Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Aircraft Carriers In The Great Lakes?  
User currently offlineGeezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 8662 times:

I'm amazed that I had never heard about this before ! How many knew that at one point, the U.S. Navy operated aircraft carriers in the Great Lakes ? I just recently heard about this in an email from a friend.

Either shortly before or shortly after Pearl Harbor, the U.S. Navy realized that they were going to need a lot of carrier qualified pilots as quickly as possible, and Commander Richard Francis Whitehead came up with the brilliant idea to train them aboard two aircraft carriers in the Great Lakes.

The decision was made to take two old excursion steamships, the "Greater Buffalo", and the "Seeandbee" and convert them into aircraft carrier training ships. The Greater Buffalo became the U.S.S. Sable, and the Seeandbee became the U.S.S. Wolverine.

There were several reasons that two carriers were specially built for carrier pilot training on the Great Lakes. First, aircraft carriers were at a premium with none that could be spared for pilot training. Second, by having two carriers on the Great Lakes the Navy would not have to provide escort ships for their security. There would also be no need for armor or armament. This idea was the brainchild of Commander Richard Francis Whitehead (later Vice Admiral), aviation aid to the commandant, Ninth Naval District. The Chicago area was ideal for supporting such a carrier training program with the Great Lakes Naval Training Center, Naval Air Station, Glenview, and Naval Aviation Mechanics' School on the Navy Pier.

One of the new pilots who trained on the U.S.S. Sable was former President George H.W. Bush.

The links below will take you to the Warbird Information Exchange, and many vintage photos taken during the training; from looking at these pictures, you can readily see that Naval Aviation has come a LONG WAY since WW2 !

http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=48962

http://www.dieselpunks.org/profiles/...logs/great-lakes-aircraft-carriers

Charley


Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
28 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2552 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 8649 times:

The USN really had brains in these times!

Great find, Geezer!  



David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 2, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 8644 times:

Of course, this would have been in complete violation of the Treaty of Ghent, which forbad American military forces on the Great Lakes. But what's a treaty ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812#The_Treaty_of_Ghent



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8964 posts, RR: 24
Reply 3, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 8634 times:

Paddle-wheeled aircraft carriers - gotta love it.

In fact I'd love to see a nuclear powered one. It's maneuverability would be unparalleled!. Could literally turn on a dime.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinejohns624 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 957 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 8521 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 2):
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 2):
Of course, this would have been in complete violation of the Treaty of Ghent, which forbad American military forces on the Great Lakes. But what's a treaty ?

That's okay, I've seen Canadian and even British warships on the Great Lakes.


User currently offlinecjg225 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 888 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 8520 times:

Wow. Fascinating stuff. Thanks for the post.


Restoring Penn State's transportation heritage...
User currently offlineGeezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 8506 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 2):
But what's a treaty ?

Having "been around" in 1942, I can personally assure you of this; after the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, there weren't a lot of people in the U.S. Government OR the U.S. Military who "cared" squat about some stupid treaty made over 120 years before; and not only that.........who said anything about "American military forces" in the great lakes ? Most "military forces" I'm familiar with have weapons; neither of these TRAINING vessels carried ANY weapons, nor did ANY of the aircraft involved in the TRAINING.

Attempting to compare something from 1812, ( when the ENEMY was England ), to a war in 1942, ( where England was very happy to have the U.S. help them kick Hitler's ass ), is slightly beyond ludicrous, (IMO)

[Edited 2013-06-02 15:55:23]


Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 7, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 8483 times:

Quoting Geezer (Reply 6):
Attempting to compare something from 1812, ( when the ENEMY was England ), to a war in 1942, ( where England was very happy to have the U.S. help them kick Hitler's ass ), is slightly beyond ludicrous, (IMO)

Touched a nerve, apparently.   So I've done my job...



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 8, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 8403 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 2):
this would have been in complete violation of the Treaty of Ghent, which forbad American military forces on the Great Lakes.

There has to have been something before WWI to modify the terms of that Treaty in relation to ships on the Great Lakes.

This new treaty in 1817 allows some military presence on the lakes - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush%E2%80%93Bagot_Treaty

The treaty was to avoid building up an armed border between the US and Canada.

The first "modern warship" built in Canada was the CGS Vigilant built in Toronto in 1904.

The US Navy and Canadian Navy have operated in the Great Lakes for well over 100 years. http://canada.usembassy.gov/news-eve...loyment-to-commemorate-war-of-1812

Over 300 US Navy warships were built on the Great Lakes at various shipyards during/ for WWII.

Not a single one of those warships could have been used without the cooperation of Canada in getting the ships to the ocean.

The only serious discussion about disagreement over having US (or British/Canadian) military ships on the Great Lakes came during the US Civil War - when some US folks felt British government in Canada was sympathetic to the other side during the war.

