The Forgotten Fleet: The British Pacific Fleet (Part 1)

PART ONE: BETWEEN FIRE & ICE.
The British Pacific Fleet arrived in Sydney, Australia, in early 1945 to an uncertain future. Some senior US naval commanders didn't want them in the Pacific. Others did. But the Royal Navy's unique characteristics and experience would secure Task Force 51 a key position on the USN's most exposed flank. So, in March, its four fleet carriers set out to support Operation Iceberg - the Okinawa Campaign. Full story at www.armouredcarriers.com
Full original audio:
Bob Collins: www.iwm.org.uk/collections/it...
Raymond Barker: www.iwm.org.uk/collections/it...
Ronald Hay: www.iwm.org.uk/collections/it...
Gordon Showell: www.iwm.org.uk/collections/it...
Raymond Barker: www.iwm.org.uk/collections/it...
Desmond Wilkey: www.iwm.org.uk/collections/it...
Douglas Parker: www.iwm.org.uk/collections/it...
Donald Chute: www.iwm.org.uk/collections/it...
Edward Sykes: www.iwm.org.uk/collections/it...
Peter Scott: www.iwm.org.uk/collections/it...
Robert Collins: www.iwm.org.uk/collections/it...
Eric Rickman: www.iwm.org.uk/collections/it...

[@paulfrancis8399]

The British Pacific Fleet in early 1945 consisted 6 fleet carriers, 4 light carriers, 2 aircraft maintenance carriers and 9 escort carriers, with a total of more than 750 aircraft, 4 battleships, 11 cruisers, 35 destroyers, 14 frigates, 44 smaller warships, 31 submarines, and 54 large vessels in the fleet train.

[@mysterj1]

Thanks for that. That is actually much more formidable than I imagined.

[@paulfrancis8399]

@@mysterj1 I was also surprised until I came across this entry in Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_Pacific_Fleet&oldid=990301401

[@archdornan3068]

@@nickdanger3802 probably were taken from the fleet in the med since the Italians were no longer a threat

[@rodgeyd6728]

I didn't know we had that much, suppose the Americans didn't want us there because of our Empire .

[@archdornan3068]

@@rodgeyd6728 no it was more the Americans wanted to become the main western power so they wanted to limit our influence even tho we were allies you can see this when during the war the 2 main western were the British and Americans and by 1950 it’s only America in the west

[@squirepraggerstope3591]

Interesting comment on kamikaze attacks and the UK carriers. On a (slightly) lighter note, UK carrier design conferred advantages in heavy weather too. After one dreadful storm in which, tragically, the USN lost a destroyer and several carriers sustained significant damage, the fleet's CO understandably requested status reports in view of the recent typhoon. An attached British carrier responded merely with "What typhoon?"

[@lynby6231]

The British were the only nation that fought in WW2 that didn’t lose any ships to the weather, this is because as an island nation we built ships to be seaworthy first and foremost

[@chrissearle6176]

​@Lynby built to survive the north Sea & Irish sea, everything else is just gravy

[@rhannay39]

Not true I'm afraid. The reply was considered but was then dismissed as too light hearted following the casualties the US Fleet had suffered.

[@Aegirak]

This American sailor is glad for the GB Empire’s Navy. You guys actually helped overcome the problems with the F4U Corsair landing on Carriers and the lessons we learned with Armor plate on the fight decks.

[@noodlyappendage6729]

You could tell Pelosi to be quite about UK affairs could you? She is stirring up trouble in Northern Ireland (UK) because she is anti-British. I don’t know why she supports the Republic of Ireland. They have never fought alongside the USA once nor do they intend to.

[@Demun1649]

You learned the armoured deck issue much, much, much too late. As did Patton at Kasserine Pass, and in France, and at the Ardennes.

[@maxmoore9955]

@@Demun1649 Yes ,Correct on all accounts, Unfortunately alot of young Americans dead ,

[@Demun1649]

@@maxmoore9955 And they are dead because your politicians didn't spend the money on armoured decks, didn't spend the money on having the shipyards build safer carriers, and your commanders, land, sea and air were totally useless. Pampered sons of old money they didn't care about how many other peoples sons died. America claims to be the land of the free, but the truth is all of you are slaves, to the dollar.

[@isolinear9836]

This American sailor is not - they basically fled the Pacific and Indian Oceans until the Japanese fleet was destroyed by the US Navy....then "participated" in the Okinawa operation in which they literally fled to Taiwan which had already been bombed out and dropped their bombs uselessly there on a "milk run" - Taiwan - where American warships on their way to Okinawa literally used Taiwan for target-practice, because Bull Halsey had already destroyed the Japanese Air units there months ago. Then the British made up wild tales about how heroic they were at Okinawa fending off Kamikazes....literally stealing glory from the American Carriers and Destroyers which were ACTUALLY doing the fighting in the direct line between Kyushu and Okinawa where more than 1500 Kamikazes were sent (whereas the British had INTENTIONALLY taken themselves OUT of the line of fire just because less than a HANDFUL And do not get me started on how many British and Colonial British subjects helped the Japanese - the dirty little secret was that all those MILLIONS of tons of shipping the Japanese captured in the British Indies and Chinese mainland were TURNED OVER to the Japanese and crewed by British and Colonial merchant marine. (What? Do you think all that British shipping from Shanghai to Hong Kong to Borneo, etc just magically "disappeared"? They only disappeared from history books) When the Dutch sabotaged their oil refineries and port facilities, guess who the Japanese relied on to help them repair it? Yup, the British engineers in Borneo - and they HAPPILY complied (and were well compensated and treated) All those fake stories of British "suffering" are just that. Fake stories. The truth is that the Japanese had been working with the British FOR DECADES...those personal relationships didn't just melt away - the British retained them. Unfortunately, the Americans and Dutch didn't get the same consideration as prisoners. The difference in treatment and cooperation by the British in helping to ship Japanese war supplies, build bridges for the Japanese, build oil infrastructure and roads, etc, is one of those realities that is swept under the rug of history. The truth is that the British were hoping the Japanese and Americans would exhaust each other, leaving them to continue their dominance of the region and especially their Drug trade which helped them subjugate 1/4 of the world's population that is in Southeast Asia.

[@marcaskew61]

My father served on the carrier HMS Formidable in the BPF. He barely escaped with his life from a kamikaze that hit the deck when the fleet was supporting the US operations off Okinawa. He scoured the books on naval warfare in the Pacific and was always disappointed that the BPF and its air forces were not mentioned in US publications.

[@pauliemc2010]

My grandad was a gunner on HMS Indefatigable

[@tim7052]

The US has a marked penchant for historical revisionism - rewriting history so that EVERYONE else is airbrushed out of it except the all-conquoring US forces. Unfortunately, today, the young get their "history" from Hollywood!! PS: Shameful fact: The US dont like to admit it, but it is a documented fact that the US was both pacifist and pro-Hitler prior to Pearl Harbor. The German Nazi Party held ticker tape parades and fund-drives in all major US cities, including New York!!

[@DaveSCameron]

And sadly it's becoming worse, I used to wonder about our British assertions of achievements but now see Americans going one better!

[@veronicaevans8134]

I was in the USN in the 70s and recall learning about the armoured flight decks on the Brit carriers in Boot Camp. Later pulling Liberty in Singapore with British sailors. Happy days.

[@69Applekrate]

This American says- " Thank God for our British , Australian and New Zealander allies!"

[@iananderson1848]

Thank you 69Applerate. Australians remember only to well Midway and the battles in the Coral Sea where American blood and treasure were expended in large measures . As your Allies down under we don't forget .

