# Hellcats and carrier



## Jantor (4 Nov 2005)

Hello everyone,

  In the book "Aces Warriors and Wingman" by Wayne Ralph, he mentions something in part twelve that I've never heard or read before and I was wondering if it was fact or fiction. He related a story that the Canadian govt rejected an offer of fifty Grumman Hellcats and an Essex class carrier to fly them from. A no-conditions donation no less, in 1946. If that's true, what were their reasons for it? What we ended up with were a succession of three refitted British light carriers over twenty some years, one at a time. Some American Essex class carriers, properly refitted and modernized lasted until the 1970's AFAIK. Trudeau would have undoubtedly scrapped it of course but I still wonder what was going though their heads ( besides a gentle breeze). :​
Thanx...............Buz​


----------



## geo (4 Nov 2005)

The Canadian navy was in the process of cutting itself down in size in 1946 from it's war establishment. Given that the RCN already had deals in hand for carriers coming from the UK, that Canada was using the same aircraft as the UK was using... they probably felt they were covered... many thanks, but we're covered.

What was done with the carriers (ours & theirs) afterwards is, of course, another story.


----------



## Jantor (4 Nov 2005)

I've been surfing around, and on the Haze gray and underway site they list all three carriers that served in the RCN. The only one bought outright was the HMCS Bonaventure in 1957. The other two carriers, HMCS Warrior and HMCS Magnificent were loaned. I wonder if that loan included the aircraft as well. The aircraft on HMCS Warrior were Seafires and Fireflies, while Canadian pilots undoubtedly flew these aircraft while flying for the RN fleet air arm, I don't think the Canadian Navy had any aircraft like this at the end of WWII AFAIK. 


Buz


----------



## geo (4 Nov 2005)

No access to my references while @ work.........
up until Korea, figure the RCN pretty much maintaned status quo until the Jet technology became mainstream.....
Had an uncle who was one of the 1st "vampire" pilots in the RCAF. Also was one of the 1st victims to crash in St Lawrence.....


----------



## Jantor (4 Nov 2005)

I hope he only got a dunking.

My father flew Halifaxes during WWII. His crash was into the Bay of Biscay off the French coast.

If I remember correctly the RCN went from over 400 seagoing vessels to around 60 before the end of 1946. I still haven't been able to find a reference to this Essex class carrier offer though. I guess some RCN pilots were pretty dissappointed.

Buz


----------



## geo (4 Nov 2005)

Janitor.... as you pointed out, from 400 to 60 ships
though nice, the offer of a shiny almost new carrier just wasn't all that appealing at that time cause they would've had to man the ship with a lot of people at the time they were trying to shed....


----------



## Jantor (4 Nov 2005)

Thanks geo, 

HMCS Warrior 1300 pers.

Essex class   2600+ pers.

I'd still like to find the official story though.

Buz


----------



## 3rd Herd (4 Nov 2005)

Sorry changed post for some thing more relevant to the post the excellent 49 page report by Commander   E. J. L'Heureux RCN Ret'd
url:http://www.aviation.technomuses.ca/pdf/carriers.pdf has everything you want to know about our flat tops except for a table of contents.
The five canadian carriers in his report
Nabob,Puncher,Warrior,Magnificent,Bonaventure

Also found at http://www.naval-museum.mb.ca/ships/carriers.htm

-Active consideration of an expanded role for Canada in the Pacific war began as early as May, 1944, and it was agreed that larger ships would be required than any then serving in the RCN. The Canadian Naval Staff favoured returning the escort aircraft carriers Nabob and Puncher, then on loan from the RN, and taking over light fleet carriers in their place. Two of these, WARRIOR and MAGNIFICENT, were offered on loan (with option to purchase) in January, 1945, and arrangements were concluded in May, but neither ship had been completed by VJ-Day. WARRIOR was finally commissioned at Belfast on January 24, 1946, arriving at Halifax on March 31 with the Seafires and Fireflies of 803 and 825 Squadrons. Unsuited for an eastern Canadian winter, she was transferred to Esquimalt in November. 

a week on the USS Ranger was enough for me-no beer


----------



## Cloud Cover (4 Nov 2005)

Never heard of that proposal before.


