Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Damage control improvements for USN and RN Fleet Carriers

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Damage control improvements for USN and RN Fleet Carriers Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Damage control improvements for USN and RN Fleet Carriers - 5/14/2002 10:32:27 AM   
Ranger-75


Posts: 610
Joined: 6/29/2001
From: Giant sand box
Status: offline 		Is this being considered for WITP?, that is the increased profeciency of the USN and RN in damage control of their carriers, which resulted in ships like the Intrepid and the Franklin being able to survive much greater damage than was inflicted on the Lexington and Yorktown? It can probably be modelled with an increase in durability ratings over time. It could probably be fit into Pac War too, much like the AAA improvements.

What about it?
Post #: 1
- 5/14/2002 10:38:52 PM   
Admiral DadMan


Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline 		I would say that a good cut-off date to begin durability improvements would be Jan '43. My reasoning is based on reading from Samuel Eliot Morison's, "The Two-Ocean War" when he talks about the lessons learned after the Battle of Savo Island 9 Aug 42.
He writes:
"Canberra and Astoria might have been saved but for their heavily upholstered wardroom furniture, and the layers of paint and linoleum on their bulkheads and decks. All inflammable furniture and bedding was now ordered ashore, and every ship in the Navy was ordered to scrape down her interior to bare steel... Improved fire-fighting technique and the "fog nozzle" were developed... and communicatios were improved..."

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to Ranger-75)
Post #: 2
- 5/15/2002 10:42:57 PM   
Ranger-75


Posts: 610
Joined: 6/29/2001
From: Giant sand box
Status: offline 		Those actions plus the USN and RN practices in early 1942 (right after Coral Sea for the US, the RN was already doing this) of not only draining the fuel lines of their carriers, but filling them with pressurized soduim carbonate (or something like that) that was non flammable. The IJN drained the fuel lines (when they weren't suprised) but they NEVER took the extra steps of putting an inert material in the lines, so the vapor was still there and when the fuel lines were broken by a blast, Whammo:eek:

(in reply to Ranger-75)
Post #: 3
- 5/16/2002 2:17:52 AM   
Admiral DadMan


Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline 		You're right. In Gordon Prange's, "Miracle at Midway" he writes that during the Battle of Midway, the Air Ops Officer on Yorktown used CO2 in the drained AvGas lines.

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to Ranger-75)
Post #: 4
- 5/16/2002 3:21:09 AM   
thantis

 

Posts: 185
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Cooksville, MD
Status: offline 		The Navy brought in the New York Fire Marshal as a consultant to improve their damage-control techniques. He was the one who suggested bleeding the fuel lines and flooding the lines with CO2 to remove the remaining fuel vapor.

Japan lost several carriers to poor damage control, including the Shinano & Taiho - and a couple of the carriers at Midway might have been saved as well if improved damage control techniques were used. Japan never seemed to grasp the importance of damage control as a means to save their ships, and even the Yamato had tons of flammables on board during her final voyage.

(in reply to Ranger-75)
Post #: 5
- 5/16/2002 1:59:26 PM   
tohoku

 

Posts: 415
Joined: 3/18/2002
From: at lunch, thanks.
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by thantis

Japan lost several carriers to poor damage control, including the Shinano & Taiho - and a couple of the carriers at Midway might have been saved as well if improved damage control techniques were used. Japan never seemed to grasp the importance of damage control as a means to save their ships, and even the Yamato had tons of flammables on board during her final voyage. [/QUOTE]


They were the worst in the world (except maybe for the Soviets (who probably don't count as having a navy...)).

As well as just the general lack of preperation, they were stuck with the fact that their ships were, in terms of their fit-out practices, simply impossible to work with.

A US ship was designed with almost *everythng* accounted for on the plans. As such, everything (power, liquids, gases, etc) were generally well laid out, or at least accessible and/or known.

Japanese ship design didn't work that way. The fit out was down to whomever happened to be doing it, just fitting it in where they could. Consequently, ships in the same clsss ended up often being *very* different from each other. When you're trying to fix a ship it becomes rather important it you know where all the pipes and cables etc. go or are (or were!).

The US and Japan were the extremes. Other countries fell in between these.




tohoku
YMMV

(in reply to Ranger-75)
Post #: 6
- 5/17/2002 1:54:37 AM   
Admiral DadMan


Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline 		I would also venture to say that the USN was miles above in repair/refit. Consider the case of Yorktown at the Coral Sea and Midway. She manages to shake off 3 bomb hits (2 deep in her bowels) to remain operational. Leaking fuel oil, she limps back to Pearl Harbor, and within 72 hours, she's made seaworthy enough to sail for Midway.

During the battle, Yorktown takes 3 more bombs, one that puts a 10 foot hole in her flight deck, and one that snuffs out her boilers. By the time the next strike came in, she's back up to 19 knots (and according to Hiryu pilots she appeared undamaged during this second attack), when 2 torps drill her on the port side, at which point, she is abandoned.

Despite all this, Yorktown floats for 18 hours by herself before she's re-boarded and worked on. Of course, I-168 put two more fish into her starboard side the next day, ending that line of thought...

