|
Posts:
9
Registered:
6/26/09
|
|
(1 of 8)
CV(N) and the Mythology Channel
Jun 26, 2009 7:35 PM
|
I have long questioned The History Channel's ability to present history as a reflection of actual fact. Hence, those I know who are "in the know" refer to it as "The Mythology Channel."
I'm old navy. No, not the clothing line, but a veteran of a foreign war (in this case Vietnam) and served on USS Braine (DD630). While we did quite a bit of shore bombardment and gun boat rousting, most of our time was spent chasing carriers; so much so that, if nothing else, I learned the difference between a CV, CVL, CVA, and CVN.
Today I was attempting to watch a Battle 360 episode titled "The Empire's Last Stand" which depicted the “Big E,” the damage she received, and her stay in port where she was refit and upgrade. During the upgrade she received deck landing lights and, as a result, the new designation of "CV (N)"; the "(N)" was said to mean she was rated for "night operations."
Excuse me, but the "(N)" in a ship's designator means "nuclear" and indicates she is NUCLEAR POWERED. The only "Enterprise" to be so designated is CVN-65, NOT CV-6. Furthermore, there were NO nuclear vessels in WWII!
In respect for USS Enterprise (CV-6) I had to stop watching.
Way to hit 'em, Mythology Channel!
|
|
|
Posts:
218
Registered:
5/29/07
|
|
(2 of 8)
Re: CV(N) and the Mythology Channel
Jul 17, 2009 10:25 AM
|
smuschanow,
No doubt your're proud of your naval service, as you should be sir, but as to your historical accuracy point it might have been good to do some research:
When Enterprise stood out from Oahu on Christmas Eve 1944, she had been re-designated CV(N)-6. The "N" stood for "Night". Enterprise was the first fleet carrier ordered into, and capable of, around-the-clock warfare. At night, her planes would fly combat air patrols and launch strikes against the enemy; by day her flight deck was ready to receive planes and pilots too battered to return to their home carriers, to fly CAP missions during enemy attack and to provide fighter direction for the fleet.
|
|
|
Posts:
218
Registered:
5/29/07
|
|
(3 of 8)
Re: CV(N) and the Mythology Channel
Jul 17, 2009 10:29 AM
|
"When the Big E sailed again on Christmas Eve, she had a new skipper, a new exec, a new admiral, a new air group and a new designation. She was no longer the USS Enterprise (CV-6) but the USS Enterprise (CV(N)-6)."
~Edward P. Stafford "The Big E"
|
|
|
Posts:
278
Registered:
8/8/05
|
|
(4 of 8)
Re: CV(N) and the Mythology Channel
Jul 20, 2009 7:10 PM
|
Commander Stafford was indulging in a little journalistic hyperbole. There was never a redesignation of any US carrier with “(N)”. The “(N)” initially referred to night fighter squadrons and, later, to night air groups and their squadrons.
VF(N)-75 was established 1 April 1943 and was disestablished on 2 October 1944. VF(N)-75 was the first USN night squadron to enter combat on 31 October 1943, operating F4U-2s from land bases in the Solomon Islands. Land-based combat operations for VF(N)-75 ended in early February 1944. In January 1944, 2 divisions from VF(N)-75 were sent to CV duty on Enterprise and Intrepid. These divisions, together, became designated VF(N)-101. Detachment 10 of VF(N)-101 operated off Enterprise and Detachment 11 off Intrepid. The 101 number derived from CVG-10 which was already aboard Enterprise.
VF(N)-76 was established 15 July 1943 and was disestablished on 6 November 1944. There were four detachments assigned to CVs, flying F6F-3N, F6F-3E, and F6F-5N. Detachment 1 was on Bunker Hill, Detachment 2 was first aboard Yorktown and later on Hornet, 3 on Essex, and 4 on Lexington. Combat operations were between January and September 1944.
VF(N)-77 was established 1 December 1943 and was disestablished on 25 September 1944. Flying a combination or F6F-3N and F6F-3E, Detachment 1 was on Essex, 2 on Yorktown, 3 on Franklin, and 4 on Wasp.
