USN doctrine and action if carriers are lost instead of battleships in the PH raid?

I'm not sure it was viable until about 1950-1953. I mean there were British and French experiments as early as 1920, but it was/is not easy with those propellers in the way.
That piton boom has to be kind of long and I don't thing anyone had invented a flying drogue yet.

RAF Tiger Force was to use it operationally in early 1946, it was ready. In late 1940's it was fully operational with SAC B-50's. With more effort put into development it's hard to see why it could not have been used earlier. Especially as in this hypothetical Pacific War there's even more pressing need for long range, and this would permit long-range fighters and bombers to interdict Japanese SLOC's.
 
RAF Tiger Force was to use it operationally in early 1946, it was ready. In late 1940's it was fully operational with SAC B-50's. With more effort put into development it's hard to see why it could not have been used earlier. Especially as in this hypothetical Pacific War there's even more pressing need for long range, and this would permit long-range fighters and bombers to interdict Japanese SLOC's.

Pick out a good tanker.

%27Lucky_Lady_II%22_being_refuelled_by_B-29M_45-21708_061215-F-1234S-002.jpg


MURPHY, they were crazy enough to use the looped line method?
 
Last edited:
Pick out a good tanker.

KB-29 as historically. If there's possibility for inter-service co-operation, Martin Mariner might be an interesting possibility. As for escorts, I'm fairly sure P-82 could be pressed into service sooner than OTL. Two engines, so possibility of in-flight refuelling in addition to tremendous range. Of course, if there's possibility of intra-service co-operation, if escorts are needed they could be Grumman Tigercats launched from a carrier.
 
I'm not sure it was viable until about 1950-1953. I mean there were British and French experiments as early as 1920, but it was/is not easy with those propellers in the way.
That piton boom has to be kind of long and I don't thing anyone had invented a flying drogue yet.
The “Longest Flight”


On January 1, 1929, the crew of the “Question Mark” mounted their plane and took off with 100 gallons of fuel on board plus oil — the maximum weight allowed to achieve take off. Once flying, however, the plane could carry a far greater load — with modifications, the maximum capacity had skyrocketed to 492 gallons of fuel and 45 gallons of oil. This also meant that soon after take off, the crew would have to undertake their first of many aerial refueling operations that were to come. As planned, the crew made an early appearance over the Rose Bowl Parade, during which they showed off their refueling effort, much to the amazement of the press and onlookers. That first refueling was accomplished just one hour after take off by “Refueling Aircraft No. 2″, flown by 1st Lt. Odas Moon. So far, the mission was a great success.






Atlantic-Fokker C-2A “Question Mark” refueled by Douglas C-1. Photo Credit: USAF Museum


As evening drew near, the last refueling of the day also transferred an oven-hot turkey — a special New Year’s celebration meal. The crew was also celebrating how well the mission was going so far. However, the first real difficulty happened just hours later. While undertaking a middle of the night refueling, the hose separated from the tank. Maj. Spatz, who was working with Lt. Quesada on the refueling, was bathed in fuel. Dripping, he soon realized that the fuel bath left him in a dangerous position from the toxic fuel that soaked his skin.


He stripped off his flight clothes and toweled off as best he could with oil rags, hoping that he would not have to bail out for medical care — as it happened, he was okay due to the fast action in removing his clothes. Without any additional clothing, a request was sent by note to return in the next refueling with an additional set of flight clothes — yet they didn’t come in the next mission after. Maj. Spatz performed the refueling even though still stripped down, his bare skin buffeted by the wind while balancing atop the plane in the early hours of the morning.






