Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

No Essex class carrier suffered permanent damage from kamikaze attack. However, Illustrious did.
British armored-box carriers were more vulnerable to kamikaze attack but more resistant to kamikaze hits.
The only British carriers with the hangar armor were the Illustrious and Implacable classes. The concept was a mistaken one, and DK Brown has commented that the RN would have been better off with an Ark Royal sequel.
Very little could be done to increase the avgas loads of the armor-box carriers. I believe it was Victorious that used up 20% of her avgas stores in a single strike against a target in the NEI.

quote:

No Essex class carrier suffered permanent damage from kamikaze attack. However, Illustrious did.

quote:

In addition having a small amount of fighter is a handicap. Plus you have limited strike aircraft leaving you more vulnerable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo

The British had a completely "British" approach to carrier combat. In the halls of the British admiralty it had been held as dogma since Nelson's days that the Royal Navy would only be effective if its ships and sailors were significantly better trained and prepared for combat than their adversaries. The same idea was then applied to the naval air arm, which is why they never saw the comparatively small airgroups as an issue. This is despite the fact that it took them a looong time to actually wrest control of the fleet air arm away from the RAF (which is why their naval air hardware, arguably, sucked).

As for British CV durability, they did not really consider carriers as a supporting force. They saw them as a vital component of naval operations. However, they realised that any CV vs CV engagement is pretty much a mutual anihilation scenario. They predicted (quite rightly, as Coral See had shown, and Midway was supposed to show, except that that was a fluke as was agreed in another thread on this forum) that in future CV combat if your 4 CVs engaged their 3 CVs, you were likely to lose 2 of yours for 3 of theirs. Thus, they saw carrier survivability as very importaint which is why Brit CVs are so heavily armored. Also, they were designed to operate in large numbers from numerous, well-supported bases where they could rearm and resupply (in the Indian ocean as well as Atlantic and the Med). US carriers were designed to operate in the vast Pacific with no source of supply for miles. IIRC, the British pre-war battle plan called for 6 fleet carriers in the Indian ocean. Overal, they planned on having 15 or 16 CVs altogether. That strategy called for UK CVs to clear the area of enemy CVs as a first step. The remaining carriers could then assist the battle line in doing its thing.

On the question of TB vs DB....torpedoes are pretty much universally acknowledged to be the most dangerous thing for a ship. While naval engiering had created a whole host of things to counteract bomb damage, no one had ever come up with a truly effective way of counteracting torpedoes (it has been shown fairly conclusively by experience that bulges and crumple zones are nice, but they dont really work). So if you were designing a strategy around heavily armored, fast carriers with a comparatively small AG, and highly trained pilots, which are intended to fight other CVs, TBs are the way to go.

quote:

ORIGINAL: madmickey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo

The British had a completely "British" approach to carrier combat. In the halls of the British admiralty it had been held as dogma since Nelson's days that the Royal Navy would only be effective if its ships and sailors were significantly better trained and prepared for combat than their adversaries. The same idea was then applied to the naval air arm, which is why they never saw the comparatively small airgroups as an issue. This is despite the fact that it took them a looong time to actually wrest control of the fleet air arm away from the RAF (which is why their naval air hardware, arguably, sucked).

As for British CV durability, they did not really consider carriers as a supporting force. They saw them as a vital component of naval operations. However, they realised that any CV vs CV engagement is pretty much a mutual anihilation scenario. They predicted (quite rightly, as Coral See had shown, and Midway was supposed to show, except that that was a fluke as was agreed in another thread on this forum) that in future CV combat if your 4 CVs engaged their 3 CVs, you were likely to lose 2 of yours for 3 of theirs. Thus, they saw carrier survivability as very importaint which is why Brit CVs are so heavily armored. Also, they were designed to operate in large numbers from numerous, well-supported bases where they could rearm and resupply (in the Indian ocean as well as Atlantic and the Med). US carriers were designed to operate in the vast Pacific with no source of supply for miles. IIRC, the British pre-war battle plan called for 6 fleet carriers in the Indian ocean. Overal, they planned on having 15 or 16 CVs altogether. That strategy called for UK CVs to clear the area of enemy CVs as a first step. The remaining carriers could then assist the battle line in doing its thing.

