Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

British Flattops?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> British Flattops? Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
British Flattops? - 3/27/2002 10:24:24 PM   
ftwarrior

 

Posts: 39
Joined: 2/28/2002
From: Springfield, VA
Status: offline
Will any of the British flattops be available in build-your-own scenarios?
Post #: 1
Re: British Flattops? - 3/27/2002 11:52:56 PM   
Mike Wood


Posts: 2095
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Oakland, California
Status: offline
Hello...

Yup. There are some in the data base. I beleive it is even possible that one might show up in a campaign, if Allied carrier losses are high enough.

Bye...

Michael Wood
___________________________________________________
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ftwarrior
[B]Will any of the British flattops be available in build-your-own scenarios? [/B][/QUOTE]

(in reply to ftwarrior)
Post #: 2
- 3/28/2002 10:31:09 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
HMS Victorious as happenned in 1943?

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to ftwarrior)
Post #: 3
Air Group in 43? - 3/29/2002 7:00:46 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
What was HMS Victorious's air group like while serving with USN in south pacific in 1943?

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to ftwarrior)
Post #: 4
- 3/29/2002 7:20:24 AM   
Kadste

 

Posts: 47
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Ottawa, Canda
Status: offline
for information on HMS Victorious during the war.



http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Ships/Victorious.html

In case you are not interested in looking, here is an excerpt:

Refitted at Norfolk Navy Yard USA, winter 1942-43, after which she was loaned to the US Pacific Fleet until being replaced by USS Essex. Despite its massive industrial muscle, the United States still found itself short of carriers in the Pacific, the only American carrier available in the South Pacific was USS Saratoga. HMS Victorious sailed to Pearl Harbor to join USS Saratoga's Battle Group, Task Force 14. She arrived and took up duties under Task Force 14 in the the Southwest Pacific on 17th May 1943. Renamed the USS Robin, she embarked US aircraft and aircrew, and with the Saratoga swept the Soloman Islands, whilst Saratoga embarked all the strike squadrons including the Fleet Air Arm 832 Squadron Avengers.

In May-June 1943, at Noumea, New Caledonia, the light cruiser USS San Diego joined USS Saratoga, and carrier HMS Victorious in support of the invasion of Munda, New Georgia, and of Bougainville. During this period Victorious operated 60 British and American Wildcat fighters for air cover. The two carriers sailed on 27th June, the carriers took up position and in the next few days put up 600 sorties against little opposition. The aircraft were reassigned to their parent carriers on 24 July, and the force reached Noumea the next day.

(in reply to ftwarrior)
Post #: 5
Armored flight decks - 4/3/2002 10:03:32 PM   
corbulo

 

Posts: 213
Joined: 2/28/2002
From: rigel 5
Status: offline
When the kamakazis struck, the british carriers suffered alot less damage because of armored flight decks. Azero w/ 500 lb bomb just managed to dent one, whereas such a strike against amaerican carriers put them out of ation fo a long time. I wish I could get the specific ship name. It was either in Philippines or off Okinawa.

_____________________________

virtute omne regatur

(in reply to ftwarrior)
Post #: 6
USS ROBIN? - 4/4/2002 6:00:06 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
Christ! What is up with american ship naming procedure? USS ROBIN for **** sakes! Why would it be renamed, is this a gag? British know how to name ships with the exception of naming corvettes after flowers. OOOH NOOO! It's HMS PINK!

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to ftwarrior)
Post #: 7
Re: Armored flight decks - 4/4/2002 1:04:09 PM   
CynicAl


Posts: 327
Joined: 7/27/2001
From: Brave New World
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by corbulo
[B]When the kamakazis struck, the british carriers suffered alot less damage because of armored flight decks. Azero w/ 500 lb bomb just managed to dent one, whereas such a strike against amaerican carriers put them out of ation fo a long time. I wish I could get the specific ship name. It was either in Philippines or off Okinawa. [/B][/QUOTE]

Conventional wisdom is wrong again. US fleet CVs actually repelled most kamikaze strikes with minor (or no) damage, except when they had armed and/or fueled aircraft aboard - the same circumstance that doomed at least two of the four Japanese CVs at Midway. What's more, an Essex-class that did get beat up could be much more quickly, easily, and completely repaired than a British armored CV. Many "badly damaged" Essex-class ships were back on the line a couple of weeks after their hits, including transit time to Ulithi - on the other hand, the armored box construction of the RN CVs meant that even a "little dent" could permanently lame the ship. Look at Formidable, which finished the war barely able to make 23 kts; or Illustrious, which was limited to just 19 kts, with a warped hull and one of her three shafts permanently out of commission. Finally, the much larger air groups of US CVs gave them a huge advantage in shooting down enemy aircraft before they got close enough to score. Luckily for the RN, TF 57 never came under the same intensity of air attack which TF 58 endured.