The “Question Mark” is refueled again; in this image, you can see Maj. Spatz’s arm reaching for the fuel hose from atop the bottom aircraft, just behind the wing. Photo Credit: USAF Museum


After that, the flight droned along incessantly. Capt. Eaker and Lt. Halvorsen did most of the flying, switching out with the others for sleep. The crew was soon bored flying the same 110-mile ‘race-track’ loop over California. They read books, played cards and sometimes rested in their bunks, hoping for a bit of sleep to pass the time more quickly. The bunks were mounted atop the two internal fuel tanks! Some wrote letters, which were sent up for mailing to the refueling planes on the sling line — that’s a different type of air mail! The refueling procedure, more or less, worked well, though Maj. Spatz was twice more partly doused with fuel when mistakes were made as was Lt. Quesada once. This turned out to be a likely occurrence given the airspeed of the two planes and the way the hose snaked around in the wind as it was lowered.


The Refueling Process


In each refueling, Maj. Spatz would climb atop the plane to pull in the hose, which was then connected to a large sloped bucket affixed to the top of the “Question Mark”. He would turn the valve and Sgt. Hooe would pump by hand as fast as he could. This transferred the fuel from the bucket to the fuel tanks. The rate of transfer was more than 1 gallon a second, so Sgt. Hooe had a lot of fast pumping to do. It seems that there was a reason, after all, that the rest of the crew, all officers, had invited a sergeant along!






Another image of the crew of the “Question Mark,” dressed in their full flight gear, including fur gloves; from left: Lt. Harry Halvorsen, Capt. Ira Eaker, Staff Sgt. Roy Hooe, Maj. Carl Spaatz (mission commander), and Lt. Elwood “Pete” Quesada.


Complications were encountered throughout the flight. The changes in weights as the fuel was transferred meant that the refueling plane above would quickly lighten (approximately 600 lbs a minute lighter!) as the fuel was transferred to the “Question Mark” which got roughly the same amount heavier, not including fuel that splashed off. The result was that the two planes would sometimes separate too far apart for the 50 foot fire hose to maintain the connection, the refueling rising and speeding up while the “Question Mark” settled and slowed down with the added weight.


Weather was also a factor, sometimes causing delays or hurry-up refueling operations due to incoming fog or developing turbulence. Finally, there was the wear-and-tear on the “Question Mark” itself, which had to run constantly and consistently throughout without failure. The temperamental engines performed well-enough, on the whole, though a cabin window blew out during the flight. It took awhile to get another one shipped in, which was lowered on the sling line and installed by the crew in flight.


Perhaps the most extraordinary risk taken during the mission was by Sgt. Hooe, who was also a rated mechanic. When one of the engines on the “Question Mark” began to have problems, he climbed out onto a catwalk hanging on the wing and serviced it in mid-flight — all without shutting down the engine.






After landing, the “Question Mark” heads toward the hangar at Metropolitan Airport, Los Angeles, California, have flown more than five days in the air. Photo Credit: USAF Museum


Success and Aftermath


When the “Question Mark” landed on January 7, 1929, it had set a record that was more than twice as long as the previous endurance record (held by a Belgian team). It would be a mark that would stand the test of time — though once aerial refueling operations became more commonplace, the record would be broken again and again in later years. Nonetheless, everyone on board the “Question Mark” was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross.


Somehow, despite the success of the mission and its obvious potential military value, the US Army (and Navy for that matter) did not see real value in continuing with aerial refueling tests. In the eyes of the top brass, the main impact of the “Question Mark” was simply to get positive publicity for the Armed Forces, which had happened, even exceeding the best hopes of the Army. As such, the War Department felt that little utility could be gained from breaking the Army’s own endurance record. Thus, aerial refueling operations were shelved for 12 years — until 1941
.
http://fly.historicwings.com/2013/01/question-mark/

And what happened to Major Carl Spatz?

In 1937, he changed his last name to Spaatz, and was later a General in the USAAF. Ran he 8thAF and then the rest of the US air forces
 

elkarlo

Banned
Without their carriers it doesn't matter what USN doctrine says. The first time the Battleships try to engage the IJN out of the range of land based fighters they'll get sunk, just like Prince of Wales and Repulse.
But they may have to do something. If the Japanese are advancing unchecked everywhere, you can't just sit there and tell the publuc, that we're waiting for more carriers, hang tight for two more years. There would be some sort of Java sea battles being done somewhere, just to check the advance.
 