----------



## 3rd Herd (5 Nov 2005)

off topic to the post but for Whisky 601 re proposal:
*Joint Canadian-United States Basic Defense Plan No. 2 * url:http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/pt_14/x15-051.html
in a nutshell why we have never had a military of our own 
Also another very interesting file since our government still has some of this stuff classified: 

The PEARL HARBOR ATTACK HEARINGS http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/extra.html


----------



## GK .Dundas (8 Nov 2005)

The Navy shot down the deal primarily because the Officer in carge of Naval Air at the time was an RN officer (at the time a lot of the sr. tech officers were on loan from the RN) And the Brits were terrified that if we ever got a good look at real carrier aircraft we''d never buy British again.
 As for the carrier offer  I know of two offers for improved Essex's.
One  during the 50"s at the time we were looking to replace Maggie.The other was just after the Cuban missile crisis.


----------



## geo (9 Nov 2005)

UK brass..... 
that you say they were terrified would suggest that you're passing on heresay and not documented facts.

The UK had and has some respectable Carriers... 
US offers for kit have been turned down by all branches of the service. Not a navy tradition.


----------



## GK .Dundas (9 Nov 2005)

Check out "The sea is our gate " by Cmdr. Tony German RCN ret.Who used Capt. Hank Rotheram RN.'s book"It's really quite safe !"as as a source.


----------



## baboon6 (11 Nov 2005)

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> The Navy shot down the deal primarily because the Officer in carge of Naval Air at the time was an RN officer (at the time a lot of the sr. tech officers were on loan from the RN) And the Brits were terrified that if we ever got a good look at real carrier aircraft we''d never buy British again.



That's strange because the Fleet Air Arm was to a large extent using American aircraft at the time, including Hellcats, as well as Corsairs and Avengers. The British types in use were Seafires, which were continually having problems with their undercarriage (as well as being too short-ranged) and Fireflies. The Sea Fury, which was about to come into service, was superior to any other piston-engined carrier fighter, but of course inferior to the jets (Banshees, Panthers etc) the USN was to receive within a few years.


----------



## VanZeumeren (8 Jan 2006)

Jantor said:
			
		

> Thanks geo,
> 
> HMCS Warrior 1300 pers.
> 
> ...



I imagine that the operation and maintenance (beyond crew requirements) would also be ferocious when compared to those of a light carrier.


----------



## geo (8 Jan 2006)

If I base myself on the fact that we have ships that do not have the full complement of personnel to go to sea, it would make no sense to buy /borow/steal something that would require even more personnel to take to sea.


----------



## Armymatters (17 Jan 2006)

Also, providing the number of escort ships for a ship that big would be a nightmare. Look at how many ships the USN sends out with their Nimitz class carriers. They send out the carrier, and then at least 2 Tico cruisers, 3 Burke destroyers, a Perry class frigate, a pair of attack subs, and a supply ship. They will frequently send out more if it is a long term deployment. Right now, if we had a carrier, we would be sending out pretty much at least the entire navy based out of Halifax, assuming we can get those Victoria's up and running. If it is a long deployment, we will have to swap with the Esquimalt based fleet as well. We don't have the manpower in the Navy or in the entire CF to send out that many ships! Logistics would be a total nightmare.


----------



## GK .Dundas (18 Jan 2006)

You have to remember  in the heyday of carrier ops we had something on the order of 32 destroyers & frigates. And as well it was always felt that in order for it to be economic we should really have had 2 carriers not just one.
 Further on the size of an American CVBG a lot of the time it consists of the Carrier a CG ,1-2 DD 1-2 DDG plus 1-2 FFG's and an AOR. hope this helps.


----------



## VanZeumeren (19 Jan 2006)

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> You have to remember  in the heyday of carrier ops we had something on the order of 32 destroyers & frigates. And as well it was always felt that in order for it to be economic we should really have had 2 carriers not just one.
> Further on the size of an American CVBG a lot of the time it consists of the Carrier a CG ,1-2 DD 1-2 DDG plus 1-2 FFG's and an AOR. hope this helps.



There are also a couple of SSNs that accompany a carrier wherever it goes.


----------



## Armymatters (21 Jan 2006)

VanZeumeren said:
			
		

> There are also a couple of SSNs that accompany a carrier wherever it goes.



And depending on what the carrier is being sent out for, they may send more ships. The numbers I mentioned are for a typical battlegroup.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (21 Jan 2006)

The numbers you gave ArmyMatters are what the ideal make up is, O.H. Perry class FFGs are not always seen nor are always 2 Ticonderoga's. One of the reasons the USN likes to have a CPF in their battle groups is the wide variety of capabilities a Halifax class frigate brings to the mixture.


----------