(in reply to ftwarrior)
Post #: 8
A Big Hole - 4/4/2002 6:34:22 PM   
Raverdave


Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline
Here is a pic of USS Bunker Hill (CV-17) after being hit by 2 Kamikaze, 11 May 1945.

A Zero and a D4Y Suisei struck Bunker Hill leaving it awash with flames and fuel, due to expert manoeuvring and damage control, most of this fuel and debries was swept over board. Bunker Hill lost 353 dead, 43 missing and 264 wounded as a result of the attack.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________




Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to ftwarrior)
Post #: 9
- 4/4/2002 6:39:45 PM   
Raverdave


Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline
And here is a pic of HMS Formidable after being hit by a Kamikaze, 4 May 1945.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________




Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to ftwarrior)
Post #: 10
Re: Re: Armored flight decks - 4/4/2002 6:42:55 PM   
Raverdave


Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by CynicAl
[B]

Conventional wisdom is wrong again. US fleet CVs actually repelled most kamikaze strikes with minor (or no) damage, except when they had armed and/or fueled aircraft aboard [/B][/QUOTE]


Have a look at the pic that I posted of USS Bunker Hill.......if you call that "minor" I would hate to see "major".

_____________________________




Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to ftwarrior)
Post #: 11
- 4/4/2002 7:31:58 PM   
Raverdave


Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline
The US navy records the following as being badly damaged or sunk as a result of Kamikaze attacks in tyhe Iwo Jima and Okinawa theatres from 17 Feb 1945 to 30 July 1945:-

Blessman
Gamble (scrapped)
LSM 216 (scrapped)
Saratoga
Napa
Bismarck-sea (sunk)
Whitley
Franklin
Essex
Wasp
Hasley Powell
Kiberly
Murray
O'Brien
LSM R-188
Indianapolis
Adams
Alpine
Hinsdale
LST-884 (scrapped)
Goodhue
Henrico
Achernar
Dickerson (sunk)
Wake Island
Prichett
Foreman
LST-599
LCT-876 (scrapped)
Howorth
Hyman
Mullany
Haynsworth
Fieberling
Rodman
Defence
Witter (scrapped)
Newcombe (scrapped)
Leutze (scrapped)
Bush (sunk)
Colhoun (sunk)
Emmons (sunk)
LST-447 (sunk)
Hobbs Victory (sunk)
Logan Victory (sunk)
Hancock
Maryland
Bennett
Wesson
Gregory
YMS-92
Sterett
Kidd
Tennessee
Purdy
Cassin Young
Zellars
Rall
Whitehurst
Gladiator
lindsey
LSM-189
LCS (L-57)
Mannert L. Abele (sunk)
LCS (L-33) (sunk)
Sigsbee
Intrepid
Bryant
Laffey
Bowers
Harding
Hobson
LCS (L-116)
Pringle (sunk)
LSM-28
Isherwood
Swallow (sunk)
LCS (L-15)(sunk)
Rathburne
Ralph Talbot
Canada Victory (sunk)
Hutchins
Pinkney
Comfort
Haggard (sunk)
Hazelwood
Terror
Macomb
LSM(R-195)
Aaron Ward (scrapped)
Little (sunk)
Birmingham
Ingraham
Shea
Carina
Sangamon (scrapped)
Luce (sunk)
Morrison (sunk)
LSM (R-190)(sunk)
LSM (R-194)(sunk)
Oberrender
England (scrapped)
Bunker Hill
LCS (L-88)
Hugh W. Hadley (scrapped)
Evans (scrapped)
Enterprise
Bache
Bright
Douglas A. Fox
John C. Butler
LST-808 (sunk)
Chase (scrapped)
William B. Allison
Stormes
O'Neill
Butler (scrapped)
Thatcher (scrapped)
Spectacle (scrapped)
Roper (scrapped)
Barry (sunk)
Bates (sunk)
LSM-135 (sunk)
Braine
Anthony
Rednour
Loy
LSC (L-119)
Forrest (scrapped)
Sandovel
Shubrick
Drexler (sunk)
Harry F. Bauer
LCI (L-90)(scrapped)
J.William Ditter (scrapped)
William D. Porter (sunk)
LCS (L-122)
Twiggs (sunk)
Halloran
Curtiss
LSM-59 (sunk)
LSM-213
LST-534
Callaghan (sunk)
Cassin
Young

(Source for the above "Kamikaze, Japan's Suicide Samurai" Raymond Lamont-Brown. ISBN 0-304-35200-4. Pages 104 to 106.)

