What were the Brits thinking?

What were the Brits thinking? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

JohnDillworth -> What were the Brits thinking? (11/22/2009 8:47:23 PM)
When they developed their aircraft carrier philosophy? The American's and The Japanese went one way with wooden decks and lots of aircraft. The English went with armored flight decks and few plans. The numbers are rediculus though. British CV's have 1/3 to 1/4 the air capacity and their aircraft are inferior. I know hey were primarily preparing for a different war but their thinking seems to have stopped years before the war. So frustrating to see these full sized captial ships (and the huge investment) and they are virtually useless. 23 planes, silly. [image]local://upfiles/31520/A437101877D447DC9E06EB1AB5A0AA8C.jpg[/image]

sprior -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/22/2009 8:57:22 PM)
Er, they were thinking getting bombs dropped on unarmoured decks in the Med was no fun. The flight deck was the main strength deck for those ships. Although they did indeed keep the bombs out the structural damage caused to the ships by the bomb hits were enough that the RN kept them limping along for a decent period and then ditching them. Bizzarely enough in all US carriers from the Midway onwards the flight deck is the main strength deck, just not thick enough to be considered armoured. We made up for it by developing the angled flight deck, the mirror landing system, the steam catapult and the ski jump.

frank1970 -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/22/2009 9:02:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth When they developed their aircraft carrier philosophy? The American's and The Japanese went one way with wooden decks and lots of aircraft. The English went with armored flight decks and few plans. The numbers are rediculus though. British CV's have 1/3 to 1/4 the air capacity and their aircraft are inferior. I know hey were primarily preparing for a different war but their thinking seems to have stopped years before the war. So frustrating to see these full sized captial ships (and the huge investment) and they are virtually useless. 23 planes, silly. [image]local://upfiles/31520/A437101877D447DC9E06EB1AB5A0AA8C.jpg[/image] Those ships were designed to fight near coast battles under large clouds of enemy planes (Northsea or Med). Therefore they were heavily armored against bombs. One can not compare the situation of the USA (two large oceans to fight on) with the Brits´: defending the Homeisle, fighting the Germans in the Northsea and the Italians in the Med. I think, that the planes on those carriers were mainly for cap and search missions (with a little torpedoe attack inbetween).

JohnDillworth -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/22/2009 9:11:12 PM)
I guess one thing there were never meant to do is fight other carriers. They also seem to keep a larger number of reserve aircraft instead of maximizing their available strikes. Was this also due to space limitations or was it a philosophical choice? Was there a pilot for each plane?

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/22/2009 9:11:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sprior Er, they were thinking getting bombs dropped on unarmoured decks in the Med was no fun. The flight deck was the main strength deck for those ships. Although they did indeed keep the bombs out the structural damage caused to the ships by the bomb hits were enough that the RN kept them limping along for a decent period and then ditching them. Bizzarely enough in all US carriers from the Midway onwards the flight deck is the main strength deck, just not thick enough to be considered armoured. We made up for it by developing the angled flight deck, the mirror landing system, the steam catapult and the ski jump. But that doesn't address his main point--what's the use of armored anything if this great, huge, massive capital asset can't attack anything very well? Biplanes? Are you serious?[:)]

JohnDillworth -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/22/2009 9:26:15 PM)
The ship has an AC capacity 2x what they actually use. It is fast, she has long legs and look at that AA rating! It is frustrating. Took 3 of these and a US CVL off the coast of Burma. was attacked by swams of low experiencing bombers. Thank god for the US CVL with 21 Hellcats because every ship in the TF was out of AA ammo after a single turn. Got out of there with the Cowpens and Alabama having taken a bomb and torpedo each after attacks by over 200 bombers. Maybe those proximity fuses are kicking in as it is October 43. Nice to be close to a drydock for a change.

geobaz -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/22/2009 9:26:33 PM)
The problem was the Royal Navy did not control the R and D of the planes, the RAF did. Since money was tight between the wars, where do you think the RAF spent the money? Not on Royal Navy aircraft. But I agree with many of the previous posts. If you look at the Hurricane, Spitfire, etc, do you notice how short legged they are? They and most of the British aircraft were designed to fight a European war. I agree, kind of short sighted considering the Empire and all...

Terminus -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/22/2009 9:28:19 PM)
The RN didn't even think they'd have to fight the Italians. The French were supposed to take care of them.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/22/2009 9:31:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus The RN didn't even think they'd have to fight the Italians. The French were supposed to take care of them. Yes, and just think of the MEALS!!![:)][:)]

JohnDillworth -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/22/2009 9:33:07 PM)
quote: They and most of the British aircraft were designed to fight a European war. I agree, kind of short sighted considering the Empire and all... Does seem short sighted as these ships were hugh investment. Perhaps they thought it would be a battleship war with some scouting and light offense by the CV's. The Bismarck probably reinforced that thinking and the loss of the Prince of Whales and the Repulse shattered it. They certainly knew these ships were virtually useless until late in the war because the normally aggressive RN never tried to do much with them.

