Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Biggest mistake of the Kriegsmarine: not putting any aircraft carriers into service.

Discussion in 'Atlantic Naval Conflict' started by DerGiLLster, May 13, 2016.

  1. albanaich

    albanaich New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2016
    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    4
    The USN studied the superior defensive qualities of Royal Navy armoured carriers and this analysis is partly revealed in the damage report following the attack on Franklin on 13 March 1945:

    As a result of study of damage sustained by various British carriers prior to our entry into the war, two important departures from traditional U.S. Navy carrier design were incorporated in the CVB Class, then still under development. HMS ILLUSTRIOUS in an action off Malta on 1 January 1941 was hit by several bombs, three of which detonated in the hangar space. Large fires swept fore and aft among parked planes thereby demonstrating the desirability of attempting to confine the limits of such explosions and fires by structural sectionalization of the hangar space. On the CVB Class the hangar was therefore divided into five compartments separated by 40 and 50-pound STS division bulkheads extending from the hangar deck to the flight deck, each fitted with a large door suitable for handling aircraft. It is hoped that this sectionalization, in conjunction with sprinkler and fog foam systems, will effectively prevent fires from spreading throughout the hangar spaces, as occurred on FRANKLIN on 30 October and 19 March. The damage experiences of several British carriers, which unlike our own were fitted with armoured flight decks, demonstrated the effectiveness of such armour in shielding hangar spaces from GP bombs and vital spaces below the hangar deck from SAP bombs. Accordingly, the CVB Class was designed with an armoured flight deck consisting of 3-1/2-inch STS from frames 46 to 175 with a hangar deck consisting of two courses of 40-pound STS between frames 36 and 192. Although none of the CVB Class carriers were completed in time to take part in war operations, the effectiveness of armoured flight decks against Kamikaze attacks was demonstrated by various carriers attached to the British Pacific Fleet. Reference (k) reports two such interesting cases. The VICTORIOUS was struck by three Kamikaze aircraft, two of which ricocheted off the armoured flight deck and over the side, causing no important damage. The third carried a bomb which detonated at frame 30 starboard at the butt of the 3-inch flight deck armour with 1-1/2-inch "D" quality (equivalent to HTS) steel. It does not appear that the Kamikaze actually struck the ship. The bomb detonation, however, depressed the 3-inch deck slightly but did not tear it open. On the other hand, the 1-1/2-inch "D" quality deck plating was ripped open over a total area of about 25 square feet. Two days were required for temporary repairs, at the conclusion of which the ship was fully operational. HMS FORMIDABLE was hit by two bombs, the first of which struck and detonated on the flight deck 9 feet to port of the center-line at frame 79, directly over a deep bent and at a juncture of three armoured plates. The armoured deck was depressed over an area 24 feet long and 20 feet wide. Maximum depression was 15 inches. Adjacent bents spaced 12 feet forward and aft of the point of impact were slightly depressed. A hole 2 square feet in area was blown in the 3-inch deck. Three fragments penetrated downward through the ship into the center boiler room. The damage in this boiler room, which was not described, temporarily reduced speed to 18 knots. The second bomb struck and detonated on the centreline of the flight deck at frame 94. The 3-inch deck and deep bent directly below the point of impact were depressed about 4-1/2 inches and one rivet was knocked out. However, the ship was fully operational within about 5 hours, including flight operations.
     
  2. RichTO90

    RichTO90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2,171
    Likes Received:
    849
    Repetition is not analysis or constructive for that matter.

    You still miss exactly why the Illustrious class design was not repeated and why the postwar British carrier design, which was never built, discarded the armored flight deck as built in the Illustrious class. The design flaw is why the Illustrious and Formidable were surveyed in 1947, after a service life of just six years, while the Midway's lived on into the 1960's. The same flaw doomed Indomitable to the scrapyard after a minor gasoline explosion in 1951.

    You and the writer's of the Franklin damage report also miss that the decision to incorporate the strength deck in the Midway class as the strength deck was done in 1940, when the provision for an 8-inch anti-cruiser armament was ditched. The weight savings enabled it. All that discussion occurred before Illustrious' bombing and before the kamikaze strikes.
     
  3. steverodgers801

    steverodgers801 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,661
    Likes Received:
    69
    There is one crucial difference between the US and British carriers, the US could carry a heck of a lot more aircraft. I would argue that the ability to down aircraft before they can strike is better then surviving a hit.
     
  4. RichTO90

    RichTO90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2,171
    Likes Received:
    849
    Worse, the design flaw in the Illustrious-class "armoured box hanger" carriers, which induced the restriction on the number of aircraft they carried also meant the design was never repeated. It also meant that when it was decided to modernize Victorious the expense and difficulty was so great no attempt was made to do the same on the last two in hand. The notion U.S. carrier design from the Midway-class onward was "based on" the design of the Illustrious-class is fatuous.
     