_____________________________




Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to ftwarrior)
Post #: 12
Re: Re: Re: Armored flight decks - 4/4/2002 7:57:10 PM   
panda124c

 

Posts: 1692
Joined: 5/23/2000
From: Houston, TX, USA
Status: offline
Totally different idea's on damage control, the British built armoured decks to prevent damage, the Americans build wooden decks so they could be easly repaired.

IIRC there is a recorded incedent at Okinawa of a kamikaze ricocheting off of one of the British carrier’s deck. Talk about dropping a clanger. :D

(in reply to ftwarrior)
Post #: 13
- 4/4/2002 9:31:41 PM   
Raverdave


Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline
On 4 may, 1945, a lone Kamikaze bounced off HMS Indomitable, causing superficial damage and missed the bridge by ten yards.
However, also on the 4th of May two Kamikaze hit HMS Formidable rupturing the flight deck and causing a large metal splinter to cut through several steam pipes in the center boiler room.

On April the 6th, 1945, HMS Indefatigable was struck by a kamikaze loaded with a 550lb bomb which exploded at the base of the Island, damaging arrester gear and the radar intallations.


Admiral Sir Phillip Vian commented:-
" The armoured flight deck, which was a feature of British Fleet carriers, paid a dividend on this occasion. In spite of the direct hit [I]Indefatigable[/I] was able to operate aircraft again within a few hours. American carriers similarly struck were invariably forced to return to a fully equipped navy yard for repair."

_____________________________




Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to ftwarrior)
Post #: 14
American Carriers - 4/4/2002 10:19:49 PM   
Jason629

 

Posts: 83
Joined: 1/21/2002
From: Charlotte NC
Status: offline
I think the American Carrier construction approach played perfectly to their strengths. Namely, resources. They could afford to take a carrier out of the line for several weeks of repair. They had numbers, infrastructure and the logistical ability to really absorb the higher "overhead" of such an approach. What they got in return, quicker and more prolific initial production, much simpler repair concerns, and quite honestly...a more seaworthy and functional vessel.

(in reply to ftwarrior)
Post #: 15
Re: American Carriers - 4/4/2002 10:36:53 PM   
Raverdave


Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jason629
[B]I think the American Carrier construction approach played perfectly to their strengths. Namely, resources. They could afford to take a carrier out of the line for several weeks of repair. They had numbers, infrastructure and the logistical ability to really absorb the higher "overhead" of such an approach. What they got in return, quicker and more prolific initial production, much simpler repair concerns, and quite honestly...a more seaworthy and functional vessel. [/B][/QUOTE]

Well I don't really have a preferance for either design.....I just find it interesting that two Navys' take different approches for the same type of platform....both have their stong points and also their weak points. The US design is easier to get knocked out of action, but due to it's design is easier to repair, the British design can take more blows and still operate, but in the long term will also take longer to repair. But I would be interested to read anything on the day to day maintenance requirements of the wooden decks.....I guess it would be much the same as the old sailing ships????

_____________________________




Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to ftwarrior)
Post #: 16
- 4/4/2002 10:38:10 PM   
ratster

 

Posts: 166
Joined: 1/21/2002
From: PA
Status: offline
Armoured flight decks can't be all bad, modern carriers have them. :p

_____________________________

" If it be now, tis not to come: if it be not to come, it will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come: the readiness is all"

Clan [GOAT]

(in reply to ftwarrior)
Post #: 17
- 4/4/2002 10:40:22 PM   
Raverdave


Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ratster
[B]Armoured flight decks can't be all bad, modern carriers have them. :p [/B][/QUOTE]
The USN [I]had[/I] to go to Steel decks....jets tend to weigh more and land harder.

