Military Review

The hard life of pilots escort aircraft carriers

47
A selection of accidents fighter F4F Wildcat on various escort aircraft carriers from which they flew in the second half of WWII.


The hard life of pilots escort aircraft carriers




















































Originator:
http://vova-modelist.livejournal.com/47563.html
47 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. antibanukurayza
    antibanukurayza 29 November 2013 07: 47
    10
    Let the descendants of these pilots continue the glorious work of their ancestors to return alive from their missions and crash their planes on their own deck.
    1. Archibald
      Archibald 29 November 2013 18: 20
      -2
      not really with your head ...
  2. vvp2412
    vvp2412 29 November 2013 07: 49
    +5
    It seems that they had a nodding routine.
    And the screws were the most sought after consumables!
  3. RPG_
    RPG_ 29 November 2013 08: 12
    +7
    Strange, but in the first ten photos you have a torpedo bomber (TBF seems to be called, or Aanger)
    1. Walking
      Walking 29 November 2013 14: 41
      +1
      Yes, in the first photos Avengers
  4. Stiletto
    Stiletto 29 November 2013 08: 57
    11
    The John McCain affair lives and wins! The guy personally killed five US aircraft.
    1. Bronis
      Bronis 29 November 2013 09: 30
      +7
      Quote: Stiletto
      The John McCain affair lives and wins! The guy personally killed five U.S. aircraft
      Rather, it was he who continued the tradition, if you look from a chronological point of view. And some say that he liked to smoke ... with known consequences ...
      Although it is clear that landing on the deck is a complicated and dangerous business. Especially in war conditions (military operations, training of new recruits, a large number of sorties per unit of time, etc.).
    2. rolik2
      29 November 2013 10: 07
      15
      Quote: Stiletto
      lives and wins!

      Who does not fly he does not crash cars. There was a war 18 year old boys barely trained (well, you will not count 3-4 months of flights as serious training) they threw into the fire of war. So they beat their planes.
      Americans during the Second World War made tens of thousands of sorties, how many failed landings? Probably a lot, but not commensurate with successful flights.
      1. Revolver
        Revolver 29 November 2013 10: 45
        +8
        Most importantly, the American industry could quickly make up for losses in technology, and the F4F was famous for keeping in the air and bringing the pilot back even when they were so damaged that they could not be repaired. And the Japanese produced less than they lost.
      2. chunga-changa
        chunga-changa 29 November 2013 11: 27
        +8
        3-4 months of flight, barely trained, it’s you who have gone too far. The Japanese barely trained their kamikaze, and pilots for aircraft carriers were trained seriously, and 3-4 months of flight is a good indicator, even better than ours. There were 2 training aircraft carriers, so everything is fine. Just an escort aircraft carrier is less combat and requires even a higher level of pilot skill, but it’s not difficult to guess the most prepared fought on other ships.
        1. Saburo
          Saburo 29 November 2013 13: 00
          +8
          Not just training aircraft carriers, but unique freshwater training aircraft carriers converted from wheeled ferries that went to the Great Lakes.
        2. Alex 241
          Alex 241 29 November 2013 14: 15
          +3
          The main disadvantage of the F4F was the manual release and cleaning of the chassis, in order to carry out this operation, it was necessary to make 29 turns with a manual winch.
          1. smile
            smile 29 November 2013 20: 34
            +4
            Alex 241
            Welcome.
            And someone else criticizes us for the backwardness - the last fighter with a hand-held landing gear with us Ishak was- they also turned it to user ... :))) what if the pilot was injured?
            Although, perhaps, the Americans simply saved weight, I don’t know ... But the one who invented it could be drowned in the blood of wounded American pilots who crashed during landing .... crashed due to the lack of strength for these 29 revolutions. To drown all KB ....
            1. Alex 241
              Alex 241 29 November 2013 21: 00
              +2
              Without going into details of f4 alteration from f3 biplane, with all the ensuing consequences.
              1. Alex 241
                Alex 241 29 November 2013 21: 16
                +3
                Well, the winch nevertheless was still present as a means of emergency landing gear release.
          2. loft79
            loft79 29 November 2013 23: 19
            +2
            Quote: Alex 241
            The main disadvantage of the F4F was the manual release and cleaning of the chassis, in order to carry out this operation it was necessary to make 29 turns with a manual winch

