This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!
HMS Dasher: Which brings the whole debate back to the start - with in this case RN officers pointing out the terrible design and damage control features of an USN carrier! (Dasher was an US built escort carrier)
US built escort carriers were a completely different design philosophy from US fleet carriers. The CVE were called Combustible, Vulnerable, and Expendable by their crews because they essentially were. Everything about them was a compromise. Their purpose was to fight submarines and protect invasion fleets and little else.
If the US had been able to make enough tanker hulls, the CVEs would have been built using them, which would have been a much better design. The first three CVEs were built from tankers and were much better ships. Subsequent designs had to make do with a standard freighter hull, which was barely adequate for the task.
Note that in addition to the armour RN carriers had about twice the AA armament of contemporary USN carriers, compare Hornet to Ark Royal for example. Can't find the quote but I read that Ark Royal never carried its full compliment of aircraft in WW2 as there were simply not enough. The RN felt correctly in their case that their aircraft would not be able to defend the ship.
Quite a bit of the RN wartime construction was exactly that and was not expected to last much after the war. I think that in additionto the heavy use and damage the older carriers were simply too small to operate the more modern aircraft which led to their early scrapping.
I can't remember when the first Essex was laid down compared to the Illustrious but I am fairly certain the USN was able to adapt to lessons learned at the start of WW2 where the RN could not afford the money or the time to change designs during the war.
"When you are about to kill someone it costs nothing to be polite." WS Churchill
ORIGINAL: Nikademus
to be fair, any carrier caught with fueled and bombed planes on deck or in the hanger is a deathtrap.
This is one of the reasons why comparing say USS Franklin to HMS Illustrious is pointless. Because HMS Illustrious survived her bombing doesn't prove it better than USS Franklin. Had HMS Illustrious been caught with armed and fueled planes deck parked and below, then maybe we could compare them. HMS Indomitable's gas explosion within the hanger in 1951 gives a taste of the type of damage they would have received in such an attack.
ORIGINAL: Nikademus
DK Brown interestingly noted that no UK carrier was lost to fire/explosion....a hidden plus to the often maligned UK carriers.
True though the real fact of the matter is that no UK carrier was likely lost to fire or explosion because they had relatively anemic air groups to begin with. Because their limited air capacity they also had lesser avgas storage and smaller magazines thereby making them safer.
Ultimately, the US and UK made their carrier designs thinking about the war they expected to fight. The UK planned for narrow seas and support of the battle line (pinning and/or disrupting the enemy, sweeping spotters etc) while the US knew that in the Pacific in the Orange plans they had to bring their own air cover and made large capacity carriers because of it.
If a country can't save itself through the volunteer service of its own free people, then I say: Let the damned thing go down the drain!
!
At the end of the war, the capacity of late war UK designs which had evolved since the Illustrious allowed for a much larger complement of planes - just like Terminus said, the first reason why the British had anemic airgroups, apart from the lack of planes, was a doctrinal one. They wouldn't use deck space for parking. Some ended the war carrying 70 birds, that's pretty respectable...
This is one of the reasons why comparing say USS Franklin to HMS Illustrious is pointless. Because HMS Illustrious survived her bombing doesn't prove it better than USS Franklin. Had HMS Illustrious been caught with armed and fueled planes deck parked and below, then maybe we could compare them. HMS Indomitable's gas explosion within the hanger in 1951 gives a taste of the type of damage they would have received in such an attack.
We don't argue about which design was sounder, they all answered to different needs. But this is a little far-fetched: the reason why Franklin burnt is foremost because the bombs actually went through its flight deck, seems obvious to me. Armored flight deck proved to be a disadvantage in the long run for the lifespan of these ships, but they were a blessing at the right moment for whoever would fight aboard those CVs, especially in 1945. 1951 just shows that HMS Indomitable was vulnerable to hangar fire just like any other ship - but more so because of its design - but the whole point of having an armored flight deck was specifically to render "such an attack" fruitless... Your logic is weird, man.
