevy.

A very informative video , I was unaware that the RN utilized F4U Corsairs and TBM Avengers at all ,let alone in the Pacific .BZ .

@daniellastuart3145

4 жыл бұрын

RN put F4U Corsair 8 months before the USN after the sort all it issue out

Good old navy. Getting the job done.

Love the FAA and Always proud dear close friends are as effective with American Aircraft as we are. To this day. God Bless them all. 5:02 Bad Asses!

How many think it was Americans not British who won the war for Allies

@willbee6785

3 жыл бұрын

Me.

@theoilandgasresourceportal2132

2 жыл бұрын

Or the Soviet Union. why do morons like you exist?

I see 33 relatives of Hirohito gave a thumbs down to this newsreel....

Come set up/share a naval base with one of your carriers in Australia anytime!

Americans on Aircraft Carrier: *Make some preparation and tactics...* Meanwhile in Royal Navy: 2:33

In the forefront at 7.12 is Lt Cdr Norman Hanson DSC, he wrote a magnificent book entitled "Carrier Pilot" about his flying the Corsair with the BPF: humourous, informative and tragic in times, it is a great read about the FFA in the Pacific. 👍

Jolly good show mates. Now down to the wardroom for a drop of the Kings rum!

@stevetheduck1425

10 ай бұрын

Sun's over the yardarm, time for snorkers, sippers and gulpers.

Has anyone heard the story of the Stagpool & the Atlas? According to Vice Admiral Sir Douglas Fisher, in an article in 'Quarterly Transactions of the Institute of Naval Architects, April, 1953,' Stagpool was a distilling ship sent to the BPF at Leyte to help alleviate a shortage of fresh water. Stagpool was a coal burning ship, and a Panamanian collier, Atlas, was hired to supply her. Unfortunately, the collier had numerous feedwater leaks, which resulted in her consuming much of Stagpool's output. As Fisher wrote ' the two ships spent most of their time furiously supplying each other. The incident was not amusing at the time!' Fisher, by the way, was in command of the BPF's Fleet Train at the time.

5:20 pom-poms!

My Grandad was an air navigator/gunner (CPO) on HMS Implacable.

Pity the Hawker Sea Fury didn't make it into WW2, they would have eaten Zeros for breakfast.

@wyominghorseman9172

5 жыл бұрын

Battle Stations: Corsair Pacific Warrior kzread.info/dash/bejne/mYt9ysWBkrPKcag.html Lest we forget the Hellcat F6F. Hellcats were credited with destroying a total of 5,223 enemy aircraft while in service with the U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, and Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm. This was more than any other Allied naval aircraft.

@AnthonyEvelyn

5 жыл бұрын

Seafires did a good job of that

@williampaz2092

4 жыл бұрын

I agree with you about the Sea Fury. As an American I regret the Grumman F8F Bearcat didn’t make it into the Pacific War either.

@pauldavidson6321

4 жыл бұрын

@@williampaz2092 very similar aircraft ,both very fast,agile and climb like a homesick angel .

you forgot the air craft carrier Formidable. My father was gunnery on that one. 2 kamikaze hits on the ship, but ok.

@Palsrible

4 жыл бұрын

Wretched Fibs My dad too. He said he sailed in every ocean in the world except the Antarctic.

When you think you’re about to honour the emperor by destroying an enemy carrier but your fighter bounces off the armoured flight deck

@stevetheduck1425

10 ай бұрын

There is a photo of the side of a Royal Navy carrier which has the shape of a Japanese D3A dive-bomber on it. Mostly it was chipped paint, but the plane's engine did make a dent. No evidence of a fire. To me, even with my British dark sense of humour, that actually makes me sad.

Those Corsairs are beasts. All engine, but the Brits used them well.

@stevetheduck1425

10 ай бұрын

The USN didn't want Corsairs at first, then the Royal Navy and later the US Marines used them very well. It was apparently a lack of imagination, making a curved approach to land on a carrier was different to how the USN did things. They accepted the British angled deck, mirror landing sight, steam catapult and the aircraft carrier though, so it's a real puzzle.