            + I would add a not very good design of the chassis itself. Small track, durability. On the "live" deck of an aircraft carrier, with such a chassis, it is not difficult to fall to one side or to skip. IMHO.
            1. Alex 241
              Alex 241 29 November 2013 23: 22
              +1
              The same problem was with the Me-109
              1. loft79
                loft79 30 November 2013 00: 22
                0
                The question arose in the falling asleep brain, how could this happen to this pipelac, if he is vert. takeoff and landing. Brrrr ... It's time to sleep.
                1. Alex 241
                  Alex 241 30 November 2013 00: 29
                  +2
                  Artem is a fake star wars x-wing
                  1. loft79
                    loft79 30 November 2013 08: 02
                    +1
                    Quote: Alex 241
                    Artem is a fake

                    I know that.smile I think it’s very successful.
              2. Region-25.rus
                Region-25.rus 18 December 2013 14: 54
                0
                Quote: Alex 241
                The same problem was with the Me-109


                Me-109 I don’t remember something. There were Bf-109))
      3. cdrt
        cdrt 29 November 2013 15: 41
        +2
        Quote: rolik2
        There was a war 18 year old boys barely trained (well, you will not count 3-4 months of flights as serious training) they threw into the fire of war. So they beat their planes.
        Americans during the Second World War made tens of thousands of sorties, how many failed landings? Probably a lot, but not commensurate with successful flights.


        Are you sure that the unprepared guys were put on deck aircraft in the Navy and the United States MP in WWII?
        I read more that for landing on aircraft carriers, the raid should have been about 200 hours (if not more).
        Just landing on deck is such a thing ... to put it mildly difficult.
        It seems that in the 1980s, even from a long campaign, the ABs returned having lost 1-2 crews always.
  5. vlad0
    vlad0 29 November 2013 09: 49
    20
    Be that as it may, casting aside ideological differences, I pay tribute to courage to the guys of the US Navy carrier-based aviation. Naval aviation is not for wimps or cowards.
    And even more so, during WWII only the Real could serve there!
  6. Alex
    Alex 29 November 2013 10: 01
    11
    In my opinion, gloating is inappropriate here. I must admit that the pilots of carrier-based aircraft are actually very brave and desperate guys. Also, do not forget that during the WWII they were our allies.
    1. 0255
      0255 29 November 2013 22: 01
      0
      Quote: Ralex
      In my opinion, gloating is inappropriate here. I must admit that the pilots of carrier-based aircraft are actually very brave and desperate guys. Also, do not forget that during the WWII they were our allies.

      ... which, most likely, were prepared by July 1, 1945 for an attack on the USSR
  7. Wolland
    Wolland 29 November 2013 10: 02
    -8
    WARRIORS HUEY .....
  8. DuraLexSedLex.
    DuraLexSedLex. 29 November 2013 10: 13
    +4
    The photo was cool here, the plane crashed and keeps afloat, and the pilot stands on the wing))) And there are a lot of such pictures, that is, the plane fell into the water does not mean that the crew died)))
    1. Alex 241
      Alex 241 29 November 2013 13: 46
      +2
      [/ Center]
      [/ Center]
      ...............................................
      1. Alex 241
        Alex 241 29 November 2013 14: 40
        +1
        ............................................
    2. cdrt
      cdrt 29 November 2013 15: 42
      +1
      Quote: DuraLexSedLex.
      The photo was cool here, the plane crashed and keeps afloat, and the pilot stands on the wing))) And there are a lot of such pictures, that is, the plane fell into the water does not mean that the crew died)))


      Of course does not mean - the example of D.Bush Sr. The war hero, in my opinion, flew on Avenger
      1. smile
        smile 29 November 2013 20: 37
        +1
        cdrt
        For some reason I thought he was a katernik. Almost drowned when a Japanese ship ran into a fog in his torpedo boat and cut it in half ... Or am I confusing something?
        1. Ingvar 72
          Ingvar 72 29 November 2013 20: 41
          +1
          Quote: smile
          Or am I confusing something?