[@spaceskipster4412]

Yes, a joint effort, large and small, it all counted for the freedoms we've enjoyed since then. Best wishes from the UK. 👍🏼 🇬🇧

[@shanewilson398]

@@iananderson1848 spot on mate. Ever read Michael Wurth’s 1942? Great read

[@noodlyappendage6729]

You forgot the Canadians 🇨🇦

[@shanewilson398]

@Jonathan Bowring mate, i think this was about the comment refers to the Pacific Ocean and the islands like Saipan, Guadalcanal, png and do on. That was pretty much a US, Aus and GB effort. The Russians bled the Germans to the point of destruction, the Chinese bore the brunt of the IJA, the Indians fought all over the place, the Canadians helped liberate Western Europe, the Ethiopians, Nigerians, safas in fought in north Africa, the poles in the air over Europe. The list goes on, but in the pacific it was this three, the NZ navy and some Dutch ships. Don’t take offence.

[@jamescarr1467]

My father was there. His ship berthed in Sidney and he told me he had many GOOD fights with US. Marines in the bars etc. "Hard but fair", he said.

[@johnhooper4782]

James, my father was on the Illustrious that berthed at Sydney, yours too ???

[@jamescarr1467]

@@johnhooper4782 I have an old newspaper cutting of my fathers ship (HMS Implacable) and two other carriers berthed in Sidney. I know he was there at Christmas too as I have a menu of the Christmas dinner etc. They were there quite sometime as my father said he was billeted with an Aussie family. He fell lucky as he was on a sheep station and was taught to ride by the daughter of the owners (horses). I now live in Thailand and my eldest son has his old scrapbook otherwise I would send them to you. There are other pictures of the crews marching in Sidney.

[@a.m.armstrong8354]

Really beautiful testimony. Lots of humility,zero narration,pure eyewitness accounts.

[@stuartmcpherson1921]

Our diggers did the same in Brisbane.

[@williampaz2092]

Not as many as US Navy sailors have had! Let me assure you….

[@robertmorris7332]

My grandfather was a U.S. Navy Communications officer and was assigned by the U.S. Navy to serve on the HMS King George V during the later stages of WWII. My grandfather had a deep respect for the Royal Navy its the sailors. He was very proud of his service for both navies, and so are we. As an American I'm so grateful for our British allies (and others) who all fought and suffered with us as brothers in WWII, Korea, etc. The common bond between the U.S. and the U.K. is so important on many levels and I hope that we've only seen the beginning.

[@CocoaBeachLiving]

As an American, like other people have said, we are fortunate to have such a great relationship, not perfect for either at times, but damn glad we have it! 🇬🇧🇺🇲

[@oldmech619]

The Royal Navy had repeatedly turned down pleas for support from US chief of naval operations Admiral Earnst King during 1942 and 1943. When the Americans needed the Brit the most, they lets us down. Then they show up when the fighting was going against the Japanese, when we were winning. The Americans didn’t need them in 1945.....

[@alanmole7292]

@@oldmech619 you have managed to invert the facts. Admiral King did not want anything to do with the Royal Navy.

[@oldmech619]

@@alanmole7292 Alan, I did a little more reading on this subject. History is sometime a bit fuzzy, but one thing is absolutely correct, Admiral King hated the Brits.

[@TheMacdaddy1976]

@@oldmech619 I think you’ll find it was you yanks that turned up late to the party , it was Britain who fought alone for the first 3 yrs against the Axis powers . The reason we didn’t send a fleet to the yanks in 42-43 was because we were a a bit busy doing all the fighting in the Mediterranean for North African campaign against Rommel . U.K. task force 57 The fleet included 6 fleet carriers, 4 light carriers, 2 aircraft maintenance carriers and 9 escort carriers, with a total of more than 750 aircraft, 4 battleships, 11 cruisers, 35 destroyers, 14 frigates, 44 smaller warships, 31 submarines, and 54 large vessels in the fleet train. Hardly small

[@edwardbailey7911]

@@alanmole7292 You are correct. King was an Anglophobe who refused to even consider Britain's recommendations for use of convoys. The men of the merchant fleet suffered King's arrogance by giving the German's a "Zweite Glückliche Zeitwaht" (a Second Happy Time)

[@harry616]

Here we are in the year 2022 and i am in my 98 th year and was a member of H.M,S,INDEFATIGABLE FROM 1943 -1946 AND SERVED ON THE SHIP EXCEPT for small break from her to go and joined H.M.S.IMPLACABLE to take a convoy to Russia then after that trip we was back on board H.M.S.INDEFATIGABLE with a SQUADRON of SEAFIRES AN FORMED UP TO BECOME an attack force the 24 The 24 th Fighter Wing then sent out to the PACIFiC to fight and Bombed all the islands that held enemy forces Palambang Sumartra Leyte and Yap and then into Support the American Marines who landed at Okinawa and we was hit by KAMIKAZE PLANES and survied the attack and back into action within the hour and not heard of before because of our Armour plated Decks ..The journey was an Historic one as not many Aircraft Carriers Survived those attacks.

[@isaiasmiguel4526]

very good to know that you are still with us, your generation has lived through the greatest events of humanity, madness to imagine all this happening and even more to witness it.

[@pauliemc2010]

@harry My granddad served on hms indefatigable. John Mccaffrey scouser from Liverpool. Don’t suppose you know him ?

[@xalthzdornier4805]

Good to see a WW2 vet still on YT, hope to see you blog.

[@Luke_Sandy_High_Ground]

Legend

[@efs83dws]

I had Uncles in the Pacific war. They said they really didn’t want to bother with the British. However, when the British got there, they were very impressed with the bravery and skill of the British.

[@mikeycraig8970]

Yet enemy navy's saw the Royal Navy as the most professional and biggest on the planet. I dont know whether that statements true or if you're just trolling. But some yank general had to tell us to calm down in Iraq or afghanistan, because our troops were too keyed up!

[@WadcaWymiaru]

British fleet was covering the three oceans and the Mediterran sea...incredible.

[@archdornan3068]

4 if you count the North Sea the Atlantic the med and pacific

[@bazmondo]

Four oceans. Atlantic, Pacific, Indian and Antarctic.

[@WadcaWymiaru]

@@bazmondo There is only three oceans...that i was told in the school, i can confirm.

[@bazmondo]

@@WadcaWymiaru I would go back to school and check again if I were you. Pick up any world atlas from the last 100 years and nearly all of them will show four oceans including the Arctic ocean.

[@WadcaWymiaru]

@@bazmondo Meh...Arctic ocean will be always part of the Atlantic ocean, this is NOT a sea that can have different biology to tell this is independent part.

[@thomaslawson801]

One can only wonder how history would have changed if Churchil's warning would have been listened to in say 1937 before the war started and the British Empire would have rearmed. God bless the British Empire for standing firm and never giving up. Respect from America.

[@spaceskipster4412]

Thank you. 👍🏼 🇬🇧

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

His was one of several voices in the wilderness advocating rearmament and warning of Nazi Germany and Imperial in Japan.

[@spaceskipster4412]

@@JohnRodriguesPhotographer yes this is true. It's interesting to see China and Russia renewing and rearming today without too much comment from the rest of world leadership.

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

@@spaceskipster4412 Do you know who else has a category one navy and no on talks about? India.

[@spaceskipster4412]

@@JohnRodriguesPhotographer absolutely, but at least they are a democracy.