Few points here that need clarification :
(1). The concept of the armoured flightdeck certainly protected the carrier from bomb damage, but actually when it was hit the damage took longer to be repaired - queue the Formidable being hit by 1 bomb in the Med (dropped by a Stuka), and being out of action for 1 year - it had to go to the US for repairs. Also there was the problem that this made the carrier slightly top-heavy, which also made it vulnerable to torpedo attacks - the Courageous was lost in Sept '39 in such a way and the Ark Royal in the med in '41, both suffering damage that US carriers might well have survived. Finally there was the theoretical problem that the armoured flightdeck created an armoured box which would actually concentrate any fires and make them worse, this is why the RN drilled so long and hard in fire control & no carriers were lost this way.
(2). After the war nearly all RN carriers were determined too big and expensive to maintain, so went the way of the breakers prematurely or were sold off to other navies (like India, Australia, and ironically the Argentinans). A few light ones (Glory class) did sterling service in Korea though. Out of the WWII carriers only Victorious soldiered on with a ludicrously long 9-year refit/upgrade. in the 40/s/50's only to be the last in the Indomitable class of ships & then scrapped prematurely in the early 60's after very little service.
(3). After WWII the UK only finished two 'modern carriers', the Ark Royal (laid down in '43) and the Eagle, althogh others were planned. Neither outlived the 70's as both were scrapped due to economic concerns and lack of cash for refits/upgrades & were replaed with the 'through deck cruisers' of the Invincible class, which are still aroudn today although about to be withdrawn/laid up.
(4). The UK is now building two massive new aircraft carriers which should be ready about 2015, the Queen Elizabeth and the Prince of Wales. Originally the plan was to build them in Korea by Nippon Steel on the grounds that 'the Japanese knew more about aircraft carriers than the UK ever did' in ironically the same shipyard as turned out hte Musashi, Yamato & Shinano... A political decision ignoring the fact that the Japanese actually hadn't built a proper CV since WWII... Some say that the navy minister actually came up with this brain-wave after w atching the Pearl Harbour movie in 2001... After a public outcry Nippon Steel were paid off (£1 billion down the drain for doing nothign) and the ships are now being constructed in the UK although they will now take longer & be more expensive, although ironically to the original Japanese design. Just to make matters more interesting, there is no money in the budget left over for any new planes to equip them - work on the JSF and also the F-35 has now been mothballed by the UK government on the grounds of cost, so looks like they will deploy Harriers and some choppers (bring back the Buccanneer & Phantom, anyone?)
I guess they will probably go the way of previous UK post-war carriers, being too expensive to deploy and then going prematurely to the breakers yard, unless hte Chinese or North koreans want to buy them...
Few points here that need clarification :
(1). The concept of the armoured flightdeck certainly protected the carrier from bomb damage, but actually when it was hit the damage took longer to be repaired - queue the Formidable being hit by 1 bomb in the Med (dropped by a Stuka), and being out of action for 1 year - it had to go to the US for repairs. Also there was the problem that this made the carrier slightly top-heavy, which also made it vulnerable to torpedo attacks - the Courageous was lost in Sept '39 in such a way and the Ark Royal in the med in '41, both suffering damage that US carriers might well have survived. Finally there was the theoretical problem that the armoured flightdeck created an armoured box which would actually concentrate any fires and make them worse, this is why the RN drilled so long and hard in fire control & no carriers were lost this way.
(2). After the war nearly all RN carriers were determined too big and expensive to maintain, so went the way of the breakers prematurely or were sold off to other navies (like India, Australia, and ironically the Argentinans). A few light ones (Glory class) did sterling service in Korea though. Out of the WWII carriers only Victorious soldiered on with a ludicrously long 9-year refit/upgrade. in the 40/s/50's only to be the last in the Indomitable class of ships & then scrapped prematurely in the early 60's after very little service.
(3). After WWII the UK only finished two 'modern carriers', the Ark Royal (laid down in '43) and the Eagle, althogh others were planned. Neither outlived the 70's as both were scrapped due to economic concerns and lack of cash for refits/upgrades & were replaed with the 'through deck cruisers' of the Invincible class, which are still aroudn today although about to be withdrawn/laid up.