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to Ranger-75)
Post #: 7
- 5/18/2002 11:54:18 AM   
Ranger-75


Posts: 610
Joined: 6/29/2001
From: Giant sand box
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by tohoku
[B]

Japanese ship design didn't work that way. The fit out was down to whomever happened to be doing it, just fitting it in where they could. Consequently, ships in the same clsss ended up often being *very* different from each other. When you're trying to fix a ship it becomes rather important it you know where all the pipes and cables etc. go or are (or were!).

YMMV [/B][/QUOTE]

Sort of the way microsoft writes code :D

(in reply to Ranger-75)
Post #: 8
a great article on sinking of the Shokaku - 6/6/2002 3:59:41 AM   
brisd


Posts: 614
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: San Diego, CA
Status: offline 		The Combined Fleet website is probably the best single resource on the Imperial Japanese Navy and this article is linked from there. There is mention of Shokaku's veteran damage control team and the miracles they performed. Considering that the ship was struck by at least three torps during airops, its fate was probably sealed. But the crew's efforts are worth noting nonetheless and the reconstruction of the attack and resulting damage are top rate:

[http://www.combinedfleet.com/shoksink.htm]

_____________________________

"I propose to fight it out on this line if it takes all summer."-Note sent with Congressman Washburne from Spotsylvania, May 11, 1864, to General Halleck. - General Ulysses S. Grant

(in reply to Ranger-75)
Post #: 9
- 6/7/2002 10:37:16 AM   
Ranger-75


Posts: 610
Joined: 6/29/2001
From: Giant sand box
Status: offline 		The same Shokaku in May 1942, took 3 bombs and almost sank on the way back to Japan. It was months before the ship was in operation again.

(in reply to Ranger-75)
Post #: 10
- 6/14/2002 2:31:03 PM   
Raverdave


Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline 		I remember having this discussion some time ago about the US carriers Vs the RN carriers and their ability to "take" damage. The RN went along the path of having armoured flight decks, while the USN chose wooden decks........which are quicker to repair, but also as easier to penetrate....the RN carriers, OTOH were harder to punch through, but when they [I]did[/I] get hit and a bomb [I]did[/I] penetrate it did much more damage than would have been expected......this is mainly due to the structure holding heat inside the ship, and warping the hull and bulk heads.......making ships only good for scrap if anything. I will have a look for the thread....makes for interesting reading. I was at the time arguing in favour of the RN way of building CV's, but since have come to believe that the USN had it right.

So getting back to your main question, I think that the RN CV's should be harder to damage but take longer to fix.

_____________________________




Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to Ranger-75)
Post #: 11
- 6/15/2002 3:24:21 PM   
CynicAl


Posts: 327
Joined: 7/27/2001
From: Brave New World
Status: offline 		Hello again Raverdave! :D

My first impulse is to say that discussion might have taken place in the UV forums. Upon consideration, I'm 90% confident that it was in the UV forums. I further recall that discussion as one which did not wander too far afield from the initial post, which (if correct) would allow you to inspect only those threads with relevant-sounding titles.

(in reply to Ranger-75)
Post #: 12
- 6/17/2002 8:18:48 AM   
Raverdave


Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by CynicAl
[B]Hello again Raverdave! :D

My first impulse is to say that discussion might have taken place in the UV forums. Upon consideration, I'm 90% confident that it was in the UV forums. I further recall that discussion as one which did not wander too far afield from the initial post, which (if correct) would allow you to inspect only those threads with relevant-sounding titles. [/B][/QUOTE]

:D :D :D Well thats the good thing about this place.......it allows you to re-consider your views, and then change them....I must admit that I fought very hard on the side of armoured decks, but reading further has pushed my to the other side of the fence. I still cannot find the blasted thread!

Regards

RD

_____________________________




Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to Ranger-75)
Post #: 13
- 6/18/2002 3:58:05 AM   
Howard Mitchell


Posts: 449
Joined: 6/3/2002
From: Blighty
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Raverdave
[B]I remember having this discussion some time ago about the US carriers Vs the RN carriers and their ability to "take" damage. The RN went along the path of having armoured flight decks, while the USN chose wooden decks........which are quicker to repair, but also as easier to penetrate....the RN carriers, OTOH were harder to punch through, but when they [I]did[/I] get hit and a bomb [I]did[/I] penetrate it did much more damage than would have been expected......this is mainly due to the structure holding heat inside the ship, and warping the hull and bulk heads.......making ships only good for scrap if anything. I will have a look for the thread....makes for interesting reading. I was at the time arguing in favour of the RN way of building CV's, but since have come to believe that the USN had it right.

So getting back to your main question, I think that the RN CV's should be harder to damage but take longer to fix. [/B][/QUOTE]

Its worth mentioning that at the end of the war the USN was bringing in to service the Midway class with an armoured flight deck (though not hangar sides as per RN practice). The RN was planning the Malta class...without armoured flight decks.