[@timothylloyd2408]

My father, Sidney Robert (bob) Lloyd was on the Illustrious. Was discharged fom it after the war in sydney, stayed in Oz after the war, got married to my mum who worked in a sandwich shop at circular quay & so began my family. I am the last of his children. ( 61). If I hadn't said it, it would be another part of history lost.

[@secondthought2320]

The British were a great help to the United States and Australian fleets. Terrible nonsense not to want British naval forces and to state that they would not support them. The British had gone through unbelievable toil in Burma and allowed America to use India as a base of operations. As an American I salute the British as a strong allied. Thank you for helping and placing yourself in harm's way. God bless for a very old man that remembers you.

[@davidgillettuk9638]

Second Thought Thank you for remembering what we did on the ground in Burma. My uncle Leslie was killed there. God bless you.

[@dannyfisher5086]

As a brit I want to say thank you for your kind words and in return I would like to say thank you to America for all you did for us in the European theater and for the post war assistance your country gave to us which got us back on our feet may God bless America and continue to do so

[@tango6nf477]

King was a obstinate and opinionated man with a strong dislike of the British which seems to have stemmed from WW 1 when he served with the US Navy's fleet out of Scapa alongside the British Grand Fleet. He felt that the US Navy was looked down upon by the "snooty and stuck up Brits", and there is probably some truth to that. I can imaging the arrogance of some but i'm sure not all towards the "junior partners" and perhaps they were not welcomed by the British as being unnecessary and getting in the way ( as the Americans did 25 years later?). When the US became involved in WW 2 the British suggested to him that he should immediately implement a convoy system and darken the shore lights on the coast as these silhouetted ships at night making them easy targets. Despite this being obvious and clearly necessary he delayed implementation for months leading to the "happy time" for U-boats and the sinking of thousands of tons of shipping, because it was a British suggestion. I have read that it took a direct intervention by Churchill to Roosevelt to finally get him to act. I can forgive the man for not liking the British and he may have been given reason for that, but the issues were bigger than his ego or personal feelings and the delay led to the unnecessary deaths of many fine men and the loss of ships and that cannot be forgiven.

[@wyominghorseman9172]

On turning out city lights on the American coast.It had more to do with politics than anything. American Presidents sre not Kings and Americans are citizens not subjects.

[@curtdenson2360]

KING SHOULD HAVE BEEN DUMPED FOR HIS LACK OF BRAINS HE WAS TOTALLY RESPONCIBLE FOR THE LOSSES IN THE PACIFIC AT THE WARS START

[@alganhar1]

@@wyominghorseman9172 Contrary to popular belief Britain is not ruled by the Monarchy, it is ruled by the Parliament and the elected Government, it has been a democracy for longer than the USA has existed. The Monarch has been a more or less powerless figurehead since the English Civil War. Like Americans the British are in fact Citizens and not subjects. This has been the case since 1651. That many Americans continue to believe so reveals nothing but your utter ignorance of the United Kingdom. This is not the Middle Ages we speak of, but the mid twentieth Century, by which time Britain had been a fully functioning Democracy for over 400 years... It is no accident that the Founding Fathers based the US Democratic system heavily on the British, and that they borrowed heavily from the Magna Carta when writing the US Constitution. This constant false argument of oh, we are citizens and the Brits are subjects has not been true since the 15th Century. Something YOU might want to bear in mind. So, given that the UK, like the US is a Democracy, your statement has little to no merit. Under his increased wartime powers the US president COULD in fact have ordered a blackout of the East Coast towns. Arguably he SHOULD have done, as doing so cost lives and ships. A full third of all Allied merchant shipping lost during the entire Atlantic Campaign was lost in those few months of the 2nd Happy Time. Lost because of the selfishness of men and women living in those towns. You think the Brits wanted to black out their cities? Of course they did not, they did not do so because they were subjects, but because its a good way of ensuring people find it harder to BOMB you..... Blacking out those towns would have saved many ships by ensuring they were not silhouetted against the bright lights of those towns making them PERFECT targets for the U Boats..... Politics is no excuse for wasting the lives of thousands of sailors where simple solutions could have kept that loss of life to a minimum. Arguments such as yours are inane and false, especially based as it was on an incorrect assumption fed by ignorance.

[@andrewtaylor940]

@@alganhar1 I think you miss his point. Blacking out the cities was not and never could be King’s call to make. Unlike Britain America had not faced a clear and direct military or existential threat. At least not in the Atlantic. While it would have been militarily prudent to black out the cities, it would have been political Suicide, risking a national panic and hysteria. There unfortunately needed to be some clear events, such as losses in American harbors in order to make such a thing palatable for the electorate. King’s views were not entirely unique regarding American participation in WW1. 50,000 dead in what to most Americans seemed to be very clearly somebody else’s war. A last hurrah of Kings and Empires. I think you will find that Australia’s views on WW1 mostly mirror the Americans. Granted WW1 did largely unify the English speaking nations into a loose supportive family.

[@micfail2]

@alganhar1 you totally missed his point, the monarchy has nothing to do with it. The fact of the matter is that British people are subjects rather than citizens. You don't have a bill of rights, you don't have freedom of speech, and in the British legal system rights are considered to have been granted to the people by the government as opposed to the American system where those rights are considered to be inherent and are merely recognized and protected by the government. Once you get freedom of speech, the most basic of all human rights, then you get to claim to be a citizen rather than a subject. Until then get back in line peasant.

[@paulstreet9162]

There is a cheeky exchange cited in Correlli Barnett's 'Engage the Enemy More Closely' where an America ship signals, "How are things the the second-largest navy?" His Majesty's ship responded, "Fine, how are things in the second-best navy."

[@kerriwilson7732]

@@nickdanger3802 that's what SHE said

[@kerriwilson7732]

@@nickdanger3802 thanks for setting it up for me. 😘

[@steveb6103]

I would like to thank the the Royal Navy that served in the Pacific! I know my dad was happy to have the help. USN 1941-1946 F6F Hellcat pilot.

[@DaveSCameron]

Respect 🇬🇧 🇺🇸 🙏 #LestWeForget ☘️

[@amyhemsworth8959]

My relative served on Hms Ruler, he was in Tokyo Bay on the day the Japanese surrendered. He was a hellcat mechanic. His story's are amazing, so proud of him

[@DaveSCameron]

As well you should be, our forefathers were heroes. We lost our grandad abourd the HMS Celendine on Arctic Convoys duty in 1943 and their loss for us demands to be remembered. Best wishes from Liverpool 🇬🇧 #LestWeForget ☘️

[@stephenlang3135]

Remember that British carriers had armoured flight decks and on more than one occasion the British carriers were the only ones available to provide air coverage

[@harrysmith1070]

@@nickdanger3802 HMS Victorious which took part in the hunt for the Bismarck was lended to America and was re-named USS Robin

[@caractacusbrittania7442]

@@nickdanger3802 it does not negate the fact that king and halsey did not use the full potential of the 200 RN ships in task force 57.... Purely because of their personal dislikes.

[@grahamepigney8565]

@@harrysmith1070 HMS Victorious named as USS Robin. USS Robin was the US codename for HMS Victorious while she was operating with the USN in 1943 after the USN was reduced to just a single fleet carrier in the Pacific (USS Saratoga)

[@michaeldillon3113]

Very sad that this mighty fleet by British standards is little known . My father was not actually in the British fleet in 45 but fighting in one of the submarines out if Trinco in a all ghtly early period of the war . My father was on the Tally-Ho named by Churchill himself . Hardly any one knows about the exploits and privations of that group of subs who who were not just inflicting damage on the Japanese in Malacca but we're dropping off and picking very brave special forces fighting in Burma . Our country may have given little recognition to these people but I am proud that my father was one of that special bride .🇬🇧

[@terrywilliamson8212]

I have read about the brave work the subs did. My father served in fleet minesweepers throughout the war based out of Indian ports.