The Americans didn,t want the coursar till British taught them how they could operate them at sea.

@nickdanger3802

3 жыл бұрын

Fleet Air Arm. (Equipment) 03 February 1943 vol 386 cc883-5883 30. Commander Bower asked the First Lord of the Admiralty why the Fleet Air Arm have often to use old, slow, though sound aircraft; and, as every effort should be made to see that they are supplied with the most modern machines and equipment, what steps he has taken to supply such equipment? api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1943/feb/03/fleet-air-arm-equipment

Bloody shame the RN didn't have these resources, ships and aircraft earlier in the War.

Is that Victorious at 2.15 please.?

I’m not even British but this is awesome as a American.

A supreme effort by the RN to gather this fleet and its vital train.

Why don't we know more about this?

Can anyone tell which carrier this was filmed aboard, please.?

i love a good armored flight deck

My father was on the KGV at this time.

"a gift for father neptune"

Thank God for American planes,!

@stevetheduck1425

10 ай бұрын

US and UK air forces used each other's planes whenever they could, US used Spitfires, Mosquitoes, Beaufighters, and have some in the USAF museum for that reason. The UK used Apaches, Mustangs, Tomahawks, Mohawks, Kittyhawks, Corsairs, Hudsons, Avengers, Bermudas, Buffaloes, the Wildcat as the Martlet, and many others. Sometimes this was because numbers were important, sometimes because their own designs were behind schedule. Success in the role was more important than the origin of the plane.

A long hard war against the Germans, Italians and the relentless sea. Then off to the heat of the Pacific for some more. You can see the influence of our American allies in the look, demeanour and bearing of the crew - these could be USN operations!

5:37 Pom Pom gun!

@dp-sr1fd

3 жыл бұрын

A nickname given to it by British soldiers because of the noise it made, who faced it during the Boer war. The rate of fire I think was 120 rounds per minute. The shells weighed one pound.

Then they all went home for pints of ale, steak an kidney pie, an wine trifle for sweets. A job well done good Sir.

@crickcrot

4 жыл бұрын

You wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes out there at that time in history.

@casadelshed9128

4 жыл бұрын

Kenny Harris Have a sense of humour bloke. That is what the comment is about.

@crickcrot

4 жыл бұрын

Casa del Shed what you come out with is demeaning and I knew some men like these at the time because I’m a lot older than you, my mothers first Drowned in the Icelandic sea torpedoed by a Nazi Uboat my late father-in-law sent over to Singapore was captured by the Japanese and had to suffer their brutal regime for over three years that wrecked his health he died a relatively young man that is not a joke, I also in the early 60s spoke to some WW1 veteran’s that suffered injury’s for the rest of their lives nothing funny about all this.

@WgCdrLuddite

4 жыл бұрын

Trifle is made with sherry, not wine and is indeed the perfect finish to meal of snake and kidley pie and ale.

@casadelshed9128

4 жыл бұрын

Wg Cdr Luddite My mistake, thanks for the comment. Be safe an well.

I read that after the surrender in Tokyo the Japanese in Sumatra buried some FAA aircrew alive. They had been shot down during a raid on an oil refinery just 2 weeks earlier.

@rickravenrumney

6 жыл бұрын

freebeerfordworkers they did the same thing to 91 american civilian construction workers is on Wake Island in 1942.

@paulnicholls8683

4 жыл бұрын

They were rotten shits to their POWs

@28pbtkh23

4 жыл бұрын

That's a truly evil thing to do. Bearing that in mind, as well as the plans to execute all allied POWs, I can only conclude that the atomic bombings were absolutely necessary.

@28pbtkh23

4 жыл бұрын

Peter Rogan - that’s an excellent summary of the allies’ invasion plans and the planned Japanese response. But there are still people out there who think that the a-bombs were unnecessary. There’s no convincing some people. There have been some excellent and in-depth documentaries on this topic in the past ten years which reviewed all of the most recent research. So I reckon the case is closed. Oddly enough, I read the account of the taking of Iwo Jima in Purnell’s History of the Second World War in the 1970s. It left me stupefied as to what the Marines has to contend with. They didn’t want to go through that again.

