What were the Brits thinking?

[EUBanana]

Didn't the Forrestal class, post-war, have an armoured flight deck like the Brit CVs?

So I heard.

[sprior]

No, it wasn't armoured but from the Midway class onward the flight deck became the main strength deck on all US carriers.

[John Lansford]

Post war CV's had to have an armored flight deck to support the heavier planes during takeoff and landing.  The British CV's carried more planes in 1945 by putting more on the flight deck like the USN CV's did; their hangars were very small due to the armored flight deck and the heavier bracing for it.

Taiho came about as a result of the early war damage to the IJN carriers from bombs through their flight deck; that CV had a smaller plane complement as a result of the armored flight deck despite her enormous size. 

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.

[tocaff]

Damage done to a USN CV flight deck could, on occasion depending on the severity of the hit, be quickly repaired as the planking was replaced.

To discuss the RN and it's CVs you need to realize that they were the trail blazers.  If it wasn't for the RN figuring out how to land Corsairs, for example, on a flight deck who knows when and if the USN would've ever flown them off of CVs.  Give credit where credit is due and as others have pointed out different requirements and resources lead to different developments.

[Terminus]

The British carriers hit by Kamikazes all suffered very heavy structural damage from shock.

As for the size of them, the armoured boxes meant that the later generations of US-supplied aircraft couldn't be struck below (they couldn't fit in the hanger with folded wings). That's why the Seafire remained in use for so long.

The BPF used deck parking extensively, enabling some of the ships to embark 80+ aircraft, which isn't bad at all.

[herwin]

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.

Both the IJN and the USN owned their own airgroups; the RN airgroups were provided by the RAF. In addition, the RN emphasised the battlefleet support role (air search, spotting gunfire and maintaining air superiority over the battlefleet), while the IJN and USN also planned for independent raiding operations. That resulted in designing for survivability.

[sprior]

No, the Fleet Air Arm was seperated out from the RAF in May 1939 but that was a bit too late to start developing dedicated carrier-borne planes of any worth.

Anyway, here's a Seafire with kinked (or kinky) wings:

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Takeshi

British CVs held up better to late war Kamikaze attacks:

In March 1945, while supporting the invasion of Okinawa, the BPF had sole responsibility for operations in the Sakishima Islands. Its role was to suppress Japanese air activity, using gunfire and air attack, at potential Kamikaze staging airfields that would otherwise be a threat to U.S. Navy vessels operating at Okinawa. The carriers were subject to heavy and repeated kamikaze attacks, but because of their armoured flight decks, the British aircraft carriers proved highly resistant (unlike their U.S. counterparts), and returned to action relatively quickly. The U.S.N liaison officer on the Indefatigable commented: "When a kamikaze hits a U.S. carrier it means 6 months of repair at Pearl [Harbor]. When a kamikaze hits a Limey carrier it’s just a case of "Sweepers, man your brooms."”

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Pacific_Fleet

Most of the armoured flight deck carriers were worn out by the end of the war. Despite the protection, bomb damage was unexpectedly serious.

[Terminus]

And again, if you want to be taken serious, don't quote Wikipedia.

[Local Yokel]

Judging by the cowling bulge and number of exhaust stubs I'd say that is a Mk XVII Seafire. I've posted somewhere before that the Griffon engine on this marque delivered so much power as to make the aircraft a real handful at take-off, with the generated torque tending to pitch it into the starboard side island - obviously these Seafires ought to have been flown from Akagi and Hiryu! [:'(]

That Navweaps article on the armoured box carriers makes the point that because the BPF was cruisin' off to the south of Okinawa (Kerama Retto area?), it never had to face the Kikusui attacks the US carriers had to endure. Consequently, whilst 'sweepers, man your brooms' was a good PR line, it didn't necessarily reflect accurately the hardiness of the RN carriers.

It's a bit off topic, but whilst we are comparing US and British carrier practices, does anyone know what the extent was of the cross-fertilisation of ideas regarding fighter direction? I thought it singular that FDO's in both services were taught with the aid of men on tricycles representing the 'targets'. Was this coincidence, or did one service get this idea from the other?

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: herwin
Most of the armoured flight deck carriers were worn out by the end of the war. Despite the protection, bomb damage was unexpectedly serious.

Much is made of this fact, but what happened to them after the war isn't all that relevant really. What happened to them during the war is the relevant bit! If they could stay in action under kamikaze attack at the expense of being written off after Japan has been defeated, seems like a fair deal to me.

May as well say the Liberty ships were a failure because post-war all the concrete fell apart. Well... so what?