(4). The UK is now building two massive new aircraft carriers which should be ready about 2015, the Queen Elizabeth and the Prince of Wales. Originally the plan was to build them in Korea by Nippon Steel on the grounds that 'the Japanese knew more about aircraft carriers than the UK ever did' in ironically the same shipyard as turned out hte Musashi, Yamato & Shinano... A political decision ignoring the fact that the Japanese actually hadn't built a proper CV since WWII... Some say that the navy minister actually came up with this brain-wave after w atching the Pearl Harbour movie in 2001... After a public outcry Nippon Steel were paid off (£1 billion down the drain for doing nothign) and the ships are now being constructed in the UK although they will now take longer & be more expensive, although ironically to the original Japanese design. Just to make matters more interesting, there is no money in the budget left over for any new planes to equip them - work on the JSF and also the F-35 has now been mothballed by the UK government on the grounds of cost, so looks like they will deploy Harriers and some choppers (bring back the Buccanneer & Phantom, anyone?)
I guess they will probably go the way of previous UK post-war carriers, being too expensive to deploy and then going prematurely to the breakers yard, unless hte Chinese or North koreans want to buy them...
For point 1, neither Courageous nor Ark Royal were armoured carriers. [;)]
This is one of the reasons why comparing say USS Franklin to HMS Illustrious is pointless.
Not exactly. Illustrious took a serious number of heavy bombs to which it is more than possible neither a Japanese nor American carrier would have survived. Franklin's experience compared to Victorious is a better one when comparing the effects of fire and aviation ops.
True though the real fact of the matter is that no UK carrier was likely lost to fire or explosion because they had relatively anemic air groups to begin with. Because their limited air capacity they also had lesser avgas storage and smaller magazines thereby making them safer.
Brown suggested it was more the design than the size of the airgroup. I don't think 30 armed or fueled planes makes a carrier substantially less vulnerable to ordinance than 60 armed or fueled planes in the long run.
ORIGINAL: John Lansford
I doubt Akagi could have been saved even with sufficient air cover or closer to the home islands. In Shattered Sword there was a line drawing of how she looked before scuttling; she had burned all the way down to the waterline in places and was a complete ruin. I guess the hulk could have been towed back but she would have had to be completely rebuilt, even more than Franklin in 1945.
I recalled the drawing in Shattered Sword was of the Kaga. Maybe I'm misremembering?
Bill
No I think I am. The drawing was very spectacular, especially when you viewed a "before" photo or drawing of her. Akagi was still burning and no one could stop them; IIRC there was talk about trying to tow her but they could have only salvaged the hull and perhaps the machinery after so much fire.
It was true of all four carriers. After the fires burned out you'd be left with four hulls intact below water, but with such structural damage up top that you might as well build new ships. Add to that the challenge of trying to tow 1-4 hulks halfway across the ocean with the inherrant risk to the escorting ships and it just wasn't practical. Hence all four were scuttled.
Yorktown case was different. Her bouyancy was compromised but stable (at the time). Structurally she was in decent shape and PH was far closer to them than Kure was for the Nagumo. Hence the effort was made and might have succeeded (though we'll never know for sure even had I-168 not intercepted her)
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.
Well, the British had to be different, uh? If they did what everybody else was doing, they wouldn't be British...
The US and Japanese weren't at war in 1939 with a country with one of the largest airforces on the planet..
British priorities were driven by a re armament programme that kicked off late and ultimately had to prioritise both a land war on the continent (BEF) and an RAF able to stop the Luftwaffe
Neither of these constraints were faced by Japan or the USA.
Japan was fighting an offensive war in China but thats very different from HAVING to prepare for a defensive war against a first class opponent.
Its not really fair to compare the state the USN/IJN found itself in by 1941 with the FAA.
And the FAA didnt do to badly with what it had but it was never going to be able to go toe to toe with the Luftwaffe nor was that its envisaged role
Andy
ORIGINAL: fbs
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.
