Carrier Doctrine by Nation

[rickshaw]

Rickshaw

Neither the RN FAA or the RAF (at Sea) nor the USN was involved in any major conflict before WWII.

There are however heirarchical set-ups that tend to indicate an ability to adapt on the fly

To what?  How does a hierarchy act on an individual once they have left the carrier deck, Kendra?  Once you're off the ground, you're on your own.   Discipline makes sure you keep to the plan, nothing more.  The British were just as unruly once they met the enemy as the Americans were.  They weren't robots.

Why?  Because they were more disciplined?  Because they were stiffer in their parade drill?  Because they flew their formations more tightly?  I'm interested on what you make such a judgement.

My guess was that the RAF's had a more elaborate chain of command, and a more centralized hierarchy which tends to reduce the ability to operate autonomously, to implement tactics to a changing environment.

The RAF's chain of command ceased at the edge of the flight deck (in carriers) and the end of the air strip.  Every pilot commands themselves.  Discipline and esprit de corps holds a unit together, Kendra/Robyn.   You can either impose the discipline or you ask the pilots to adhere to it.  The RAF and USN did both.

As someone I know once remarked, the RAF was intent on inculcating a middle-class ethic into it's officers from the day they signed the dotted line.

I never knew that

It doesn't mean they were robots which didn't think and act appropriately to the battlefield situation, Kendra/Robyn.   

Hey, the USAF were as centralized as they came by Vietnam: SAC was planning every operation from Omaha even despite having local air commands in the Pacific

You forget, it was the only game in town and the only way to prove oneself once in a command position. Global communications made that possible.  The White House was directing firefights in Vietnam as well.  Everybody wanted a piece of the action.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Rickshaw

To what?

To a changing environment

How does a hierarchy act on an individual once they have left the carrier deck, Kendra?

I meant before the planes left the deck...

Once you're off the ground, you're on your own.

I know that, however for example, the USAF often had a mentality that in a given situation "you will do a,b,c and d", the Navy was "you will do a,b,c, and d, and if that doesn't work -- just do whatever you gotta do and if you live write a report)

You forget, it was the only game in town and the only way to prove oneself once in a command position. Global communications made that possible.

Actually when operations were directed from Omaha, there were often massive lags that resulted in chaff-corridors being laid and then blown away; planes routed into headwinds, the B-52D's and other variants used interchangeably even though each had different strengths.

[rickshaw]

Rickshaw

To what?

To a changing environment

Exactly.  So, in reality, where did the authority of the hierarchy end?

How does a hierarchy act on an individual once they have left the carrier deck, Kendra?

I meant before the planes left the deck...

So, they shined their buttons and boots and planes as per the SOPs laid down in the Admiralty or the Pentagon.   Made them look marvelous on parade and in the air.  So, what difference did that make when they actually left the carrier decks and encountered the enemy?

Many years ago, in IIRC 1969, SPI released the boardgame "Foxbat versus Phantom".  Not a terribly representative game of air combat.   The Soviet player was forced to fly rigidly, as Soviet pilots supposedly did.  About 8 years later, they released the boardgame "Air War", again the Soviets were supposedly much more rigid in their discipline.  The American/Western pilots were much more wild.  In 1989 down came the Berlin wall and then the collapse of the fUSSR.   Suddenly it was revealed that Soviet pilots were flying as wildly as Western pilots in their MiG-29s and Su-27s.  Indeed, in their MiG-21s and Su-15s, to name a few others.   While GCI was still prevalent that had grown because of the lack of range of most Soviet fighters and their need to intercept - in exactly the same way the West's interceptors were flown.   Funny that.  Once Turbofans were introduced and the rigidity of the GCI system wasn't required, the fUSSR started flying in a more relaxed manner.

Once you're off the ground, you're on your own.

I know that, however for example, the USAF often had a mentality that in a given situation "you will do a,b,c and d", the Navy was "you will do a,b,c, and d, and if that doesn't work -- just do whatever you gotta do and if you live write a report)

Did they or is that just the impression they give you?  Circumstances are often dictated by what the aircraft could do (safely) and the range of the aircraft.  The USAF fly much less docile aircraft than the USN.  For a jet to get aboard a carrier, it must be relatively docile in it's handling to survive a deck launch and recover.   USAF aircraft didn't.  The USAF couldn't afford to lose planes, so it told their pilots A,B,C,D and then home if you're still alive.  The USN pilots got told A,B,C,D and what ever gets you home alive.   I wonder if you've actually spoken to any combat pilots, face to face, over a beer, Kendra/Robyn?

