Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Japanese Carrier Design Question

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Japanese Carrier Design Question Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Japanese Carrier Design Question - 7/30/2015 4:57:52 PM   
cdnice


Posts: 179
Joined: 5/7/2009
From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Status: offline 		I have been looking and haven't been able to find anything that really explains the lack of an Island on some of the Japanese carriers. Does anyone know why some did not have one and others did?

_____________________________
Post #: 1
RE: Japanese Carrier Design Question - 7/30/2015 5:15:15 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		Hosho was built with an island, which was soon later removed based on aircrew feedback.

From wikipedia:
"After Hôshô was commissioned, experienced aircrews requested changes, and the ship was modified by the Yokosuka Navy Arsenal from 6 June to 20 August 1924. The island, tripod mast, and aircraft crane were removed since they partially obstructed the flight deck and obscured pilot visibility. The forward part of the flight deck was made horizontal, and the 8 cm AA guns were moved forward, close to the position of the former island and out of the way of landing operations.[Note 5] After the island was removed, the carrier's flight operations were controlled from a platform extending from the side of the flight deck, a design that would be repeated in subsequent Japanese aircraft carriers."

Flush deck carriers were actually common on early designs, including Langley and Furious

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 7/30/2015 6:18:15 PM >

(in reply to cdnice)
Post #: 2
RE: Japanese Carrier Design Question - 7/30/2015 7:06:51 PM   
dr.hal


Posts: 3335
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline 		Another problem created by an "island" or superstructure above the deck is the turbulence it would create while steaming into the wind which made it difficult for aircraft to land on deck. This was partially fixed by moving any superstructure off to the side. However this was always a concern until they designed the angled flight deck (which of course allowed for flight operations to take place on deck while launching and/or recovering aircraft).

< Message edited by dr.hal -- 7/30/2015 8:08:40 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 3
RE: Japanese Carrier Design Question - 7/30/2015 7:48:40 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline 		From the descriptions in Shattered Sword I got the impression that 'control' of flight operations is something of an overstatement.

Among other things it seems that CAP fighters decided on their own when they needed to land and rearm/refuel and the "Flight Control Officer" didn't have radio comms with any aircraft directly and it seems comms to/from every airborne aircraft from any given carrier was crammed onto a single radio frequency "guarded" in the radio room.

(Cycling CAP nearly continuously from 0800 to 1000 on 4 June seems to have prevented the IJN from ever getting their torpedo bombers ready (on deck and warmed up) to strike the American CVs at Midway. The mix-up with bombs or torpedoes seems an overstated excuse at least if not a complete myth as an explanation of the disaster that befell the KB.)

IIRC the Japanese had a "range light" arrangement on the stern of their carriers by which the pilots lined up to land. To my mind that would allow the pilot to adjust his "glide path" height but didn't tell him much about whether or not he had wings level or not and when to cut power. In bad weather or at night that system might be better than an LSO but for normal daytime landing a Landing Signals Officers could help a pilot to make the best approach. The Japanese system pretty much puts the entire burden of landing successfully on the individual pilot. Landing on a carrier is by all accounts a very difficult thing to do more than once (kamikazes didn't even always succeed that one time). Having an LSO to help seems more likely to allow less than perfect pilots to survive more often.

From what I've read the island did create problem wind currents on the flight deck. A nice flat deck would have been one solution. Making the superstructure smaller would also have created a smaller area of flight deck subject to such problem wind currents. Once again referring to "Shattered Sword" such small superstructures made it uncomfortably "cozy" on the bridge for the Admiral, his staff, the Captain, his helmsman and messenger, the Air Boss and any helpers he might have. On USN/UK carriers the island was much bigger and had multiple "bridges" for the Admiral, etc and Captain, etc along with a CIC.

I've never considered the problem of wind currents before but perhaps the carriers were constructed with all of their landing wires located aft of the island so that the problem winds would not effect landing (sure looks like the island is quite far forward on most IJN carriers (if not on US/UK carriers))?

< Message edited by spence -- 7/30/2015 8:50:46 PM >

(in reply to cdnice)
Post #: 4
RE: Japanese Carrier Design Question - 7/30/2015 10:43:26 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		Yes I read the same

Japan's carrier designs move from flush deck, "no island" ships: Hosho, Ryujo, Akagi, Kaga
to "small" islands: Akagi and Kaga after 1930s conversion, Shokakus, Soryus
to a much bigger island in their later Taiho and Shinano

I bet this increase came from "lessons learnt" as mentioned in Shattered sword; a cramped bridge is not the best place to command a fleet.
Maybe the increased need of space for electronic equipment also influenced

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 7/30/2015 11:45:31 PM >

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 5
RE: Japanese Carrier Design Question - 7/31/2015 12:47:05 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline 		I've also read some Japanese carriers didn't have the island because of top heaviness. In the 30s a number of Japanese ships were found to be too top heavy and a couple of DDs were lost when they capsized during a war game exercise.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 6
RE: Japanese Carrier Design Question - 7/31/2015 1:26:32 AM   
Mundy


Posts: 2869
Joined: 6/26/2002
From: Neenah
Status: offline 		Kaga sorta paid for it with a bomb blowing hers apart.

_____________________________


(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 7
RE: Japanese Carrier Design Question - 8/6/2015 4:01:55 PM   
dr.hal


Posts: 3335
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline 		I know I've read about a capsizing as a result of being topheavy and yes I too thought it was a heavy cruiser, but for the life of me I can't find a reference to it anywhere, do you have anything?

_____________________________


(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 8
RE: Japanese Carrier Design Question - 8/6/2015 5:05:55 PM   
Buckrock

 

Posts: 578
Joined: 3/16/2012
From: Not all there
Status: offline 		The capsizing of the torpedo boat Tomozuru in 1934 and a near disaster involving units of the 4th Fleet during a typhoon in 1935 finally confirmed fears that many of the newer Japanese warship designs had become dangerously top heavy.

It was after these two incidents (though only one involved a capsizing, the Tomozuru) that a program of stability improvements began. Most of ships modified were of the destroyer/escort classes but the Mogamis and Takaos were also included as their excessive top weight had already become a concern.

Chapter 8 of Evans and Peattie's "Kaigun" covers this in some detail.

_____________________________

This was the only sig line I could think of.

(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 9
RE: Japanese Carrier Design Question - 8/7/2015 5:54:14 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline 		Actually top side weight was a problem for virtually all warships as new equipment such as radar and the rush to pile on AA armament started. That stuff was all pretty heavy.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Buckrock)
Post #: 10
RE: Japanese Carrier Design Question - 8/19/2015 7:56:44 PM   
kstoddard2

 

Posts: 19
Joined: 6/29/2005
Status: offline 		Yeah, USN Cruisers were extremely top heavy by the end of the war.

Kyle

_____________________________

I'm starving, get me a scotch!

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 11
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Japanese Carrier Design Question Page: [1]
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

1.109