Stanley Farquhar 16:33 served with my grandfather W.G. Batham. They knew each other well and flew Hellcats together at Okinawa. When Stanley left Indomitable and returned home in August 1945 he gave all his gramophone records to my grandfather, who then was dismayed to find someone had taken them. He eventually tracked them down in a store room and enjoyed listening to Stanleys music collection as Indomitable sailed to Hong Kong and then home. Stanley and my grandfather also took shore leave together, staying as guests of the Robbie family who ran the bank of New South Wales in Ryde near Sydney. Amazing to hear this man’s voice having read so much about him in my grandfathers letters.

My father was radar officer aboard HMS Emperor from September '43 to January '45, and used to have great stories of Hellcat operations.

Although the thread is at times hard to follow, it's wonderful to have these voices preserved and presented with context of maps and contemporary photos. Spectacular. Definitely worth the sub.

Thank you for preserving the memory of these honorable gents.

Always love to hear the voices of the men who were actually there.

My grandfather was an aircraft mechanic on Hellcats on Indomitable, pacific fleet. L. Cook.

Just splendid. Oh, to hear the voices of these sailors and pilots, all the voices now stilled. (At the mention of hundreds of Hellcats and Avengers going after a target in Malaya, I think of the men interviewed in another Armoured Carrier "episode", one about meeting the IJN's Zero while defending Malaya and Java in 1941 and early 1942. "If only...") Just paused at about 9:00 as a narrator mentions, humbly, turning to meet a Japanese (Army?) fighter, "We had a go and I managed to get behind him..." and "He must not have been very good...of course, neither was I, but I got behind him..."

Just a minor point for an excellent film. The term 'pilot offficer' is regularly used in these films. This is actually an RAF rank. In the FAA you would only use his actual rank, ie Sub Lieutenant, Lieutenant etc. As ex FAA myself I always get miffed when it looks like the RAF are once again trying to hog the limelight!!!

@tim7052

Жыл бұрын

Larry Jeram-Croft: I think in using RAF ranks it was only to inform the masses who don't know anything about FAA pilot/rank structure. 👍

@nemo6686

Жыл бұрын

I know it's probably not the reason here, but weren't RAF pilots also assigned to carriers on occasion?

@larryjeram-croft1692

Жыл бұрын

@Ne mo Nowadays very much so even back in the sixties but not really in WW2.

@allangibson8494

8 ай бұрын

Both RAF and FAA pilots operated off carriers during WW2. The FAA was formally part of the RAF and not RN until mid 1939. During WW2 30% of the FAA pilots were RAF and 70% RN. The RAF pilots were given courtesy commissions by the RN. All the pilots were trained by the RAF in WW2.

This channel has some of the best first person accounts.

Seventy Hellcats and boxes of spare engines disposed of over the bow. Dare I say it; a sign of things to come in the post-war economy? Thanks for posting.

@nemo6686

Жыл бұрын

You mean like handing Whittle's plans to the Soviets so they could build the MiG-15?

An excellent program on an utterly forgotten campaign of World War 2. It is a shame that the Greatest Generation is now lost to the ages..

Probably the best military history channel on KZread.

Yes!!!💪🏻 love this channel

There's a similar "aircraft graveyard" where Lend-Lease aircraft were simply pushed off the aircraft carriers straight into the sea off Sydney Heads.

"he didn't believe in weaving, so they shot him down"

@manmonkee

2 жыл бұрын

I saw an interview with a Spitfire pilot who flew his Spit in a slight skew, It'd be slightly pointing away from the direction he'd be going. He got bounced a few times and of course they'd fire ahead of the plane and his skew gave them the wrong sense of his direction. Weaving or skewing? :)

"The Germans were leaving and we were trying to help them"- Wonderful.

@alantoon5708

2 жыл бұрын

A typically British understatement..

@redskindan78

2 жыл бұрын

I loved that comment.

You owe us for 70 Lend Lease Hellcats, but otherwise another great and finely detailed video. Now, you could always charge us back for radar and teaching us how to land Corsairs on carriers.

@daniellastuart3145

Жыл бұрын

it would be nice if the USA paid it depts.