You forget, it was the only game in town and the only way to prove oneself once in a command position. Global communications made that possible.

Actually when operations were directed from Omaha, there were often massive lags that resulted in chaff-corridors being laid and then blown away; planes routed into headwinds, the B-52D's and other variants used interchangeably even though each had different strengths.

Command takes time.  The further you are from an operation, the longer that time takes.   Remember, SAC HQ had to look after a great many things.  Global communications meant they could interfere with lower commands' responsibilities.   Was it a wise choice?  It appears not but then, as I said, it was the only game in town.   Do you think Vietnam operations would have assumed the same importance if the Russians had rolled across the Northern European Plain?

[KJ_Lesnick]

rickshaw

So, what difference did that make when they actually left the carrier decks and encountered the enemy?

Well that's what I'm talking about

Many years ago, in IIRC 1969, SPI released the boardgame "Foxbat versus Phantom".  Not a terribly representative game of air combat.   The Soviet player was forced to fly rigidly, as Soviet pilots supposedly did.  About 8 years later, they released the boardgame "Air War", again the Soviets were supposedly much more rigid in their discipline.  The American/Western pilots were much more wild.  In 1989 down came the Berlin wall and then the collapse of the fUSSR.   Suddenly it was revealed that Soviet pilots were flying as wildly as Western pilots in their MiG-29s and Su-27s.  Indeed, in their MiG-21s and Su-15s, to name a few others.   While GCI was still prevalent that had grown because of the lack of range of most Soviet fighters and their need to intercept - in exactly the same way the West's interceptors were flown.   Funny that.  Once Turbofans were introduced and the rigidity of the GCI system wasn't required, the fUSSR started flying in a more relaxed manner.

That's actually very interesting...

Did they or is that just the impression they give you?

It's the impression I got reading about Vietnam, and a Naval Aviator or two I know.

The USAF fly much less docile aircraft than the USN.

The F-4 was the same...

Command takes time.  The further you are from an operation, the longer that time takes.

I'm well aware of that: In fact that was the point I was trying to make.

Remember, SAC HQ had to look after a great many things.

I assume if they had to order a nuke-strike; things could be set-up to deal with that.  Also plans could be set up to deal with it ahead of time -- after all it's best if people know what to do when X happens.

Global communications meant they could interfere with lower commands' responsibilities.   Was it a wise choice?

No

Do you think Vietnam operations would have assumed the same importance if the Russians had rolled across the Northern European Plain?

Of course not

[garys]

A point that hasn't been mentioned is carrier design theory. In the USN, in the 20's and 30's, doctrine was to use the carriers as an extension of the Scouting fleet, the cruisers.  Search planes would fly off and fine the enemy battle fleet while bombers would attack until the US Battle fleet could close to gun range.  Carrier design during this time was dictated by both experimentation and existing treaties, for all parties. For the USN specifically, transiting the Panama Canal was another issue. 

Langley was an experimental ship, Sara and Lex were treaty conversions, Ranger used up treaty tonnage. Yorktown was the first modern US carrier designed from the keel up.  Her sisters were Enterprise and Hornet.  Around this point in time it was decided to do without an armored flight deck which the British had adopted in order to allow for a larger air group among other reasons.  This resulted in the concept of the "deck strike".  Most planes were able to fit topside and were all launched together as one strike group.  Remaining planes could then be brought up from below and also launched.

British doctrine was the opposite.  Aircraft were stored below the safety of the armored deck but this resulted in an air group 1/2 to 2/3 the USN size.
I'm not as sure on the Japanese but I believe they leaned more towards a US theory of operation but were actually better early on of combined carrier operations.

Hope this helps.
Gary

[KJ_Lesnick]

garys

A point that hasn't been mentioned is carrier design theory. In the USN, in the 20's and 30's, doctrine was to use the carriers as an extension of the Scouting fleet, the cruisers.  Search planes would fly off and fine the enemy battle fleet while bombers would attack until the US Battle fleet could close to gun range.

So basically the carriers were to scout and thin the herd down until the ships could go in and bang the rest dead?

Carrier design during this time was dictated by both experimentation and existing treaties, for all parties.

The Washington Naval Treaty you mean?