VF(N)-78 was established on 1 February 1944 and was disestablished on 2 October 1944. VF(N)-78 replaced VF(N)-101 aboard Enterprise with a detachment aboard Intrepid. The squadron was disestablished at sea and the personnel and aircraft were absorbed into Enterprise’s VF-20.
The absorption of VF(N)-78 into VF-20, an almost concurrent removal of VF(N) detachments from the other CVs and the advent of the night air groups was the result the result of philosophical and doctrinal differences between the two Fast Carrier Task Force commanders, Mitscher and McCain. VAdm Mitscher was not a big promoter of night air operations, generally, and night fighters, specifically. Kind of an odd situation as his first operations officer was Cdr Gus Widhelm, former commander of VF(N)-75. VAdm McCain, on the other hand, was in favor of night operations and a big booster of night fighters. As the Kamikaze threat became more and more intense, McCain’s operations staff, led by Cdr Jimmie Thach, developed a concept known as the “Big Blue Blanket” which called for coverage of enemy airfields to enemy airplanes from even taking off. Obviously, to catch pre-dawn and after sunset launches, as well as deliver night attacks on Japanese airfields, and still defend against increasing attack temps, dedicated squadrons would again be required. Jimmie Thach went over the concept with Mitscher’s current ops officer, Jimmy Flatley, who became an immediate and enthusiastic booster. He managed to convince Mitscher of the need and he did not object to their reappearance as long as it was in dedicated night air groups. Still later, mostly in its TF-38 incarnation, individual VF squadrons on CVs had their own night divisions made up of 4 planes to handle night defense while the night air groups handled night strikes and outer, what is now known as barrier CAP or BARCAP. The night divisions from CVs with day air groups handled what was known as DADCAP, or Dusk-and-Dawn CAP.
Independence deployed in August 1944 with the first all night air group, CVLG(N)-41, made up of VF(N)-41, with F6F-5Ns and VT(N)-41, with TBM-3E’s. Independence’s designation did not change, it remained CVL. CVLG(N)-41 remained aboard until January 1945.
Night air groups originally received the designation CVLG(N) because they were smaller (because the original plan was to use the CVL type carriers for night groups) than regular air groups, hence “L” = small and “(N)” = night. “Huh, ‘L’ is small’ ???” you say? Well, think about it for a minute, what does the “L” stand for in CVL? We all, myself included, tend to refer to the CVL’s as “Light Carriers” as opposed to CV for fleet carriers and CVE for escort carriers, but, no, the official USN definition of CVL is “Aircraft Carrier, Small”.
Enterprise operated a night air group, CVG(N)-90 (VF(N)-90 and VT(N)-90 starting in January 1945; night groups operating off CV’s dropped the L from their designation), but her designation remained CV. It did not change to CV(N).
A CVG(N) also operated from Saratoga (CVG(N)-53) at the same time as CVG(N)-90 did from Enterprise; this because the CVL class carriers were deemed too small continuous for night operations, a flight deck safety issue. Saratoga had been operating in support of NACTUPac training night squadrons before forwarding to the combat zone with CVG(N)-53, she also carried a full day fighter squadron VF-53. Saratoga was not redesignated as CV(N)-3, she remained CV-3. Bon Homme Richard deployed in the summer of 1945 with CVG(N)-91 and, likewise, was never re-designated as a CV(N).
I believe you will have a tough row to hoe to come up with an official document re-designating any of the CV’s carrying night air groups as CV(N)s. It was squadrons and air groups which carried the “(N)” appellation, not ship. After all, it was air groups and their squadrons which moved from carrier to carrier, not the other way.
And Smuschanow is correct, a CVN - note, without the parenthesis - is a nuclear powered carrier. A CV(N) - with the parenthesis - is a nothing as there was no such official designation. Use of that sort of terminology rates right up there with referring to HMS Victorious as USS Robin, a cute thought but not what really happened.
