Was Shokaku class the best CV class in Dec 41?

[Lecivius]

I don't believe you can compare the Wasp & Yorktown's sinking to the Ark Royal. The 2 American carriers had already suffered grievous injury from air attack. The Ark Royal took 1 torpedo off of Spain. Again, not offering critique, just information to the discussion.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

I don't believe you can compare the Wasp & Yorktown's sinking to the Ark Royal. The 2 American carriers had already suffered grievous injury from air attack. The Ark Royal took 1 torpedo off of Spain. Again, not offering critique, just information to the discussion.

warspite1

Firstly, I never mentioned the Wasp - I was talking about the Yorktown's, Shokakus and Ark Royal.

Secondly, agreed - as I was not comparing them. That was the very point I was trying to make. They were not like for like losses.

Thirdly, what I was trying to do however was suggest that a case should not be made that Ark Royal "did not prove herself as tough" solely by virtue of the fact that she was lost to one torpedo (given that there were no sister ships to aid comparison and given that her loss was largely down to human error). Maybe she would have survived such bomb hits, but equally of course, may be not.

Edit: Better grammar.

[Lecivius]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Firstly, I never mentioned the Wasp - I was talking about the Yorktown's, Shokakus and Ark Royal.

Your right, and I miss read that.

[wdolson]

The Ark Royal was a one off ship. We only have one data point to look at, which is less than a perfect picture.

Same thing with the Taiho. The Taiho was a one off ship lost from the hit of one torpedo from a sub. The hit was close to the same area as the Ark Royal too.

If those ships had sisters, the tale about them might be a bit different if they had served with any distinction. By 1944 the fate of any Japanese carrier had more to do with luck than the way they were built. The US had such overwhelming force that when it was brought to bear under the right conditions, the target was pretty much toast, no matter how well it was built. However in 1941, the seas were pretty much in British control except very close to enemy territory and the Germans did not possess any super efficient anti-shipping capability (though they weren't slouches in that department either, they just didn't have the capabilities the US had in 1944).

With better damage control efforts the Ark Royal may have survived. We will never know for sure, though the Admiralty thought so. The captain was court martialed for losing his ship.

Bill

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

The Ark Royal was a one off ship. We only have one data point to look at, which is less than a perfect picture.

Same thing with the Taiho. The Taiho was a one off ship lost from the hit of one torpedo from a sub. The hit was close to the same area as the Ark Royal too.

If those ships had sisters, the tale about them might be a bit different if they had served with any distinction. By 1944 the fate of any Japanese carrier had more to do with luck than the way they were built. The US had such overwhelming force that when it was brought to bear under the right conditions, the target was pretty much toast, no matter how well it was built. However in 1941, the seas were pretty much in British control except very close to enemy territory and the Germans did not possess any super efficient anti-shipping capability (though they weren't slouches in that department either, they just didn't have the capabilities the US had in 1944).

With better damage control efforts the Ark Royal may have survived. We will never know for sure, though the Admiralty thought so. The captain was court martialed for losing his ship.

Bill

warspite1

Just a couple of points to pick up on:

If those ships had sisters, the tale about them might be a bit different if they had served with any distinction.

I assume you mean the sister(s) in the case of Ark Royal for she certainly did! Although serving with distinction has nothing to do necessarily with the question of taking battle damage.

However in 1941, the seas were pretty much in British control except very close to enemy territory

Again, not sure the point here in relation to my earlier point, but regardless, I am not at all sure that statement is right. The Royal Navy fought "close" to enemy territory, and had since the start of the war (Norway, France, Greece, Crete, Syria, Italy/Malta) - it was the nature of the job (and the acceptance of which was the reason for the armoured carrier concept) - particularly in the Mediterranean (and of course off Malaya in December of that year). Losses/serious damage in the Med in 1941 - from aircraft and submarines - was pretty bad (and it was the US remember that helped keep the RN afloat!).

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

The Ark Royal was a one off ship. We only have one data point to look at, which is less than a perfect picture.

Same thing with the Taiho. The Taiho was a one off ship lost from the hit of one torpedo from a sub. The hit was close to the same area as the Ark Royal too.