@redskindan78

Жыл бұрын

Ah, but the rule in Lend-Lease was that anything "used-up" or lost or damaged or worn out was considered to have been lost in a common defense of the US as well as Britain, Australia, and New Zealand. No charge. The charge was only for whatever the RN wanted to keep after the war, and then at some heavy discount...maybe 10 or 20% of production cost. FDR's explanation in early 1941: "If your neighbor's house is on fire, you lend him you garden hose and hope your own house does not catch fire, as well".

Chucking seventy brand new planes over the side? Great video as usual.

finally a little bit about hellcats vs germans

Love the channel 👍👍

Very interesting stuff. Thanks

as a Yank, I learned a lot about the American side of the Pacific war. Enjoying learning about the Brits' adventures!

Very interesting, thank you.

Extraordinary that a fellow could have flown the F6F in combat and then pronounces it as unsuitable for use as a fighter. The Hellcat was responsible for more destroyed Japanese aircraft than any other type by an enormous margin and was superior to the Zero if not flown stupidly. Its greatest strength in combat was that it made even average pilots deadly. Perhaps our friend wasn't in the top 80 percent of fighter pilots.

Also what a sad end to the hellcats with the lend lease situation

The Hellcat had a 19 to 1 kill ratio over the Zero. It was the Wildcat that had a problem with the Zero.

I'm really surprised by how low the number of subs.... fantastic channel content man..👍

Dumping 70 brand new aircraft over the side? Welcome to bureaucracy 101.

70 new Hellcats going over the side...... Ouch

Brits had armored decks. I'm surprised by all the hits they said they took. But those decks apparently weren't penetrated. ..A couple of ours were only saved by some amazing damage control by the whole crews. Okinawa was a damned dangerous place to be, land or sea.

Well done! Identifying the type of aircraft that attacked you by the shape of the scuff it left on your ship!

Chucking brand new aircraft and engines overboard isn't just a lend lease thing. At the end of the war brand new Tempests were being built and immediately scrapped, even battleships went from construction yard to scrap yard, brand new crated Spitfires just dumped. Yes it's a terrible waste but that's what war is, a terrible waste. When I was a kid I remember seeing a scrap yard full of tanks and steam trains that were still waiting to be cut up for scrap. The scrap aircraft full of aluminium and other valuable rare metals had already been melted down, probably to re appear as Land Rovers or Alloy wheels ! Today your ten year old Ford probably reincarnated as a Chinese fridge freezer that won't last three years .

An explanation on why 70 Hellcats were jettisoned overboard: Under the terms of the Lend-Lease program, under which the RN acquired the planes, when the war ended, the planes had to be either paid for in full or returned to the U.S. It was easier just to dump them overboard. We did not need them back and Britain did not need to pay for them..

@yes_head

2 жыл бұрын

I'm surprised that they didn't at least try to sell them to some other country like Brazil.

@fantabuloussnuffaluffagus

2 жыл бұрын

@@yes_head There were plenty of Hellcats in the States for that, after WW2 the US was literally giving them away. Can't sell what someone else is giving away.

@yes_head

2 жыл бұрын

@@fantabuloussnuffaluffagus The thought of just chucking Hellcats into the sea makes me think "All those beautiful P&W engines." But I guess it does just show how insanely fast aviation technology was advancing in the mid 1940s.

@agustinenzoa4447

Жыл бұрын

It also shows the total lack of consideration from the Brits about the environment! I hope my teenage sons and their friends don´t learn about this lol

@redskindan78

Жыл бұрын

I think the British could have purchased them for about 10% or 20% of production cost, but that a quibbling detail. But the RN was tinkering with improvements to the SeaFire, and both RN and USN were testing out jets. And after Japan surrendered, there was no other country with a large navy to worry either US or Britain.

13:42 Never engage a Zero in a dogfight (except if you're in another Zero). And the Spit couldnt match it either. The only ways were zoom & boom or pairs/4's doing the Weave or anything with speed. IF you could hit the zero, a sharpened potato would do, it would probably catch fire.

@shawnjohnson9763

2 жыл бұрын

Hellcats killed more Zeros than any other plane. They could out climb them and were faster and tougher. The best way to kill the Zeros was to engage them vertically. By 1944, they were terrified of the Hellcats. Honestly, when he said that he ducked into a cloud it made me sick. This man should have been flying dive bombers instead of wasting one the best fighter aircraft in WWII hiding from the enemy.

