The United States Navy in a Fortress North America/Luft '46 Scenario

Delta Force

Banned
This thread is a follow up to the B-36 Raids in a Fortress North America/Luft '46 Scenario thread. While the B-36 and even B-29 could be used to attack Europe in a Fortress North America/Luft '46 scenario, the United States Navy would probably want a role for itself too. Navy operated Hughes H-4 Spruce Goose type aircraft could be used to provide refueling for USAAF bombers on a regular or emergency basis, but the Navy would probably want to do something larger. Seaplane bombers and operations from dedicated strategic aircraft carriers such as the United States class seem likely, but are there any other options the Navy could pursue?

Also, what would the Navy do for the invasion/liberation of Europe? Would it essentially be a European version of the Operation Downfall strategy that would have been used to invade Japan? Is there anywhere that could be used as a frontal base for it, such as the Azores?
 
Pretty sure the Navy would push hard for the USS United States class heavy carrier instead

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_United_States_(CVA-58)

the ship that caused the "Revolt of the Admirals" would be a heavy favorite for power projection, especially as it can operate aircraft twice the weight of a B17 and the North American AJ Savage was designed specifically for the role of carrier based atomic bomb strike aircraft

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_AJ_Savage

A CV battle group with a United States, a Midway, and a couple of Essex with proper escorts provides plenty of jet and prop escort fighters, plus the required ASW aircraft for sea control and would get a squadron of atomic strike aircraft within a couple of hundred miles of the hostile coastline while being hard to target in return (as that fleet moves around at 30 knots)

Basically the Cold War era task force
 
When you look at the size of the American Navy in 1945 and the way it was organised their was no need for a forward base .

US Carrier force say December 1945 .

2 Midway class carriers. 120 aircraft each (240)

24 Essex class carriers , (likely to be more as cancelled carriers would still be built . (90 aircraft each , (36 fighter , 36 dive bomber , 18 torpedo bomber )(2160)

9 Independence class carriers 34 aircraft each (24 fighters , 8-10 bombers)(306)

2 Saipan class carrier . 42 aircraft (18 fighter , 12 dive , 12 torpedo) (84)

50 Casablanca escort carrier 28 aircraft each (1400)

45 Bogue class escort carrier approx. 20 aircraft (900)

19 commencement bay escort carrier 34 aircraft each . (646)

In addition to all these carriers was the supply chain and escorts to make it work .

If half the big carriers are in action and half the escort carriers are covering the supply lines to keep the carriers in action well .
At any point in time the US navy can put 1000 aircraft over a target and totally destroy it . and their not even trying hard to do that . If every carrier was brought forward their are 5756 aircraft . over a third are fighters in fact more like 4/9th's are fighters
. This makes more then 2000 fighters . that's more then the entire Luftwaffe fighter strength at any point in ww2 .In fact the US navy alone had on carriers more aircraft then the entire Luftwaffe at it's peak .

So in answering the question the US Navy would provide escort , strike and other roles .
 
The initial order for Midways was 6 carriers, so you'd probably see those, along with all 32 Essex class and a half dozen Saipans.
 
and the strike aircraft would include the the AD1 Skyraider (same bomb load as a B17) as the standard strike aircraft (can carry 2 torpedoes or a lot of bombs), the AM1 Mauler as an ECM aircraft, the Corsair as a fighter bomber, and pretty quickly the FH Phantom and then F2H Banshee, all of which can operate off a Midway and all but the Mauler can routinely operate off an Essex

with TBMs and Corsairs for the escort and light carriers

this would be hard to defend against as the German jet interceptor squadrons can't be everywhere, and are going to be more critically focused on dealing with the USAF super heavy bombers
 
In the 1940's jets were huge fuel hogs...anything the Luftwaffe could realistically have in 1946-47 even if right on the French coast is not going far out to sea.
 

Delta Force

Banned
Would joint operations be an option? The Navy could help escort USAAF bombers over enemy territory, and Navy bombers could help hit a wider array of targets to spread out enemy defenses. If operations are coordinated, the Navy could strike somewhere else while the USAAF goes in to put pressure on enemy defenses, or it could lead the way for the USAAF with tactical strikes to help the strategic bombers get through.
 
Would joint operations be an option? The Navy could help escort USAAF bombers over enemy territory, and Navy bombers could help hit a wider array of targets to spread out enemy defenses. If operations are coordinated, the Navy could strike somewhere else while the USAAF goes in to put pressure on enemy defenses, or it could lead the way for the USAAF with tactical strikes to help the strategic bombers get through.

absolutely they would, especially once losses started to climb

as it is the bombers would be depending on the fleet for rescue ships, weather ships, and for that matter, navigation assistance
 
Because of the fuel limitations of jets, any Luftwaffe attacks on major US units will need to be by prop aircraft. The US won't send carriers within jet range, smaller ships for patrols/raids sure. Against the USN with both regular and escort carriers, radar equipped 9even without AEW) long range recon aircraft are toast, and the Luftwaffe never had many of these, and the Condor, the only long range land plane, was really unsuitable.