Rich
|
|
|
Posts:
218
Registered:
5/29/07
|
|
(5 of 8)
Re: CV(N) and the Mythology Channel
Jul 21, 2009 10:56 AM
|
|
Certainly, but considering that the veterans group representing USS Enterprise, and much of the source material (even if non-official) uses this terminology, then I can see why the people behind the television series would also do this. I do not see armchair historians out there slamming the veterans, or people like Stafford, for the use of the same terminology - so why make such an effort to defame what was really a great program.
|
|
|
Posts:
278
Registered:
8/8/05
|
|
(6 of 8)
Re: CV(N) and the Mythology Channel
Jul 21, 2009 8:59 PM
|
Slamming? I don’t see any slamming, and especially of veterans, and especially from my end (and apropos of nothing else, my father flew fighters from not just a few carriers in the last mid-century unpleasantness with the Japanese, including Enterprise, an operation which entitled him to his PUC, not to mention a NC, so you can climb down off the high horse and fan away the smoke screen. I daresay I probably know or knew far and away more naval aviators who operated off Enterprise in WWII than do, or did, you).
The point is that you seemed to want to insist on a non-existent re-designation and bash one fellow, a veteran at that, for unsat research when yours itself was somewhat less than complete.
Regardless of Stafford’s, or anyone else’s statements, including yours, there was never any such change in Enterprise’s designation, nor in those of the other carriers operating night air groups, period. Take it any way you want, you can foster, enable, and perpetuate a myth, or you can deal in real history. Makes no never-mind to me, but you should just be prepared to be corrected.
Defame? Hint, it is dictionary time. Nothing, nobody, has been defamed. Criticized, perhaps, but not defamed. And, in fact, up until now, I’ve made no comment on the content of what you seem to find to be the final word in on the subject. Here’s another hint, when one puts in print, or when one broadcasts, something that is not correct in the guise of fact, one might expect someone else to come along and comment on that. That is not defaming anything.
Am I being a little unkind? Probably, but I tend to give short shrift when one tries to hide his mistakes behind a made-up scold.
Regards
|
|
|
Posts:
278
Registered:
8/8/05
|
|
(7 of 8)
Re: CV(N) and the Mythology Channel
Jul 26, 2009 10:43 AM
|
Note: http://www.dcfp.navy.mil/mc/museum/War_Damage/8Dec44-9Oct45.pdf
This is the BuShips publication NAVSHIPS A-4, “Summary of War Damage to U.S. Battleships, Carriers, Cruisers, Destroyers, and Destroyer Escorts - 8 December 1944 to 9 October 1945."
Specifically note:
Table I on page 2
Table II on page 3
Table III on page 4
Table IV on page 6
and damage descriptions for USS Saratoga (page 25) and USS Enterprise (pages 26, 29, & 31). Both Saratoga and Enterprise were operating night air groups at the times the noted damages were incurred.
No where in this USN document does the designation CV(N) appear. Saratoga’s designation is noted as CV3 and Enterprise as CV6.
One might think the folks at BuShips would know what they were talking about, i.e., they would certainly know the correct designations for the ships in their own navy.
Regards
|
|
|
Posts:
218
Registered:
5/29/07
|
|
(8 of 8)
Re: CV(N) and the Mythology Channel
Jul 29, 2009 9:59 AM
|
R. Leonard,
My only point, is that rather than jump on the people that provide us these shows, it would appear that when the veterans and the bulk of the source material available that provides the story of this ship makes a statement, that is probably what is used to tell the story.
People are quick to critique programs like this, when the very books that most of us have on our shelves by noted authors make the same, and other, perhaps even more critical mistakes.
You would think that someone who suggests a certain level of knowledge on these topics would recognize that. Personally, I have not read a historical narrative written on WWII that did not make errors more serious than this; books written by noted and respected authors repeatedly get it wrong on weapons, planes, ships, etc. But the think they get right is the human experience. I think this show has done more than any other show in recent years to tell the story of not only the pilots, but the average bluejacket.
Lastly, you should be proud that you had the chance to know those men, but do not assume you are alone. My family has been serving our country's sea services since the time of John Paul Jones. I too have known a few vets in my time.
|
|
|
|
|