_____________________________




Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to ftwarrior)
Post #: 18
- 4/4/2002 10:45:52 PM   
ratster

 

Posts: 166
Joined: 1/21/2002
From: PA
Status: offline
Really!, modern jets weigh more than WWII piston driven aircraft, I didn't know that! :p

_____________________________

" If it be now, tis not to come: if it be not to come, it will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come: the readiness is all"

Clan [GOAT]

(in reply to ftwarrior)
Post #: 19
- 4/4/2002 10:52:51 PM   
Raverdave


Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline
Ratster!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(wait for the pic to load after you have viewed it):p

Attachment (1)

_____________________________




Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to ftwarrior)
Post #: 20
- 4/4/2002 11:18:38 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
I was under the impression the Americans went to large air groups for protection, while the British went to armoured decks...simple as that. British aircraft were of low performance when the Illustrious class was designed, and I beleive the Admiralty put little stock in the ability of FAA fighters to defend the fleet. I can't see the Americans designing carriers with wooden decks because of speed of production and numerical superiority, forsaking their vessel's crews. That's not their level of thinking.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to ftwarrior)
Post #: 21
- 4/4/2002 11:40:18 PM   
Snigbert

 

Posts: 2956
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: Worcester, MA. USA
Status: offline
[B]I can't see the Americans designing carriers with wooden decks because of speed of production and numerical superiority, forsaking their vessel's crews. That's not their level of thinking.[/B]


How would you explain the Sherman tank?


On American carriers they did have armor in places they felt needed to be protected (magazines, for example). I would guess they kept the wooden decks because at the time there was no obvious need for an armored deck. The wooden decks could be replaced easily if damaged, they could handle the load of the aircraft, they reduced the tonnage of the ship (with the benefits that go along with that).

(in reply to ftwarrior)
Post #: 22
- 4/5/2002 12:29:06 AM   
CynicAl


Posts: 327
Joined: 7/27/2001
From: Brave New World
Status: offline
Read carefully:

"US fleet CVs actually repelled most kamikaze strikes with minor (or no) damage, except when they had armed and/or fueled aircraft aboard"

Notice the qualifier? One photo of a burning US CV does not a coherent argument make. Nor does a list of all US ships damaged by kamikazes - especially since most of those on your list were DDs, DEs, or transports, which isn't particularly relevant, now is it? Quoting Admiral Vian, who for all his good points wasn't aboard any US CVs when they were struck by kamikazes and therefore has no basis for comparison, also doesn't cut it. What you need is a list of all kamikaze strikes on US and UK fleet CVs (no, CVEs don't count for a couple of reasons) together with extent of damage received as well as any unusual circumstances. Then you'll have a basis for comparison.

That list would look quite a bit like this one, compiled by Tony DiGiulian of warships1:
USS Enterprise CV-6
14 May 1945: The "Big E" suffered her last wound of World War II when a suicide plane destroyed her forward elevator, killing 14 and wounding 34 men. The carrier sailed for repairs at Puget Sound Navy Yard, arriving 7 June 1945. Repairs were slowed at the end of the war but completed on 13 September 1945 after which time she took part in "Operation Magic Carpet."


The RN CVs didn't have armored elevators, so an armored CV wouldn't have helped. Three months to fix, with work "slowed" for the last month.

Essex CV-9
25 November 1944: A kamikaze hit the port edge of her flight deck striking planes ready and fueled for takeoff, causing extensive damage. 15 killed and 44 wounded. The damage was quickly repaired and she was back with the 3d Fleet off Luzon supporting the occupation of Mindoro during 14-16 December 1944.


Less than three weeks to get this "badly damaged" CV (according to your own list) fully repaired and back on the line, even with the extenuating circumstance of burning aircraft. Note that the damage was caused by what happened on the flight deck, not by anything penetrating the deck.

Intrepid CV-11
1) 30 October 1944: A burning kamikaze crashed into one of the carrier's port gun tubs killing 10 men and wounding 6. Resumed flight operations within hours.
2) 25 November 1944: Hit by 2 kamikazes within five minutes, killing 11. Intrepid suffered no propulsion casualties nor left her station in the task group. In less than 2 hours her crew had extinguished the last blaze. Intrepid headed for San Francisco the next day, arriving 20 December for repairs. Rejoined the fleet in mid-February 1945.
3) 18 March 1945: A twin engine "Betty" exploded about 50 feet off Intrepid's forward boat crane. Flaming gasoline and plane parts started fires on the hangar deck but these were quickly extinguished.
4) 16 April 1945: Kamikaze struck Intrepid's flight deck. The engine and part of her fuselage right on through, killing 8 men and wounding 21. In less than an hour the flaming gasoline had been extinguished and within 3 hours after the crash planes were again landing on the carrier. Repaired San Francisco 19 May to 29 June 1945.