[Edited 2013-06-02 18:04:54]

[Edited 2013-06-02 18:09:02]

User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 9, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 8329 times:

I am actually quite sure that waivers could/can be made to allow for new-build ships to find their way to the sea. I don't think the treaty applies to CG vessels as well.

I just like pulling Geezer's beard (figuratively).



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinechecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1141 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8300 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 9):
I am actually quite sure that waivers could/can be made to allow for new-build ships to find their way to the sea. I don't think the treaty applies to CG vessels as well.

I just like pulling Geezer's beard (figuratively).

Warships are still being built up there. It doesn't apply at all to US or Canadian Coast Guard. Why would we need a waiver?? LoL...as if Canada would do something if we didn't??


User currently offlinejohns624 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 957 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8283 times:

Back in 1987(?) the HMS Fife and HMS Juno came through Detroit but didn't dock. Explain that one...

User currently offlineglideslope From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1628 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 8053 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 2):
Of course, this would have been in complete violation of the Treaty of Ghent, which forbad American military forces on the Great Lakes. But what's a treaty ?

Well, we still have the Peace Bridge between New York and Ontario. Could be worse. Also, none of the planes or ships were armed. They dropped sand bags on targets.   



To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1857 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 7671 times:

Quoting checksixx (Reply 10):
LoL...as if Canada would do something if we didn't??

We'll join with the British and burn down your White House again, like we did in 1814.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 2):
Of course, this would have been in complete violation of the Treaty of Ghent, which forbad American military forces on the Great Lakes. But what's a treaty ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_...Ghent

The ships were technically unarmed, so they got around that. Considering the very limited capabilities of these training carriers (such as low speeds), and the international situation at the time, everyone could bend the rules a bit.


User currently offlinefsnuffer From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 252 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 7436 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 13):
We'll join with the British and burn down your White House again, like we did in 1814.

Unfortunately that is not the battle plan Canada has for dealing with the United States. Some historian was going through the Canadian Military archives, around the early 70's, and it clearly stated that in the event of war, the army would push south from Montreal, capture Albany NY, and then sue for peace. That plan may not have been looked at in awhile and I don't think Albany is as strategically important today as it was back in the 1800's. We probably would let you keep it without putting up too much of an argument.


User currently offlinecanoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2843 posts, RR: 12
Reply 15, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 7349 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 13):
We'll join with the British and burn down your White House again, like we did in 1814.

200 years of diplomacy down the drain because of Geezers post.....

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 13):
The ships were technically unarmed, so they got around that. Considering the very limited capabilities of these training carriers (such as low speeds), and the international situation at the time, everyone could bend the rules a bit.

I suspected that as well. Given the need at the time for qualified pilots to escort convoys across the Atlantic and help push the Japanese out of formerly British held territory in the far east, I think people on both sides of the 49th parallel would have been willing to turn a blind eye to some 130 year old treaty, even if there were some small arms on these training carriers. We were quite close our two countries at that time, as we are now, many Atlantic convoys were leaving from Halifax and had ships of many nations.

I'd heard about these training carriers before but hadn't seen the number of photos that were included in the OP. Shows the ingenuity that generation had to adversity. Although, I'd bet the guy that got to captain one of those two was disappointed he didn't get a new Essex class carrier as his assignment.



The beatings will continue until morale improves
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 16, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 7139 times:

Quoting checksixx (Reply 10):
Warships are still being built up there. It doesn't apply at all to US or Canadian Coast Guard. Why would we need a waiver?? LoL...as if Canada would do something if we didn't??

An exchange of diplomatic notes would probably suffice after 1927, and be done once and for all or until annulled. Prior to 1927, Canada's Foreign Affairs (and Defence) were controlled by the United Kingdom, so a British A.netter might be able to explain.

Quoting johns624 (Reply 11):
Back in 1987(?) the HMS Fife and HMS Juno came through Detroit but didn't dock. Explain that one...

Certainly seems odd. I'm quite HM warships have been regularly visiting American ports for quite some time.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1857 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6766 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 16):
Prior to 1927, Canada's Foreign Affairs (and Defence) were controlled by the United Kingdom, so a British A.netter might be able to explain.

The Statue of Westminster changed that. Prior to that, Canada was a autonomous state that was nominally under British sovereignty, and thus subordinate to the UK. The Statue of Westminster codified the resolutions announced during the 1926 and 1930 Imperial Conference, which granted full legislative equality to the dominions of the British Empire thereby marking the effective legislative independence of the British Dominions.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 18, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 6726 times:

Department of Redundancy Department

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 17):
The Statue of Westminster changed that. Prior to that, Canada was a autonomous state that was nominally under British sovereignty, and thus subordinate to the UK. The Statue of Westminster codified the resolutions announced during the 1926 and 1930 Imperial Conference, which granted full legislative equality to the dominions of the British Empire thereby marking the effective legislative independence of the British Dominions.