Well, the British had to be different, uh? If they did what everybody else was doing, they wouldn't be British...
lol....good point.....UK's days as a global naval power were numbered after two world wars. All of the grisled old capital ship veterans were destined for the scrapyard in very short order (many already having been allowed to run down through lack of maintenance)....the KGV's and Vanguard would last for a time till relegated to the reserve fleet....then the breakers. A sad end to proud warriors. I still recall how the UK had to scrap together enough working ships to form the TF's needed to retake the Faulklands back in the early 80's. Even that is beyond the RN now unless i'm mistaken (There's still a formidable nuclear sub force)
Economics.
One wonders how much longer the USN will be able to afford it's big carrier fleet.
Too true Nik. too true. The RN is pitiful nowadays compared to it's illustrious past. Just reading a book on the Battle of Trafalgar at the moment....glory days[;)]
As you say economics. There's little enough to go aroudn nowadays and with military sopendign as it is our troops in Afghanistan are under-supplied with the proper equipment......
Anyhow I'll stop there as don't want this to get into politics.
Surely there was no need for stuff like Fulmars and Skuas though. Navalised versions of land based fighters, ie Sea Hurricanes and Seafires, and Gladiators I guess, would presumably be cheaper than different - (and substandard at that) - gear just for the navy?
For point 1, neither Courageous nor Ark Royal were armoured carriers. [;)]
The underwater protection of UK cruiser, battleship, and carrier designs was seriously weak. Not so much a problem with the basic level of protection as the detail work was poor. The old ships were WWI designs, while the later ships had serious mistakes.
Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
And again, if you want to be taken serious, don't quote Wikipedia.
I'm a Wikipedia editor... [;)]
Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
Surely there was no need for stuff like Fulmars and Skuas though.
RN wanted a two seat fighter for naval duties. They also wanted a fighter with a high endurance rate which the Fulmar did have. It was also heavily armed with an ammo supply twice as large as a hurricane. Good for novice pilots. Fulmar actually fit in well with UK Fleet defense doctrine initially. Skua, as was pointed out on another board was designed during a time when biplane fighters were still prevalient. Given the limits on space for carriers a multi-function fighter would have some merits. It was an idea that had a short shelf life but again, like the Fulmar it didn't preform bad initially nor have a disasterous debut like the turret fighter concept did.
Surely there was no need for stuff like Fulmars and Skuas though. Navalised versions of land based fighters, ie Sea Hurricanes and Seafires, and Gladiators I guess, would presumably be cheaper than different - (and substandard at that) - gear just for the navy?
They believed they needed a second crew-member to handle over-water navigation and the radio. Both aircraft were designed as dive bombers. (The Fulmar was a navalised Battle, and the Skua was primarily a dive bomber, with the fighter mission only secondary.)
Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
Surely there was no need for stuff like Fulmars and Skuas though. Navalised versions of land based fighters, ie Sea Hurricanes and Seafires, and Gladiators I guess, would presumably be cheaper than different - (and substandard at that) - gear just for the navy?
That's the result of trying to do more than one totally different role with the same aircraft. With the FAA having no money then it made sense (sort of) to economise by having your dive-bombers being 'capable' of acting as fighters. There's no way the RN would have been able to persuade the RAF of letting them have some Hurricane production in the pre-war years. There's even less of chance of them getting Spitfires, after all even the RAF didn't get Spitfires in France.
Surely there was no need for stuff like Fulmars and Skuas though.
RN wanted a two seat fighter for naval duties. They also wanted a fighter with a high endurance rate which the Fulmar did have. It was also heavily armed with an ammo supply twice as large as a hurricane. Good for novice pilots. Fulmar actually fit in well with UK Fleet defense doctrine initially. Skua, as was pointed out on another board was designed during a time when biplane fighters were still prevalient. Given the limits on space for carriers a multi-function fighter would have some merits. It was an idea that had a short shelf life but again, like the Fulmar it didn't preform bad initially nor have a disasterous debut like the turret fighter concept did.
The turret fighter had quite a good debut, until the LW worked out how to knock them down easily.
one good initial sortie doesn't qualify for me compared to the other planes. Right from the get go once 109's got a good look at em they were meat. Skua and Fulmar "debut" was longer and in the latter case it's success stretched out for a good initial period.
While the two naval planes had limited shelf lives, they did have a period of usefulness. The Turret fighter concept just didn't work at all.
