Matrix Games Forums

It was only the unexpected doctrine of kamakaze attacks that changed the equation-throwing the Allies off balance for a while. However, that in itself was a self defeating doctrine done by a desperate foe. It is unlikely that any Western power would resort to it.

Of course we do, it is still in use today. Improved technology has changed its nature somewhat by removing the pilot from the aircraft, but the earliest ancestor of every anti-ship cruise missile is the kamikaze airplane.

The British Navy as usual fought valiantly and with great professionalism, but the fact that they were beaten so badly by a Third World country flying 1950s Skyhawks with iron bombs (plus 2 Super Etendard with no more than 6 operational Exocets, or something like that) raised a lot of eyebrows around.

F.

I think if you check your history books you'll find the Royal Navy actually won that one. [;)]

cant resist getting involved with this Ill throw in a couple of points

Implacable and her sister ship were carrying 80+ aircraft in 1945, 48 seafires plus fireflies and avengers

I dont think the RN used the Baraquda much in the far east, Sensible Chaps

Illustrious class carriers were carrying 50+ aircraft in 1942

Indomidable was carrying 55 + aircraft in 1942

Swordfish were the most advanced carrier aircraft in the world in 1941,
if you were operating at night ! Radar and ease of handling in night landling (no flaps or undercarrage to worry about) it was also capable of operating quite handily in very bad weather or your average atlantic gale

but agree the RN as undertrained in operating large scale strikes off a carrier prior to absorbing american methods 2 waves of 12 at Taranto, and one of 18 off the Ark Royal perhaps their most impressive operations were ark Royal operations in the Med I would not have called the Swordfish a dive bomber but it did!

the main reason for lack of amphibious operations in 1944 in SEA was the invasion of the south of france which sucked up all the landing craft. The RN did not think that the troops would wear coming ashore in ships lifeboats under fire which is what using ak & aps mean rather than LCI's & LCTs.


cheers

Hipper

An FAA Fanboy !

can't let that one go. Who says the RN was 'beaten so badly'? IIRC the RN executed it's mission superbly, and at much lower cost than was expected. The Falkland Islands were recovered, and as a side issue (!) the RN was saved from the exceptionally deep cuts that the then Government had been contemplating.

All of the big ships, most of the destroyers/frigates and half of the nuclear submarines in the Royal Navy took part on that. While it's true that the carriers weren't hit, 4 of 22 destroyers/frigates were (number that would be 9 of 22 if the Argentinians had better bombs), and a whooping number of 13 of 22 destroyers/frigates were either sunk or received some kind of damage.

These numbers would be very undestandable if the Royal Navy was fighting the Soviets; they were fighting the Argentinians, with very very obsolete aircrafts and nothing more than 4 (or 6, I forgot) operational Exocets missiles. The Brits were brave and the Harriers performed superbly, but the ships were indeed mauled.

CV Hermes
CV Invincible
LPD Fearless
LPD Intrepid
DD Bristol
DD Antrim - hit by unexploded bomb; moderate damage by the bomb concussion alone
DD Glamorgan - slightly damaged by near miss, then heavy damage by Exocet
DD Cardiff
DD Coventry - sunk
DD Exter
DD Glasgow - hit by unexploded bomb; moderate damage by the bomb concussion alone
DD Sheffield - sunk
DD Brilliant - slightly damaged by cannon fire
DD Broadsword - slightly damaged by cannon fire and unexploded bomb that glanced off deck
DD Active
DD Alacrity - slightly damaged by near miss
DD Antelope - sunk
DD Ardent - sunk
DD Arrow - slightly damaged by cannon fire
DD Avenger
DD Andromeda
DD Argonaut - hit by 2 unexploded bomb; moderate damage by concussion alone
DD Minerva
DD Penelope
DD Plymouth - heavily damaged by 4 unexploded bombs
DD Yarmouth
LSL Sir Galahad - sunk
LSL Sir Lancelot - hit by unexploded bomb; moderate damage by concussion alone
LSL Sir Bedivere - slightly damaged by unexploded bomb that glanced off deck
LSL Sir Tristan - heavily damaged by bombs, abandoned, later re-boarded
AK Atlantic Conveyor - sunk

F.