BTW, US subs based in Azores, Iceland, Canaries will make life miserable for any Axis shipping in the Eastern Atlantic and may see some subs go from Iceland to North Sea, even sneak in to Baltic. Likewise occasional Med sneakers will be a pain and divert resources of the Axis.
 
and all but the Mauler can routinely operate off an Essex

AM-1 taking off from USS Kearsarge

616px-AM-1_VA-174_carquals_CV-33_1949.jpg


Just make sure the landing barrier is up.

Still, a single engine bomber that could loft 10,000 pounds for a thousand miles would have been worth it in heavy combat operations
 
another thing to consider... American naval flak is extremely deadly, and after dealing with the Japanese, the widespread adoption of the 3 inch / 50 to replace the 40 mm mounts would have made it even deadlier. This gun fired 50 rounds a minute (and is still in use by the way), rounds equipped with proximity shells. The standard 5 inch / 38 usually got off 15-22 rounds a minute as well (also with proximity shells)

Japanese losses to American flak were on the scale of horrifying (a major reason for switching to Kamikaze tactics) so even German jet bombers are going to face serious losses taking on the American fleet with that kind of firepower, not even accounting for fighter interception.

A major US fleet could probably operate pretty close to European shores for an extended period and suffer acceptable losses while dealing out massive damage to anything within range.

American ECM was pretty effective as well so even the German guided bombs will have issues
 
Boeing was working on the XF-8B which, while it didn't have the pure payload of the Mauler, could fly for 2800 miles, with 6400lbs or 2 torpedos. First Flight Nov44.

It was also called the "5-in-1" because it could perform all roles needed by a carrier wing: (fighter, interceptor, dive bomber, torpedo bomber, or level bomber)



XF8B-I_%28US_Navy%29.jpg
 
Boeing was working on the XF-8B which, while it didn't have the pure payload of the Mauler, could fly for 2800 miles, with 6400lbs or 2 torpedos. First Flight Nov44.

It was also called the "5-in-1" because it could perform all roles needed by a carrier wing: (fighter, interceptor, dive bomber, torpedo bomber, or level bomber)



XF8B-I_%28US_Navy%29.jpg

American carrier aviation is the world standard for a reason

also, what a beautiful aircraft
 
In terms of the invasion I think they'd be looking at Ireland followed by Great Britain proper as initial forward basing. If Iceland were occupied that would be a pretty likely spot as well, if not it's almost certain to be used for forward basing of strategic forces.

That said, I really wonder how likely an opposed invasion would be at all. I tend to suspect that we the most likely response would be a combination of TBOverse with closer to historical early SAC tactics.
 

Delta Force

Banned
In terms of the invasion I think they'd be looking at Ireland followed by Great Britain proper as initial forward basing. If Iceland were occupied that would be a pretty likely spot as well, if not it's almost certain to be used for forward basing of strategic forces.

That said, I really wonder how likely an opposed invasion would be at all. I tend to suspect that we the most likely response would be a combination of TBOverse with closer to historical early SAC tactics.

There might be some hesitation to carpet bomb occupied Europe though, as opposed to Germany and its allies. They aren't really the enemy, and the war would already be tremendously expensive if Europe has been lost, so bombing it back to the Stone Age would cripple the world economy for decades.
 

Delta Force

Banned
Could Navy task forces and battle groups be used to create naval bastions in in the middle of the ocean where LORAN transmitters and perhaps even naval refueling and rearming barges on the scale of floating air and naval bases could be located? An aircraft flying across the Atlantic that was unable to meet up with its refueling aircraft or suffered mechanical failure or battle damage could safely recover at a floating air base instead of bailing out over the ocean.

However, it seems likely that some aircraft would still go down off the enemy coastline. Would/could the Navy develop techniques to rescue air crews forced down well within enemy air cover?
 
Could Navy task forces and battle groups be used to create naval bastions in in the middle of the ocean where LORAN transmitters and perhaps even naval refueling and rearming barges on the scale of floating air and naval bases could be located? An aircraft flying across the Atlantic that was unable to meet up with its refueling aircraft or suffered mechanical failure or battle damage could safely recover at a floating air base instead of bailing out over the ocean.

However, it seems likely that some aircraft would still go down off the enemy coastline. Would/could the Navy develop techniques to rescue air crews forced down well within enemy air cover?

The North Atlantic is mightier than any permanent floating bases available to the technology of that era (or for that matter, this era). Besides, the Azores are handy and for that matter the Canary Islands are too.

US refueling techniques and the massive fleet train available don't require bases like that anyway.

Submarines with air cover can probably do a lot of the air sea rescue mission offshore, but rescue missions on the hostile shore are going to be at best risky as hell
 
Could Navy task forces and battle groups be used to create naval bastions in in the middle of the ocean where LORAN transmitters and perhaps even naval refueling and rearming barges on the scale of floating air and naval bases could be located? An aircraft flying across the Atlantic that was unable to meet up with its refueling aircraft or suffered mechanical failure or battle damage could safely recover at a floating air base instead of bailing out over the ocean.

1945, UK test of the 'Lily' landing Pad

http://www.criticalpast.com/video/6...cy-landing-field_Lily-Pond_hexagonal-segments

US inventor Edward Armstrong wanted to build 'Seadromes' across the Atlantic

http://blog.modernmechanix.com/seadromes-to-dot-the-atlantic-ocean/#more

http://blog.modernmechanix.com/floating-airports-on-link-continents/
 
Last edited:
Top