1- didn't hit the flight deck (lack of armored deck irrelevant), "resumed flight operations within hours." 2 - never lost station, within 2 hours the fires were under control; full repairs took about a month (note that it was nearly a month each way to and from San Fran). 3 - didn't go through the flight deck, but rather through the open hangar; minor fires, no interruption of service. 4 - an armored deck might have helped here; regardless, Evil I resumed flight operations within 3 hours and was fully repaired in six weeks.

USS Franklin CV-13
1) 9 October 1944: Kamikaze hit on Franklin's deck abaft the island structure, slid across the deck and into the water on her starboard beam. This strike resulted in minor damage with no interruption to flight operations.
2) 30 October 1944: ... Struck by a kamikaze which hit the flight deck and broke through onto the gallery deck, killing 56 and wounding 60. ... Repaired at Bremerton 28 November 1944 to 2 February 1945.
3) 19 March 1945 (This damage is not kamikaze related but is included here for reference): Struck by two semi-armor piercing (SAP) bombs. One struck the flight deck centerline, penetrating to the hangar deck, igniting fires on the second and third decks as well as knocking out the combat information center and airplot. The second hit aft, tearing through two decks and starting fires which triggered ammunition, bombs and rockets. Franklin, within 50 miles of the Japanese mainland, lay dead in the water, took a 13 degree starboard list, lost all radio communications and had massive fires. The casualties totaled 724 killed and 265 wounded. Franklin was taken in tow by the cruiser USS Pittsburgh until she managed to work up enough steam to make 14 knots. Franklin proceeded to Pearl Harbor on her own power where temporary repairs permitted her to sail to Brooklyn, NY, where she arrived on 28 April 1945. During repairs, everything from the hangar floor up, except the island and forward flight deck, was removed and replaced. As she was surplus to requirements following the end of the war, she did not resume flight operations and was decommissioned to reserve on 17 February 1947...


1 - skidded off the flight deck, minor damage, no interruption of operations. 2 - armored deck probably would have helped this one (that's two so far); one month to fix. 3 - bad luck that bomb hitting in a magazine; but would an armored flight deck have helped? Against an AP bomb of a heavier weight than the RN CVs were designed to withstand?

USS Ticonderoga CV-14
21 January 1945: Kamikaze crashed through her flight deck abreast of the No. 2 5-inch mount with a bomb exploding just above her hangar deck. Several planes stowed nearby were caught in the explosion and set on fire. The ship took a on 10-degree list to starboard. Captain Kiefer instituted a unique damage control operation by instructing the damage control party to continue flooding compartments on Ticonderoga's port side until she took on a 10-degree list to port. This swing from a starboard to a port list neatly dumped the burning planes overboard. Shortly after this, a second kamikaze struck the carrier's starboard side near the island. This bomb set more planes on fire, riddled her flight deck, and injured or killed another 100 sailors, including Capt. Kiefer. The crew brought her fires completely under control not long after 1400, about two hours after the first Kamikaze hit. Sent to Puget Sound Navy Yard where she arrived on 15 February. Repairs were completed on 20 April 1945 and she departed the next day to rejoin the fleet, striking at the Marshall Islands in early May.


An armored deck might or might not have helped with the first hit, but would not have mattered against the the second. Note the modifier (burning aircraft) in full effect; still fully repaired in two months.

USS Randolph CV-15
11 March 1945: While anchored at Ulithi, a "Frances" twin-engine bomber hit Randolph on the starboard side aft just below the flight deck, killing 25 men and wounding 106. Repaired at Ulithi, Randolph joined the Okinawa Task Force on 7 April 1945.


As always, an armored flight deck doesn't help if the enemy doesn't hit the flight deck.

USS Lexington CV-16
5 November 1944: Off Luzon a Kamikaze struck near her island, destroying most of the island structure and starting multiple fires. Within 20 minutes major blazes were under control and she was able to continue normal flight actions. Repaired at Ulithi and back in action 1 December 1944.


Yet again, the island isn't the flight deck. Flight ops resumed after 20 minutes, repairs took just a couple of weeks at a forward base.

USS Bunker Hill CV-17
11 May 1945: Severely damaged by two suicide planes which started large fires. Casualties were 346 men killed, 43 missing, and 264 wounded. Fully repaired at Bremerton from June to September 1945. Used in "Operation Magic Carpet."


