Matrix Games Forums

Will any of the British flattops be available in build-your-own scenarios?

Hello...

Yup. There are some in the data base. I beleive it is even possible that one might show up in a campaign, if Allied carrier losses are high enough.

Bye...

Michael Wood
___________________________________________________

Originally posted by ftwarrior
Will any of the British flattops be available in build-your-own scenarios?

HMS Victorious as happenned in 1943?

What was HMS Victorious's air group like while serving with USN in south pacific in 1943?

for information on HMS Victorious during the war.



http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Ships/Victorious.html

In case you are not interested in looking, here is an excerpt:

Refitted at Norfolk Navy Yard USA, winter 1942-43, after which she was loaned to the US Pacific Fleet until being replaced by USS Essex. Despite its massive industrial muscle, the United States still found itself short of carriers in the Pacific, the only American carrier available in the South Pacific was USS Saratoga. HMS Victorious sailed to Pearl Harbor to join USS Saratoga's Battle Group, Task Force 14. She arrived and took up duties under Task Force 14 in the the Southwest Pacific on 17th May 1943. Renamed the USS Robin, she embarked US aircraft and aircrew, and with the Saratoga swept the Soloman Islands, whilst Saratoga embarked all the strike squadrons including the Fleet Air Arm 832 Squadron Avengers.

In May-June 1943, at Noumea, New Caledonia, the light cruiser USS San Diego joined USS Saratoga, and carrier HMS Victorious in support of the invasion of Munda, New Georgia, and of Bougainville. During this period Victorious operated 60 British and American Wildcat fighters for air cover. The two carriers sailed on 27th June, the carriers took up position and in the next few days put up 600 sorties against little opposition. The aircraft were reassigned to their parent carriers on 24 July, and the force reached Noumea the next day.

When the kamakazis struck, the british carriers suffered alot less damage because of armored flight decks. Azero w/ 500 lb bomb just managed to dent one, whereas such a strike against amaerican carriers put them out of ation fo a long time. I wish I could get the specific ship name. It was either in Philippines or off Okinawa.

Christ! What is up with american ship naming procedure? USS ROBIN for **** sakes! Why would it be renamed, is this a gag? British know how to name ships with the exception of naming corvettes after flowers. OOOH NOOO! It's HMS PINK!

Originally posted by corbulo
When the kamakazis struck, the british carriers suffered alot less damage because of armored flight decks. Azero w/ 500 lb bomb just managed to dent one, whereas such a strike against amaerican carriers put them out of ation fo a long time. I wish I could get the specific ship name. It was either in Philippines or off Okinawa.

Conventional wisdom is wrong again. US fleet CVs actually repelled most kamikaze strikes with minor (or no) damage, except when they had armed and/or fueled aircraft aboard - the same circumstance that doomed at least two of the four Japanese CVs at Midway. What's more, an Essex-class that did get beat up could be much more quickly, easily, and completely repaired than a British armored CV. Many "badly damaged" Essex-class ships were back on the line a couple of weeks after their hits, including transit time to Ulithi - on the other hand, the armored box construction of the RN CVs meant that even a "little dent" could permanently lame the ship. Look at Formidable, which finished the war barely able to make 23 kts; or Illustrious, which was limited to just 19 kts, with a warped hull and one of her three shafts permanently out of commission. Finally, the much larger air groups of US CVs gave them a huge advantage in shooting down enemy aircraft before they got close enough to score. Luckily for the RN, TF 57 never came under the same intensity of air attack which TF 58 endured.

Here is a pic of USS Bunker Hill (CV-17) after being hit by 2 Kamikaze, 11 May 1945.

A Zero and a D4Y Suisei struck Bunker Hill leaving it awash with flames and fuel, due to expert manoeuvring and damage control, most of this fuel and debries was swept over board. Bunker Hill lost 353 dead, 43 missing and 264 wounded as a result of the attack.

And here is a pic of HMS Formidable after being hit by a Kamikaze, 4 May 1945.

Originally posted by CynicAl


Conventional wisdom is wrong again. US fleet CVs actually repelled most kamikaze strikes with minor (or no) damage, except when they had armed and/or fueled aircraft aboard

Have a look at the pic that I posted of USS Bunker Hill.......if you call that "minor" I would hate to see "major".