On the question of TB vs DB....torpedoes are pretty much universally acknowledged to be the most dangerous thing for a ship. While naval engiering had created a whole host of things to counteract bomb damage, no one had ever come up with a truly effective way of counteracting torpedoes (it has been shown fairly conclusively by experience that bulges and crumple zones are nice, but they dont really work). So if you were designing a strategy around heavily armored, fast carriers with a comparatively small AG, and highly trained pilots, which are intended to fight other CVs, TBs are the way to go.

How many Japs carriers were sunk by the British, how many were sunk by the Yanks?
The mist famous uses of British carriers were an attack on Toranto and jamming the steering of the Bismark.
Torpedo bombers are not as accurate as dB.
Other than sub how many Japs carriers were sunk by torpedo versus DB/FB.
Listen the British did not used their carrier for amphibious landing on Burma/Malaysia coast until April 1945, Why?

quote:

How many Japs carriers were sunk by the British, how many were sunk by the Yanks?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo

The plans that I mentioned did not incude the US being involved. In fact, just as all pre war plans, it was a "best case scenario", basically a long wish list of things which also included 6-7 BB in the Indian Ocean as well as 3 full divisions and 250 aircraft in Singapore. As with most plans, it did not survive contact with the enemy.

So....by the time the war started, the Brits had nowhere near the number of CVs they planned on in addition to the losses they took in the ETO. By the time that enough Brit carriers arrived in the Pacific, the USN had deep sixed pretty much everything Japanese that floated.

British amphib ops depended more on amphib assets and cooperation and sharring of assets between the allies more than it had to do with CV availibility.

I'm just telling you what I know about pre-war plans as I had been told/read about them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: madmickey



The American carrier sunk a whole bunch of Japs BB, which are far more heavily armoured than a British carrier.
Also have a mix of DB with TB is ideal for a strike in a coordinated attack

quote:

ORIGINAL: madmickey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo

The plans that I mentioned did not incude the US being involved. In fact, just as all pre war plans, it was a "best case scenario", basically a long wish list of things which also included 6-7 BB in the Indian Ocean as well as 3 full divisions and 250 aircraft in Singapore. As with most plans, it did not survive contact with the enemy.

So....by the time the war started, the Brits had nowhere near the number of CVs they planned on in addition to the losses they took in the ETO. By the time that enough Brit carriers arrived in the Pacific, the USN had deep sixed pretty much everything Japanese that floated.

British amphib ops depended more on amphib assets and cooperation and sharring of assets between the allies more than it had to do with CV availibility.

I'm just telling you what I know about pre-war plans as I had been told/read about them.

I am Canadian and heard more than enough British Empire BS about the Armerican being the reason why the British failed.
The British could have used ak ship like the Japs to attack the big coastline.
They could have transferred ships from Europe to east.
Were British amphib even used in anvil which was August 1944.

quote:

ORIGINAL: madmickey

Also when the Americans had slightly superior number and better planes they were pretty much impregnable against Japs carrier ever hear of 2nd Battle of Philippine Sea.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

"Is a BB a carrier?"
Only in two cases.
I'm not sure what point of comparison you're attempting. As stated before, the armored box of the British carriers was not there to preserve the ship but to preserve the air group. It did, of course, create a "shadow" from splinter damage, but that's the only survivability factor that we can indisputably attribute to an armored box in the face of heavy weapons.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Belce

When the British designed their carriers they made for the war in Europe first, even for the Americans the PTO was second to the war in Europe.

quote:

In the Falkland the Harrier had a limited range with no air refueling therefore the Argentine could make it really messy for the British.