And from the DANFS: "On the morning of 11 May 1945, while supporting the Okinawa invasion, BUNKER HILL was hit and severely damaged by two suicide planes. Gasoline fires flamed up and several explosions took place. The ship suffered the loss of 346 men killed, 43 missing, and 264 wounded." Gasoline fires and explosions again; an armored deck would not have been especially helpful in fighting (or preventing) those fires.

USS Hancock CV-19
1) 25 November 1944: Antiaircraft fire exploded a Kamikaze plane some 300 feet above the ship but a section of its fuselage landed amidships and a part of the wing hit the flight deck and burst into flames. The fires were quickly extinguished and no serious damage was inflicted.
2) 7 April 1945: Kamikaze spun across the flight deck and crashed into a group of planes while its bomb hit the port catapult. 62 men were killed and 71 wounded. The fires were out within a half hour and she resumed flight operations in less than an hour. Hancock was detached from her task group 9 April and was sent to Pearl Harbor for repairs. She was back in action on 13 June 1945.


1 - the non-armored flight deck did just fine against this one. 2 - the flight deck did fine against this one, too - but the parked aircraft on the deck burned; repairs again took about a month, allowing for transit time.

USS Belleau Wood CVL-24
30 October 1944: Shot down a "Jill" Kamikaze which fell on her flight deck aft, causing fires and setting off ammunition. 92 men were killed or missing. After temporary repairs at Ulithi during 2-11 November, Belleau Wood was sent to Hunter's Point for permanent repairs and an overhaul, arriving 29 November. She departed San Francisco Bay back to the fleet on 20 January 1945.


A) Not quite a fleet carrier, B) the flight deck wasn't penetrated, again, the burning fuel and ammo on deck were what hurt her, C) under two months for full repairs.

USS Cabot CVL-28
25 November 1945: Kamikaze crashed the flight deck on the port side, destroying or disabling several AA guns and a gun director. A second Kamikaze was shot down but struck close aboard, showering the port side with shrapnel and burning debris. Cabot lost 62 men killed and wounded but she continued to maintain her station in formation and operate aircraft as temporary repairs were made. Sent to Ulithi for permanent repairs, arriving 28 November and returning to action 11 December 1944.


A) Not quite a fleet carrier, B) yet again the flight deck wasn't penetrated, C) no interruption in flight ops, D) less than two weeks for full repairs at a forward base.

Also note that ships which returned to stateside yards also got a full refit while they were in, including all the latest electronic gizmos, any fire-control or fighter diretion updates, etc., which stretched repair times by a week or two.

And, on the British side (still from Mr. DiGiulian's list):
(Note:
According to D.K. Brown, RCNC, Kamikaze hits marked * might not have pierced even an unarmored flight deck while for the ones marked ** the armored flight deck was invaluable. Hits not marked did not strike the flight deck.)

HMS Indefatigable
1 April 1945: Struck by a Zero carrying one 250 kg bomb. Hit starboard side of island. Deck indented over 15 square feet by up to 2 inches but not penetrated. Intense fire, but quickly brought under control and extinquished. Out of action for fifty minutes.* Repairs took one month.


Repairs took a month. Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah - those "flimsy" US carriers. And if you'll note the note, those "flimsy" US ships could be expected to do just as well in this case.

HMS Illustrious
6 April 1945: Kamikaze struck a glancing blow to the island and inflicted negligible damage but its bomb exploded alongside underwater, inflicting severe structural damage. No interruption to flight operations.


"... severe structural damage." I believe I mentioned the warped hull and destroyed shaft previously. In contrast to US ships, this damage never was made right, and the ship was able to make no better than 19 kts for the rest of her career.

HMS Formidable
4 May 1945: Struck by a Zero carrying one 250 kg bomb which caused a 2 foot square hole and a 24 x 20 foot depression in the armored flight deck. Some structural damage was inflicted and three fragments penetrated the hanger deck with one going through a boiler room and into the double bottom. Out of action for five hours.**
9 May 1945: Kamikaze strike killed one and wounded eight. Deck depressed 4.5 inches with a supporting beam distorted by 3 inches. Heavy fire inflicted in parked aircraft. Out of action for 25 minutes.* Repairs from both hits took one month.