[@michaeldillon3113]

@@terrywilliamson8212 Thank you for your comment . I am quite sure that the minesweepers did unbelievably brave stuff . Typically my father didn't talk much about his service - a hint here , and a comment there . I only really appreciated his service after watching Das Boot which was a pretty realistic account of submarine warfare . They are creating a submariner's memorial at the National Arboretum - so I am looking forward to visiting that when it is completed . Sheerness - where we are from - had a minesweeping school in what was then a Royal Navy Dockyard . It was called ' HMS Wildfire ' . Best wishes to you 👍.

[@jameshannagan4256]

@@michaeldillon3113 We should have borrowed some torpedos from you guys.

[@rogerhwerner6997]

Admiral King didn't like the British anywhere, not in the Atlantic, the Med, or the Pacific. It's reasonable to say that whatever the British proposed, King opposed. Nimitz had legitimate concerns that Task Force 57 wouldn't be able to move as quickly as US fast carrier task forces in that British carrier were armoured and lacked the range of American carriers. Furthermore, by late 1944 the Japanese navy was judged a spent force and after bearing the brunt of the Pacific war doe three years, Nimitz didn't want to share the finaal victory over Japan. As fine of a theater commander as Nimitz was, his view of the war was rather parochial when one considers that the US victory was at large part owed to the Chinese and Indian armies tying down the great majority of the Japanese army in China and southern Asia while MacArthur's victory on New Guinea was at least in part owing to Australian troops. The British fleet more then proved its value at Okinawa as its carriers proved largely immune to kamikaze attacks.

[@earthenjadis8199]

I too, used to think that the Chinese caused the majority of Japanese land casualties but actually, the Americans did the most in their island hopping campaigns, which surprised me. I suppose you could also say the Soviets did a lot in Manchuria, but that was right at the end.

[@ramal5708]

Everybody already said about Adm. King anglophobic nature in this video comment section and I've seen it too often. Few are just repeating themselves, because deep down they resents Adm. King because he resent the British.

[@ramal5708]

Do you really know that the deployment of BPF was just merely a political stunt and a reach. They will never sink or destroy any Japanese capital ships as they were virtually non existent in Jan 1945. Plus the BPF deployment is a startup strategy for the British in reclaiming their pre war territories and obviously their resources. The British was afraid that the American influence in Asia-Pacific region grew greater as they achieve consecutive victories over Japan and the British prestige would just fade away if they didn't join the show in beating Japan. I might also add British lost one battleships, one battlecruiser and one carrier to Japanese actions in 1942 prior to the BPF deployment in 1945

[@theoraclerules5056]

@Roger H Werner: It should perhaps read as; “US- Nat. Chinese & British-Indian Armies” then operating in East & SE Asia (Notably, the latter being in the Burma theatre there), as well as on Papua New Guinea where the Australian Army took on the main responsibility on the ground & in the air in waging hostilities against the Imperial Japanese Forces there then, which would be more accurate in describing, in reference here to your otherwise quite factual observations & views!

[@alexhayden2303]

@@earthenjadis8199 What happened at Khalkhin Gol? Japanese-Soviet hostilities reached a climax between May and September 1939, in the Battle of Khalkhin Gol on the Mongolian-Manchurian frontier. The conflict began with a series of border skirmishes in May and June and would ultimately involve more than one hundred thousand men.

[@Tron8532]

I was wondering how British fleet helped us in the Pacific war, Thank you for that information!......🙂

[@MakeMeThinkAgain]

Just for the record, Spruance's 5th Fleet for Okinawa contained 17 fleet carriers and 8 fast battleships plus the 5 Royal Navy carriers and 2 battleships in Task Force 57. There were even more escort carriers and standard battleships but they were not part of Task Force 58.

[@a.m.armstrong8354]

I love the introduction voice!"Chester Nimitz,he was the big noise out there.."

[@xtbum3339]

The true architect of the American victory in the Pacific.

[@a.m.armstrong8354]

@@xtbum3339 Agreed,but to the narrator, Chester Nimitz may as well reside on the moon. It's the peculiar phonetics of the Cockney accent that can say so much with so little, like a Picasso sketch.

[@ramal5708]

@@a.m.armstrong8354 Nimitz was master manager in terms of ships, commanders and strategy. He utilizes the code breakers and information from scouts to plan his mission and then delegate the task to his subordinates (during Midway were Fletcher and Spruance) for carrying out his strategy in the battle ahead. With this he sailed his ships into Tokyo Bay after the Japanese surrendered, fulfiling his sole duty when he took command of CINCPAC in late 1941, he was never present in battles himself but he could manage the war even when he's far away from the frontline. Call him overrated or whatever, he could defeat the Japanese even without the British Pacific Fleet He authorized unrestriced submarine warfare against the Japanese just like the Germans did in the Atlantic and he understand the power and need of aircraft carriers in massive ocean such as Pacific in defeating the Japanese, He withstood superior Japanese force in Coral Sea up to the Solomons.

[@HeardFromMeFirst]

Wow.. my Dad was there on the Indomitable.. Sad he will never see these videos.. But I'm thrilled to bits.. Still got his photos, and scrap book ❤️

[@arthurblundell6128]

The youngest man in my fathers family was on the Formidable which was hit by kakikazis - the armoured flight deck survived better than thev US wooden decks. He had an album of foots showing the debris from the hits

[@SuperBigwinston]

I did not realise the British navy was so large in the Asian sea. Even though i been to Malaysia 5 times and 1 time in the Philippine's also Australia. Its never mentioned in American war films either. Well glad i came across this program today.

[@DaveSCameron]

I've found that whatever country is dominant rules the narrative, obviously including entertainment along with news media. 👍

[@davidbrown9093]

If you believe war films' America won the war all by themselves 'even though the uk were fighting Germany for 3-4 years before any help from America?

[@DaveSCameron]

@@davidbrown9093 To the point of getting the Enigma machine, Battle of the Bulge being a solo effort and so on.. Yes.

[@4hillines67]

This series is a great find for me. My father's first assignment out of Signalman School was on the HMS Indomitable to help train the British in American communications. Based out of Sydney as part of the four-carrier fleet discussed here. He's been gone nearly 20 years but I still have his photos and stories while serving in Her Majesty's fleet in common purpose. Such an important alliance of our countries. We owe so much to all you stood together in those years. Thank you for producing this series on the British Pacific Fleet.

[@lorddaver3019]

It wasn't "Her" Majesty's Fleet during WW2. The current Queen was still a teenager and had not yet ascended the Throne. It was His Majesty's Fleet, since the Queen's father, King George VI, was still the monarch.

[@jamesbellegarde2893]

Great video on a topic that never seems to get discussed. Thank God you made this video is one of the most underappreciated and under covered aspects of the war. Along with the Imperial Japanese fleets attack on salon in India.

[@barrymayson2492]

My father was on a carrier in the Pacific fleet . He never talked about it much but it effected him deeply.

[@jaybee9269]

Kamikaze hits British carrier: “Sweepers, man your brooms!”