          Good evening, Vladimir. As far as I know, he was a pilot, and he was shot down.
          1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Alex 241
          Alex 241 29 November 2013 20: 42
          +2
          It was Kennedy ............
          1. Alex 241
            Alex 241 29 November 2013 20: 45
            +2
            U.S. Navy 51st Lieutenant George W. Bush in the cockpit of his Grumman TBF Avenger
          2. smile
            smile 29 November 2013 21: 23
            +1
            Ingvar 72

            Alex 241

            Good evening, men.
            Thanks, now I definitely will not forget. Not allowed to die a fool. :)))
  9. Jedi
    Jedi 29 November 2013 10: 28
    0
    Quote: Wolland
    Foreman
    Wolland RU Today, 10:02 New

    WARRIORS HUEY .....

    in my opinion, too, there is nothing to gloat ... considering that our pilots in the war (according to our Ministry of Defense) killed their planes more than the Germans. it's scary to think how many of our Stalin's falcons would have crashed along with deck aircraft if we had aircraft carriers ... and the pictures are very interesting. By the way, I read in many sources that the chassis of the wildcat is not reliable. and in most of the photographs - the "cat" is smashed, turned over or torn in half, and the chassis is intact!
    1. klim44
      klim44 29 November 2013 18: 03
      0
      I agree with you completely, to fight and fly over the sea, it’s not to fly over your native village
    2. smile
      smile 29 November 2013 20: 43
      +2
      Jedi
      Regarding gloating - you're right. And about the fact that ours beat more planes than not - no. Indeed, losses due to technical reasons not related to the enemy’s influence, due to weather conditions, and the fault of the pilots, only a little less than half of the planes died ... just like in all other countries. Including the Germans.
      So, do not rush to extremes - to water your country, your history and your grandfathers with slop - no better than gloating over someone else's misfortune.
    3. The comment was deleted.
  10. Nexus 6
    Nexus 6 29 November 2013 11: 38
    +8
    Some photos with Avengers show combat damage. A runway for an escort with a handkerchief. American aircraft designers and engine builders knew their job, planes, with rare exceptions (Mustang), were very survivable. The rescue service worked efficiently, a lot of pilots were saved and experienced veterans continued to fight. The Japanese did not have a rescue service as such; occasionally, flying boats were engaged in rescue on their own initiative (the situation at Okumiya is described). So with their Bushido, they are all shots ......
  11. Wolland
    Wolland 29 November 2013 11: 39
    +1
    WHAT ARE THE GERMANS, LOOK AT THE AIRCRAFT CAREFULLY, YES OURS DID NOT argue, BUT THESE WONDERS TAKEN TOGETHER ARE NOT WORTH THAT THEY CANNOT EVEN Fight, + SO MANY TECHNIQUES HAVE DROUGHT OUT, STILL on your minuses, especially bad)
  12. TS3sta3
    TS3sta3 29 November 2013 12: 47
    +2
    and how did THESE Yankees slide into today's tolerance?
    1. cdrt
      cdrt 29 November 2013 15: 44
      +5
      Quote: TS3sta3
      and how did THESE Yankees slide into today's tolerance?


      Yes, basically, and did not slide laughing
      Most are conservatives, patriots.
      The elite is - well, she is such an elite ...
  13. Krilion
    Krilion 29 November 2013 14: 23
    +6
    I personally can’t even understand how it is possible to land a plane on a deck ... I take off my hat to deck pilots regardless of nationality ...
    1. Alex 241
      Alex 241 29 November 2013 14: 56
      +2
      Grumman F4F Wildcat
    2. cdrt
      cdrt 29 November 2013 15: 46
      +2
      Quote: Krilion
      I personally can’t even understand how it is possible to land a plane on a deck ... I take off my hat to deck pilots regardless of nationality ...


