Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: NightFlyer

Maybe the British carriers pointed to the future of carrier designs. The mid-war Jap Taiho CV class had armored decks as did the newer US Essex Class CVs.
At the battle of Midway where 4 jap fleet carriers were set ablaze and sunk with relatively few bomb hits (about 2-3 bombs per carrier on average) maybe the japs thought armored decks weren't such a bad idea. I think the Japanese and Americans favored more power projection the the RN did however, i.e. more strike aircraft over defense.

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

quote:

Did the SeaFire have folding wings

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

Did the SeaFire have folding wings

I don't know but the Spitfire was fairly lightly built and subscribed more to the Japanese aesthetic of dogfighting maneuverability at the expense of durability. Unlike the Japanese the British planes did not have long range. Perhaps they armored their planes. I remember reading somewhere that the Spitfire/Seafire just was not sturdy enough for carrier landings and did not hold up. Unlike the ugly Grumman stuff. Didn't they call it the Grumman Iron Works? Certainly not the prettiest planes (The Avenger being the worst offender)but they could take a beating.

quote:

In fact, the British designs failed. Off Okinawa, the resistance of the British carriers seemed impressive but in reality the damage they took was severe. Having the hangar inside the hull girder made the hull structure weak and the ships were deformed by comparatively minor damage. Note how quickly nearly all the armored carriers were scrapped postwar - surveys showed they had irreparable hull damage. In contrast, the Essex's, which suffered much more severe damage, lasted for decades.

The severe damage suffered by the British armored carriers is documented by their post-war surveys. These surveys were carried out to determine the suitability of the ships for modernization.

Of the British armored carriers, Formidable and Illustrious were write-offs due to war damage. By the end of the war, Illustrious was in very poor condition; her centerline shaft was history due to structural deformation and her machinery was shot. Formidable had raped herself when a Firefly (sic – aircraft that caused the damage was actually a Corsair) rolled off a lift and raked the hangar with 20 mm gunfire. This started a very bad fire which was contained within the hangar and acted like a furnace. The heat deformed the hull and that was it.

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Takeshi

British CVs held up better to late war Kamikaze attacks:

In March 1945, while supporting the invasion of Okinawa, the BPF had sole responsibility for operations in the Sakishima Islands. Its role was to suppress Japanese air activity, using gunfire and air attack, at potential Kamikaze staging airfields that would otherwise be a threat to U.S. Navy vessels operating at Okinawa. The carriers were subject to heavy and repeated kamikaze attacks, but because of their armoured flight decks, the British aircraft carriers proved highly resistant (unlike their U.S. counterparts), and returned to action relatively quickly. The U.S.N liaison officer on the Indefatigable commented: "When a kamikaze hits a U.S. carrier it means 6 months of repair at Pearl [Harbor]. When a kamikaze hits a Limey carrier it’s just a case of "Sweepers, man your brooms."”

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Pacific_Fleet

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin
Most of the armoured flight deck carriers were worn out by the end of the war. Despite the protection, bomb damage was unexpectedly serious.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

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

Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to EUBanana)