@aztronomy7457

2 жыл бұрын

@@shawnjohnson9763 ........

@stevewhite3424

2 жыл бұрын

@@shawnjohnson9763 So what plane did you fly in combat?

@redskindan78

Жыл бұрын

@@shawnjohnson9763 Although the best Japanese pilots had been killed off by later 1943, when the Hellcat, and the Essex-class carriers, arrived. Wildcats, or, rather, trained USN aviators using good tactics, did the killing. Especially during the Guadalcanal campaign. Offhand, I think the Wildcat had a great "kill-ratio" against the Japanese. Point well-made, though, that the pilot might not have wanted to hide in a cloud. However -- I can't remember -- was that the pilot who landed with much of his rudder and elevator shot away?

Lend Lease ended so the British said, “We’ll show you”.

Marvellous footage and commentary. To the 15 thumbs down. Piss off.

Seemed like a waste of 70 brand new Hellcats

@alantoon5708

2 жыл бұрын

Under Lend Lease, the planes would either have to been returned or paid for in full. It was easier just to dump them into the sea.

@redskindan78

2 жыл бұрын

As Alan Toon, mentions, the British would have had to pay for the Hellcats. Lend-Lease was a way to get around the neutralist "America First" members of Congress. They were convinced that the "wily" British and French had tricked the US into joining WW1, and they were determined to keep the US out of the new "European" war. They passed a "cash and carry" law that required the parties top the war to pay cash for armaments and to carry those armaments in their own ships across the Atlantic. FDR and the Democrats were equally convinced that Hitler and fascism was a threat to murder the entire world, and, during the summer of 1940, the Roosevelt and Churchill governments worked out ways for the US to become "the arsenal of democracy". First, under the old Neutrality Law, FDR "traded" the RN fifty Wickes-class and Clemson-class destroyers, designed twenty years earlier to fight the next Battle of Jutland, in return for the "right" of the US to defend and improve what had been British bases in the Atlantic. By March, 1941, Roosevelt and supporters had convinced Americans to support Lend-Lease on grounds that Hitler had set the world on fire, and that the European fire might soon spread to North America. Terms were, roughly, that for the duration of the war, the US would give anything it could. Any bullet fired, or tank damaged, or aircraft shot down, or ship damaged or sunk was considered to have been "used up" in a fight that defended the US as Britain. Congress set terms that anything Britain (and the Commonwealth in general) wanted to keep after the war would be charged about 10% of the cost to produce it. It made more sense for the RN to dump these Hellcats. (Incidentally, the USN and USAAF junked many planes rather than drag them home from the Pacific. The RN returned the escort carriers shown here, and the US scrapped them and moth-balled most of its own CVEs.)

@TrickiVicBB71

2 жыл бұрын

@@redskindan78 that k you for the detailed explanation. Lend Leased taught in Canada is just Britain traded some bases for 50 destroyers but that is it. No explanation on anything else

@fantabuloussnuffaluffagus

2 жыл бұрын

@@redskindan78 Thanks for the explanation, off to do some reading on lend lease now.

Still looking for accounts of Wildcats, Hellcats or Corsairs against Luftwaffe land based fighters. Didn't seem to have happened very often. Eric "Winkle" Brown's actions in the Wildcat (or Martlet) were against the FW200 Kondor.

Gotta wonder if that armored plate over the avgas came with the escort carrier (built in the USA) or was put in by the Brits. Great channel either way.

@agustinenzoa4447

Жыл бұрын

it was stock, factory made. All of them were armor plated and with self sealing petrol tanks.