If those ships had sisters, the tale about them might be a bit different if they had served with any distinction. By 1944 the fate of any Japanese carrier had more to do with luck than the way they were built. The US had such overwhelming force that when it was brought to bear under the right conditions, the target was pretty much toast, no matter how well it was built. However in 1941, the seas were pretty much in British control except very close to enemy territory and the Germans did not possess any super efficient anti-shipping capability (though they weren't slouches in that department either, they just didn't have the capabilities the US had in 1944).

With better damage control efforts the Ark Royal may have survived. We will never know for sure, though the Admiralty thought so. The captain was court martialed for losing his ship.

Bill

warspite1

Just a couple of points to pick up on:

If those ships had sisters, the tale about them might be a bit different if they had served with any distinction.

ORIGINAL: warspite1
I assume you mean the sister(s) in the case of Ark Royal for she certainly did! Although serving with distinction has nothing to do necessarily with the question of taking battle damage.

Sorry, wrote the earlier bit in a hurry. I meant dealing with battle damage successfully.

However in 1941, the seas were pretty much in British control except very close to enemy territory

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Again, not sure the point here in relation to my earlier point, but regardless, I am not at all sure that statement is right. The Royal Navy fought "close" to enemy territory, and had since the start of the war (Norway, France, Greece, Crete, Syria, Italy/Malta) - it was the nature of the job (and the acceptance of which was the reason for the armoured carrier concept) - particularly in the Mediterranean (and of course off Malaya in December of that year). Losses/serious damage in the Med in 1941 - from aircraft and submarines - was pretty bad (and it was the US remember that helped keep the RN afloat!).

I was comparing the strategic situation the RN faced in 1941 vs the strategic situation the IJN faced in 1944. Any new IJN carrier commissioned in the 1944 time frame had a very limited life expectancy. No matter how good multiple Taihos were, they could not have stood against TF 38/58 for long.

The situation the RN faced in 1941 was very different. The RN did not face annihilation every time they faced the Axis.

Bill

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

ORIGINAL: wdolson

The Ark Royal was a one off ship. We only have one data point to look at, which is less than a perfect picture.

Same thing with the Taiho. The Taiho was a one off ship lost from the hit of one torpedo from a sub. The hit was close to the same area as the Ark Royal too.

If those ships had sisters, the tale about them might be a bit different if they had served with any distinction. By 1944 the fate of any Japanese carrier had more to do with luck than the way they were built. The US had such overwhelming force that when it was brought to bear under the right conditions, the target was pretty much toast, no matter how well it was built. However in 1941, the seas were pretty much in British control except very close to enemy territory and the Germans did not possess any super efficient anti-shipping capability (though they weren't slouches in that department either, they just didn't have the capabilities the US had in 1944).

With better damage control efforts the Ark Royal may have survived. We will never know for sure, though the Admiralty thought so. The captain was court martialed for losing his ship.

Bill

warspite1

Just a couple of points to pick up on:

If those ships had sisters, the tale about them might be a bit different if they had served with any distinction.

ORIGINAL: warspite1
I assume you mean the sister(s) in the case of Ark Royal for she certainly did! Although serving with distinction has nothing to do necessarily with the question of taking battle damage.

Sorry, wrote the earlier bit in a hurry. I meant dealing with battle damage successfully.

However in 1941, the seas were pretty much in British control except very close to enemy territory

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Again, not sure the point here in relation to my earlier point, but regardless, I am not at all sure that statement is right. The Royal Navy fought "close" to enemy territory, and had since the start of the war (Norway, France, Greece, Crete, Syria, Italy/Malta) - it was the nature of the job (and the acceptance of which was the reason for the armoured carrier concept) - particularly in the Mediterranean (and of course off Malaya in December of that year). Losses/serious damage in the Med in 1941 - from aircraft and submarines - was pretty bad (and it was the US remember that helped keep the RN afloat!).

I was comparing the strategic situation the RN faced in 1941 vs the strategic situation the IJN faced in 1944. Any new IJN carrier commissioned in the 1944 time frame had a very limited life expectancy. No matter how good multiple Taihos were, they could not have stood against TF 38/58 for long.

The situation the RN faced in 1941 was very different. The RN did not face annihilation every time they faced the Axis.

Bill

warspite1

Indeed.