Second Best Carrier in Pac War

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

ORIGINAL: Moquia

Im also facinated with Lexington and Saratoga. Carriers with 8" guns!

What about Furious then when she was completed? A flying off deck forward and a single 18" gun turret in the rear... Now THAT's a combination. [:D]

I thought the 18" gun was taken off after WW1 and swapped for more flight deck? That dated from her original (failed) plan of being an extremist battlecruiser.

[Bobthehatchit]

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

/Glorious/Courageous/Furious)

Curious, Spurious and Outrageous.
[:D]

rofl![:D]

[Bobthehatchit]

ORIGINAL: Moquia

Im also facinated with Lexington and Saratoga. Carriers with 8" guns!

Me to have to be the best looking carriers every built, great lines!

[Moquia]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

What about Furious then when she was completed? A flying off deck forward and a single 18" gun turret in the rear... Now THAT's a combination. [:D]

Wow, didn't know that. Those crazy British[:D].

[Tankerace]

ORIGINAL: Moquia

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

What about Furious then when she was completed? A flying off deck forward and a single 18" gun turret in the rear... Now THAT's a combination. [:D]

Wow, didn't know that. Those crazy British[:D].

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

ORIGINAL: Moquia

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

What about Furious then when she was completed? A flying off deck forward and a single 18" gun turret in the rear... Now THAT's a combination. [:D]

Wow, didn't know that. Those crazy British[:D].

Fisher was really losing it by this point...the fact that they were built illustrates just how much power this loon had.

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: Bobthehatchit

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

/Glorious/Courageous/Furious)

Curious, Spurious and Outrageous.
[:D]

rofl![:D]

Hey, thats what they really were nicknamed by RN sailors in the day.
[;)]

[philabos]

Hermes and the like may have been trashy, but the British Pacific Fleet armored deck carriers stood up against the Kamikazes while the US carriers had wooden decks and big problems. After a multiple Kamikaze attack. HMS FORMIDABLE was back in action the same afternoon after being hit by 2 Kamikazes along with 500LB bombs. Having heard much criticism of the RN CV's, FORMIDABLE's Captain Keene yelled at his USN liaison officer asking what he thought of "our flight desks now?" Lt. Cdr Hedges responded " Sir, they're a honey!" (see the Forgotten Fleet by John Winton)

[Tiornu]

The record of Britain's armored-box carriers against kamikazes is not encouraging. When you peel away the hype, what you have is a set of carriers that got hit only because their small air groups couldn't defend them against small attacks. The intensity of kamikaze raids against these ships was very mild, yet every one of them was struck by at least one kamikaze except Implacable (who showed up too late in the game). If the British had undergone even one good kikusui, chances are they would have been overwhelmed.

[EUBanana]

Apparently the flight decks of the armoured carriers were only pierced once - by a German bomb in 1941.

So I guess they did their job.

US carriers were armoured as well mind, their armour was lower down though, the flight deck was part of the superstructure on the Essex class. Hence why US carriers could still get home even after being trashed.

[ckk]

Amen Tiornu[&o] The truth is out[:'(]

[ckk]

double post

[EUBanana]

Aye. But tiz true that they werent designed to be Kamikaze proof, but Stuka proof.

And apparently, they were. [:D]

[TIMJOT]

Apparently they did not. RN CVs flight decks resistence against kamikaze attacks may looked impressive but in reality because the flight decks was integral to the hull, the ships actually suffered sever damaged. Specifically irreputable demormaty and buckling of the hull. A survey after the war revealed that almost all the CVs suffering bomb in kamikaze strikes had suffered unrepairable damage and indeed most of the ships were scraped within a few years after the war.

There was a very interesting enlightening artical on this in the old Warships 1 website, dont have the link with me now but will try to post it later.

[Tiornu]

"But tiz true that they werent designed to be Kamikaze proof, but Stuka proof. And apparently, they were."
No, not at all. Every dive-bomb attack that struck the flight-deck armor, penetrated that armor. The only dropped bomb (as opposed to kamikaze) that failed against the armor was from an Italian anti-personnel bomb that was used because the intended payload was not available for the sortie that day.

"There was a very interesting enlightening artical on this in the old Warships 1 website"
I'm pretty sure this link has been posted before.
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-030.htm
If I may, I do believe my essay is worth reading as it clears up several misconceptions about the armored-box carriers.

[madmickey]

Could you imagine fighting Midway with Carriers only carrying 18 fighters and 14 TB. Aircap was a CV best protection. Battleship were sunk by DB with far more armour than British carrirs.

[Tiornu]

Yes! Or how about this: can you imagine Taranto with 54 attack aircraft?
The best defense....

[BlackVoid]

Zuikaku class. These are the fastest carriers.

[madmickey]

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

Yes! Or how about this: can you imagine Taranto with 54 attack aircraft?
The best defense....

Agree with your point as well.

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

"But tiz true that they werent designed to be Kamikaze proof, but Stuka proof. And apparently, they were."
No, not at all. Every dive-bomb attack that struck the flight-deck armor, penetrated that armor. The only dropped bomb (as opposed to kamikaze) that failed against the armor was from an Italian anti-personnel bomb that was used because the intended payload was not available for the sortie that day.

"There was a very interesting enlightening artical on this in the old Warships 1 website"
I'm pretty sure this link has been posted before.
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-030.htm
If I may, I do believe my essay is worth reading as it clears up several misconceptions about the armored-box carriers.

Well, the post war Forrestal class had an armoured deck according to one source of mine - though being so much bigger it didn't have an impact on their air complement size. Though that directly contradicts that essay. (Kindof, it mentions the Forrestal I notice)

As I mentioned, I saw another essay that specifically said that the only time an armoured carriers flight deck was pierced was once in 1941, so there is another contradiction.

As for them being scrapped right after the war... well. I think whether they were in action 6 hours after being bombed or not was probably more important than whether they should be decommissioned after the entire war. I have no doubt that an armoured warship that takes punishment of any sort is going to suffer for it, even if in battle it keeps on going.