@WarblesOnALot

Жыл бұрын

@@agustinenzoa4447 G'day, Bullshit, matey. Ten feet tall And Wall to wall... AmeriKan DOCTRINE was that Maritime Gun Duels were passe, so all the US Carriers had WOODEN Decks..., whereas the Royal Navy remembered the Jutland Battle, and German Naval Gunnery....; so all British-Built Carriers had ARMOUR-PLATED Flight-Decks - proof against 8-Inch Naval Guns, delivering Plunging Fire ... It was the Armoured Flight Decks which made Kamikazes bounce off British Carriers, whereas they punched straight through the US Carriers' Wooden Decks. Meanwhile, NO Aircraft Carriers had "Self-Sealing Fuel Tanks ...; which were only used in AIRCRAFT, and comprised of Flexible Bladders with Walls of 3 layers - 2 of cured (Vulcanised) Rubber sandwiching a central layer of Raw Latex. Gunshots or Shrapnel hitting the Airframe, and the Tank..., will go through all 3 layers, and when the Avgas contacted the Latex they reacted chemically, coagulating the Latex and "sealing" the leaky Bullet Hole. That does NOT "Up-Scale" to Aircraft Carrier Aviation Fuel Storage Tanks... My guess is that Armour Plating over the Avgas Storage Tanks might well be a Royal Naval Retrofit...; because the US Shipbuilders could not imagine any "designated Enemy " (Any Me ?) ever landing an actual "Hit" on any Vessel they were building.... Such is life, Have a good one... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !

@redskindan78

Жыл бұрын

The armor over the ship's aviation gas was probably standard. (Even the Japanese carriers, those, that exploded and burned at Midway, had some protection for their avgas) It did not, however, protect an escort carrier from naval gunfire or a bomb hit. See the Battle off Samar, for instance.

@JS-fe8sx

Жыл бұрын

@@redskindan78 My guess is he was asking about the aircraft armored plate, not the ship. In the case of the battle off Samar, it was battleship and cruiser fire against escort carriers, never intended to defend itself against a surface attack. Another example being HMS Glorius and two escorts being sunk by Scarnhorst and Gneisenau.

There was no point in building more "covered wagons". The Midway's strength deck was the flight deck; that's been the equation since World War II.

@redskindan78

2 жыл бұрын

USN designers of the Essex-class carriers recognized that an armored (my spelling) flight-deck was an advantage, but calculated that a carrier would then have to be wider, deeper, heavier. Pretty much the late-war Midway-class. Of course, the USN looked carefully over "Illustrious" and "Formidable" as those battered ships were repaired at Norfolk. The main issue for the USN was that it -- we -- expected to fight Japan all over the Pacific, and that carrier-strikes would be vital. The USN wanted the largest possible air group. So did the Japanese. Both navies believed that the first to find and strike would win. The RN assumed they would fight within the Mediterranean or in the North Sea against the German and Italian navies that had no carriers, but did, unfortunately (for the Allies) have "unsinkable" air bases all around. Even worse when the French surrendered...

@jamesbohlman4297

2 жыл бұрын

@@redskindan78 the Essexes were vulnerable to guided munitions by 1944, but with this in mind, I find it incredible how well they served the interest of World peace with Lexington being retired in the early 1980's.

@jameswebb4593

Жыл бұрын

You almost lost the Forrestal in 1967 due to a misfire . Crew members pushing bombs over the side. The ship was very lucky to survive.

@jamesbohlman4297

Жыл бұрын

@@jameswebb4593 that liquid-oxygen set-up would have put the "Forest Fire" on the bottom had it gone up. My uncle was on the Yorktown, which, with it's complement of A-4 Skyhawks, was a thing of beauty.

Did the FAA use the same tatics as the US Navy when engaging the Japenese and achieve the same kill ratio's, 19 to 1 against all types of aircraft engaged ? Also was there any liaison between the two services on how to get the best out of the Hellcat ?

I had no idea the F6F operated outside the pacific. What was their combat rating vs the Messerscmitt?

@csjrogerson2377

2 жыл бұрын

Some studies were done between F4U/F6F-3/FW190-A4 and F6F/ME109G-6. Pro and cons for each and not much in it but depends on which Mks and fighting each other at the time. FW190 and ME109 faster in level flight, climb and acceleration. F6F turn faster and loop faster. More rugged. Slightly better armed. Better GA aircraft.

