Matrix Games Forums

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.

Er, they were thinking getting bombs dropped on unarmoured decks in the Med was no fun.

The flight deck was the main strength deck for those ships. Although they did indeed keep the bombs out the structural damage caused to the ships by the bomb hits were enough that the RN kept them limping along for a decent period and then ditching them. Bizzarely enough in all US carriers from the Midway onwards the flight deck is the main strength deck, just not thick enough to be considered armoured.

We made up for it by developing the angled flight deck, the mirror landing system, the steam catapult and the ski jump.

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.

Those ships were designed to fight near coast battles under large clouds of enemy planes (Northsea or Med). Therefore they were heavily armored against bombs.
One can not compare the situation of the USA (two large oceans to fight on) with the Brits´: defending the Homeisle, fighting the Germans in the Northsea and the Italians in the Med. I think, that the planes on those carriers were mainly for cap and search missions (with a little torpedoe attack inbetween).

I guess one thing there were never meant to do is fight other carriers. They also seem to keep a larger number of reserve aircraft instead of maximizing their available strikes. Was this also due to space limitations or was it a philosophical choice? Was there a pilot for each plane?

ORIGINAL: sprior

Er, they were thinking getting bombs dropped on unarmoured decks in the Med was no fun.

The flight deck was the main strength deck for those ships. Although they did indeed keep the bombs out the structural damage caused to the ships by the bomb hits were enough that the RN kept them limping along for a decent period and then ditching them. Bizzarely enough in all US carriers from the Midway onwards the flight deck is the main strength deck, just not thick enough to be considered armoured.

We made up for it by developing the angled flight deck, the mirror landing system, the steam catapult and the ski jump.

But that doesn't address his main point--what's the use of armored anything if this great, huge, massive capital asset can't attack anything very well? Biplanes? Are you serious?[:)]

The ship has an AC capacity 2x what they actually use. It is fast, she has long legs and look at that AA rating! It is frustrating. Took 3 of these and a US CVL off the coast of Burma. was attacked by swams of low experiencing bombers. Thank god for the US CVL with 21 Hellcats because every ship in the TF was out of AA ammo after a single turn. Got out of there with the Cowpens and Alabama having taken a bomb and torpedo each after attacks by over 200 bombers. Maybe those proximity fuses are kicking in as it is October 43. Nice to be close to a drydock for a change.

The problem was the Royal Navy did not control the R and D of the planes, the RAF did. Since money was tight between the wars, where do you think the RAF spent the money? Not on Royal Navy aircraft. But I agree with many of the previous posts. If you look at the Hurricane, Spitfire, etc, do you notice how short legged they are? They and most of the British aircraft were designed to fight a European war. I agree, kind of short sighted considering the Empire and all...

The RN didn't even think they'd have to fight the Italians. The French were supposed to take care of them.

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The RN didn't even think they'd have to fight the Italians. The French were supposed to take care of them.

Yes, and just think of the MEALS!!![:)][:)]

They and most of the British aircraft were designed to fight a European war. I agree, kind of short sighted considering the Empire and all...

Does seem short sighted as these ships were hugh investment. Perhaps they thought it would be a battleship war with some scouting and light offense by the CV's. The Bismarck probably reinforced that thinking and the loss of the Prince of Whales and the Repulse shattered it. They certainly knew these ships were virtually useless until late in the war because the normally aggressive RN never tried to do much with them.

Yes, and just think of the MEALS!!

At the risk of starting an argument I believe that Italian cuisine is superior to French cuisine.

One theme I've picked up on in the very little bit of military history I've read, is how valuable hindsight is for observing the key milestones and "breakthroughs" in history.
 
Until firearms were proven they were regarded with skepticism. When something that is very expensive is also something about which you are skeptical, it is unlikely you will take a risk on it. That would seem to apply here.
 
Were there _any_ aircraft carrier conflicts in which the system had proven itself to be decisive prior to WWII? I seem to recall that an influential section of Japanese naval authorities were quite skeptical that CVs had any real value and believed that the big gun boats would continue to be decisive. Maybe that also has to be taken into account in understanding the path the the Brits followed.

Upon further reflection I withdraw my argument.  British CV's are superior in all respects to American CV's.  It seems alcohol was served on British ships. Was alcohol a regular alcohol ration available in the IJN?

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

Upon further reflection I withdraw my argument.  British CV's are superior in all respects to American CV's.  It seems alcohol was served on British ships. Was alcohol a regular alcohol ration available in the IJN?

was? still is. still no ice cream makers tho.

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

They and most of the British aircraft were designed to fight a European war. I agree, kind of short sighted considering the Empire and all...

Does seem short sighted as these ships were hugh investment. Perhaps they thought it would be a battleship war with some scouting and light offense by the CV's. The Bismarck probably reinforced that thinking and the loss of the Prince of Whales and the Repulse shattered it. They certainly knew these ships were virtually useless until late in the war because the normally aggressive RN never tried to do much with them.

Apart from crippling the Bismark, crippling the Italian fleet at Taranto, ferrying fighters to and from Norway (RIP HMS Glorious), escorting the Malta convoys...

For operations in the MED and the Atlantic they well suited and built correctly. Pre-war Risk vs Reward did not justify GB building say Yorktown or Essex class carriers.

ORIGINAL: sprior

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

They and most of the British aircraft were designed to fight a European war. I agree, kind of short sighted considering the Empire and all...

Does seem short sighted as these ships were hugh investment. Perhaps they thought it would be a battleship war with some scouting and light offense by the CV's. The Bismarck probably reinforced that thinking and the loss of the Prince of Whales and the Repulse shattered it. They certainly knew these ships were virtually useless until late in the war because the normally aggressive RN never tried to do much with them.

Apart from crippling the Bismark, crippling the Italian fleet at Taranto, ferrying fighters to and from Norway (RIP HMS Glorious), escorting the Malta convoys...

Flying strikes against Norway, attacking the French fleet (bad idea, but still...), attacking the Vittorio Veneto at Matapan... Nope, the FAA didn't do anything worthwhile at all...[8|]

Apart from crippling the Bismark, crippling the Italian fleet at Taranto, ferrying fighters to and from Norway (RIP HMS Glorious), escorting the Malta convoys...

apologies, I meant in the Pacific. Was any action contemplated, or did they not want to get in range of Japanese land based aircraft?

In 42/43 they were to busy and the aircraft were sufficienlty inferior that they couldnt go toe to toe - fleet in being was more important in a lot of ways.

In 44 major operations (Buccaneer) were pulled because of lack of landing assets

They did hit Sumatra with Sara but in general it wasnt viewed as a goodf risk/reward tradeoff to go raiding for raiding's sake and without a major amphib offensive whats the point.

In 45 they were serving under the USN off of Okinawa

A lot of the fighter cover for Sicily was provided by RN Carriers Med was more important than Burma and Indian Ocean

After USN victory at Midway Japanese carrier air was never seen in Indian Ocean so RN Carrier Air did what it had to do

1. Help win Battle of Atlantic
2. Support Invasion of Sicily and Italy