British carriers

[Warlord]

While reading, I have found several (a lot of) battle accounts in which RN carriers weren´t able to give battle because they didn´t have enough plane to do so, whether against the Jerries or Wops in the Med or the nips in the Indian Ocean. Why was that? Number of planes aboard was just too small? Were the FAA fighters that out-everything by their axis counterparts? Or were they too complicated to maintain, so as to keep the availability rate always in the red?

[jacobtowne]

Originally Posted by Warlord

While reading, I have found several (a lot of) battle accounts in which RN carriers weren´t able to give battle because they didn´t have enough plane to do so, whether against the Jerries or Wops in the Med or the nips in the Indian Ocean. Why was that? Number of planes aboard was just too small? Were the FAA fighters that out-everything by their axis counterparts? Or were they too complicated to maintain, so as to keep the availability rate always in the red?

Wops? Nips?

JT

[marcus69x]

I'll second JT on that. What on earth are Wops and Nips?

[jacobtowne]

Marcus:
"Wop" and "Nip" are derogatory terms for Italians and Japanese. I was not asking the author for a definition, but rather questioning the propriety of using such terms.

JT

[4th wilts]

politically incorrect my friend.a nip is a jap and a wop is an italiian or ice cream seller.and a japanese womans you know what,goes the other way round.so ive been told. but a british carrier had an armoured flight deck and relitavely few aircraft,but an american or japanese carrier had a plywood deck,which burned like my bonfire,but did carry more aircraft.yours very sincerely,lee.

[Slipdigit]

Yes, British carriers did ship fewer aircraft than it's US counterparts and it did hinder large operations. British carriers carried less fuel oil and aviation fuel than did its US Navy counterparts, so it made coordination on long-term operations a bit more difficult.

US carriers did not necessarily have unarmored decks as there was some armor, but it was carried below the hangar deck. The US treated the hangar and flight decks as superstructure whereas the Brits treated it as hull, with structural members going all the way to the flight deck in British ships. The armoring of flight decks limited size and location of elevators, and the headroom of the hangar deck, to the point it limited aircraft types that could be carried. 4Wilts is correct in a sense, US decks were made of wood, although not of the plywood variety.

The problem with the armored deck was that it contained the blast, once the ordinance penetrated into the hangar spaces, damaging the hull and bulkheads. I read recently of one of the British carriers that had significant hull damage during the Okinawa campaign resulting from internal explosions and ultimately proved uneconomical to repair. I cannot recall the carriers name, but I can look it up if you would like for me to.

The Royal Navy chose not to incorporate armored flight decks into its post war carriers and late intra-war designs that were not built also deleted them.

Wait, here it is. Very interesting read

Were Armored Flight Decks on British Carriers Worthwhile?

[marcus69x]

Originally Posted by jacobtowne

Marcus:
"Wop" and "Nip" are derogatory terms for Italians and Japanese. I was not asking the author for a definition, but rather questioning the propriety of using such terms.

JT

Aha I see. Well thanx for educating me anyway JT.

[jacobtowne]

Jeff:
Thanks for the link. That's an informative and fascinating article. What I had once concluded (simplistically as it turns out) - that the armored decks allowed British flattops to better withstand attack - turns out to be a far more complex topic than I had thought, particularly regarding Okinawa. But isn't that frequently the case?

JT

[T. A. Gardner]

The articles miss something that was more important and critical in the design of the smaller British armored carriers that greatly concerned the RN and the designers. That was, stability.
Having an armored flight deck put a huge amount of weight high up in the ship. This in turn effected metacentric height and stability negatively. If anything was truly a serious threat to a British armored flight deck carrier it was damage below the waterline. As little as one torpedo could have produced a list sufficent to prevent flight operations. Flooding, even in small amounts, represented a threat to the stability of such carriers.

Another thing not brought up was British practice following the heavy damage to Illustrious in the Med. Because of the threat to these carriers to bomb blast from a deck penetration the RN recommended that in air attacks that these carriers lower one elevator to the hanger bay to allow a path to vent a penetrating bomb blast. This of course, negated in part the reason for an armored flight deck.

If anything, the US design of the Yorktown and follow-on Essex class was a better compromise. While the flight deck was more vulnerable, the hull and machinery were far less exposed to damage. The reason was these ships did have thin armor under the flight deck (on the order of 1" or so) to initate a bomb's fuze with thicker armor (3 - 4") on the hanger deck and another 1" or so lower in the ship to stop spinters.
This maximized the chances the hull would survive damage even if the flight deck was damaged beyond use.

[von Poop]

Sorry for butting in but I'm with JT on this. It's a public forum, so do try and leave those terms aside if you could Warlord, unless perhaps quoting from the period.

Cheers,
Adam.

Apologies again for that very brief interjection and back to your scheduled thread .
Mr Gardner said:

Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner

The articles miss something that was more important and critical in the design of the smaller British armored carriers that greatly concerned the RN and the designers. That was, stability.
Having an armored flight deck put a huge amount of weight high up in the ship. This in turn effected metacentric height and stability negatively. If anything was truly a serious threat to a British armored flight deck carrier it was damage below the waterline. As little as one torpedo could have produced a list sufficent to prevent flight operations. Flooding, even in small amounts, represented a threat to the stability of such carriers.

Another thing not brought up was British practice following the heavy damage to Illustrious in the Med. Because of the threat to these carriers to bomb blast from a deck penetration the RN recommended that in air attacks that these carriers lower one elevator to the hanger bay to allow a path to vent a penetrating bomb blast. This of course, negated in part the reason for an armored flight deck.

If anything, the US design of the Yorktown and follow-on Essex class was a better compromise. While the flight deck was more vulnerable, the hull and machinery were far less exposed to damage. The reason was these ships did have thin armor under the flight deck (on the order of 1" or so) to initate a bomb's fuze with thicker armor (3 - 4") on the hanger deck and another 1" or so lower in the ship to stop spinters.
This maximized the chances the hull would survive damage even if the flight deck was damaged beyond use.