[@ramal5708]

Torpedoes hits British carriers, "time to go home and get fixed" or "time to visit davy jones locker" Nice the British carrier decks could resist Kamikazes, but when they face the early Japanese Naval aviators with great accuracy in dive bombing and torpedo attack they will have hard time just like the American carriers did in 1942

[@jameshunter5485]

My understanding was that it was Churchill who was reticent about using the Royal Navy in the Pacific. All accounts indicate that Chester Nimitz was happy to have Task Force 57 to protect his flank during the invasion of Okinawa. I shudder to think of the carnage to the American fleet had not the Commonwealth fleet suppresed the land based Japanese aircraft from Taiwan. I have no doubt that the pragmatic Nimitz was appeciative of this great help.

[@michaelburke5907]

RELUCTANT NOT RETICENT! JEEZUS.

[@bondalemecovillage6738]

Don't forget about us Aussies, our diggers fought hard all the way.

[@alanbrooke144]

And the New Zealanders and Canadians...

[@2Oldcoots]

My father was in The Pacific and American sailors loved having their British Counterparts with them! Thank You Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand et. all!!!!

[@Aislanzito]

Incredible images of this naval operation

[@djj9988]

Everybody worked together to win.The same applies today.Got to admit,I thought the Americans acted arrogantly at first,but the BPF still played a vitsl part in keeping the Japanese busy.Rest in Peace to all those that gave their lives to win total victory over the Japanese.

[@vincentprincipato9234]

Anglo American Anzac Canadian collaboration was critical to final victory. When their combined fleets sailed together it formed the greatest naval power ever.

[@DaveSCameron]

Without us Scousers the 2nd World War could not have been won. #MilesAhead #LestWeForget ☘️

[@djj9988]

Not just that,but there were plenty of others who helped to win the war.

[@rlstafford4359]

It is too bad that a LOT of people have forgotten the role of Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand in WWII. All of us combined were key to winning just like in Europe.

[@williampaz2092]

I strongly recommend two books about the British Pacific Fleet: “The British Pacific Fleet” written by David Hobbs and “The Forgotten Fleet” written by John Winton.

[@ramal5708]

Does it contains on how the RN sunk the Kido Butai? or when they sunk the Yamato and Musashi?

[@razorburn645]

@@ramal5708 Awwww someone's fragile sensibilities are in danger. That's so cute.

[@fyorbane]

@@ramal5708 Jealousy will get you nowhere chap.

[@DavidJones-pv8zu]

The Australian contribution was similarly regarded. Team effort.

[@John-ci8yk]

From a perspective and point of view I've never seen before. And I have been watching WW2 documentaries since the "World at War "back in the 70s. This was the most interesting video I've watched in a long time, on any subject. Got here by accident through the British boat guys Channel Dranc???. Sorry I couldn't spell the guy's name properly. Lucky accident on my part. Thank you for the video, thumbs up.

[@36736fps]

This series is opening my myopic American eyes to something I had never heard of before, despite my long interest in WWII. Great use of KZbin. No doubt, the British involvement in the Pacific naval war saved many American lives. Thanks to the Brits for their sacrifices in blood and treasure. I think Churchill's instance on putting British lives at risk in the Pacific was rooted in his obstinate desire to maintain the Empire after the war. That cost him the 1945 Parliamentary election and his role as Prime Minister.

[@thehillbillygamer2183]

That's insane that the American Navy thought the British Navy didn't know what they were doing the British Navy goes back way into the past and they were the greatest Navy even up until world war I and historically they've been the greatest Navy of the world with their great dreadnought battleships and or pretty dread knots they have a very glorious past

[@jollyjohnthepirate3168]

Victorious had been in the Pacific war back in 1942-43 as USS Robin.

[@terryjones1192]

My dad- Eric F Jones (Petty Officer) served on the Indefatigable - Task Force 57. I wish he was alive today to see this video.

[@harry616]

i knew youR DAD Terry he was in my Squadron 894 Seafire H.M.S INDEFATIGABLE

[@Clydesirota]

Me too Harry. Love his memory.

[@99IronDuke]

The American's '40 carriers' in the Pacific included many light and escort carriers that were both smaller and slower than the British light fleet carriers (that later saw service in the Korean war). In terms of actual fleet carriers the British Pacific Fleet with four was about a 1/4-1/3 the of the size of the main USN fleet in the Pacific in 1945, not a bad effort by Britain and the Royal Navy after six years of war in which the RN had shouldered most of the defeat of Germany and Italy at sea. Had the war not ended by the dropping of the atomic bombs the British Pacific Fleet would have grown to six fleet and four light fleet carriers, and four battleships, by the end of 1945. There was also a separate British Eastern Fleet operating in the Indian Ocean in support of 14th Army's operation in Burma and off Singapore and Malaya.

[@ArmouredCarriers]

Yes, some of the details are a little dodgy. Or, perhaps, a reflection of the era's largely forgotten wit. But, then, these are veterans recording their recollections many decades after the events. I've chose the most verifiable accounts, and edited out some of the more extreme errors (a couple of them said USN fleet carriers were sunk by kamikazes but the losses were 'covered up', for example)

[@99IronDuke]

@@ArmouredCarriers You have a excellent channel, and website. I hope you will also be able to mention that the USN found that the RN actually had a better fighter direction system for CAP fighters than they did. I am a former British soldier, but my son is serving in the RN Fleet Air Arm. Fly Navy! PS Please check out the British based KZbin channel 'Drachinifel' the best historical naval channel on YT by a sea mile.

[@ArmouredCarriers]

@@99IronDuke Thanks again. If I can find comments about fighter direction, I'll certainly include them. (PS ... the vertical backlit glass plot board was introduced by a Home Guard reservist who was working on a refit of Indomitable. Within a year, they were in just about every carrier in the US and RN!

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

@@99IronDuke Apparently, when HMS Victorious (USS Robin!!) served with USS Saratoga, the Fighter Direction Room impressed the US commanders, with the result that Victorious' Avengers transferred to Saratoga, in exchange for 24 Wildcats from Saratoga, making Victorious an all-fighter carrier for a time. Needless to say, Admiral King told General Marshall that Victorious was of no use.

[@zeitgeistx5239]

You ignore the fact that the America began to slow down carrier construction in late 43 and freezing them in 44. If they felt the IJN was a sizable threat they wouldve built more. But IJN had no surface fleet left. Also you didnt include the number of escort carriers given to the British by the US. The numbers of the British fleet was irrelevant. You can cherry pick the figures however you like. The facts are the facts, and the facts were that the USN didnt view the IJN as having much of a surface threat to the point that capital ship construction slowed/stopped in early 44.

[@realistic.optimist]

My grandfather and his brother both few in the RN in the Pacific. 🙂 However, as they both moved to America after the war they both told me the US did not militarily need the RN there. It was as one gent on here stated more political; Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, and Singapore needed to know things had been restored. The real tiff between the US and UK was Suez a few years on.

[@ronmailloux8655]

Even Ike didnt like Admiral King said he was too stubborn and ignorant to ask the Royal navy for advice during the battle of the Atlantic...king was a real ding a ling

[@anthonysmith4784]

Fantastic video there all really good and a absolute eye opener keep up the great work

[@alvashoemaker8536]

THANK YOU for this!! (This information’s NOT COMMON; I’m SO HAPPY to learn about The English Fleet…. 👍🏼👍🏼👣. THANK YOU, England!! 👍🏼👍🏼👣

[@lorddaver5729]

English Fleet? So you choose to ignore Scottish and Welsh sailors? It was the British Fleet. Britain, since you clearly don't know, includes Scotland, England and Wales and many sailors were Scottish and Welsh as well as English. So why do you only thank "England"?

