Questions Regarding Post War USN
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New York & California
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Questions Regarding Post War USN
As I understand it, post WW2, the USN almost got scuttled via the claims of the US Army and USAAF that
The USAAF/USAF both roundly disliked carriers because they were air-assets they could not control, and post-war they wanted control of everything. They also believed the B-36 was their ultimate weapon -- 10,000 pounds of bombs (or a nuke) while flying 10,000 miles and able to cruise at high-altitude and possess a sufficient degree of maneuverability up high (granted, this was because a number of planes would either barely be able to fly level, let alone maneuver, or would just stall out in the thin air) to avoid it's destruction.
The USN decided to pursue a super-carrier, the USS United States instead of develop a sea-plane bomber (which it would later do in the form of the P6M) as they felt the USAF would just move to take sea-plane aviation.
Now here's my question:
While seaplanes were assets that could be controlled by an any service, seaplane-tenders (which seaplanes depend on) are Naval assets just as much as Aircraft Carriers. Why didn't anybody notice that?
- There would be no need for a Marine Corps as there would be no amphibious landings ever again
- The US Army and USAAF could do everything the Navy could, so there would be no need for the Navy
The USAAF/USAF both roundly disliked carriers because they were air-assets they could not control, and post-war they wanted control of everything. They also believed the B-36 was their ultimate weapon -- 10,000 pounds of bombs (or a nuke) while flying 10,000 miles and able to cruise at high-altitude and possess a sufficient degree of maneuverability up high (granted, this was because a number of planes would either barely be able to fly level, let alone maneuver, or would just stall out in the thin air) to avoid it's destruction.
The USN decided to pursue a super-carrier, the USS United States instead of develop a sea-plane bomber (which it would later do in the form of the P6M) as they felt the USAF would just move to take sea-plane aviation.
Now here's my question:
While seaplanes were assets that could be controlled by an any service, seaplane-tenders (which seaplanes depend on) are Naval assets just as much as Aircraft Carriers. Why didn't anybody notice that?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jane,
After WWII the US Army had approximately 127,000 ships, boats and water craft of their own. The US Air Force also had their own boats. Tenders are small and could be owned by either component of the armed forces.
After WWII the US Army had approximately 127,000 ships, boats and water craft of their own. The US Air Force also had their own boats. Tenders are small and could be owned by either component of the armed forces.
Last edited by hval; 1st Nov 2011 at 14:17. Reason: They also had ships
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New York & California
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hval
Why did the US Army have so many ships and boats? Were any of them combat capable?
Understood. Then why didn't the USAF just push for ownership of the carriers 
After WWII the US Army had approximately 127,000 ships, boats and water craft of their own.
The US Air Force also had their own boats. Tenders are small and could be owned by either component of the armed forces.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
US Army had troop and cargo ships (1,500), landing craft, hospital ships, cable ships, port repair ships, aircraft repair ships and many others.
Indeed why didn't the USAF take over the USN? Did Admiral Rickovers role with nuclear submarines play a small part? Not that this will be the main reason.
Indeed why didn't the USAF take over the USN? Did Admiral Rickovers role with nuclear submarines play a small part? Not that this will be the main reason.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New York & California
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hval
But nothing like Destroyers, Cruisers, Frigates and so forth?
Good question, though this is possibly a good thing they didn't.
His work on nuclear power for submarines started in 1949 so I don't know.
US Army had troop and cargo ships (1,500), landing craft, hospital ships, cable ships, port repair ships, aircraft repair ships and many others.
Indeed why didn't the USAF take over the USN?
Did Admiral Rickovers role with nuclear submarines play a small part?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New York & California
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hval
So combat ships were Navy, non combatants could belong to anybody? Did this rule apply prior to WW2, or just during WW2 and after?
Also that same rule apply for the Royal Navy, Royal Army, and Royal Air Force?
No. Nothing of that ilk.
Also that same rule apply for the Royal Navy, Royal Army, and Royal Air Force?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RAF had air-sea rescue launches and I believe the army operated various transport type vessels, so in essence yes, the same (or similar) rules.
edit to say "major combat vessels" were the navy's - I suspect many of the non-navy vessels had some form of armament, if only an AA gun or whatever.
edit to say "major combat vessels" were the navy's - I suspect many of the non-navy vessels had some form of armament, if only an AA gun or whatever.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Double Counting
I think that I am correct that the US Air Force was the US Army Air Force at the end of WWll, so possibly the Army Air Force Boats etc are counted in with the US Army's?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jane,
Yes. The US Army did have ships and vessels pre WW II. Just not so many. The Corps of Engineers for instance maintained waterways in the United States. They had their own fleet of vessels. They were also responsible for landing craft, engineering works adjacent to, and over, waterways etc.
Most army boats/ ships were small items; the odd landing craft, river boats, tenders etc. There were also cargo ships controlled by the US Army for supplying garrisons.
The Army Transportation Corps was started in July 1942. The 24 Hospital ships, for example, became hospital ships 1943, 1944 or 1945. The ATC had many other vessels as well
Yes. The US Army did have ships and vessels pre WW II. Just not so many. The Corps of Engineers for instance maintained waterways in the United States. They had their own fleet of vessels. They were also responsible for landing craft, engineering works adjacent to, and over, waterways etc.
Most army boats/ ships were small items; the odd landing craft, river boats, tenders etc. There were also cargo ships controlled by the US Army for supplying garrisons.
The Army Transportation Corps was started in July 1942. The 24 Hospital ships, for example, became hospital ships 1943, 1944 or 1945. The ATC had many other vessels as well
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This document should be of interest for the immediate pre-WW2 period, as well as background info.
Water Transportation - U.S. Army, 1939-1942, ASF
As an example,
In 1939 the Army Transport Service owned some 32 transports, while the Harbor Boat Service consisted of 300 boats as of July 1.
Water Transportation - U.S. Army, 1939-1942, ASF
As an example,
In 1914 the Army Transport Service owned 18 ocean-going vessels consisting of an Atlantic and a Pacific fleet together with a Philippine inter-island service.
The Harbor Boat Service in the same year comprised 130 owned vessels.
The Harbor Boat Service in the same year comprised 130 owned vessels.
At one time the US Army had more ships thand did the Navy...and more aircraft than did the Air Force it is reported.
Now days the Army still operates a large fleet of boats and ships.....and a few helicopters.
Now days the Army still operates a large fleet of boats and ships.....and a few helicopters.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
During WW2 the US government purchased a large number of passenger ships and freighters, and "drafted" even more.
The vast majority of these were placed under US Army control, but continued to operate with their previous civilian crews, plus a few Army senior enlisted, warrant officers, and officers as supervisory & control crews. These moved large amounts of personnel and cargo between "secure" ports.
This freed the USN's "combat transports" for actual work to/from/within combat zones.
However, a considerable number of landing craft that were assigned to invasions and support for combat operations (especially in the Pacific) were owned/operated by the US Army... alongside identical vessels in the USN.
The vast majority of these were placed under US Army control, but continued to operate with their previous civilian crews, plus a few Army senior enlisted, warrant officers, and officers as supervisory & control crews. These moved large amounts of personnel and cargo between "secure" ports.
This freed the USN's "combat transports" for actual work to/from/within combat zones.
However, a considerable number of landing craft that were assigned to invasions and support for combat operations (especially in the Pacific) were owned/operated by the US Army... alongside identical vessels in the USN.
