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?
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
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
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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: 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.
This maximized the chances the hull would survive damage even if the flight deck was damaged beyond use. As exhibited by these pictures of the USS Franklin CV-13. There were772 KIAs and two Medals of Honor were awarded that day. The story of this ship was amazing. The fighter squadron on this ship at the time of this attack? VMF-214, the famed Black Sheep Squadron of Gregory "Pappy" Boyington fame, although by then he was a PoW and this was the second incarnation of the squadron. Edit---Did this help are the Alabama flags gone? The alabama flags are indeed gone - Adam.
As exhibited by these pictures of the USS Franklin CV-13. There were772 KIAs and two Medals of Honor were awarded that day. Why do I get a picture of the Alabama flag instead of the pictures Jeff posted?
Because that's what he wanted... subliminal advertising. The Navy pictures site has a notice up that it's shuffling it's archive, Jeff'll have to point us in the right direction.
The decking of U.S carriers was made of redwood. An advantage of using wood was that it was relatively easy to repair damage. tom
is it not true that h.m.s.indomitable was able to have a larger air complement than other carriers in the royal navy.did she have a larger size than other carriers,was she an illustrious class ship or was she damaged and repaired in such a way to allow more aircraft.can anyone help.yours very sincerely.lee.
The decking of U.S carriers was made of redwood. An advantage of using wood was that it was relatively easy to repair damage. tom Here's a well-known photo of USS Suwanee, CVE 27. An element of Taffy 1 at Leyte, Suwanee was crashed by a Kamikaze on Oct. 25th, 1944. The bomb exploded between the flight and hangar decks. Flight operations resumed within two hours. Sadly, this was not always the case. JT
is it not true that h.m.s.indomitable was able to have a larger air complement than other carriers in the royal navy.did she have a larger size than other carriers,was she an illustrious class ship or was she damaged and repaired in such a way to allow more aircraft.can anyone help.yours very sincerely.lee. Lee, She was an Illustrious Class: Illustrious, Indomitable, Formidable and Victorious, but did have design changes to up her aircraft capacity early on. Early in the war, she carried 55 aircraft (Seafire and Albacores) compared to her sisters who carried 36. By later in the war (1945), she was operating Corsairs and Avengers, but carried less of these than she did of the British-designed aircraft. Maybe some of the Royal Navy brains here knows why. I wondering if it had anything to with hangar overhead and height of the folded wings of the American-designed aircraft. Just a guess.
another reason why royal navy carriers had it seems more armour than their american or japanese counterparts,is that they were an integeral part of a battlefleet,afterall,was there not a carrier present during the night action at matapan.yours very sincerely.lee.
US carrier decks were Douglas Fir, not Redwood Check out the FM2 chewing up the flight deck. http://usd230.k12.ks.us/espictt/military%20stuff/escort_carriers.htm\ I have the same pictures from my Dad's book. "The photos and information on this page is from the book "The Escort Carriers in Action, The Story-In Pictures-Of the Escort Carrier Force U.S. Pacific Fleet 1945" provided to us by Albino Munoz.* This book was presented to him as one of the 30,000 officers and men of the Escort Carrier Force who served during World War II." tom