@redskindan78

Жыл бұрын

Eric Brown compares some of these aircraft as if they were fighting each other. However, most fighting was decided by the mission. That is, fighters defended strike aircraft, such as torpedo and dive bombers, to the targets and back. Combat air patrol (CAP) defended the task force against enemy strike aircraft. Even when fighter escorts and CAP came in contact there was not so much dog-fighting. In the Pacific, for instance, the USN fighter pilots learned quickly that they could slaughter the Japanese A5M, the predecessor to the Zero, but, just as fast, learned never to dog-fight with the Zero. Instead, pilots would dive, fire, climb away, and set up to make another diving attack. Drachinifel has a long discussion with someone who has studied fighter tactics, and it appears that mostly the Japanese pilots did the same. From my reading on the Battle of Britain, it appears that fighters behaved the same way in Europe, although the German pilots then hated to be tied to their bombers, and often pretended to be "hunters" wandering around to count kills. The RAF thought of that as amateurish. From that, it looks like fighter pilots did not often fight one-to-one, so the individual qualities of the aircraft did not matter as much as accurate gunnery and good tactics. John B. Lundstrom, in "The First Team", covers fighter tactics in 1942 in the Pacific. Especially look at his first volume, "From Pearl Harbor to Midway", as he covers lessons learned at Coral Sea and Midway.

70 brand-new Hellcats tossed over the side. And to think they weren't even made in China.

Does anyone further information about when the chap says at 11:00ish minutes, his best friend was taken prisoner of war. Then transported to singapore, and beheaded after the war?

@ArmouredCarriers

Жыл бұрын

It's a very controversial incident. From memory it involved several FAA crews. I think it is mentioned in Hobbs' The British Pacific Fleet.

So, instead of just letting them keep them brand new beautiful bad ass fighters, they just shoved them into the ocean.. I'm sick now.. Very interesting to hear from the veterans, their memories..

What accent is that?

@ggarlick46

2 жыл бұрын

Sounds like Dorset, south west England.

What was the reason to destroy the 70 Hellcats?

@ArmouredCarriers

Жыл бұрын

Money. And politics. Lend-Lease gave a deadline after the cessasion of hostilities for the British to get rid of any "loaned" aircraft, or pay for them. And the US didn't want them back. And Britain was bankrupt after five years of war and the bombing of its cities and infrastructure.

@David-wk6md

Жыл бұрын

@@ArmouredCarriers Thank you. That's stupid. "If you keep them, you have to pay for them but we don't want them back". I don't know how much it would have cost to warehouse them but just think if we had them all right now.

@redskindan78

Жыл бұрын

@@David-wk6md That provision was written into the original Lend-Lease Act, developed as FDR was beating down neutralist opponents who were shouting that Roosevelt would "drag" the US into a war in Europe. The Act was passed about March, 1941. However, I think it allowed the British to buy whatever they wanted at a large discount. Both the RN and USN were testing new jet fighters, though, so the Hellcat was nearing the end of its usefulness. About that time, the USN retired the Dauntless dive-bomber and would soon retire the Curtis Helldiver. Grumman had begun building the next-generation Bearcat, a prop-driven fighter, but nobody needed it. Ships were scrapped, mothballed, or taken out to the Pacific as targets for the A-Bomb.

Gotta love warplane nerds decrying the tragedy of dumping 70 war machines overboard after a worldwide war that killed 75 million people.

@stevewhite3424

2 жыл бұрын

No worries, there were far better war machines coming down the pipeline.

11:30 What? murdered after the war ended? Head of many crimes against the allies that were never prosecuted nut not that one.

@redskindan78

Жыл бұрын

Watching this again a year later, my blood boils.

Article V The Government of the United Kingdom will return to the United States of America at the end of the present emergency, as determined by the President, such defense articles transferred under this Agreement as shall not have been destroyed, lost or consumed and as shall be determined by the President to be useful in the defense of the United States of America or of the Western Hemisphere or to be otherwise of use to the United States of America. Avalon Project A Decade of American Foreign Policy 1941-1949 Master Lend-Lease Agreement page

Poor sound quality, irrelevant pics.

@dillank3240

Жыл бұрын

Well these voices weren't recorded recently. All these men are long passed away now.

@redskindan78

Жыл бұрын

Great sound quality and relevant video. Nobody had thought to film every story told forty years later, by these heroes. Armoured Carrier has done a superb job, and probably a tedious one, of assembling video that illustrates something like what the pilots are talking about. Take a look at "Victory at Sea", broadcast about 1952. They had the same problem: see that its editors and researchers often had to find film that, like Armoured Carrier, illustrated action that the show narrated. And Victory at Sea was so much closer in time and started with material that the USN found for Samuel Eliot Morrison's "History of US Naval Operations in WW2".