RE: What were the Brits thinking? (Full Version)

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



Message

Terminus -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/23/2009 2:01:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sprior

Ah, but remember the Skua was the first plane to sink a major warship under way, in this case the unfortunate Konigsberg. Alright, I'll grant you they were land based.


The Skua was carrier-based, thankyouverymuch. That particular attack was carried out by temporarily land-based aircraft of 800 and 803 squadrons. The later attack on the Scharnhorst, by the same two squadrons, was flown from the Ark Royal.

And the Skua also scored the first FAA kill of the war.



Terminus -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/23/2009 2:02:43 PM)

I like the Skua, in case you couldn't tell...[:D]



xj900uk -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/23/2009 2:03:12 PM)

Skua was the workhorse of the Norweigan campaign.  Another British aircraft that seems to have rather disappeared from the annals of history.  Up until recently a complete one didn't even exist anywhere, then soembody found an intact one at the bottom of a Norweigan fiord so it has been painstakingly salvaged & reassembled (can't be flown though)



sprior -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/23/2009 2:03:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus


quote:

ORIGINAL: sprior

Ah, but remember the Skua was the first plane to sink a major warship under way, in this case the unfortunate Konigsberg. Alright, I'll grant you they were land based.


The Skua was carrier-based, thankyouverymuch. That particular attack was carried out by temporarily land-based aircraft of 800 and 803 squadrons. The later attack on the Scharnhorst, by the same two squadrons, was flown from the Ark Royal.

And the Skua also scored the first FAA kill of the war.


The ones that sank the K flew out of RNAS Hatston in Orkney. Just up the hill from Kirkwall. Hence my "they were land based".[:'(]



Terminus -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/23/2009 2:05:32 PM)

I know that. They were still carrier squadrons.

Quite the flight, by the way. When they came home, one of the pilots logged a 4 hour and 30 minute flight. The Skua had an official endurance of 4 hours and 20 minutes.



Takeshi -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/23/2009 2:19:08 PM)

Terminus,

Wikipedia was a convenient quote. There are several sources describing the improved survivability of armored decks vs wooden decks in the Okinawa campaign. Yes, post war the damage turned out to be severe to the CVs with armored decks, but those ships operated throughout the campaign despite that damage.

Tak



Terminus -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/23/2009 2:32:03 PM)

That's the problem with Wikipedia: it's "convenient". It's also "convenient" for people to go in and write WHATEVER THEY WANT.

I made the mistake of looking up the G3M the other day, and the entry was mostly about its use against civilian targets in China, with appropriate use of words like "terror" and "criminal".




frank1970 -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/23/2009 2:34:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Takeshi

Terminus,

Wikipedia was a convenient quote. There are several sources describing the improved survivability of armored decks vs wooden decks in the Okinawa campaign. Yes, post war the damage turned out to be severe to the CVs with armored decks, but those ships operated throughout the campaign despite that damage.

Tak


Just don´t quote it. Everyone could write in everything. [;)]
Take the quotet sources at the very end of each Wiki article [:D]



Takeshi -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/23/2009 2:58:40 PM)

Point taken. I'll refrain from quoting wikipedia as a source in the future. I was at work and was in a hurry and it had a colorful quotation.

I realize the armored decks as designed by the RN for WWII were flawed and abandoned post war. The point I tried to make was they worked IRL for the Okinawa campaign.

Tak



Iridium -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/23/2009 3:31:56 PM)

Here's a good article describing the whole CV design philosophy and weighing the pros and cons.

Were Armored Flight Decks on British Carriers Worthwhile?



Nikademus -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/23/2009 3:56:37 PM)

Read it.

I found it overly critical regarding UK design philosophy. Liked DK Brown's analysis better. Armored decks weren't a flawed concept, but the "armored box" proved to be due to the restrictions it imposed on hanger heights and the containment of blast effects though hindsight makes it seem obvious naturally.



Fishbed -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/23/2009 4:05:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I know that. They were still carrier squadrons.



I think he never disputed that, quite the contrary...



Nikademus -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/23/2009 4:41:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

I do wonder who thought the Fulmar was a good idea...