1 - "structural damage" again. This is where Formidable was permanently reduced to a 23 kt ship; I wonder about Mr. Brown's definition of "invaluable." 2 - structural damage and fire; repairs took a month (again with the month), though as with Illustrious she never was quite right again.

HMS Indomitable
4 May 1945: A Kamikaze struck next to the island and inflicted casualties of 8 killed and 51 wounded as well as destroying 8 aircraft. No serious damage inflicted to the ship.


Note the lack of asterisks indicating a flight deck hit - ie, no reason to think this hit would have been any more serious for a US flattop.

HMS Victorious
9 May 1945: Struck by three kamikazes. The first hit the deck alongside the island and skidded into the sea where its bomb exploded, inflicting no damage.* The second hit the flight deck at Frame 30 between forward lift (elevator) and "B" 4.5-in mount. This created a 25 sq. ft. hole and depressed the deck over an area of 144 sq. ft. In addition, a bulkhead was buckled, an accelerator [a type of aircraft catapult] broken and small fires were started.** The third kamikaze hit the port side but inflicted no damage. Victorious was able to fly off planes one hour later and could land planes twelve hours later. Fully back in action after two days. Repairs took one month.


The first kamikaze hit at a shallow angle and bounced off; and would almost certainly have done the same on a US CV (as per the note). The third hit the side of the hull, but Victorious was luckier than Illustrious. The second caused a fair bit of damage, requiring two days to be returned to action and a month in the yard to fully repair.

The RN CVs stayed on station because they had to - the RN didn't have any to spare for long trips home for refits. USN CVs which, if necessary, could have been patched up "enough" at a forward base (ie Ulithi), or even stayed on the line, went home for the full treatment because the USN could afford to pull ships out of the line.

(in reply to ftwarrior)
Post #: 23
- 4/5/2002 2:30:15 AM   
panda124c

 

Posts: 1692
Joined: 5/23/2000
From: Houston, TX, USA
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Raverdave
[B]
The USN [I]had[/I] to go to Steel decks....jets tend to weigh more and land harder. [/B][/QUOTE]

Not to mention wood burns too readly in a modern jet exaust.

Korea had jets on WWII wooden decks did they do anything special to the decks then, other than the development of the exhaust blast shield?

(in reply to ftwarrior)
Post #: 24
- 4/5/2002 2:31:59 AM   
panda124c

 

Posts: 1692
Joined: 5/23/2000
From: Houston, TX, USA
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ratster
[B]Really!, modern jets weigh more than WWII piston driven aircraft, I didn't know that! :p [/B][/QUOTE]

An F4 Phatom is about 2/3 to 3/4 the size of a B-17 and carries a bigger bomb load.

(in reply to ftwarrior)
Post #: 25
Re: American Carriers - 4/5/2002 3:52:20 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jason629
[B]I think the American Carrier construction approach played perfectly to their strengths. Namely, resources. They could afford to take a carrier out of the line for several weeks of repair. They had numbers, infrastructure and the logistical ability to really absorb the higher "overhead" of such an approach. What they got in return, quicker and more prolific initial production, much simpler repair concerns, and quite honestly...a more seaworthy and functional vessel. [/B][/QUOTE]

Not to mention larger airgroups

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to ftwarrior)
Post #: 26
- 4/5/2002 6:44:21 AM   
Paul Goodman

 

Posts: 198
Joined: 7/5/2000
From: Portsmouth, VA, USA
Status: offline
I always had the impression that the Midway class (CV 41, 42, 43) were designed with armored flight decks as a reaction to the Kamikazi attacks. They were designed to participate in WW II. I'm sure they were designed with the Bearcat in mind, not Banshees and Panthers. I remember standing on the flight deck of the Midway as a child and I think I remember standing on wood. Wood is an excellent material at sea due to its non-slip characteristics and may have been placed over the steel for that purpose.

Certainly the early carrier jets did not represent a fire hazard from jet blast, as they operated from all the remaining Essex class carriers. They also had about 10 percent of the thrust of a modern aircraft. No, the real problems were the aircraft, themselves, with their higher landing speed and inadequate takeoff power. My father was on the first Midway cruise that took jets aboard. Many incidents, including one that came apart as it engaged the arrester gear. Every thing from just abaft the cockpit kept going!