@28pbtkh23

4 жыл бұрын

Peter Rogan - you probably already know that between the surrender of Okinawa and the planned invasion of ‘46, Curtis LeMay was planning the saturation bombing of every remaining Japanese city and large town. The death toll would have been higher than the eventual toll from the atomic bombs. In the film “The Fog of War,” Robert McNamara talks about the bombing campaign against Japan that had already been in place since the taking of Saipan and Tinian. An immense death toll was the result.

As mentioned below the RN, or should that be Fleet Air Arm, took the Corsair because the Americans didn’t want it and we were desperate. The RN found that by using a medium left hand turn they could see the deck for landing. Also to store the plane in the hanger they clipped the wings by 8 inches in order to fit. This had the benefit of making it float at touchdown! They also raised the pilots seat by 7 inches for more visibility plus wiring shut the cowl flaps on the top of the engine compartment. Also they used a bulged canopy. All little things made it easier for the pilot to land.

Japan's carriers had armored decks, how did that work out? Take any two contemporary RN carriers with British carrier aircraft and put them at Coral Sea or three carriers for Midway, how does that work out?

@stevetheduck1425

10 ай бұрын

A plane can break through a wooden deck more easily than it can a steel one. Same with a bomb from a dive-bomber. The Japanese steel carrier decks did not have kamikazes flying into them. No British carriers with planes used in 1942 went to the Pacific, so no British Midway. The clash between British carriers and Japanese carriers in the Indian Ocean, however, did happen, and the Japanese never took that ocean. Many other combinations have been wargamed, by real navies and amateurs, down the decades since then. It's worth looking up the results. For example, not attacking Pearl Harbour was the best thing the Japanese Navy could have done in WWII. Converting most of their faster battleships to carriers might even have won a short, limited war, but US production of ships like carriers outperformed every fleet in WWII.

Their Carriers were far tougher than ours! What ship was still using the Quad 1.1" at this time?

@stevetheduck1425

10 ай бұрын

Due to the kamikazes making anti-air guns enormously important, probably all of them.

Looks like HMS Carron.

It’s amazing how the story changes depending on who’s telling it. One depiction tells of how the Americans really, really, didn’t want the British there; and how they were considered a distraction.

@stevetheduck1425

10 ай бұрын

The refuelling at sea thing was part of it. The US fleet train didn't want more ships to refuel (apparently, according to some historians), but at the same time, they needed every ship they could get. British possessions in the far east like Hong Kong, etc, were recaptured, while US-controlled possessions such as the Philippines (taken in war, including the extermination of the Moro people) were also recaptured. French possessions like French Indo-China (Vietnam) were recaptured, too. Imperialists are everywhere and so are corrective historians.

Does anyone know who the were fighting don, t. know because can, t hear and it's blanked erf .🤗

51 Americans did not like this video.

With the Americans fucking around with help to supply the fleet,and Aussie dock workers doing their typical stand around and go slow its amazing that this fleet existed....why be there in the Pacific, because the map had not surrendered ....

BLAHDY! HELL! Once the Americans (who did NOT serve!) get into forum, the whole thing turns to SHIT! The silly bastards are not worth arguing with! The British DEFINITELY showed the Americans how the Corsair could be Carrier Qualified...including ESCORT carriers!!! Doug Gillard is absolutely correct with his comment (below) Not only that...the British Far East Fleet teamed up beautifully with the USS Saratoga's Task Force in the attacks on Sakishima/Palembang etc... Prefect teamwork by both TEAMS! British in Corsairs and Hellcats - Americans in Hellcats! A lot of them trained together at Pensacola...many under the watchful eye of Sara's redoubtable Air Group Commander, the 'One & only' Commander 'Whispering Joe' Clifton!! Joe had no problems with the way the Royal Navy operated in their Corsairs! In fact he was a HUGE FAN!!!

