US vs UK Carriers ?

and U.S.S. Hancock was "seriously hurt by a suicide plane on 7 April, while supporting the Okinawa operation, suffering the loss of 62 crewmen killed and requiring shipyard repairs in the United States"

HMS Formidable was back in action within an hour after Kamikaze hit

Yes the hit on Princeton was a bomb hit

 

Formidable

From DK Brown's Nelson to Vanguard.

25th June 1941

2 1,000lb bombs, severe damage underwater. Spall from flight deck armour penetrated centre machinery space.


4th and 9th May 1945 2 Kamikazes on flight deck. One 9ft to port of centreline frame 79. Depression 24ft x 20ft, hole 2ft square. Deep beam buckled. 3 fragments pierced hanger deck (remained fully operational). Second port of centreline frame 94. Deck distorted 4 1/2", beam distorted 3". Heavy fire in parked aircraft (might not have pierced aeven an unarmoured deck)


Fire was the big killer of A/C

 

I think he got it straight when he said that the US looked at Carriers as just Plane Transports instead of a Warship

 

"U.S.S. Princeton CVL and one Judy dive-bomber. HMS Formidable back in action within the hour after Kamikaze hit."
I don't see anything instructive in comparing a 22,000-ton ship with one half its size. There were never any plans for an armored-box light carrier. The joke about the CVE turtle would apply here as well.

 

I think it was because of the noobishness of the US Navy back then. they never knew much about Naval operations like the British did (who were naval masterminds since the 1800's)

 

Indeed? Then how do you account for what the US Navy did the the Imperial Japanese Navy? Or the Japanese merchant fleet?

 

U.S.S. Princeton CVL and one Judy dive-bomber. Or Hancock, or Franklin;
HMS Formidable back in action within the hour after Kamikaze hit.

Again, compare the effects of hits on an unarmored deck with the effect on an armored deck.
You can still hold to the idea that the armored deck is useless, but you have to want to.

 

It's not that cut and dried. One has to look at all the factors. All kamikaze attacks are not identical. Some carried 500 lb bombs some 1000lb and the Ohka carried more than 2000 lbs. Some Kamikazes failed to explode and others impacted but the bomb detached itself at impact and exploded overboard. Other factors: was there bomb loaded planes on deck at the time..was refueling of planes underway etc..

 

From what I've read useless is far too strong a word for the armoured flight deck. It offered a degree of protection but improvements in aircraft design (particularly bomb carrying capability) meant that the level of protection was being eroded. It came at a cost in terms of how many planes could be packed in. The point has often been made that while British carrier might take hit better than their US counterparts, the American ship with their larger airgroups could avoid being hit in the first place.

On a side note I've come across some references that claim that the ventilation system was more important from the point of view of survivability than armour. The Armoured carriers had two separate systems one for the hanger decks the other for the rest of the ship. It prevented fuel fumes from filling the entire ship. Any thoughts or observations?

 

American carriers had excellent ventilation in their open hangars. One of the great strengths of American design was the way the open flight deck facilitated rapid operations. You could not warm up your strike planes in an Illustrious hangar.

 

Score 1 for the home team!

 

I had this vague impression that the British Empire and the United States were on the same general side in the Second World War. You know, common enemies like the Germans and Japanese? :roll:

The whole point of this thread is to illustrate different design philosophies and how they influenced (and were influenced by) the different operational methodologies of the two Navies.

If you need it to come down to a "point scoring" exercise, you will of course take into consideration such things the respective sizes of the economies of the two powers and the fact that the US had 27 months more "preparation time" than Britain.

 

I think he was being facetious. If I'm not mistaken Blaster would be on your team( as a Canadian). Not to mention the fact that he is only ten years old.

 

Yes, I was being facetious. And could you try not to refer to my age whenever possible? I find that a bit offending, especially when used with words like 'only' or 'just'.

 

post subject

I suppose Blaster could have been in our team, at 10 years old we could have put him in the 'Infantry'!
We could have at least given him a Dummy run.
B.B.B.

 

Infant-ry GROAN!

Now where's that "bangs head against wall" smilie when you need it...
Ah, thats better

 

post subject

You be carefull what you say Tom, another seven posts (tonight?) and he will out rank you! The fastest rising ranker? in this mans Army. :roll:
(like Johnathon Ross I do have trouble rolling my 'r's.)
B.B.B.

 

As of now, another one post and I will outrank him.
PS Now there's another guy who refers to the ranks other than me! Simon, or Ricky, or whoever said I'm the only member that refers to the ranks, you have been proven wrong! No offense.
PSS If you put me in some lowdown dirty infantry regiment than you will have to deal with the Canadian Armed Forces!

 

Dirty because its the PBI who have to actually take and hold ground that everyone else drives over, flies over or drops shells over. Please don't knock the Infantry -- they are the heart and soul of an army.

 

"Now there's another guy who refers to the ranks other than me!"
I often referred to ranks when it became apparent I was about to become a butterbar. I whined and pleaded to be allowed to keep my stripes. But no, cruel fate would not be dissuaded.
Sargents know more than everybody else anyway. Just ask them.