Japanese Carrier Design Question

Japanese Carrier Design Question (Full Version)

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

Message

cdnice -> Japanese Carrier Design Question (7/30/2015 4:57:52 PM)
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?

Jorge_Stanbury -> RE: Japanese Carrier Design Question (7/30/2015 5:15:15 PM)
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

dr.hal -> RE: Japanese Carrier Design Question (7/30/2015 7:06:51 PM)
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).

spence -> RE: Japanese Carrier Design Question (7/30/2015 7:48:40 PM)
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))?

Jorge_Stanbury -> RE: Japanese Carrier Design Question (7/30/2015 10:43:26 PM)
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

wdolson -> RE: Japanese Carrier Design Question (7/31/2015 12:47:05 AM)
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

Mundy -> RE: Japanese Carrier Design Question (7/31/2015 1:26:32 AM)
Kaga sorta paid for it with a bomb blowing hers apart.

dr.hal -> RE: Japanese Carrier Design Question (8/6/2015 4:01:55 PM)
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?

Buckrock -> RE: Japanese Carrier Design Question (8/6/2015 5:05:55 PM)
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.

crsutton -> RE: Japanese Carrier Design Question (8/7/2015 5:54:14 PM)
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.

kstoddard2 -> RE: Japanese Carrier Design Question (8/19/2015 7:56:44 PM)
Yeah, USN Cruisers were extremely top heavy by the end of the war. Kyle

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.375