Some people actually know what they're talking about through research and history. Others pure BS and bluff.

Because America has the industry for the wars affected little is know about the rest of the country’s who Fort in the war.

@danw7008

4 жыл бұрын

No they are just self centred pricks who think they won the war..can't stand america to be honest

Why did the Kamikaze pilot have a life raft?

@rosslynstone

3 жыл бұрын

I wonder how many changed their minds,were they all volunteers?

@stevetheduck1425

10 ай бұрын

For the same reason they had parachutes, and were not screwed down in their planes, or have padlocks to keep their feet on their rudder-bars, as has been falsely said, even in this vid. They were volunteers, and were badly treated even by their own side, with faulty tactics ('one plane, one ship' didn't work, 'ignore the fighters' also didn't work).

All the corsairs got the deep 6 after the end of the war .

@12345sc1

7 жыл бұрын

corsairs were still in action in Korea and well into the '60s.

@steveb6103

7 жыл бұрын

12345sc1 The British would of had to pay for the planes at the end of the war . The USA didn't want them back . Under the lend-lease they had to dump them overboard.

@nigelmitchell351

7 жыл бұрын

Steve B. Along with all tools etc. Apparently.

@tombroscius7414

7 жыл бұрын

Steve B ..

@hifives2

7 жыл бұрын

a lot of them dumped off the coast of Sydney in late 45

So this is 1945

Yorktown Class Prewar design carriers. kzread.info/dash/bejne/lm2OrKyFfcjWe7g.html The two Yorktown's that died, died hard. Very Hard. Both the Yorktown and Hornet wrecks have been located. Despite the massive battle damage inflicted, both rest on their keels, bow to the wind ready to receive aircraft. God Bless all men who go down to the sea in ships. The HMS Ark Royal commissioned in 1938 sank after one torpedo hit from U-81. ww2today.com/13th-november-1941-hms-ark-royal-sunk ( We all learn from our failures.) War is a Hell of a thing. None of the British Carriers Operated in the Pacific theatre until late 1944-45. "The HMS Illustrious participated in the early stages of the Battle of Okinawa until mechanical defects arising from accumulated battle damage became so severe that she was ordered home early for repairs in May 1945." In early February, Victorious joined Task Force 113 (TF113) at Sydney to prepare for service with the US 5th Fleet. At the end of the month, TF113 left Sydney for their forward base at Manus Island, north of New Guinea, and then continued, joining the 5th US Fleet at Ulithi on 25 March as Task Force 57 (TF57), supporting the American assault on Okinawa. The task allocated to the British force was to neutralise airfields in the Sakishima Gunto. From late March until 25 May, the British carriers Victorious, Illustrious (later replaced by Formidable), Indefatigable and Indomitable formed the 1st Aircraft Carrier Squadron commanded by Vice Admiral Philip Vian and they were in action against airfields on the Sakishima Islands (Operations Iceberg I and Iceberg II) and Formosa (Operation Iceberg Oolong). The British carriers were attacked by kamikaze suicide aircraft and Victorious was hit on 4 and 9 May and near-missed on 1 April, but her armoured flight deck resisted the worst of the impacts. She remained on station and was back in operation within hours on each occasion, despite damage to an aircraft lift and steam piping in her superstructure. Three men were killed and 19 of the ship's company were injured. 360 ships were hit by Kamikaze in the allied invasion fleet including my Dads. List of aircraft carriers of the Royal Navy en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_of_the_Royal_Navy

If you listen to the yanks you will find we were not there

Royal Navy carriers with armoured decks. US Navy should have done the same.

Corsair, Avenger, Hellcat. De cuando la RN tuvo aviones embarcados de verdad. Y no un rejunte de trastos viejos..."" 🤓🤔

I never knew the Royal Navy flew Avengers.

@theoilandgasresourceportal2132

2 жыл бұрын

Like the Americans turning up two years after WW2 started

Poor pilot has no more plane to fly :((