|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 28, 2019 10:40:55 GMT -6
One of the most important aspects of any weapons system introduction is "what is it's job; what do we want it to do". This is where estimates and wargames both table and fleet problems provide the answer to this question. For the aircraft carrier, is it a scout for the battle fleet; is it for trade protection?; is it strike capability both at sea and on the land?. These are the question that the three powers that created the aircraft carrier technology and deploy the carriers had to answer.
By 1940, the Admiralty realized that their was a need for a trade protection carrier. As Brown states, prior to that date, it was hard enough just to get funding for a fleet carrier let alone a specialized trade protection carrier. With the economic limitations, the fleet carriers were going to have to double as trade protection carriers. I believe that Ark Royal and the Illustrious class were intended to double as trade protection and strike carriers. By 1935, according to Brown, there was a plan to build eight fleet carriers, five smaller trade carriers and a training carrier. Trade protection was given a priority and for Britain, that made perfect sense, since they had to sail their convoy through Mediterranean to Alexandria and down the Red Sea and back. With the cost problems, it was a choice to just build the Illustrious class, protected well with armored decks and armored hangars to double as trade protection. This was the choice that they made. They did not have the aircraft with good performance and they did not have funding for two different types of carriers, although eventually they did develop an escort type carrier. They had to perform trade protection and they had to develop strike carriers. The trade protection mission could be handled by smaller air wings on smaller carriers like our escort carriers. The strike mission had to have larger air wings for the strikes. The British nation was more reliant on trade than the US was, the Japanese were in a similar position but their actions in Korea, Manchuria and then in China provided them with some of their resources except oil, rubber, nickel and many others. Both of these nations had funding problems. The British had to just use what they could afford for both missions. They had to focus on the North Atlantic and the trade routes through the Mediterranean Sea and around the Cape of Good Hope to India. The answer was simple, build strong, well-armored ships to survive because they did not have enough funding to build a big fleet of strike carriers or escort(trade) carriers. So, you go with what you've got. Their carriers were strong and well protected but did not have the strike capability that they probably would have desired, neither did they have the right aircraft until later in the war.
This really not difficult to reason out, frankly.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 28, 2019 13:29:20 GMT -6
A comment on the Midway class ships. These would be the USS Midway, Coral Sea and USS Franklin D. Roosevelt. These were designed and built during the war, but deployed after the war. They were transitional carriers. They were originally designed as what was termed a battle carrier, bigger and much more capable than the Essex. However, the new jet aircraft that were being produced and deployed were much bigger, faster and much more difficult to control on takeoff and landings. You had planes like the F2H Banshee, F9F Panther, F3D Skynight. By the 1950's, you now had the nuclear threat and you had to develop aircraft that could carry these weapons. This led to larger more capable carriers in The Forrestal Class. But the Midway's were the connection between the WW2 requirements and the Cold War requirements. They were different. Here is an article from the Naval Aviation Magazine that discusses the Battle Carrier Concept - www.history.navy.mil/content/dam/nhhc/research/histories/naval-aviation/evolution-of-aircraft-carriers/car-10.pdf
|
|
|
Post by armouredcarriers on Mar 28, 2019 17:00:07 GMT -6
Thanks for your comments and directed criticism. I put a link to the Springstyles #3 drawing of the preliminary design dtd 22 September 1941. The drawing is the official drawing for the ship that eventually became the USS Midway. If you examine it, she had a 2 in. armored deck over hangar one, two and three. Hangar one was 220 ft. long, Hangar 2 was 132 ft. long and Hangar 3 was 200 ft. Long. This means that the armored deck was 552 ft. long which means it did not cover the whole ship. When built she was 900 ft. long, beam of 111 ft and a draught of 32 ft. Now does that answer the question. The drawing is what we would call a primary source document created by the BuShips.
Thank you immensely for this. It is of great help. But forgive me for saying it is not quite enough. This is a very early preliminary drawing. And I have seen preliminary drawings for many other ships. The degree of change can be significant - especially between the September 41 date of this example and the date Midway was laid down (October 43). It certainly is, however, by far the best look I've yet had!