[@nigeh5326]

I’ve only just discovered this channel but really enjoyed the video on the Seafire. This is just as interesting thanks

[@harry616]

Many people have spoken about the KAMIKAZE ATATCKS and those who really know is the crew like myself who was involved in fighting the fires we was there on the day and doing our job on actions stations we had a team of good men fighting to save our ship which could hve gone bad for us liten to the ordinary matlot the men who fought hard but little is heard of them .

[@rileyavery8721]

Thank the good Lord for the contribution of the British but in these comments you people need to remember this was about us all of us and not this we and and them

[@graemecastleton545]

Terrific video, very much appreciate the information. Cheers.

[@ArmouredCarriers]

Thankyou. I intend to keep the information flowing. And I intend to use as many of the words of those who were there as possible.

[@cluckingbells]

Good video. We all have our likes and dislikes, but I do think Ernest never got over the perceived criticism for the second-happy-time and I can only imagine how he must have felt at the time of accepting reverse lend lease of British ASW ships to helpout. I maybe being totally unfair as it's a long time ago and I didn't personally know him, but we're all a product of our life experiences and I think such an experience would have chilled my liking for someone even more.

[@ArmouredCarriers]

These are memories from the time. And they're from one side only. Interestingly, though, these veterans repeatedly at least make the attempt to see things from King's perspective. Despite being proud of their own abilities and achievements.

[@strikereureka4562]

I was wondering about them, glad i found this vid. Hear so much the American fleet wanted to hear about the British for once

[@wretchedfibs4306]

tx for remembering. my dad was there.

[@robertkostoroski3581]

gotta admit some pretty awesome ship names

[@IntheBlood67]

Most Excellent!

[@GSThai]

Great stuff

[@geoben1810]

As a proud U.S. NAVY veteran I salute the brave crew and pilots of those combat ships and carriers. Ship battles in the Pacific against the Japanese Imperial Fleet were bloody and deadly. Read Blood on the Sea. An excellent accounting of the 77 U.S. Destroyers lost in combat and weather during the war. U.S.NAVY '73>'77 PO3 ✌🏻🇺🇸

[@davidpope3943]

The Americans were more than pleased to get RN assistance in late 42 when after Santa Cruz the USN only had ONE operational fleet carrier in the entire Pacific theatre, USS Saratoga. The Americans pleaded with the British for carrier support & so began the short career of the USS Robin, aka HMS Victorious. Her primary role was to provide fighter cover as her arrestor gear wasn’t really up to handling the heavy Avenger. She was recalled to the U.K. in July 43 after the first two Essex Class carriers were delivered early. She was a really great ship, being involved with strikes on both Bismarck & Tirpitz, took part in Pedestal, the convoy that saved Malta & returned to the Pacific again as part of the British Pacific Fleet & Task Force 57 where she helped support the US invasion of Okinawa by carrying out essential strikes on airfields. She survived 2 direct kamikaze hits, her armoured deck being the primary reason that RN carriers were operational again in a short space of time when compared to the damage sustained by the wooden decks of the US carriers in similar circumstances.

[@petersouthernboy6327]

Many Americans thought Admiral King a SOB. Gen. Hap Arnold hated him.

[@Agnemons]

By all accounts it seems he suffered from a sever case of "CPI" (Cranial Posterior Insertion)

[@petersouthernboy6327]

@@Agnemons - you seem obsessed with the rectums of other men

[@jjmcrosbie]

Those who really want to know how bad the RN High Command was in that theatre should read "They Gave me a Seafire" by R M Crosley. British Admirals in WW2 Pacific - ugh!!! Such tales as: 1 - Ordering carrier to withdraw after launching planes, abandoning them to ditch 2 - Sending off aircraft in impossible conditions (when USN declined to) just to get "one up" on the Americans 3 - Using Seafires to spot for RN shore bombardment - and then ignoring them A USN admiral, experienced in carrier warfare kindly described the RN admirals as "inexperienced in carrier warfare".

[@eugenegilleno9344]

Wonderful comments - there should be a tv programme using this footage to teach Britain of these actions, that have been completely overlooked by everybody, particularly other military documentaries. Much respect felt - thanks.

[@DONALDSON51]

Don't forget the Victorious (USS ROBIN) She helped out early on when the USN were short of carriers

[@haydnvonmed6624]

You see, this is what people dont remember on remembrance day/ww2 events,a lot of british sailors lost their lives which people deny,we had quite the impact

[@alexhayden2303]

King's dislikes cost us many Tankers coming out of the Gulf, in the earlier years of the war!

[@michaelkinville177]

The candor of empire on "The Role of the White Man". Interesting

[@harry616]

When H.M.S INDEFATIGABLE WAS HIT ON April 1ST BY kamikaze i was there on board the ship as crew and involed in Fighting the Fires Below Decks in the hanger and not a lot is spoken about the fire there but myself and my crew of 894 SEAFIRE SQUADRON put out the fires caused by th fuel from the KAMIKAZE running down the bulkheadform above on the Flight Deck.

[@johnwinter7597]

This sounds alot like our friends did for us when we were getting our feet wet in north Africa. Its that friendship today that makes us strong.

[@luvr381]

Not all Brits were happy about the influx of US troops to Great Britain before D-day, either. Just human nature.

[@robertmoore6149]

"Oversexed, overpaid, and over here" lol

[@williampaz2092]

@@robertmoore6149 “underpaid, under sexed and under Eisenhower!”

[@robertmoore6149]

@@williampaz2092 I was referring to what the Brits said about Americans. Not what Brits said about themselves. Lol

[@ramal5708]

@@robertmoore6149 they hate the Americans don't they? They probably ungrateful types

[@robertmoore6149]

@@ramal5708 Well there were a number of legit reasons. Because of the buildup, a lot of British territory was effectively under US control for years. US leave and pay was generous and better than the Brits in many cases. This led to more opportunities of fraternizing with local women. Also quite often US troops were not pleasant guests. For example making bad jokes "give me a beer as quick as you got out of France". All of this made US resented by large segments of British population.

[@raymondstone9636]

Yes, its my swimming pool, youre not invited.

[@roxybot9840]

The British and the American fleets worked closely in many oceans and seas, I cannot think it was unsuccessful venture. Malta saved, convoys protected, Torch successful, Tirpitz neutralized, and Pacific defended. Victory.

[@punyaps]

British looked down on the US Army in North Africa as well. Once they knew the Yanks could fight, they were accepted. Typical armed forces rivalry.

[@vicmclaglen1631]

That said, a great lesson with the armored flight decks was clearly learned, although for what window? Do we expect future enemy to be able to suicide dive into carrier decks? I rather doubt it.

[@spaceskipster4412]

It's interesting to think that after all this time we're still side by side. The American Navy has the USS Winston Churchill that always has a Royal Navy Officer on board, and she also flies The Stars and Stripes plus The Union Jack. And the new Royal Navy Aircraft Carriers will be hosting American Navy jets alongside our own. 👍🏼 🇬🇧 🇺🇸

[@robertf3479]

I would like to note here that the Royal Navy efforts against the Japanese air bases on Formosa (Taiwan today) was very important. By covering the southwest flank and smothering the Formosa air bases I think they prevented numerous Kamikaze from reaching the unarmored U.S. carriers, supply train and amphibious ships operating in and around what we today know as "Buckner Bay" from which many of the Okinawa landings were staged and supplied landed. The penalties for NOT suppressing those airfields may well have been fewer carrier aircraft supporting the troops ashore with that higher butcher's bill plus a good chance of Buckner Bay becoming another "Iron Bottom Sound," this time made up of support ships versus the cruisers and destroyers found near Savo Island off Guadalcanal. I also note that the British ships, carriers in particular were designed to operate in close to enemy airfields. They were designed to take the punishment that the US Yorktown, Essex and Independence classes were not. It wasn't until the Midway class large carriers were laid down late in the war that armored flight decks were incorporated in their design, though if memory serves the Midway's armor wasn't as thick as the Brits incorporated in the Illustrious class ships.