The historic strike on Pearl Harbor left the USN relying on carriers to a great degree in the Pacific War, but what would the doctrine and plans look like in that war, if somehow the Japanese strike happened upon the majority of their carriers? Leaving the battleship number more or less intact.

Would carrier primacy still come into effect, by the end of the war?

https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep/Rainbow5-USN.html & http://niehorster.org/013_usa/_41_usn/_usn.html lays it out in some detail. particularly the raids conducted during the first year.
 
The Carriers will be sunk in shallow water and as long as they do not go the Oklahoma or Arizona way they are refloated ASAP and put into action around the time OTL Midway

if they were moored at ford island the depth is only about 40 feet. but they would have soaked up a lot that went into the BBs in their absence.
 
Slightly off topic, two questions for our knowledgeable group; The Sangamon class CVEs are enough known that post-war wargaming made use of the fact that these vessels had retained their tankerage and transfer equipment even though this capability was not used during the war.
1) Was this capability only that of a tanker, or were these vessels oiler capable?
2) Has there ever been an AH timeline that used these vessels' capabilities? Most interested in the answer to the 2nd question...
 
Slightly off topic, two questions for our knowledgeable group; The Sangamon class CVEs are enough known that post-war wargaming made use of the fact that these vessels had retained their tankerage and transfer equipment even though this capability was not used during the war.
1) Was this capability only that of a tanker, or were these vessels oiler capable?

2) Has there ever been an AH timeline that used these vessels' capabilities? Most interested in the answer to the 2nd question...

I would be very surprised to see that their bunkerage and fuel transfer capability was not used: as I know it was during the Torch convoys, Sangamon topping off her destroyer bodyguards. Chenango (sister ship converted to CVE) did likewise for a total of 21 destroyer refueling.

Though I have not reached it yet, I intend to illustrate the problems of slow tactical speed and being caught fuel short when I tackle the Battle of Rennell Island (see tag). These carriers were too slow and the operational way they were used in that action (Chenango specifically) was positively JAPANESE, with predictable Japanese like disastrous results.
 
Slightly off topic, two questions for our knowledgeable group; The Sangamon class CVEs are enough known that post-war wargaming made use of the fact that these vessels had retained their tankerage and transfer equipment even though this capability was not used during the war.
1) Was this capability only that of a tanker, or were these vessels oiler capable?

2) Has there ever been an AH timeline that used these vessels' capabilities? Most interested in the answer to the 2nd question...

I would be very surprised to see that their bunkerage and fuel transfer capability was not used: as I know it was during the Torch convoys, Sangamon topped off her destroyer bodyguards. Chenango (sister ship converted to CVE) did likewise for a total of 21 destroyer refueling.

Though I have not reached it yet, I intend to illustrate the problems of slow tactical speed and being caught fuel short when I tackle the Battle of Rennell Island (see tag). These carriers were too slow and the operational way they were used in that action (Chenango specifically) was positively JAPANESE, with predictable Japanese like disastrous results.
 
By your description, sounds like they were oiler capable...wasn't aware of the Torch action utilization. In my 2nd question, was wondering if anyone might have done a timeline featuring this capability, or even highlighting such...but, more oriented to the specific question of how this capability might have been optimized. This is Alternate
History
after all.
 
Some notes:

-The loss rate of the B-29 “initially” was due far more to mechanical issues than Japanese action. Why? Because at 30,000ft the Japanese had a difficult time reaching them. The problem was that at 30,000ft over Japan a full bomb drop could and often did miss the target CITY by a mile or more! So LeMay made a very unpopular decision to bring them down to 10,000ft or less for the bombing runs. Accuracy and casualties went up drastically but the former offset the latter sufficiently. A “B-36” or “B-35” dropping from high altitude is not going to do much better so unless they too come down to a reasonable altitude…

-The history of air-to-air refueling is quite fascinating and quite arguably a missed opportunity but keep in mind DESPITE a lot of work by both British and American pioneers by the outbreak of WWII the most advanced system was the British “grapple-line/looped-hose” system seen in the above photo of the B-50 “Lucky Lady II” during its record breaking around the world flight in 1949.(This was the planned system to be used for the Tiger Force Lancaster and Lincoln Bombers to refuel from Halifax tankers. In theory.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_refueling)