Ironic....I was just recently involved in a discussion regarding the Fulmar on another board. Here were the exchange rates for the Fulmar during the Med fighting for Malta.

lost - 40

1 - D-520
3 - CR-42
1 - MC-200
1 - MC-202
1 - RE-2001 (or 109)
3 - FAA
5 - Ground (air attack)
1 - AA
1 - Z-1007bis
6 - S-79
1 - Z-506B
1 - Z-501
1 - Ju-88
3 - Ju-87
11 - op losses

Kills - 67

5 x Z-1007bis
4 x BR-20M
15 x S-79
5 x S-84
1 x S-81
13 x Z-506B
9 x Z-501
5 x Ju-87
8 x Ju-88
1 x Ju-52
1 x Bf-110

Fulmar's also wracked up some decent numbers during the Greece/Crete fighting. Obviously against modern 1E fighters they were at a distinct disadvantage, but in the Med environment where the biggest threats were snoopers and bombers, they could and did give valuable service when coupled with good FD aided by radar.




sprior -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/23/2009 4:51:00 PM)

Wow, over 1/4 were ops losses. Maybe AE needs to ratchet that up too.



Nikademus -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/23/2009 4:53:32 PM)

op losses are too low and servicability too high. The former was purposely so in stock days because it invariably took the pilot with the op loss which caused issues.



mariandavid -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/23/2009 5:58:11 PM)

Not sure if mentioned before in this long series of posts but:
- the armoured deck philosophy was only introduced in 1936. Before that RN CV's were similar in concept to those of the USN; eg the Ark Royal had a hanger capacity of about 55 aircraft - similar to that of the Yorktown etc. The change came because the RN made three judgements, all of them correct

- that war would break out within five years

- that CV's would be dueling with land-based aviation since the RN and the French controlled the open seas

- the land based fighters were superior to any carrier based of the foreseeable future - would therefore be struck below and would be protected by an armoured deck. In turn this meant that the double hanger of the Ark would have to be replaced by the single one of the new carriers.

The RN was of course absolutely right on the relative values of land and carrier aircraft. I am not sure what the USN was flying in 1939 but I suspect it was far less competant than a Me 109E; while the Wildcat was contemporaneous with the Fw 190A! Perhaps if the FAA had been under total Admiralty control from the early '30's enough pressure could have been exerted to force Hawker and Supermarine to 'navalise' their fighter designs in 1938. But that is the only way by which the armoured deck concept would have been reversed.



starsis1 -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/23/2009 6:15:21 PM)

Some time ago I got fascinated by the various "strange" design decisions made by the British before WW2 - Cruiser/Infantry tanks, Armoured Carriers with a handful planes each, upward-shooting "fighter" planes, short pants worn by general officers, etc.
I found some of the answers in a great book:

British Carrier Aviation: The Evolution of the Ships and Their Aircraft by Norman Friedman

I think that most if not all questions about carrier and FAA aircraft design could be answered based on the info in this book. While it is pricey, I strongly recommend it 



Anthropoid -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/23/2009 6:18:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iridium

Here's a good article describing the whole CV design philosophy and weighing the pros and cons.

Were Armored Flight Decks on British Carriers Worthwhile?


Great link Irridum, thanks! I found this part intriguging

quote:

The British were hobbled by the RAF that allocated few resources to the FAA, so the carriers had few and obsolete fighters. They had to build their carriers to take damage.


That would seem to be something that could be established empirically, i.e., by looking at evidence of decisions made due to economic constraint, lack of resources and the like. Maybe this synthetic statement by the authors, does in fact represent a kind of synthesis of evidence.

But from my naive perspective as a non-military-history social scientist, I cannot help but wonder about the role of tradition. Certainly the RN had a magnificent tradition as one of the top, if not _the_ top navy in the world.

Capital ships with minimal guns, and a big flat top to land planes were, in the 1920s and 1930s, just not very "traditional," and so I cannot help but speculate that this would've weighed into the struggles between RN & RAAF over resources for aircraft, etc. I can just picture some incredulous RAAF advocate debating with this RN colleague, "What do you mean you want two million pounds to build a big floating airport!? You navy chaps just use big cannons don't you!?"