[Dixie]

Long term they weren't great due to repair difficulties and modernisation issues.  But in the short term (tactical rather than strategic) they were possibly better than the USN carriers due to the ability to shrug off hits that would have caused heavy damage to USN carriers.  The armoured carriers worked for the RN, a USN type design would have left the RN with major issues.  They didn't have the carrier numbers to replace seriously damaged ships in the front line as it was, so an unarmoured design would have left the BPF with major issues after a couple of kamikaze attacks.
They weren't the best design, but they were probably the right design for the RN at the time.  The other issue was the aircraft they were supplied with, if the FAA had been equipped with a Spitfire or even Wildcat equivelant in 1939/40 then we'd probably be raving about the effectiveness of the RN carriers [:D]

It's a interesting that the Colossus light carriers, which were designed as a short term solution kept soldiering on long after their larger cousins were scrapped.

[xj900uk]

The problems were as follows :
 
(1). Lack of money. Although the RN had been instrumental in developing the CV,  by the 30's they had fallen far behind both the US & Japan through lack of cash for R&D.
(2). The FAA (who supplied the pilots & planes) until '39 was controlled by the RAF & was definitely a very poor 2nd cousin in terms of resource allocation.
(3). The RN (and, to be fair, the US as well) never quite realised how far the carrier had come in the thirties.  At the start of WWII they still operated it as the eyes, ears and scouts for the battle fleet.  Witness the pursuit of the Bismark - the Swordfish were there to find and then torpedo/slow down the Bismark until at such point as it could be engaged by surface battleships.  This was the British doctrine & way of thinking,  period.  Ironically it was the Swordfish's success @ Taranto in Oct '40 which convinced Yamamoto he was completley vindicated in building up the IJN carrier air arm...
(4). The primary problem for carriers was seen as being land-based bomb-carrying aircraft.  The idea of a torpedo-carrying plane simply did not enter the RN's admirals or planners way of thinking.  Hence extra protection against bombs with the heavily armoured flight deck.  Also damage control was utmost in caryring fewer planes, less avgas and bombs/torpedos (because the role of the RN carrier was reconissance/scouting, not killing other ships)

[EUBanana]

I do wonder who thought the Fulmar was a good idea...

[xj900uk]

Fulmar was a good plane in that it had very good range/endurance but was very slow & had a poor climb rate.  Also the rear-observer didn't carry a gun, althuogh there were loads of 'custom fits' (including arming him with big bundles of toilet rolls to throw at attacking aircraft)
HOwever,  it was popular with pilots and ground crews & could take a lot of punishment.  It certianly worked very well in the Med against the Italians & Luftwaffe thanks to skillful handling & expert ground-air FDO and communications (something the US sorely lacked in '42!  no point in having better aircraft if you can't get hold of th epilots because the radios have infinite tuning frequencies, and, when you do,  the com is jammed with highly excited chitter-chatter!")

[Dixie]

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

I do wonder who thought the Fulmar was a good idea...

Probably not the pilots [:D] Although the Firefly wasn't a bad aircarft, and it was based on a similar idea.

It was one of those fantastic ideas that we Brits come up with every so often [;)] The powers that be felt that long range navigation over water was beyond the abilities of a pilot who also had to fly and fight his aircraft. At least it was a better idea than the Roc/Skua. A fighter that's also a dive-bomber [8|]

[xj900uk]

Firefly was a brilliant aircraft.  I've actually flown in one (when it was based at Yeovilton) & I can tell you that the plane rocks.  That Griffon engine - wow!  It was again too slow & heavy to be an air superiority fighter so was used better on ground attack missions.  Incidentally the plane still rocked in Korea as a 'heavy fighter' interdicting supply lines.

[sprior]

Ah, but remember the Skua was the first plane to sink a major warship under way, in this case the unfortunate Konigsberg. Alright, I'll grant you they were land based.

[sprior]

AND at least one Skua pilot became an ace:

WP Lucy RN
Born 1910 England
Rank: Lt (1939), Lt Cdr (A)
Honours and Awards: DSO (1940)
Died: 14.5.1940
Other information
- Air Ace with 7 shared destroyed enemy aircraft, 1 probable, 3 shared damaged.
- took part in Norwegian operations, 1940
- led the attack on the German cruiser Konigsberg, April 1940, the first major warship to ever hhaver been sunk by aircraft (803 sqdn). Awarded DSO.
- took part in the shooting down of 6 aircraft.
- killed when his aircraft blew up whilst attacking He111, HMS Ark Royal, 14.5.1940.

[xj900uk]

Don't 4get the Roc,  if there ever is a plane that has unfortunately 'disappeared' from history,  it is the RN's first and last turret-fighter (developed from the Skua).  Even most of the photos of it seem to have been wiped...