Paul

(in reply to ftwarrior)
Post #: 27
- 4/5/2002 4:27:02 PM   
CynicAl


Posts: 327
Joined: 7/27/2001
From: Brave New World
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Paul Goodman
[B]I always had the impression that the Midway class (CV 41, 42, 43) were designed with armored flight decks as a reaction to the Kamikazi attacks. They were designed to participate in WW II. I'm sure they were designed with the Bearcat in mind, not Banshees and Panthers. I remember standing on the flight deck of the Midway as a child and I think I remember standing on wood. Wood is an excellent material at sea due to its non-slip characteristics and may have been placed over the steel for that purpose.

Certainly the early carrier jets did not represent a fire hazard from jet blast, as they operated from all the remaining Essex class carriers. They also had about 10 percent of the thrust of a modern aircraft. No, the real problems were the aircraft, themselves, with their higher landing speed and inadequate takeoff power. My father was on the first Midway cruise that took jets aboard. Many incidents, including one that came apart as it engaged the arrester gear. Every thing from just abaft the cockpit kept going!

Paul [/B][/QUOTE]

The three Midway class CVs were laid down in 10/43, 12/43, and 7/44 - months before the first kamikaze attack; design work on the Midways started before Pearl Harbor. So they were hardly intended as a response to the kamikaze threat. What happened is more complicated, but it basically boils down to a structural problem with very large ships. The Navy wanted their next-generation CV to be 50% bigger again than Essex, because experience through the 20s and 30s had shown that bigger was much better for CV ops. But the Essex class were designed to a particular structural concept (structurally speaking, the hull stopped at the hangar deck, and everything above that - hangar and flight deck included - was superstructure), and it turned out that they were right about at the effective size limit for that particular concept. Simply scaling the design up would have resulted in an unacceptably overstressed hull, and it turned out that the solution was for the hangar and flight deck to become an integral part of the hull. That meant that the flight decks of the new ships had to be made strong enough to handle considerably more stress than did those of previous CVs. Since the flight decks had to be greatly reinforced anyway, the designers went ahead and moved the main armored deck from the hangar to the flight deck. So the Midways ended up with armored flight decks. It wasn't a reaction to a perceived threat, or to the alleged superiority of British CVs. The kamikaze threat hadn't even been imagined yet when the ships were being designed. As for the other, the example of the Royal Navy is illuminating: the design of the British Malta class was a response to wartime experience, and featured a greatly increased air wing, at the cost of greatly reduced armor...

(in reply to ftwarrior)
Post #: 28
- 4/5/2002 6:46:15 PM   
Raverdave


Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline
I still standby what I said before " [I]....both have their strong points and also their weak points. The US design is easier to get knocked out of action, but due to it's design is easier to repair[/I] And I will add here that it is also faster to repair [I] , the British design can take more blows and still operate, but in the long term will also take longer to repair. [/I] "

If anything the excellent list that was provided by CynicAl, goes some way in supporting my opinion.

_____________________________




Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to ftwarrior)
Post #: 29
- 4/6/2002 8:00:36 PM   
Adnan Meshuggi

 

Posts: 2220
Joined: 8/2/2001
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Raverdave
[B]I still standby what I said before " [I]....both have their strong points and also their weak points. The US design is easier to get knocked out of action, but due to it's design is easier to repair[/I] And I will add here that it is also faster to repair [I] , the British design can take more blows and still operate, but in the long term will also take longer to repair. [/I] "

If anything the excellent list that was provided by CynicAl, goes some way in supporting my opinion. [/B][/QUOTE]

Well i think, we should look for th original purporse of the vessels...
the brits build armoured decks because of the german bombs, they thought of an damaged but swimming ship.

The americans built their carriers in my opinion with wood decks for the purporse of greater air wings, better repair times and lighter ships.

The kamikazes hitting the decks explode immidatly, so it doset matter if the deck is wood or metal.
I think too, both had advantages... in the mediteran, the wooden american decks would have caused much total losses against the bombs of the stukas, because these bombs would have killed the ships. On the other hand, in the pacific, with more and more kamikazes, the wooden carriers were much better, also because the sea bound planes were the biggest defend system. In the mediterian with the "old" british planes (1941/1943) it made no difference against me109´s and focke wulfs....

So i think, this discussion is for "Kaisers Bart". No class was "better" or "worser", both there useful for the original purporse...

_____________________________

Don't tickle yourself with some moralist crap thinking we have some sort of obligation to help these people. We're there for our self-interest, and anything we do to be 'nice' should be considered a courtesy dweebespit

(in reply to ftwarrior)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> British Flattops? Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.063