JohnDillworth -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/22/2009 9:37:14 PM)
quote: Yes, and just think of the MEALS!! At the risk of starting an argument I believe that Italian cuisine is superior to French cuisine.

Anthropoid -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/22/2009 9:37:41 PM)
One theme I've picked up on in the very little bit of military history I've read, is how valuable hindsight is for observing the key milestones and "breakthroughs" in history. Until firearms were proven they were regarded with skepticism. When something that is very expensive is also something about which you are skeptical, it is unlikely you will take a risk on it. That would seem to apply here. Were there _any_ aircraft carrier conflicts in which the system had proven itself to be decisive prior to WWII? I seem to recall that an influential section of Japanese naval authorities were quite skeptical that CVs had any real value and believed that the big gun boats would continue to be decisive. Maybe that also has to be taken into account in understanding the path the the Brits followed.

JohnDillworth -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/22/2009 9:41:21 PM)
Upon further reflection I withdraw my argument. British CV's are superior in all respects to American CV's. It seems alcohol was served on British ships. Was alcohol a regular alcohol ration available in the IJN?

sprior -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/22/2009 9:57:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth Upon further reflection I withdraw my argument. British CV's are superior in all respects to American CV's. It seems alcohol was served on British ships. Was alcohol a regular alcohol ration available in the IJN? was? still is. still no ice cream makers tho.

sprior -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/22/2009 9:59:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth quote: They and most of the British aircraft were designed to fight a European war. I agree, kind of short sighted considering the Empire and all... Does seem short sighted as these ships were hugh investment. Perhaps they thought it would be a battleship war with some scouting and light offense by the CV's. The Bismarck probably reinforced that thinking and the loss of the Prince of Whales and the Repulse shattered it. They certainly knew these ships were virtually useless until late in the war because the normally aggressive RN never tried to do much with them. Apart from crippling the Bismark, crippling the Italian fleet at Taranto, ferrying fighters to and from Norway (RIP HMS Glorious), escorting the Malta convoys...

wworld7 -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/22/2009 10:00:57 PM)
For operations in the MED and the Atlantic they well suited and built correctly. Pre-war Risk vs Reward did not justify GB building say Yorktown or Essex class carriers.

Terminus -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/22/2009 10:01:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sprior quote: ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth quote: They and most of the British aircraft were designed to fight a European war. I agree, kind of short sighted considering the Empire and all... Does seem short sighted as these ships were hugh investment. Perhaps they thought it would be a battleship war with some scouting and light offense by the CV's. The Bismarck probably reinforced that thinking and the loss of the Prince of Whales and the Repulse shattered it. They certainly knew these ships were virtually useless until late in the war because the normally aggressive RN never tried to do much with them. Apart from crippling the Bismark, crippling the Italian fleet at Taranto, ferrying fighters to and from Norway (RIP HMS Glorious), escorting the Malta convoys... Flying strikes against Norway, attacking the French fleet (bad idea, but still...), attacking the Vittorio Veneto at Matapan... Nope, the FAA didn't do anything worthwhile at all...[8\|]

JohnDillworth -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/22/2009 10:05:10 PM)
quote: Apart from crippling the Bismark, crippling the Italian fleet at Taranto, ferrying fighters to and from Norway (RIP HMS Glorious), escorting the Malta convoys... apologies, I meant in the Pacific. Was any action contemplated, or did they not want to get in range of Japanese land based aircraft?

Andy Mac -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/22/2009 10:22:45 PM)
In 42/43 they were to busy and the aircraft were sufficienlty inferior that they couldnt go toe to toe - fleet in being was more important in a lot of ways. In 44 major operations (Buccaneer) were pulled because of lack of landing assets They did hit Sumatra with Sara but in general it wasnt viewed as a goodf risk/reward tradeoff to go raiding for raiding's sake and without a major amphib offensive whats the point. In 45 they were serving under the USN off of Okinawa

Andy Mac -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/22/2009 10:24:47 PM)
A lot of the fighter cover for Sicily was provided by RN Carriers Med was more important than Burma and Indian Ocean After USN victory at Midway Japanese carrier air was never seen in Indian Ocean so RN Carrier Air did what it had to do 1. Help win Battle of Atlantic 2. Support Invasion of Sicily and Italy

eMonticello -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/22/2009 10:25:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth quote: Apart from crippling the Bismark, crippling the Italian fleet at Taranto, ferrying fighters to and from Norway (RIP HMS Glorious), escorting the Malta convoys... apologies, I meant in the Pacific. Was any action contemplated, or did they not want to get in range of Japanese land based aircraft? The RN did lend USS Robin to Nimitz until Essex arrived in mid-1943.

