RN CV Design: Was it flawed?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RN CV Design: Was it flawed?

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RN CV Design: Was it flawed?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RN CV Design: Was it flawed? - 12/8/2020 3:29:40 PM

Q-Ball

Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

I haven't read a great deal on the design choices the Royal Navy made in it's carrier design, but the very clear difference is the armored flight deck and corresponding loss of hanger space. An armored deck is certainly handy, but the additional top weight results in a much shorter hanger.

The Illustrious Class shipped only 33 A/C on a displacement of 23,000 tons. Yorktown class shipped 90 A/C on a displacement of just under 20,000 tons.

The IJN had a similar philosophy to the USN, except that it enclosed the hanger deck completely; this did protect the hanger deck vs. the elements, but also contained fires and explosions which was a real problem. Additionally, on a USN CV, in an emergency burning planes and ordinance in danger could be chucked into the ocean; not an option on IJN or RN carriers.

Is it generally accepted that the USN got it right in CV design, and the RN got it wrong? Just curious. Certainly in GAME terms you would gladly give up the armored flight deck for another 50 or so planes.....

_____________________________

Post #: 1

RE: RN CV Design: Was it flawed? - 12/8/2020 3:47:46 PM

StasSche

Posts: 62
Joined: 5/23/2020
Status: offline

Can't post links, but search in Youtube

Long answer: "Aircraft Carriers the Debate - Dr Alex Clarke vs Armoured Carrier's Jamie"

Shorter answer: "'Armoured' and 'Unarmoured' Carriers - Survivability vs Strike Power"

The short answer: the "Midway" and "Taiho" class CVs had armoured deck, leaning towards RN design of the deck. The small airgroup was also the outcome of the doctrine of CV use in RN, not the design limitation (before the radar, reaction time for putting planes in the air was very short, therefore several deck with smaller airgroups and higher surviviability were preferred over smaller number of vulnerable decks with larger air capacity). Of course, do not forget about the Treaty tonnage limitations, that forced the armoured deck design to save the weight via hangar space. As soon as these limits were obsolete nothing stopper US and Japan from designing "Midway" and "Taiho" with armoured decks and large air groups.

The very short answer: RN had it right, USN had it wrong. Proved by USN implementing armoured deck in "Midway" class.

< Message edited by StasSche -- 12/8/2020 4:16:47 PM >

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 2

RE: RN CV Design: Was it flawed? - 12/8/2020 4:05:16 PM

BBfanboy

Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

The British FAA had the additional problem that the RAF was responsible for all matters related to aircraft development, and the FAA got the least attention. Consequently they had aircraft that lacked folding wings, were flying open-cockpit aircraft half the war, and had dual mission aircraft like the Fulmar which were not very good at either mission. Things only really got better when US aircraft designs were adopted.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 3

RE: RN CV Design: Was it flawed? - 12/8/2020 6:27:43 PM

GetAssista

Posts: 2732
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline

I believe RN design accounted for the most probable theatre of operations - confined seas around Europe with constant LBA threat and no massed CV opposition

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 4

RE: RN CV Design: Was it flawed? - 12/8/2020 7:18:20 PM

mind_messing

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dHdGHP8hCg

/thread

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 5

RE: RN CV Design: Was it flawed? - 12/8/2020 8:38:44 PM

IdahoNYer

Posts: 2616
Joined: 9/6/2009
From: NYer living in Boise, ID
Status: offline

US Navy had it right. The actual benefits of the armor was negated by a number of other, usually less discussed aspects:

- Wooden flight decks proved much easier to repair, often by the crew at sea. Armored flight deck damage often required port repairs.
- Increased hanger space was essential in operating larger aircraft capable of engaging land based fighters, as well as larger air groups.
- Open hanger spaces allowed better ventilation and reduced fire/secondary explosion probability.

A good read on the development of Carrier Air is "How Carriers Fought" by Lars Celander, 2018. Goes through a good discussion on this very topic

< Message edited by IdahoNYer -- 12/8/2020 8:43:11 PM >

(in reply to mind_messing)

Post #: 6

RE: RN CV Design: Was it flawed? - 12/9/2020 4:01:44 AM

Ian R

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
Certainly in GAME terms you would gladly give up the armored flight deck for another 50 or so planes.....

The RN built the Ark Royal as a not armoured-hangar-box, but with a 0.75 inch metal flight deck. It was intended as a CV for fighting in the Pacific. It's capacity of 60 aircraft is without any sort of deck park, so with the "USS Robin" San Diego refit alterations to the flight deck, etc, you are probably looking at capacity near to a Yorktown. At the same time (1934), the RN had the Furious/Glorious/Courageous in service, all fast CVs with in theory air capacity of 48 or 60 (Furious) machines*. These were the "strike carrier" component. Doctrine was these would operate out of range of land based aircraft and launch big strikes. Eagle and Hermes were still about, but were too slow to keep up. (*By 1943 the larger heavier aircraft in use would have significantly reduced this.) Had the Ark Royal been about in 1943 it is a no-brainer to say it would be sent to the Pacific instead of the Victorious. It was originally intended to build repeats of this class, but after Italy invaded Ethiopia, the planning focus returned to Europe.