What hasn't been mentioned yet is that the RN expected to operate in European waters, well within range of land-based air power. Enemy airfields would be too numerous to knock out, and the enemy would always be able to fly in more aircraft, resulting in an ever-present threat. In the pre-radar years that meant that they could expect their carriers to be attacked by surprise, with no amount of CAP guaranteeing protection. The USN also found the same problem in pre-war, pre-radar excercises - it was quite common for aircraft to approach a task force and attack without being intercepted. Given this, the RN chose passive protection measures.

On the other hand the USN expected to be operating in the Pacific. Land based air power was far less of a concern, and so they concentrated on getting their blow in first with overwhelming power, hence the large capacity and air groups on USN carriers. The enemy would only have a few bases himself - his own carriers - which could be neutralised permanently with a successful first strike.

Radar and CICs changed the whole equation of course. At the end of the war the RN was planning the large Malta class carriers without armoured decks and much larger aircraft capacities.

Two excellent books on the subject are 'British Carrier Aviation' by Norman Friedman, and 'American and British Aircraft Carrier Development, 1919-1941', by Thomas C. Hone, Norman Friedman and Mark D. Mandeles, both published by the Naval Institute Press.

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Everybody must remember that when carrier fleets were designed there were two factors that were not taken into consideration-because nobody could expect them. First, the advent of AA technology greatly increased during the war. The development of the proximity fuse and radar controled AA made attacking any carrier TF highly dangerous if not virtually impossible by conventional means. By late war, most attacking aircraft were being shot down by AA not CAP (not to say CAP was not important). By 1945 dive bombing had reached a dead end and was obsolete due to the effect of concentrated AA fire. Torpedo bombing was not much better off. It was only the unexpected doctrine of kamakaze attacks that changed the equation-throwing the Allies off balance for a while. However, that in itself was a self defeating doctrine done by a desperate foe. It is unlikely that any Western power would resort to it.

With the advances of AA technology, lightly armored carriers did just fine and were the best choice due to the greater amount of aircraft that they could carry. In 1942-the answer might have been the opposite.

The dive-bomber on USS carrier was replaced by fighter-bomber, which dive for an attack plus were able to fight enemy fighters.
In the 2nd Battle of Philippine Sea what percentage of planes were shot down by AA and what percentage by fighter.
Also remember that fighters can damage or suppress planes that will be counted as kill by AA.
An aircraft carrier duty is to carry airplane the more the better. It also helps to have enough planes to fly ASW on the way to the Battle. How many British CV were sunk by subs?
Battleships with a lot more armor than 75mm were sunk by airplanes do you really think that the Illustrious was unsinkable.
Another problem with the British concept was use of TB (in a small number) only.
They are extremely vulnerable to fighters and if prepared ship can comb torpedo wakes.
By using TB with DB in a coordinated attack is a deadly force.
Physic helps the dive-bomber bomb, kinetics works against the speed of torpedo (not where they hit).

4 warships plus the 'auxiliary carrier' Atlantic Conveyor sunk, several damaged. I'd have to look it up again but I believe the forecast was something like 60% losses.

Many things that weren't done should have been: for example Woodward had to send a frigate in to the anchorage to look for mines the hard way! [:(][X(] But beaten the RN most cetainly was not, the mission was successfully completed. In the process, an awful lot of lessons were (re)learned!

I do agree, however, that had the opponent been technically stronger - the Argentinian pilots were tremendously skilful and fantastically brave - the outcome would have been much worse.

One thing - I don't believe any sailor in that task force thought that the mission wouldn't succeed. Sort of "The Completion Backwards Principle" (Tubes fans might recognise that...[;)])

Steve.