Terminus -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/22/2009 10:32:10 PM)
You can't really blame them for not wanting to get within range of Jap aircraft after the whole Force Z debacle and the Indian Ocean raid.

pompack -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/22/2009 11:02:25 PM)
One of the difficult things about hindsight is we sometimes are not aware of all that we know. In this case a significant point is the development of radar and the integrated CIC concept. With these tools and the availability of sufficient numbers of fighter aircraft, it proved possible to create a “bubble” of protected airspace that was virtually impenetrable- think Battle of the Philippine Sea. Prior to that it was felt that extra fighters at the expense of attack aircraft were a waste since “the bomber will always get through”. Both the USN and RN accepted this, but went about countering it in different ways. As it turned out, the USN approach was superior but that was not obvious until nearly a decade after the ships in questioned were designed. Note that the USN did not increase the proportion of fighters with the air group until after radar and early fighter-direction concepts demonstrated that additional fighter aircraft could provide significant reductions in carrier vulnerability. Also note that Midway provided ample evidence of the vulnerability of carriers protected by CAP dependent upon only the Mark I Eyeball for detection and control. Just an aside, the primary reason that the USN rejected the concept of the armored hanger box was the requirement that aircraft be warmed-up within the hanger- thus the USN open-sided hangers. My primary source for this is American & British Aircraft Development 1919-1941 my Hone, Friedman, and Mandeles

JohnDillworth -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/22/2009 11:06:01 PM)
quote: The RN did lend USS Robin to Nimitz until Essex arrived in mid-1943. USS Sir Robin!

Anthropoid -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/22/2009 11:11:21 PM)
What is it about those RN ships that restrict the number of aircraft so dramatically compared to their contemporaries? Is it just the armor?

John Lansford -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/22/2009 11:23:11 PM)
British CV's were intended to operate within the range of LBA in the North Sea, Baltic or Med, provide aircover to other ships, perform scouting missions, and antishipping attacks. An armored flight deck and enclosed bow was needed for those conditions, and the reduced on board aircraft capacity was accepted as a consequence of these design needs. The USN and IJN, OTOH, intended their CV's for Pacific use, where LBA was limited and ships were expected to be self sufficient, capable of protecting themselves and projecting power outside the range of naval gunfire. That meant a lighter flight deck protection to get the larger air capacity and munitions storage that was required, along with the longer endurance the ships needed in the Pacific.

wdolson -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/22/2009 11:44:38 PM)
The armor made the hanger deck smaller. I believe RN carriers were also a bit smaller overall than their US and Japanese contemporaries. As some other people have said, when the pre-war carriers were designed, nobody knew for sure how they were going to be used. A lot of the admiralty of each nation believed that carriers were an adjunct to the big fleet rather than the center of it. Even the big gun admirals in the IJN weren't completely shut up by PH. The designed role for RN carriers was an operation like the hunt for the Bismark. There the carrier aircraft augmented shore based searches then a Stringbag slowed up the Bismark enough to allow the big guns to catch up and finish her off (whether scuttled or not, the RN battleships contributed significantly to her sinking). The idea that the carrier was going to replace the BB as the center piece of carrier combat was slow to evolve. It's obvious in hindsight, but at the time it was too radical a concept for many of the old school admiralty (who were the majority in all major navies). Another concept that didn't give way until the eve of the WW II was that carrier aircraft would have to be a generation or more behind their land based counterparts in capabilities. Carrier aircraft were behind the curve throughout most of the interwar period. In the US, it was the 1938 requirement that led to the TBF, SB2C, and F4U that was the first departure from this concept. The British suffered from a bureaucracy that put the FAA under RAF control. As a result, the FAA was starved even worse than other navies in the interwar period. The British went to war with badly obsolete aircraft and didn't begin to catch up until they started getting US lend lease aircraft. (Late war there were some decent British designs too, but US built aircraft were filling out most FAA squadrons at that point.) The RN was doubly handicapped between poor aircraft and choosing the wrong designs for the next war. At least the wrong design for a Pacific war. Those ships may have been the right design for the European/Med theaters where land based air was dominant. Bill

EUBanana -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/22/2009 11:57:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 Biplanes? Are you serious?[:)] They kicked the crap out of the Italians at Taranto... Swordfish are pretty good in AE as well. Better than Devastators, anyway.

EUBanana -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/22/2009 11:59:53 PM)
And torpedo bombers rock. The RN carriers aren't that hard done by. They forgo the dive bombers, but all they do is start fires on battleships. With Seafires on CAP and torpedo bombers with working torpedoes, Val-proof decks and heavy AAA, they actually aren't that bad. Not as good as US carriers but far from useless.

Terminus -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/23/2009 12:17:38 AM)
Of course not. Only amateurs think so.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.96875