Note the procedure is that ‘tanker’ trails a steel cable which is shot at with a grappling hook-and-line’ by a bomber crew member hanging out hatch in the bomber. Once they grapple catches the line it’s drawn back into the bomber until the end of the fuel line in aboard and then it is manually attached to the fuel distribution system. This system was used successfully during 16 test flights in 1939 but use was deemed inefficient for the war in Europe and work suspended till it was suggested for Tiger Force.

The USAF bought some of the systems post-war and modified them so that most of the operation was automated so that they aircraft didn’t need to come down to low altitude to protect the crew from depressurization. It was not considered a ‘practical’ system though.

This was true in England as well as the system had to many drawbacks and quite obviously had no utility for smaller aircraft that lacked extra crewmembers to perform the multiple manual operations. By 1949 they had perfected the “probe-and-drogue’ system enough so that a modified Meteor fighter flew for over 12 hours in one flight taking on fuel at regular intervals during 10 rendezvous with modified Lancaster tanker aircraft. A similar system was used operationally during the Korean war by the USAF due to the number of forward bases that had been overrun. In 1948 Chief of Staff of the USAF, General Carl Spaatz, (we’ve heard of him before :) ) made air-to-air refueling research a priority which lead to the development of the flying boom system which is operationally capable of a very much higher rate of fuel than probe-and-drogue or any ‘hose’ based system.

LeMay pushed the development of the flying boom in the late 40s so one could suppose that given the distances in the Pacific and lack of carrier aviation due to the loss of the carriers at PH he and Spaatz come to the conclusion that the technology is required sooner rather than later. Fighters can have probes located outside the propeller arc, (the F-84s that used the probe-and-drogue system in Korea had probes on one outboard wing tank for example) though pilot fatigue is a major factor.

Pushing it forward as noted the “grapple/hose” system is available in a usable form by 1939 but it still needs work to be operationally usable. Then there’s the infrastructure and added aircraft needed for ‘tankers’ and most island airfields didn’t have the infrastructure and/or logistics to handle very many large aircraft till much later in the war. (Your ratio tends to be about one tanker per four large aircraft with the majority of your fuel going to the fourth aircraft since it was the last one in line. Keep in mind your first aircraft is now burned off a good percentage of the fuel you transferred due to have to wait on that fourth aircraft)

I’ve done some notes on an ‘advanced’ WWII timeline outline where as part of this the then Major Spaatz is relaxing at home after the “Question Mark” mission only to notice some hummingbirds and get a wild idea…

Randy
 
Some notes:

-The loss rate of the B-29 “initially” was due far more to mechanical issues than Japanese action. Why? Because at 30,000ft the Japanese had a difficult time reaching them. The problem was that at 30,000ft over Japan a full bomb drop could and often did miss the target CITY by a mile or more! So LeMay made a very unpopular decision to bring them down to 10,000ft or less for the bombing runs. Accuracy and casualties went up drastically but the former offset the latter sufficiently. A “B-36” or “B-35” dropping from high altitude is not going to do much better so unless they too come down to a reasonable altitude…

-The history of air-to-air refueling is quite fascinating and quite arguably a missed opportunity but keep in mind DESPITE a lot of work by both British and American pioneers by the outbreak of WWII the most advanced system was the British “grapple-line/looped-hose” system seen in the above photo of the B-50 “Lucky Lady II” during its record breaking around the world flight in 1949.(This was the planned system to be used for the Tiger Force Lancaster and Lincoln Bombers to refuel from Halifax tankers. In theory.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_refueling)

Note the procedure is that ‘tanker’ trails a steel cable which is shot at with a grappling hook-and-line’ by a bomber crew member hanging out hatch in the bomber. Once they grapple catches the line it’s drawn back into the bomber until the end of the fuel line in aboard and then it is manually attached to the fuel distribution system. This system was used successfully during 16 test flights in 1939 but use was deemed inefficient for the war in Europe and work suspended till it was suggested for Tiger Force.