I believe Reply 16 covers all that. Americans (or anyone else) have almost zero interest in it anyways.

Not just legislative, either, judicial as well.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 6717 times:

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 15):
200 years of diplomacy down the drain because of Geezers post.....

Nah, its two drinkin buddies kidding about the time they got in a fight. Someone walked away with a bloody nose... it healed, its all good now.


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 20, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 6712 times:

Quoting fsnuffer (Reply 14):
That plan may not have been looked at in awhile and I don't think Albany is as strategically important today as it was back in the 1800's. We probably would let you keep it without putting up too much of an argument.

They don't want Albany.

Today's battle plan it to cut off the oil from Canada to the US.

The US imports about 93,000 thousand barrels of oil from Canada each month, vs about 115,000 thousand barrels from all the OPEC countries (which includes 23,000+ barrels from Venezuela)

Which is 31% of the US oil imports for March 2013.


User currently offlinedandy_don From United States of America, joined May 2000, 202 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 6459 times:

Submarines were built during WW2 in Manitowac Wisconsin and were then sent to the Mississippi River via Chicago to New Orleans for service.

During initial sea (lake?) trials the Navy forgot about the difference in boyancy between salt and fresh water and a sub undergoing dive testing almost dropped below it's crush depth before recovering.


User currently offlineGeezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 6420 times:

Quoting dandy_don (Reply 21):
During initial sea (lake?) trials the Navy forgot about the difference in boyancy between salt and fresh water and a sub undergoing dive testing almost dropped below it's crush depth before recovering.

I spent from 1951 to 1955 working on all of those old WW2 fleet type boats, and I can tell you this; their "crush depth" could probably have been easily exceeded in Lake Michigan, but definitely not in Lake Erie; ( it's much too shallow )
one of our jobs that we did rather frequently, was removing "soft patches" on the hulls so "things" larger than 22 inches max could be removed or new things put in, then installing the soft patches back on the hull; it was about the dirtiest job we had to do, but I always "volunteered" every time a soft patch job came up, because every time we did one, two of us from the Shipfitters Shop always got to ride the boat out to Long Island Sound for a day of dive tests; ( very few non-qualified sub sailors ever get to go to sea on a submarine, and it was extremely interesting to me.

The hulls of the WW 2 Subs were only about 26 to 32 mm in thickness;



Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 6348 times:

Quoting Geezer (Reply 22):
I always "volunteered" every time a soft patch job came up, because every time we did one, two of us from the Shipfitters Shop always got to ride the boat out to Long Island Sound for a day of dive tests; ( very few non-qualified sub sailors ever get to go to sea on a submarine, and it was extremely interesting to me.

Thanks for sharing your memories!


User currently offlinecanoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2843 posts, RR: 12
Reply 24, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 6318 times:

The RCN had some active submarines in WW2. I wonder if any of them ever trained in the Great Lakes? Or, if they were confined to the waters off Halifax.


The beatings will continue until morale improves
25 Post contains images connies4ever : "Active submarines" -- which would be different from the billions we've spent on our current "active" submarines.
26 flightsimer : It says right there on wiki that the Americans rejected the demands of the British and an impasse occurred and ultimately the British dropped all the
27 johns624 : At the time, the HMS Juno seemed to be assigned to the Britannia Royal Naval College at Dartmouth as a cadet training ship.
28 Post contains links 777STL : Hell, the USN had a frigate off the coast of Chicago in Lake Michigan last year for the Air and Water show. I believe there were also a couple Canadi
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Aircraft Carriers In The Great Lakes?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Trainee Pilot Aircraft Selection In The Usaf posted Tue Jan 6 2009 18:39:48 by B787
Would The USN Sell Used Aircraft Carriers? posted Wed Aug 8 2007 21:48:50 by A342
The RAF In The South Atlantic - Great Pics posted Sun Jan 14 2007 20:30:33 by GDB
US Carriers Due In The UK? posted Wed Oct 25 2006 14:05:13 by SkidMarque
Fixed Wing Aircraft In The US Army? posted Mon Nov 21 2005 04:10:40 by Lastordu
British Aircraft Carriers Sunk In WW2 (help) posted Thu Sep 29 2005 19:09:47 by FlagshipAZ
Navy P8 In The Tampa / Clearwater Area posted Thu May 16 2013 22:32:15 by Max Q
Usaf F16 Down In The Adriatic posted Mon Jan 28 2013 13:46:28 by chuchoteur
F-5's Still Flying In The U.S. Who Operates? posted Mon Aug 20 2012 16:00:36 by KAUST
Aircraft Carriers: Armored Or Not? posted Thu Jul 19 2012 18:11:48 by flyingturtle

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format