But beaten the RN most cetainly was not, the mission was successfully completed.

Oh, I get your point. Yeah, fully agreed, the mission was accomplished.

The Falklands was an eye opener for the next wave of politicians that will try to arbitrarily cut the budget in the UK. Before that they were even talking about scrapping the carriers.

I do agree, however, that had the opponent been technically stronger - the Argentinian pilots were tremendously skilful and fantastically brave - the outcome would have been much worse.

It still doesn't enter my mind how the Argentinian Air Force was so brave while the Argentinian Navy was completely incompetent (to send Belgrano with 3 old escorts against top line SSN) and almost coward in refusing to engage (they had half a dozen of modern German submarines which didn't do anything).

F.

In the game, I'd rather use DB vs Carriers and TB vs battleships. BB seem to be almost impervious to bombs.

In general, I treat the smaller British carriers as CVLs, with only two - Implacable and Indefatigable - reaching my own personal standard for CV.

If they get decent aircraft, and if you can get all 6 together, they can pack a decent punch. Couple of nice qualifiers in that! [:)] But yes, in general, I'd say that the design decisions were reasonable - but wrong.

Steve.

IIRC the ships that Woodward was afraid of were the 25th May - ironically an onld RN carrier - and her group that was circling around to the north, and the Belgrano escorts who had the same missiles as Woodward's ships - they had not long ago belonged to the RN. But now I'm definitely going froma probably faulty memory. In any event, He wanted at least one of those threats dealt with, pronto. Afterwards, the Argentinian Navy just about hid in port for the rest of the war.

Mine is a very UK-Centric view, by the way - I'm aware of what 20 years may have done to colour my recollections. Please feel free to correct them!

Steve.

ORIGINAL: fbastos

But beaten the RN most cetainly was not, the mission was successfully completed.

Oh, I get your point. Yeah, fully agreed, the mission was accomplished.

The Falklands was an eye opener for the next wave of politicians that will try to arbitrarily cut the budget in the UK. Before that they were even talking about scrapping the carriers.

I do agree, however, that had the opponent been technically stronger - the Argentinian pilots were tremendously skilful and fantastically brave - the outcome would have been much worse.

It still doesn't enter my mind how the Argentinian Air Force was so brave while the Argentinian Navy was completely incompetent (to send Belgrano with 3 old escorts against top line SSN) and almost coward in refusing to engage (they had half a dozen of modern German submarines which didn't do anything).

F.

Well...it was an interesting war. I haven't seen any good simulations of it. One thing worth noting is that Harriers shot down 30 Argentine Aircraft and no argentine aircraft shot down a Harrier. If I remember correctly, total Argentine aircraft losses were over 100 and of course the entire Argentine force on the Falklands (12,000 men, lots of artillery and some armor) was forced to surrender within four months of landing on a place 300 miles from Argentina and 8,000 miles from the UK. The Galieari Regime fell within a few months and the "autogenocidal war" that it was running against its own people came to an end.


Argentine Naval loses were quite heavy and included a submarine captured on South Georgia and at least one intelligence "trawler" also captured.

It is also worth noting that the RN was in a period of transition. For example the Sea Wolf and Sea Skua missile AI logic had to be altered during the battle.

Also...I don't think the Argentines thought they were a third world country. I think they believe they are a first world country even now.

ORIGINAL: Hipper

cant resist getting involved with this Ill throw in a couple of points

Implacable and her sister ship were carrying 80+ aircraft in 1945, 48 seafires plus fireflies and avengers

I dont think the RN used the Baraquda much in the far east, Sensible Chaps

Illustrious class carriers were carrying 50+ aircraft in 1942

Indomidable was carrying 55 + aircraft in 1942

Swordfish were the most advanced carrier aircraft in the world in 1941,
if you were operating at night ! Radar and ease of handling in night landling (no flaps or undercarrage to worry about) it was also capable of operating quite handily in very bad weather or your average atlantic gale

but agree the RN as undertrained in operating large scale strikes off a carrier prior to absorbing american methods 2 waves of 12 at Taranto, and one of 18 off the Ark Royal perhaps their most impressive operations were ark Royal operations in the Med I would not have called the Swordfish a dive bomber but it did!

the main reason for lack of amphibious operations in 1944 in SEA was the invasion of the south of france which sucked up all the landing craft. The RN did not think that the troops would wear coming ashore in ships lifeboats under fire which is what using ak & aps mean rather than LCI's & LCTs.


cheers

Hipper

An FAA Fanboy !