[@vicmclaglen1631]

4:35 "As a person of some responsibility in the Pacific" Lol.

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

Admiral King was anti anything British.I feel he was derelict in his duties because he allowed his personal animosities to interfere with his performance of his duties. But that's my personal opinion. As for Nimitz he was most likely concerned with the additional strain on the American fleet supply train. it's not just a question of getting a bunch of combat ships and putting him out to see to go fight the Japanese. There are hundreds thousands of people that are providing anything from food and fuel to ammunition and repairs. British ships had different needs as far as the repair and spares area goes. The British could get used to American food and they could burn American fuel oil. But repair and maintenance issues is a total different concern. The British Navy at that point in time had a minimal supply train and to a degree weren't really used to replenishment is at sea compared to the Pacific fleet of the United States. It took a period of adjustment for the Royal Navy to operate the distances that were required in the Pacific without any bases. It is important to understand the British fleet was designed around moving from port to port for fuel, replenishment, repair and spares. It was different to put to see and stay there refueling and replenishing as needed while underway. This is not to say the Royal Navy was incapable of doing what we did, it is to say that the British fleet was designed to operate within the British empire. That means global spanning bases from which the Royal Navy could resupply and repair. It was a different logistic philosophy. As for the political aspect, yes the British need to show the flag and the men at arms in their colonies to reestablish their possessions. The British didn't help themselves when they told the United States they weren't to bomb the dry docks in Singapore. These dry docks were supporting the Japanese fleet, but some British wanted the docks for the English Navy once the war was over. Well the war wasn't bloody over, it was still going on and Japanese ships were still fighting. This really pissed off the American high command. I understand the British wanted to maintain the infrastructure they had out there, but at the same time it's being used to repair enemy ships and we're the ones having to fight those ships, that's how the American command structure looked at it. For the record my mother was born in the United Kingdom. I also have the utmost respect for the Royal Navy, it's fighting traditions and abilities.

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

An interesting side note about admiral King, he liked the flower class Corvettes and advocated the American shipyards build them. I think this was in 1940.

[@DONALDSON51]

Always puzzled me King's anglophobia given one of his parents was English. Apparently it developed in WW1 when he felt he wasn't given adequate respect from the British. He was known for his hostile attitude to his subordinate and refusal to take criticism and was known to dismiss anyone who disagreed with him

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

@@DONALDSON51 it is probably based on professional jealousy. Until WWII the USN was thought of coastal force compared to the RN. This wasn't helped during World War I when the British requested our oil fired battleships, our newest, they left in the states and only our coal fired battleships be sent. Once they got there at the British felt their gunnery wasn't quite up to snuff and drilled the hell out of them. They were essentially kept in the rear with the gear so to speak. Admiral King should never have let his personal feelings interfere with the performance of his duties. The man had five stars on his shoulders, totally inappropriate to throw temper tantrums when you're wearing those

[@bessiebraveheart]

My father served with the Royal Navy in the Pacific for eighteen months.

[@iangrantham8300]

The British Pacific fleet consisted of approximately 200 war ships - this is NOT insignificant - and it was ONLY their first soiree back into the Pacific any way!

[@freebeerfordworkers]

The Americans did not want the British back because there were planning to wind up all the European empires. They actually asked the Chinese who had been occupying Vietnam for 800 years if they wanted to move in before the French could get there? They might have been warned by Chiang Kai-shek's reply "Under no circumstances" but they did their best to try and get the Chinese nationalists into Hong Kong before the British returned. I read that when Japan surrendered some Fleet Air Arm aircrew shot down and captured in Sumatra just two weeks before were buried alive.

[@trevtall1094]

Yeah the US did some dubious things, another would be sweeping under the rug human experiments by the Japanese on civilian and pows in exchange for the data made from it.

[@emintey]

Conversely, one motivation for getting the British fleet involved in the pacific war was to futilely reoccupy it's empire in the east. But having gotten rid of the Japanese those Asian nations weren't going to have it, the days of the British Empire was over.

[@freebeerfordworkers]

@@emintey I believe I made that clear in my original post The United States policy was too dismember all the colonial empires not just the British. Apart from Churchill British politicians were fully aware of this and Roosevelt is on record as saying Churchill was a great war leader but he had no intention of allowing the British Empire to exist after the war. To this end he appointed an ambassador in all but name to India when it was still a British colony. When they re occupied Burma Lord Mountbatten actually invited Burmese who had sided with and been trained by the Japanese during the war into government. Apart from getting the French out of Vietnam the Americans actively tried to let the Chinese nationalists to occupy Hong Kong before the British could. It was only a matter of logistics they were unable to do so. Ironic really that the United States now has more bases and more troops stationed around the world than the British or any European Empire ever had. However the return of the British was in some cases preferable to the Japanese kzbin.info/www/bejne/g3Svm4mgjKudrs0 Probably because among other things they didn't put the heads of people who annoyed them on poles in the streets.

[@emintey]

@@freebeerfordworkers I think you'd be saying a whole lot if you ascribed the collapse of the British empire (or any other) to the US. It collapsed under it's own weight and the realization of the independence movements of the respective nations involved which the war contributed to.

[@freebeerfordworkers]

@@emintey all empires collapse as the military cost of defending them exceeds their economic value it's a fact of history. No point in blaming anyone for anything and as it happens the end of the British Empire was the best thing that could have happened for the British people. instead of maintaining three different types of nuclear bomber and half a dozen aircraft carriers they spent the money on the infrastructure and social welfare of the British people where it was badly needed.

[@peterclark6290]

4:37 "As a person with some responsibility in the Pacific" an understatement that should resonate with British culture. Well done America, in training, identifying and promoting Nimitz.

[@davidmatthiesen1494]

Edward Sykes Sir. The Royal Navy had solid steel Decks,while the American Carriers had wooden decks. And the Royal Navy Carriers were only 3 knots slower. Need I say any more. God save the Queen.

[@vicmclaglen1631]

One of the greatest blunders in history was 12/7/41. Although the greatest may have been Operation Barbarossa. So great that the sunk Pearl BBs got some revenge at Surigao Strait. At least there was that.

[@ArmouredCarriers]

And HMAS Shropshire and Arunta. That'll be the next video.