Having less of a longstanding (rigid?) naval tradition, and being (if you believe de Toqueville) a generally more innovative culture, maybe the U.S. was more open to the revolution for less materialistic (money and resources) or strategic/ecological (geography) reasons but rather for more cultural reasons?



starsis1 -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/23/2009 6:22:02 PM)

Real quick - British did build a large-deck carrier BEFORE armoured deck carriers - Ark Royal. It had much larger aircraft capacity and was in many ways similar to the Yorktown-class USN carriers



Dixie -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/23/2009 6:32:07 PM)

quote:

Perhaps if the FAA had been under total Admiralty control from the early '30's enough pressure could have been exerted to force Hawker and Supermarine to 'navalise' their fighter designs in 1938. But that is the only way by which the armoured deck concept would have been reversed.


Probably not. The Spitfire was only just around in 1938, both the Spit and Hurricane were badly needed by the RAF so even with the FAA controlling it's own aircraft the Hurris and Spits would have still gone to the RAF. What is more likely is that the FAA would have got something better than Gladiators, Rocs and Skuas but not as good as the Hurricane.



Anthropoid -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/23/2009 6:33:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: starsis1

Real quick - British did build a large-deck carrier BEFORE armoured deck carriers - Ark Royal. It had much larger aircraft capacity and was in many ways similar to the Yorktown-class USN carriers


Well that certainly smashes the "culture" hypothesis I was rambling on about then doesn't it!

I hear and believe you guys when you say that (a) the choices had a pragmatic logic to them given the European theatres, and moreover that (b) the RNs armored designs performed well in the roles for which they were primarily intended in the Euro theatre. In short, you guys are saying that, in the Pacific they might seem useless, but in the European theatres they were demonstratively useful.

Still I wonder if a less-armored, higher-capacity design would have worked even better? No? Yes? Maybe? That would seem to be the underlying spirit of the OPs original question. I don't know the ships all that well, but for you guys that do, imagine some of the Atlantic/Med engagements in which RN CVs were engaged . . . now imagine that the RN CV involved had instead been its American contemporary sister CV design. How might things have turned out different?

It sounds like the extra armored design did not actually function to "repel" attacks as effectively as it had been envisioned?



sprior -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/23/2009 6:34:17 PM)

but rather for more cultural reasons?
quote:

but rather for more cultural reasons?


Interseting but flawed. After all it was the RN that brought the world's first iron-clad into being, the Dreadnought (so good they named an entire type of ship after her), the first submarine service, the first aircraft to take off rom a ship, the first ship to be designed as an aircraft acrrier, etc (need I go on?). So, no, I don't think inate conservatism was the cause.

I can just picture some incredulous RAAF advocate debating with this RN colleague, "What do you mean you want two million pounds to build a big floating airport!? You navy chaps just use big cannons don't you!?"

That was, with Trenchard and "the bomber always gets through" thing. he called for "air control" believeing the RAF could contril the land and sea at, and this is important given the state of UK finances in the 30's, less cost than the Army or RN.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafiles/374F3212_1143_EC82_2E801D2FE37E9617.pdf



frank1970 -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/23/2009 6:40:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mariandavid

Not sure if mentioned before in this long series of posts but:
- the armoured deck philosophy was only introduced in 1936. Before that RN CV's were similar in concept to those of the USN; eg the Ark Royal had a hanger capacity of about 55 aircraft - similar to that of the Yorktown etc. The change came because the RN made three judgements, all of them correct

- that war would break out within five years

- that CV's would be dueling with land-based aviation since the RN and the French controlled the open seas

- the land based fighters were superior to any carrier based of the foreseeable future - would therefore be struck below and would be protected by an armoured deck. In turn this meant that the double hanger of the Ark would have to be replaced by the single one of the new carriers.

The RN was of course absolutely right on the relative values of land and carrier aircraft. I am not sure what the USN was flying in 1939 but I suspect it was far less competant than a Me 109E; while the Wildcat was contemporaneous with the Fw 190A! Perhaps if the FAA had been under total Admiralty control from the early '30's enough pressure could have been exerted to force Hawker and Supermarine to 'navalise' their fighter designs in 1938. But that is the only way by which the armoured deck concept would have been reversed.