Attention then moved to the second doctrinal component - the "battle carrier" which was going to sail near the European littoral, and which, before radar, had no chance of launching enough fighters to defeat a large incoming land based strike package after detection. So it mainly carried scouting and strike aircraft, and was heavily armoured for survive-ability. If you read up on how many bomb hits (including 1000kg ones that went right down a smashed lift well on the Illustrious) the armoured carriers could absorb and survive in the MTO, you can see that they were the right tool for that job.

The 6 armoured carriers were built, and then design attention reverted to a modified strike carrier concept. The proposed 'Irresistible" class were scaled up Implacables - but that 1940 concept was dropped and instead in 1942 the Audacious class was ordered - with 4 inch armour flight deck, but only 1.5" splinter protection on the sides, and double hangers. The proposed Maltas were like the Midways - they had a metal flight deck, but openings on the hangar sides like the USN carriers..

Meanwhile, radar detection enabled a carrier group to get interceptors up when needed, negating one of the factors that had lead to the armoured battle carrier concept being adopted.

The irony is that with deck parks, and the "maintenance carriers" to support them, the Illustrious class were eventually able to operate enough aircraft to function as strike carriers - and if hit by a kamikaze, could sweep the debris overboard and continue air operations. They were in fact doing this in the China Sea littoral, rather then the MTO, but it was the sort of pounding they had been designed for.

There is an interesting planning document for Olympic floating around that suggests that after a certain amount of days, contingency arrangements needed to be in place to support BPF CV operations off Kyushu, because they might be the only ones still operating. I think Drachinifel mentions that here -

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=drachinifel+armored+carriers+

Briefly, on the USN carriers - the USN wargames'/exercises' in the formative years (1920 - about 1934) results were interpreted to mean that CVs were both brutal, and brittle - and whomever found the other guy first, and got a strike in the air, emerged the winner. So they built ships to do that, ones particularly suited to the vast spaces of the Pacific. And enough of them that they had replacements for those that would inevitably be damaged/lost.

So neither side of the debate is right, or wrong, and it is no coincidence that the Midway, and Malta, designs featured an armoured flight deck to improve sustainability of operations, splinter only side protection, the biggest air group possible on the displacement, and a significant proportion of fighter aircraft in that group. I think that's what is called "convergent evolution".

_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 7

RE: RN CV Design: Was it flawed? - 12/9/2020 7:12:35 PM

spence

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline

As "Shattered Sword" makes clear Japanese a/c could not warm their engines on their enclosed hangar decks and thus were the carriers were individually limited in their ability to launch a combined arms strike package to the size that they could successfully launch off their flight decks. The Japanese solved this problem by deploying their carriers in "permanent" divisions such that they could launch either their entire complement of dive-bombers or torpedo-bombers with fighter escort. One division would launch torpedo-bombers and another division would launch dive-bombers. Thus the strikes that lone Hiryu launched at Midway were fragmented and consecutive resulting in Hiryu sustaining unsustainable losses as each 'wave' had to fight the entirety of the defenses.

As already noted the armored deck of the British carriers was better for the "narrow seas" of European waters. The larger striking power of US and Japanese carriers was better for the wide open spaces of the Pacific, especially considering the relative paucity of replenishment and repair ports.

< Message edited by spence -- 12/9/2020 7:13:38 PM >

(in reply to Ian R)

Post #: 8

RE: RN CV Design: Was it flawed? - 12/9/2020 7:27:31 PM

Macclan5

Posts: 1065
Joined: 3/24/2016
From: Toronto Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

So neither side of the debate is right, or wrong, and it is no coincidence that the Midway, and Malta, designs featured an armoured flight deck to improve sustainability of operations, splinter only side protection, the biggest air group possible on the displacement, and a significant proportion of fighter aircraft in that group. I think that's what is called "convergent evolution".

This +100

A marginally interesting academic debate well covered in many books, You Tube videos, etc. Much of it full of conjecture.

Simply the IJN carriers were too small even for their own plane development in late war but they had some good and some terrible war results. The US Carriers helped win the war but had some good and some terrible war results. The British Carriers had some good and some terrible war results.

There is little proof that Land Based Air was all that effective against all types of carriers through out the war.

The technological leap in aircraft capability may have been far more important than the design of the flattops. Ditto pilot experience and capability.