[@lychan2366]

The British Pacific Fleet only emerged when Nazi Germany was about to be defeated by the allied powers in early 1945. But it had been largely absent from the Pacific when Japan launched the Pacific war in 1941. The reason was that the Royal Navy (RN) ships had to be prioritised to defending the British homeland and home waters, and with it the British Crown and King, and keeping Britain's Atlantic lifeline from the USA free of the U-boat menace. Britain's wartime Prime Minister Churchill's next priority was to match RN assets to the combined German-Italian navy ships in the Mediterranean, as part of his strategy to keep the British sea lines of communications between Europe and Asia open via the Suez Canal and to hit Hitler's soft underbelly in southern Europe. All these priorities masked the reality that the British empire had already been overstretched by the early 20th century. As early as 1920, Whitehall foreknew that Britain couldn't defend its Far East possessions from an ascendant and aggressive Japanese empire if the former was to be bogged down in a European conflict. It didn't help that Britain had been grievously drained by World War I, costing over 700,000 British lives and miring Britain deep in national debt. Between 1919 and 1939, the British public mood was one of popular revulsion against war and against shouldering their empire defence burdens. They wanted more social welfare spending instead. So successive British administrations in the inter-war years slashed defence expenditures. Churchill, for one, then Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1924, made deep budget cuts to the RN, in the mistaken belief that Japan would never go to war with Britain over the following 20 years (1922 to 1942). The cuts were so deep that it reduced the RN size not only in terms of number of its ships but also upgrading of its firepower and warship building capacity over the long term. By the time Churchill became wartime PM in 1940, his cabinet had to prioritise limited resources. After homefront, Atlantic and Mediterranean, and going on the offensive in North Africa and Southern Europe, Churchill offered token support for Russia and then prioritised protecting its Indian subcontinental colony and Burma over Hong Kong and Malaya (that included Singapore). He had counted on the much larger industrial-military complex of the Americans to fight the Japanese in the Pacific. Churchill's motivations for the Pacific Fleet were largely driven by: (a) removing the shame and humiliation of earlier British imperial defeat, especially the fall of Singapore; (b) restoring whatever's left of British imperial pride, glory and prestige in the Far East; and (c) showing its former colonial natives and then dominions (Australia and NZ) that Britain had returned as a master to rescue them from the tyranny of the Japanese occupation, including the planned Operation Zipper to retake Malaya by force. In contrast, the Americans, who were Republicans under FDR, were not interested in restoring British imperialism. Furthermore, Churchill's Chiefs of Staff, saw more military value in shortening the Pacific war by island hopping across the Pacific to attacking Japan homeland directly. It comes as no surprise that the British Pacific Fleet was largely forgotten, for it was dwarfed by the disproportionate contributions of the Americans to winning the Pacific war. The sun had long set on the British empire, when the rising sun in the East opened the eyes of the colonised natives that they were not inherently inferior to their masters.

[@blueseanomad7435]

Does anyone know the tune playing at the beginning?

[@99IronDuke]

"A Life on the Ocean Wave" is a poem-turned-song by Epes Sargent published in 1838 and set to music by Henry Russell.

[@blueseanomad7435]

@@99IronDuke Thank you, very very much.

[@paulpaterson1661]

Anyone who thinks Japan's defeat was solely brought on by America knows jack s*** about WW2.

[@Gfdsa40]

Could you do the British Eastern fleet

[@ArmouredCarriers]

I have done the Meridian Operations (admittedly as the Indian Ocean to the Pacific. I'm trying to find audio that covers other operations, such as those with Saratoga or in 1942.

[@vicmclaglen1631]

Indeed; perhaps the greatest contribution by the British were the armoured flight decks.

[@jimmungai1938]

My thank you to the British people who served in the second world war you guys were good I’ll tell you right now some of the shenanigans you guys pulled on the Germans I’ll tell you want me all right I laugh about some of the things I see on KZbin and on the history channel some of the things you guys pulled off man oh man the creative thinking it took to do this just like when you took off or British ship made it look like a German shepherd you attacked at drydock in France and you guys pulled it off man of God hand it to you guys had balls of steel anyway this is Jim mungai again from Kennerdell Pennsylvania and thank you again for any of you people over there who might get this comment

[@johnmunro4952]

I'm embarrassed to admit I didn't know how extensive the use of American carrier aircraft were on royal navy ships. I know the Atlantic and Mediterranean fleets got away with using the swordfish because of the lack of predators in those theatres. But I thought the seafires etc were available by 1945. Obviously not.

[@ArmouredCarriers]

They were available. Just not ideal. I've done an 'in their own words' video on them: kzbin.info/www/bejne/g5-5e31vd7t_fbc

[@jamesthompson4148]

Very informative, but there was another Allied Country that punched away above its weight and that Country is overlooked & ignored in virtually EVERY documentary film & Dramatic Film made that concerns WW2? This Nation with a small population of less then 12 Million managed to put almost 1 Million men & Women in Uniform, provided ALL the Troops for one of the 5 Allied landing beaches on D-Day and when the war ended in 1945 had the 3rd largest Navy on Earth.....anyone care to venture a guess as to what Nation I refer?

[@ArmouredCarriers]

Canadia ? ;) I will certainly cover some of its ships, and Stralyan and Zoolanders counterparts, if I find interesting recordings. Greetings from Down Under.

[@wilsonhuber]

The country is actually 'Canada' !

[@sjnm4944]

Canada.

[@g.senguttuvang.senguttuvan7041]

True forgot fleet

[@Chris-vs4wt]

People sure did have a lot of carriers back then.

[@JohnSmith-kn1uq]

American attitude has not changed in half-a-century. I worked with the American armed forces in the 80s and 90s. Most felt superiour - their men never saluted our officers and they displayed contempt for our men. Yet we found them procedurally sloppy: negligent discharges, poor radio procedure, smoking on patrol, a tendency for blue-on-blue incidents, etc. It took a lot of self-discipline and humility to work with them.

[@stuartmcpherson1921]

Similar to army and marines when along side Australian troops. Seems they may have got their act together a bit more these days. US arrogance was evident often in WW2.

[@mikedardutube]

You Brits were great, equipment, uniforms, I was always jealous. Most of us wouldn’t salute because they didn’t know who to salute. To lazy to learn your rank insignia.

[@iangrantham8300]

@@stuartmcpherson1921 In Vietnam the Australians were loathe to work with the Americans due to their lack of discipline in the field.

[@stuartmcpherson1921]

@@iangrantham8300 Had some mates who told me of incidents. One was during an overnight stop the Yanks did their clearing fire and then brought out the food, ice-cream and loud music. Diggers stayed with their normal silent routine. Another patrol had to stay very low when a river boat with a sniffer went past as if detected the gunboat would open fire and ask questions later.

[@billkuduk1159]

You guy would be sig heiling with out the US, and don’t bring up the Ussr because at end of the day with American production you would all be fucked, lol funny coming for British the RN navy acted way worse for literally centuries

[@Steelpeachandtozer]

@11.00 "We actually did have one nasty one where a kamikaze got behind a gun turret and killed 28 people but, on the whole, the kamikaze couldn't do the damage to us they could do the Americans, so we were always put next to each other in Japan hoping they would attack us and not the Americans." .

[@ArmouredCarriers]

I think the incident referred to there was an attack on HMS Victorious kzbin.info/www/bejne/bmazlmiwjbWUa9U

[@MrBelmont79]

Some American commanders didn’t want British troops in the pacific, but Roosevelt was imploring the soviets to attack Japan. What gives? 🙄

[@guyh9992]

Interesting that you have completely overlooked the poor relationship between the British and Australian governments at the time. The Australian government wasn't enthusiastic about the presence of the BPF as it was much larger than anticipated and the Australian economy was fully extended supporting the Americans in the Pacific. There were disputes over funding of the support and additional infrastructure for the fleet. Admiral Fraser complained to the media about the perceived lack of support from the Australians and the new British PM Clement Attlee was forced to apologise for any misunderstandings in August 1945 because he worried about the future of post war Commonwealth co-operation particularly in relation to the occupation force in Japan. Read the Supply section of the Wikipedia entry on the BPF: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Pacific_Fleet

[@ArmouredCarriers]

Not overlooked. Simply not found a veteran's audio account of this issue. Yet.

[@iangrantham8300]

This is NOT true as the war industrialised the economy in Australia and led to post war properity, while during the war itself the Australian s built up one of the largest Navies in the world by wars end!

[@garyshepherd9367]

👍