I don´t know whether this site works exact,as it is about a game, but comparissons are easily made.

http://www.gonzoville.com/charts/



Anthropoid -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/23/2009 6:49:26 PM)

Fascinating read Sprior! One of these days (post-tenure, since I risk being tarred and feathered by my predominantly pacifistic left-leaning colleagues!) I'm going to write an article that applies evolutionary psych models to a military history issues. But I have a lot more to learn and I always appreciate hearing you guys discussing this stuff in detail :)



Nikademus -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/23/2009 7:28:21 PM)

An oft unmentioned handicap faced by the RN.....the fact that UK was one of the first nation's to have an independant air force and that air force wanted to control EVERYTHING air.

The side with bigger pockets can afford to be both conservative 'and' innovative.




Bullwinkle58 -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/23/2009 7:49:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sprior

Interseting but flawed. After all it was the RN that brought the world's first iron-clad into being, the Dreadnought (so good they named an entire type of ship after her),


HMS Warrior was the first ironclad I think.



Nikademus -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/23/2009 7:53:37 PM)

La Gloire was the first. Warrior was the first iron hulled ironclad though.

He meant "Dreadnought" was the first All-big gun battleship.



wpurdom -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/23/2009 8:58:32 PM)

Shattered Sword has a discussion of the 3 different design philosophies, with the lightest treatment of the Brits. The original CV designs involved sticking a flight deck what was basically a crusier or battlecrusier hull. Sword implicitly asks the question instead of what were the Japs thinking. After reading the Shattered Sword analysis, one wonders whether AE fully reflects the disadvantages of the Jap design vis-a-vis the US.

It appears to me that the USN went with the least innovative design on the big issues. Certainly the Brits were not irrational in trying to develop an armored CV, particularly given their concentration on the Atlantic and Med. After all, the USN went with that after the war. It is also far from clear that they got any advantage from their actual design - the resistance to damage seems to have been offset by the greater difficulty of repair of any damage done, before one even considered the drag on operations and limitations on the number of planes. The Brits may have been too far in advance of their times, trying to be too innovative, before the requisite information was available to pull it off.

The USN approach was simple - (1) defend the CV by getting there the first with the most planes (2) better protection against catastrophic damage by superior fire-fighting and open sides on the hanger deck, using the hanger deck as the strength deck to protect the rest of the ship.

The Japs also tried to innovate their CV design and may have come up with the worst design by building an enclosed box with no armor. The enclosed box meant that they couldn't warm up planes on the hanger deck so (1) they couldn't send a full-complement strike, (2) they couldn't dispose of dangerous materials - such as ordinance, planes on fire, etc. except by painstakingly sending the ordinance back from where it came from - tying up the ability to bring up new armament (3) once fuel became uncontained - creting a fuel-air bomb - e.g., the Soryu, Kaga, and Taiho (sp? - the super-CV sunk by the sub). The lack of armor meant that one fairly light bomb, placed by a dive-bomber, starting a fire, could easily mean the end of everything - where the USN could open up the sides to disperse the fuel fumes and push dangerous materials off the side.



Nikademus -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/23/2009 9:07:29 PM)

to be fair, any carrier caught with fueled and bombed planes on deck or in the hanger is a deathtrap. Lexington and Wasp were both lost due to similar circumstances as well as Akagi, Kaga, Hiryu and Soryu. (Lexington - fuel explosion - Wasp was in the process of arming/fueling when hit) Shokaku and Zuikaku took multiple poundings from big 1000 pound bombs yet survived. USN was quicker to appreciate this ultimate vulnerabilty and took steps to improve damage control after the Lexington experience. Franklin was nearly lost save but the superlative effort by her crew in refusing to give up the ship.

DK Brown interestingly noted that no UK carrier was lost to fire/explosion....a hidden plus to the often maligned UK carriers.



Iridium -> RE: What were the Brits thinking? (11/23/2009 9:45:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Read it.

I found it overly critical regarding UK design philosophy. Liked DK Brown's analysis better. Armored decks weren't a flawed concept, but the "armored box" proved to be due to the restrictions it imposed on hanger heights and the containment of blast effects though hindsight makes it seem obvious naturally.


I think it's highly critical of the UK design theory only because the author is looking at it as a long term investment (the vessel itself will last a long time even after damage etc). While other obvious ways of looking at these ships would be whether they performed their mission or if they were successful in saving their crew from peril.

The most I found interesting from this read was that the UK CVs did not last long after WWII and many were complete wright offs after damage that would have been repairable on an Essex.



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.640625