The USAF bought some of the systems post-war and modified them so that most of the operation was automated so that they aircraft didn’t need to come down to low altitude to protect the crew from depressurization. It was not considered a ‘practical’ system though.

This was true in England as well as the system had to many drawbacks and quite obviously had no utility for smaller aircraft that lacked extra crewmembers to perform the multiple manual operations. By 1949 they had perfected the “probe-and-drogue’ system enough so that a modified Meteor fighter flew for over 12 hours in one flight taking on fuel at regular intervals during 10 rendezvous with modified Lancaster tanker aircraft. A similar system was used operationally during the Korean war by the USAF due to the number of forward bases that had been overrun. In 1948 Chief of Staff of the USAF, General Carl Spaatz, (we’ve heard of him before :) ) made air-to-air refueling research a priority which lead to the development of the flying boom system which is operationally capable of a very much higher rate of fuel than probe-and-drogue or any ‘hose’ based system.

LeMay pushed the development of the flying boom in the late 40s so one could suppose that given the distances in the Pacific and lack of carrier aviation due to the loss of the carriers at PH he and Spaatz come to the conclusion that the technology is required sooner rather than later. Fighters can have probes located outside the propeller arc, (the F-84s that used the probe-and-drogue system in Korea had probes on one outboard wing tank for example) though pilot fatigue is a major factor.

Pushing it forward as noted the “grapple/hose” system is available in a usable form by 1939 but it still needs work to be operationally usable. Then there’s the infrastructure and added aircraft needed for ‘tankers’ and most island airfields didn’t have the infrastructure and/or logistics to handle very many large aircraft till much later in the war. (Your ratio tends to be about one tanker per four large aircraft with the majority of your fuel going to the fourth aircraft since it was the last one in line. Keep in mind your first aircraft is now burned off a good percentage of the fuel you transferred due to have to wait on that fourth aircraft)

I’ve done some notes on an ‘advanced’ WWII timeline outline where as part of this the then Major Spaatz is relaxing at home after the “Question Mark” mission only to notice some hummingbirds and get a wild idea…

Randy

What he said, with this emphasis; I still do not see either probe and drogue and / or flying boom happening much before 1950. I would think that the development of an active flight dynamic dampening autopilot for either the tanker or the receiver aircraft would be a given?

By your description, sounds like they were oiler capable...wasn't aware of the Torch action utilization. In my 2nd question, was wondering if anyone might have done a timeline featuring this capability, or even highlighting such...but, more oriented to the specific question of how this capability might have been optimized. This is Alternate
History
after all.

I do not know about others, but in the timeline to which I contribute, it has been and is necessary to explain US operations after Japanese aviation sinks the supporting tanker force in Coral Sea. And has been shown to my satisfaction, the RN did it too from 1942 forward, not 1944 as I originally ignorantly supposed.

At what time in 1946 does the starvation become political?

RTL; the catastrophe would begin as soon as B-29s can begin to mine the Japanese ports. 2-4 million Japanese civilians were materially affected by food shortages as early as August 1945. Mass deaths from famine could come as early as December 1945. Winter of 45-46, MacArthur's biggest problem was clearing mines and getting enough foodstuffs from overseas to Japan to prevent the deaths of 5-8 million Japanese.
 
Last edited:
I just want to say that the “Question Mark” flight of 1929 is a ATL POD waiting to happen. The original commanders of the Eighth Air Force, the commander of the Ninth Air Force and the man who led the first Ploesti raid (HALPRO Project) all on one mission!
In think the idea of aerial refueling will remain on the back burner. I think the US will prioritize retaking the Marianas. Both MacArthur and Nimitz will be tasked with making a Marianas invasion happen in the spring/summer 1944 to coincide with Overlord. Big Mac’s return to the Philippines will have to wait until 1945, no excuses. Nimitz will be told to forget Formosa.
 
Top