[ARC5] YG,ZB question or two

[Mike Hanz]

> On 1 Jul 2011 at 9:46, jcoward5452 at aol.com wrote:
>>   Did catapult launched float planes from cruisers use the YG/ZB system
>>   to return to their cruiser? Thanks,

Depends on whether the cruiser or battleship had the YG installed.  On 
the other hand, if the cruiser was involved in a carrier task force, 
then they could use the carrier YG to get close to their ship.

On 7/1/2011 11:34 AM, Kenneth G. Gordon wrote:
> Another question or two: did carrier pilots rely soley on the YG/ZB
> system to return to their ships, or were they well enough trained and
> equipped to return at least to the vicinity without it?

The book entitled *Evolution of Naval Radio-Electronics and 
Contributions of the Naval Research Laboratory* devotes two pages to its 
inception and operational use.  The operational range was on the order 
of 275 miles, which is a 'fur piece' as they say down here in Virginia, 
and IIRC getting fairly close to the fighter/bomber range when you 
factor in loiter and attack time.  All you had to do was to regain 
cruise altitude and head back in the general direction of the task force 
after the air battle, and you were statistically prone to run into the 
275 mile radius circle around the carrier(s).  There is a clip in the 
book about Japanese frustration in not understanding how we did it - in 
one of the Marianas air battles, our forces pursued the Japanese to the 
limits of their fuel, then returned in the dark to the carriers.  Pretty 
hard to do that with a loop antenna and triangulation in the middle of 
the ocean.  It also reflects our reliance on the system, as this was not 
an isolated incident.

> Were there very many pilots who were lost because of failure of the
> system?

I know of no data on aircraft losses attributable solely to YG/ZB 
failures, but the 1945 Navy Airborne Radio Maintenance Notes here 
suggest it was a simple, reliable system.

> Why is so little known about its use? Before becoming a member of
> this list, I had never heard of it.

Probably because TACAN replaced it, and you know how it is with obsolete 
technologies... :-)

> Since radio silence was such a critical part of naval operations in a
> war zone, was radio silence routinely broken to talk pilots home?

I don't know why they would need to, Ken, at least if the ZB were 
working.  From what I have read of the usual order of battle, the radar 
picket destroyers deployed at some distance from the capital ships in a 
task force provided CIC with approximately a 300 mile visibility - not 
much more than the ZB range - so the advantage was sorta minor.  In any 
case, it seems to me that if a pilot called in asking for a direction 
home, the reply of "steer 114 degrees magnetic" would convey little to 
an enemy unless they knew which aircraft had asked for the vector, as 
well as where he was to start with.

73,
Mike