(in reply to Ranger-75)
Post #: 14
- 6/19/2002 1:52:29 PM   
CynicAl


Posts: 327
Joined: 7/27/2001
From: Brave New World
Status: offline 		Dave,

Here it is:
[URL=http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17070]British Flattops[/URL]

It was in the UV forums, and it was a couple of months old - which is probably why you had trouble finding it. By default, the boards only show threads with activity in the past 45 days, so that one would have been "expired." It still popped up for the "Search" feature, though, once I hit upon a good search string.



Howard,

While we're mentioning things, we should also mention that the Midway class CVs were very much larger than their predecessors, allowing them to carry a large air group in addition to the armor. In contrast, the designers of the RN armored CVs had less tonnage to play around with and so were forced to make a trade-off between the two.

(in reply to Ranger-75)
Post #: 15
- 6/19/2002 1:56:29 PM   
Raverdave


Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline 		Hey thanks for the pointer to the old thread.;)

_____________________________




Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to Ranger-75)
Post #: 16
- 6/22/2002 6:51:06 AM   
showboat1


Posts: 1885
Joined: 7/28/2000
From: Atoka, TN
Status: offline 		I firmly dismiss those who claim that wooden flight decks were a great military blunder. If anything, the wooden decks made the USN carriers easier to repair after hits. Plunging bombs often penetrated flight decks and exploded in the hulls, but left the flight decks little damaged. Lets face it, torpedoes sank more USN and RN carriers than bombs. Lexington, Yorktown, Hornet, and Wasp suffered their worst damage from not from bombs, but from torpedoes. Liscombe Bay, Ark Royal, Glourious(?), Hermes are also good examples. Anybody got any more?

(in reply to Ranger-75)
Post #: 17
- 6/24/2002 10:26:26 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		Franklin was so badly wrecked uo that she had to be returned to NY harbor. An armored flight deck would have saved her from every hit she took, with minimal casualties and no fire. The problem with plunging bombs tha explode in the hull is the munitions and av gas stored in the hull.

I've no dog in this fight. But FWIW the Navy thought enough about the bomb/kamikaze threat that the Midway class had armored decks.

I wonder how they handle CV design now? Armor or no?

(in reply to Ranger-75)
Post #: 18
- 6/25/2002 5:13:41 AM   
showboat1


Posts: 1885
Joined: 7/28/2000
From: Atoka, TN
Status: offline 		Today's carriers carry armored flight decks. Franklin's problem did not come from the bomb per se but rather from the fully fueled and armed strike sitting on her deck. Little known fact, VMF-214 was the fighter contingent on Franklin, the "new" Black Sheep. Several decks, including the armored decks below the hangar deck, were pancaked by the forces of the bombs and rockets exploding on the flight deck. Doubtful an armored flight deck would have helped that. Jap bombs were generally too light (250 kg?) to do much damage on their own. The Midway class did have an armored flightdeck, but the Midway class were so much larger than the previous classes that the size of the air group was not impacted by the armor. In fact the Midway class were to carry 117 aircraft compared to the 90 carried by Essex carriers. Previous US carriers would have had to drastically reduce air group size to accomodate armor on the flight deck. Anyone want to take ona squadron of Kates and Bettys with only 33 aircraft your airgroup? The best armor is still to splash the enemy before you get hit.

(in reply to Ranger-75)
Post #: 19
- 6/25/2002 5:22:44 AM   
Admiral DadMan


Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline 		Check out the link on the other thread: [URL=http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17070]British Flattops?[/URL]

and then read this: [URL=http://www.warships1.com/W-Tech/tech-030.htm]Were Armored Flight Decks on British Carriers Worthwhile?[/URL]

Eye openers. You may have been able to scrape a hit off a steel deck like you would a scrambled egg off of a frying pan, but look at what happened to the "frying pan"...

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to Ranger-75)
Post #: 20
- 6/27/2002 4:44:00 AM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by showboat1
[B] Lexington, Yorktown, Hornet, and Wasp suffered their worst damage from not from bombs, but from torpedoes. Liscombe Bay, Ark Royal, Glourious(?), Hermes are also good examples. Anybody got any more? [/B][/QUOTE]

You mean Courageous - sunk by U39(?) in the Western Approaches, Sept 1939. Glorious was sunk by Scharnhorst and Gneisenau 1940 (May?). Hermes was sunk by a/c, although I do not know the details, so it may have been torpedoes?

Generally, torpedoes will do much more damage than bombs, due to the underwater explosion. I have seen footage of a target hulk (old destroyer), hit by a single UK Mk8 torpedo. The whole ship 'whipped' in the water, literally bent up in the middle, and then down in the middle and up at both ends, before settling back. The shock loads are immense, and can do great damage to machinery, even without letting that much water in.

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to Ranger-75)
Post #: 21
- 6/30/2002 6:52:14 AM   
showboat1


Posts: 1885
Joined: 7/28/2000
From: Atoka, TN
Status: offline 		Have seen photos from Pearl Harbor where the water plume from torp hits was rising 5 to 6 times as high as the ship's mast head. A torp hit in a large space like an engine or boiler room could be devastating.

(in reply to Ranger-75)
Post #: 22
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Damage control improvements for USN and RN Fleet Carriers 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

1.613