Are those number you quoting for aircraft is when they are ferrying planes. The max sortie of 150 for Illustrious is extremely limited.
The Burma/Malaysia coast was extremely long and not defended by the Japs to any degree. You do not need LCI, LCT against undefended beaches in addition it was only in April of 1945 that Seac did anything overlord was in June 1944, Anvil in August (did the British use all their LCT,LCI there).
By the way that the Swordfish was so slow the German AA gunner on Bismark had difficulty hitting it, of course that only works once.
Of course if a Swordfish was attacked by a enemy fighter the fighter plane may ram it becuase it so slow.

Air groups:
Illustrious, March 1941: 41 planes
February 1945: 52 planes
Indefatigable, June 1944: 48 planes
July 1945: 73 planes
I found some info on increased avgas stores. Indomitable began with about 50,000 gallons, then had this increased by 50%. (By contrast, the smaller Yorktown carried about twice as much as the modified Indomitable.) Note that the extra 25,000 gallons (89 tons) of avgas involved a decrease in ship's fuel of 350 tons.
A Swordfish achieved speeds of 200mph during its torpedo attack. I cannot confirm that speed had anything to do with Bismarck's failure to shoot down any planes. More probable factors include the obsolete 37mm battery and the peculiar arrangement of 10.5cm guns in two different mountings which did not have the same training and elevating rates.

ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix

IIRC the ships that Woodward was afraid of were the 25th May - ironically an onld RN carrier - and her group that was circling around to the north, and the Belgrano escorts who had the same missiles as Woodward's ships - they had not long ago belonged to the RN. But now I'm definitely going froma probably faulty memory. In any event, He wanted at least one of those threats dealt with, pronto. Afterwards, the Argentinian Navy just about hid in port for the rest of the war.

Mine is a very UK-Centric view, by the way - I'm aware of what 20 years may have done to colour my recollections. Please feel free to correct them!

Steve.

I may not be remembering this correctly but I think only one of Argentine carrier's propellor shafts was functional and that she could not launch aircraft during the campaign. On that assignment she was basically a decoy.

I may not be remembering this correctly but I think only one of Argentine carrier's propellor shafts was functional and that she could not launch aircraft during the campaign. On that assignment she was basically a decoy.

Yeah, the Vintecienco de Mayo was disabled with all sorts of engineering problems since the 70s; it also only had 4 Super Etendards or so, so nobody really cared for her and I don't see anything their surface ships could have done - they just could not handle the SSN threat.

The Argentinian submarines, on the other hand, were excellent, and they didn't do anything; that's what I don't understand. It's true that the British SSNs are great hunter killers, but then again on coastal waters and fighting deffensively the Type 209 might have caused much trouble.

F.

I don't think the Argentines thought they were a third world country. I think they believe they are a first world country even now.

That's in fact a fair point. Nowadays 3rd World basically means poor, but the term was originally coined on 1952 meaning 1st World = capitalist West, 2nd World = socialist East, 3rd world = unaligned. Therefore, even Switerzeland could be considered 3rd World, but then the poor countries in the world hijacked the term to describe themselves, so 3rd World became synonym to poor countries.

Either way Argentina is 3rd World; the country's per capita GDP is about $11,000, not much different than Brazil's $7,000, and they remained unaligned during the Cold War. Being 3rd World doesn't say anything against the country, in fact: I visited Argentina several times and I really appreciate their lifestyle and culture.

F.