  5. albanaich

    albanaich New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2016
    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    4
    You can shape your opinions and choice of facts to support any preconcieved view you wish. None on that changes the fact that studies carried out the US Navy and implemented in the Midway design were based on the percieved design superiority of the Illustrious class.

    You can tell me over and over again you don't agree with that. . . . but those are the recorded facts.

    I'm not a naval architect. . . . .like most people I rely on expert opinion and expert opinion is more or less agreed on the facts and the conclusions one draws from them.
     
  6. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    9,408
    Likes Received:
    2,200
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Then, you should probably read Norman Friedman's "US Aircraft Carriers: An Illustrated Design History"
     
    USMCPrice likes this.
  7. RichTO90

    RichTO90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2,171
    Likes Received:
    849
    I doubt it will do much good since he seems to be another believer in time travel.
     
  8. belasar

    belasar Court Jester Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,503
    Likes Received:
    1,173
    Debate the topic, not anyone's opinion of each other.
     
  9. belasar

    belasar Court Jester Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,503
    Likes Received:
    1,173
    Actually I would say two crucial differences and one pertinent to the actual conflict.

    Range of operations. Put simply the ability to stay at sea and on station longer. In a area as vast as the Pacific, lacking existing major ports close to the operating area has to be factored in.

    RN carriers were built for operations in the North Sea, Atlantic and the Med. US carriers were designed to operate in the Pacific. Each did well in their intended target area.
     
    freebird likes this.
  10. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Good Ol' Boy Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    Messages:
    17,544
    Likes Received:
    2,136
    Location:
    Alabama
    You say "Official US Navy report and observation."

    Specifically, what report and what observation?

    Suppose someone wanted to read the "report" or the "observation," which document, page and/or paragraph would they want to read?
     
  11. RichTO90

    RichTO90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2,171
    Likes Received:
    849
    As I pointed out up thread, it is a British Wiki-ized version of the Franklin damage report by BUSHIPS. The "armour" is a dead give away. See my post for the original language or go to

    Okay, f??? it, I have no idea why the link doesn't work after editing it five times. So Google Franklin Damage report
     
  12. albanaich

    albanaich New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2016
    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    4
    If you knew the material - which you don't. It would be obvious.

    Don't ask me to think and do research for you.
     
  13. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Good Ol' Boy Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    Messages:
    17,544
    Likes Received:
    2,136
    Location:
    Alabama
    Okay boys. Enough is enough.

    Albanaich: I asked a question of you. I expect an answer.

    RichTO90:As requested by the owner of the forum, we generally try to keep the forum content out of the R-rated category. Cool it with the f-bombs.
     
  14. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    9,408
    Likes Received:
    2,200
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    I do believe that you don't know the material as well as you think you do. Nor do I think you have the "proof" being asked for or know where to look for such proof. Further, the answer it not as "obvious" as you claim it to be - If it was, would we still be arguing about it decades later? Finally, an uninformed opinion, such as yours, requires no thinking or researching.




    Edward Lull Cochrane, Chief of the Bureau of Ships.


    Of course...Since the US Navy was looking at armored decks for their aircraft carriers since, at least, 1931(and you thought armored flight decks was a just a British "invention") when they were working on designs for the upcoming Yorktown class, the US has generated plenty of material - Both "pro" and "con" - regarding armored flight decks. It is a rather simple task to "cherry pick" quotes to fit either position.


    The salient fact remains, that the US, now freed of the restricting naval treaties that limited their aircraft carrier designs, now had the tonnage where they could build an aircraft carrier that had the armored flight deck, aircraft capacity, range, etc. The Midway also sought to correct several flaws that the US saw in the British armored carriers' design. Still, the fact cannot be avoided that the Midway also had flaws of her own.
     
  15. LRusso216

    LRusso216 Graybeard Staff Member Patron  

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Messages:
    13,892
    Likes Received:
    2,349
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    I'm still trying to figure out how this thread morphed from the question of why Germany didn't deploy aircraft carriers to argument about armor used by the British and the Americans. :confused:
     
  16. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    9,408
    Likes Received:
    2,200
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Because some things are just too amusing to pass up...
     
    RichTO90 likes this.
  17. DerGiLLster

    DerGiLLster Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2015
    Messages:
    128
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Illinois
    I would be to partly blame for not getting involved with the people of this thread. I do wish to make thoughtful replies, but I am too busy to work out a good reply.
     
  18. RichTO90

    RichTO90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2,171
    Likes Received:
    849
    Sorry, edited. My unconscious reaction to dealing with computer stuff that doesn't do what it is supposed to do for not apparent reason.
     
  19. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,237
    Location:
    Michigan
    A lesson I'm still learning is that sometimes it's better just to sit back and watch the fireworks.
     
  20. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Good Ol' Boy Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    Messages:
    17,544
    Likes Received:
    2,136
    Location:
    Alabama
    Good enough, carry on.

    The forum issues will be addressed soon. Changes are afoot.
     

Share This Page