      Set on a swinging deck.
      The only chance of success is to catch on a plane pulled by a rope jumping from a hit on the deck ...
      I was always amazed that it generally turns out massively laughing
  14. ed65b
    ed65b 29 November 2013 15: 02
    +2
    Yes, it was not easy service for the guys. Serious accidents, mouth flies could be left without a head. poor mechanics, or just overboard?
    1. cdrt
      cdrt 29 November 2013 15: 47
      0
      Quote: ed65b
      Yes, it was not easy service for the guys. Serious accidents, mouth flies could be left without a head. poor mechanics, or just overboard?


      It seemed like the rule was (comic of course) - if the wings did not fall off - to repair, fell off - overboard laughing
  15. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 29 November 2013 19: 28
    +1
    Gentlemen, you need to take into account many objective factors. Escort aircraft carriers were impromptu, manufactured under the influence of wartime factors. Namely, they were designed as a means of PLO convoys. They were converted from merchant ships and, as a result, had a small DISCHARGE AND SIZE. Plus the low cost and speed of construction. I highlighted because it imposes certain operational limits. already in fresh weather, the pitching and the amplitude of the vertical oscillations of the deck (in addition to the short one - about 150-160m) greatly increase, therefore landing on such an "airfield" is very nasty. Compare it with strike aircraft carriers, where a / and several times more, and the length of the flight deck is from 220 to 260 m.Plus, there was no corner angle on the ships of that time, which did not allow go-around if the aircraft finishers missed. , he has to take these factors into account. Further, the Americans used a large number of escort assistants to support amphibious operations, and therefore a large workload on the crews (the number of takeoffs and landings is much higher than with ASW convoys), hence a large percentage of unsuccessful landings. After all, an escort aircraft carrier with its air group of 2-3 dozen motley cars is unlikely to stop a decent raid. But PLO and reconnaissance during convoys are even within their reach. After all, for this they were built. After all, keeping a group of strike aircraft carriers when taking an atoll is very impractical. That is why the Yankees also attracted for these purposes, built in large numbers of "escort". Result in the photo lol But the British at the time of escort convoys in the North Atlantic used escort aircraft carriers for their intended purpose, which they very much succeeded in. The conclusion suggests itself: use things for what they are intended for. This is just my opinion. hi
  16. samoletil18
    samoletil18 29 November 2013 23: 06
    +1
    The specific guys were then Americans. I wonder how they would relate to their tolerant descendants?
    It would be nice to see F-18 in such numbers and poses, naturally, without our participation.
  17. The comment was deleted.
  18. rocketman
    rocketman 30 November 2013 01: 52
    0
    as for me, any landing on an aircraft carrier, after which the pilot left the aircraft on his own feet, is a successful landing. A pilot is always more expensive than a piece of iron, albeit a flying one.
  19. GEO
    GEO 30 November 2013 12: 53
    0
    Quote: Alex 241
    Well, the winch nevertheless was still present as a means of emergency landing gear release.

    moronic music
  20. Yan8
    Yan8 30 November 2013 18: 07
    0
    The title of the article says that we are talking about launch aircraft carriers, but the photo shows Avengers torpedo bombers, which means these attack aircraft carriers. In addition, several photos show the Halcat fighter. In general, such a wide selection. The fact that we see so many wrecked cars does not at all speak of an extremely high accident rate: after all, starting from the first American aircraft carrier Langley (the twenties!), Film shooting of landings was practiced to prevent the same accident rate. The American fleet is not a poor fleet. In addition, I think that we should not forget about the professionalism and courage of those eighteen-year-old boys. It is necessary to be able to fly over water, when you do not always determine visually, - down 2 meters or 20, and sits on a swinging deck.
  21. REZMovec
    REZMovec 30 November 2013 22: 29
    0
    Quote: Yan8
    ... In addition, I think that we should not forget aboutFfrealism and courage of those eighteen-year-old boys.

    Jan, you didn’t study at school with our Yanukovych?))))) Professionalism - that’s how it will be. No offense)))
  22. golova74
    golova74 17 June 2014 05: 25
    0
    Many aircraft with injuries offended and pulled from the deck into the water
  23. Swetliy
    Swetliy 24 August 2014 10: 22
    0
    Serves you right! Wrazhina!
  24. Aibolit64
    Aibolit64 21 October 2014 01: 45
    0
    Yeah, and the Japanese weren’t needed. The Yankees were ruining themselves.