The "exponential increase" in anti aircraft fire from a quantitative and qualitative (radar. proximity fuse) perspective may have been even more important than the planes and pilots.

The design of the CV is only part of a large and complex puzzle and the learnings lead to convergent evolution of the Midway and then Nimitz class.

Since no other Navy competed with US Naval dominance ( ?? perhaps ?? ) at least in so far as historical precedent 1945 - 2000 it is a bit of a mute and esoteric argument.

< Message edited by Macclan5 -- 12/9/2020 7:30:27 PM >

_____________________________

A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.

(in reply to Ian R)

Post #: 9

RE: RN CV Design: Was it flawed? - 12/9/2020 9:09:25 PM

dasboot1960

Posts: 389
Joined: 8/2/2009
From: St Augustine, Florida
Status: offline

as an aside, the corsair had to get its wings clipped and the seafires had folding tips to operate.

_____________________________

Down like a CLOWN!

(in reply to Macclan5)

Post #: 10

RE: RN CV Design: Was it flawed? - 12/10/2020 1:54:44 AM

Shilka

Posts: 98
Joined: 10/27/2009
Status: offline

Generally what might have been happening in the interwar period, at the same time as seaplane evolution started taking place during the 1920's, real offensive CV doctrines were very far off and no one considered them to do nothing more than scout for the main fleet. The first carriers were actually not purpose built at all, but rather conversions from something like old armored cruisers and "light carriers" might've been converted merchant ships with a flat top installed on place.

People had been building pre-dreads, dreadnoughts and super dreadnoughts for the last 20 years. The same mentality continued to rule for a very long time. There was probably no nation which had a ship design board that would approve building an "aircraft carrier" the size of well over 20 000 tons, without a decent level armament or armor specifically suited for surface combat. The thought was probably that they must be able to at least hold their own against enemy armored and heavy cruisers. This must've heavily influenced, not only British CV design, but others as well, into the late 30's, still when the design work was finished and many of the British carriers were laid down.

Several of the first "fleet carriers" were based on battle cruiser designs, which means they originally retained relatively heavy armored belts and 8" guns (even after converted from the BC), which was evident in Lexington and Saratoga. The oldest of Japanese carriers were based on a similar design like the Akagi (originally the Amagi battle cruiser). Either way ship design is always compromises. If you cram an armored deck on the flight deck, or more guns, you get less planes for the same displacement and vice versa. If you place the deck armor below/on the hangar bay floor, it will protect the ship per se, even though you might lose all capability to launch aircraft after a few bombs. If you place it on the flight deck, it might cause top weight and seaworthiness issues but it will protect your hangar, which was evident in how British carriers handled kamikaze attacks compared to US designs.

< Message edited by Shilka -- 12/10/2020 1:57:59 AM >

(in reply to dasboot1960)

Post #: 11

RE: RN CV Design: Was it flawed? - 12/10/2020 10:38:25 AM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

IJN got the worst from both designs...

Enclosed hangars with wooden decks. Their designs also were so top heavy that they had to have very small bridge and even lot of walking/working space around flight deck was perforated steel to reduce weight.

Hiryu and Soryu were otherwise good designs but flimsy. All these defects came to effect in Battle of Midway.

From Shattered Sword.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von B�lov, 1870-

(in reply to Shilka)

Post #: 12

RE: RN CV Design: Was it flawed? - 12/10/2020 3:16:53 PM

Ian R

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

So neither side of the debate is right, or wrong, and it is no coincidence that the Midway, and Malta, designs featured an armoured flight deck to improve sustainability of operations, splinter only side protection, the biggest air group possible on the displacement, and a significant proportion of fighter aircraft in that group. I think that's what is called "convergent evolution".

This +100

A marginally interesting academic debate well covered in many books, You Tube videos, etc. Much of it full of conjecture.

Simply the IJN carriers were too small even for their own plane development in late war but they had some good and some terrible war results. The US Carriers helped win the war but had some good and some terrible war results. The British Carriers had some good and some terrible war results.

There is little proof that Land Based Air was all that effective against all types of carriers through out the war.

The technological leap in aircraft capability may have been far more important than the design of the flattops. Ditto pilot experience and capability.

The "exponential increase" in anti aircraft fire from a quantitative and qualitative (radar. proximity fuse) perspective may have been even more important than the planes and pilots.

The design of the CV is only part of a large and complex puzzle and the learnings lead to convergent evolution of the Midway and then Nimitz class.

Since no other Navy competed with US Naval dominance ( ?? perhaps ?? ) at least in so far as historical precedent 1945 - 2000 it is a bit of a mute and esoteric argument.

I agree Macclan - the immediate post war carrier designs emphasised the lessons of, particularly, Pacific operations - but those included littoral ops off the JHI. Neither navies carriers were quite right for that.

_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to Macclan5)

Post #: 13