The US navy records the following as being badly damaged or sunk as a result of Kamikaze attacks in tyhe Iwo Jima and Okinawa theatres from 17 Feb 1945 to 30 July 1945:-

Blessman
Gamble (scrapped)
LSM 216 (scrapped)
Saratoga
Napa
Bismarck-sea (sunk)
Whitley
Franklin
Essex
Wasp
Hasley Powell
Kiberly
Murray
O'Brien
LSM R-188
Indianapolis
Adams
Alpine
Hinsdale
LST-884 (scrapped)
Goodhue
Henrico
Achernar
Dickerson (sunk)
Wake Island
Prichett
Foreman
LST-599
LCT-876 (scrapped)
Howorth
Hyman
Mullany
Haynsworth
Fieberling
Rodman
Defence
Witter (scrapped)
Newcombe (scrapped)
Leutze (scrapped)
Bush (sunk)
Colhoun (sunk)
Emmons (sunk)
LST-447 (sunk)
Hobbs Victory (sunk)
Logan Victory (sunk)
Hancock
Maryland
Bennett
Wesson
Gregory
YMS-92
Sterett
Kidd
Tennessee
Purdy
Cassin Young
Zellars
Rall
Whitehurst
Gladiator
lindsey
LSM-189
LCS (L-57)
Mannert L. Abele (sunk)
LCS (L-33) (sunk)
Sigsbee
Intrepid
Bryant
Laffey
Bowers
Harding
Hobson
LCS (L-116)
Pringle (sunk)
LSM-28
Isherwood
Swallow (sunk)
LCS (L-15)(sunk)
Rathburne
Ralph Talbot
Canada Victory (sunk)
Hutchins
Pinkney
Comfort
Haggard (sunk)
Hazelwood
Terror
Macomb
LSM(R-195)
Aaron Ward (scrapped)
Little (sunk)
Birmingham
Ingraham
Shea
Carina
Sangamon (scrapped)
Luce (sunk)
Morrison (sunk)
LSM (R-190)(sunk)
LSM (R-194)(sunk)
Oberrender
England (scrapped)
Bunker Hill
LCS (L-88)
Hugh W. Hadley (scrapped)
Evans (scrapped)
Enterprise
Bache
Bright
Douglas A. Fox
John C. Butler
LST-808 (sunk)
Chase (scrapped)
William B. Allison
Stormes
O'Neill
Butler (scrapped)
Thatcher (scrapped)
Spectacle (scrapped)
Roper (scrapped)
Barry (sunk)
Bates (sunk)
LSM-135 (sunk)
Braine
Anthony
Rednour
Loy
LSC (L-119)
Forrest (scrapped)
Sandovel
Shubrick
Drexler (sunk)
Harry F. Bauer
LCI (L-90)(scrapped)
J.William Ditter (scrapped)
William D. Porter (sunk)
LCS (L-122)
Twiggs (sunk)
Halloran
Curtiss
LSM-59 (sunk)
LSM-213
LST-534
Callaghan (sunk)
Cassin
Young

(Source for the above "Kamikaze, Japan's Suicide Samurai" Raymond Lamont-Brown. ISBN 0-304-35200-4. Pages 104 to 106.)

Totally different idea's on damage control, the British built armoured decks to prevent damage, the Americans build wooden decks so they could be easly repaired.

IIRC there is a recorded incedent at Okinawa of a kamikaze ricocheting off of one of the British carrier’s deck. Talk about dropping a clanger.

On 4 may, 1945, a lone Kamikaze bounced off HMS Indomitable, causing superficial damage and missed the bridge by ten yards.
However, also on the 4th of May two Kamikaze hit HMS Formidable rupturing the flight deck and causing a large metal splinter to cut through several steam pipes in the center boiler room.

On April the 6th, 1945, HMS Indefatigable was struck by a kamikaze loaded with a 550lb bomb which exploded at the base of the Island, damaging arrester gear and the radar intallations.


Admiral Sir Phillip Vian commented:-
" The armoured flight deck, which was a feature of British Fleet carriers, paid a dividend on this occasion. In spite of the direct hit Indefatigable was able to operate aircraft again within a few hours. American carriers similarly struck were invariably forced to return to a fully equipped navy yard for repair."

I think the American Carrier construction approach played perfectly to their strengths. Namely, resources. They could afford to take a carrier out of the line for several weeks of repair. They had numbers, infrastructure and the logistical ability to really absorb the higher "overhead" of such an approach. What they got in return, quicker and more prolific initial production, much simpler repair concerns, and quite honestly...a more seaworthy and functional vessel.

Originally posted by Jason629
I think the American Carrier construction approach played perfectly to their strengths. Namely, resources. They could afford to take a carrier out of the line for several weeks of repair. They had numbers, infrastructure and the logistical ability to really absorb the higher "overhead" of such an approach. What they got in return, quicker and more prolific initial production, much simpler repair concerns, and quite honestly...a more seaworthy and functional vessel.

Well I don't really have a preferance for either design.....I just find it interesting that two Navys' take different approches for the same type of platform....both have their stong points and also their weak points. The US design is easier to get knocked out of action, but due to it's design is easier to repair, the British design can take more blows and still operate, but in the long term will also take longer to repair. But I would be interested to read anything on the day to day maintenance requirements of the wooden decks.....I guess it would be much the same as the old sailing ships????

Armoured flight decks can't be all bad, modern carriers have them. :p

Originally posted by ratster
Armoured flight decks can't be all bad, modern carriers have them. :p

The USN had to go to Steel decks....jets tend to weigh more and land harder.

Really!, modern jets weigh more than WWII piston driven aircraft, I didn't know that! :p

Ratster!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(wait for the pic to load after you have viewed it):p