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 28, 2019 17:15:01 GMT -6
I put a link to the Springstyles #3 drawing of the preliminary design dtd 22 September 1941. The drawing is the official drawing for the ship that eventually became the USS Midway. If you examine it, she had a 2 in. armored deck over hangar one, two and three. Hangar one was 220 ft. long, Hangar 2 was 132 ft. long and Hangar 3 was 200 ft. Long. This means that the armored deck was 552 ft. long which means it did not cover the whole ship. When built she was 900 ft. long, beam of 111 ft and a draught of 32 ft. Now does that answer the question. The drawing is what we would call a primary source document created by the BuShips.
Thank you immensely for this. It is of great help. But forgive me for saying it is not quite enough. This is a very early preliminary drawing. And I have seen preliminary drawings for many other ships. The degree of change can be significant - especially between the September 41 date of this example and the date Midway was laid down (October 43). It certainly is, however, by far the best look I've yet had! Well, the journey of a thousand miles takes the first step. So, this is the first step. Unless you can find later drawings and you might be able to, this maybe what you have to use. Just keep in mind, that she was upgraded with a hurricane bow and an angled deck. That changed her hull structure and the hangar bays. So, keep marching forward. If I find a later set of drawings or make another visit to her, I will try to find something. But here is some more information that might interest you. The deck armor was increased to 3.5 inches, elevation of the flight deck off of the water as she now sits, is 55 feet. She is 258 feet wide, the runout for a bird to land is 340 feet and she is 1001 feet long. Landings occurred at 45 second intervals, 60 second intervals at night. There were 95% successful landings per day and 88% at night. She weighed at full load 69,000 tons, the flight deck was 4.02 acres and she has 18 decks. She could move at 33 knots, landing speed for aircraft was 150 knots. She could launch an aircraft every 90 seconds. There were 90 tons of blueprints to build her. She required UNREP 1-2 times per week. Her fuel economy was 260 gallons per mile at 15 knots and 900 gallons per mile at 30 knots. She had a 35-foot draft, now it is 29 feet. Anyway, have fun.
|
|
|
Post by armouredcarriers on Mar 28, 2019 17:24:37 GMT -6
Re archives: Yes, not living in the US or UK is a challenge in that regard. But I have been lucky to have had researchers from both sides of the Atlantic forward me material they have 'stumbled upon' or actively hunted down.
And, yes, the references in books like Brown and Friedman are where I got the locations for documents I have personally paid to have digitised and forwarded to me (all the battle damage reports). However, I can only afford so much of this (The National Archive prices, in particular, are hefty).
The whole concept of carrier warfare was up in the air during the 1920s and 30s. Evolution was fast, and varied.
The RN started with the notion of using them as fleet support ships, offering recon and first-strike to 'slow down' an enemy fleet for the main fleet to catch up (World War I's biggest naval problem). It also started with the concept of harbor strike (having aborted an attack on Germany only due to the end of World War I). As aircraft capability grew, so did the ideas on how to use them. For the RN that meant trade protection. And advanced plans to convert liners and merchant ships into carriers were developed in the 1930s. Putting these plans into effect was difficult as these ships were needed for troop transports and vital supplies haulage in the Battle of the Atlantic.
All navies struggled with how to deploy carriers. All navies realised that the first carrier to get in the first strike usually won.
This provoked a debate: Carriers operating singly or in groups? (The thinking being, if one is found, at least the others will survive) It was a debate that continued into the war in the Pacific, with King wanting combined groups and his admirals being more hesitant. Eventually, it didn't matter as there were plenty of carriers.
The RN experimented with combined carrier groups in the early and mid-30s. But the number of carriers versus the size of the empire (and the unexpected addition of the Med to their area of responsibility after the collapse of France, made even worse with Japan's entry in the war) meant this was only applied rarely initially (Norway, Madagascar, Torch and Operation Pedestal) It was only after the Battles of the Atlantic and Med and Indian Oceans were largely over that they could pool their surviving carriers together.
And, of course, the other major influence was geography. The USN was looking at the vast expanse of the Pacific. The RN was looking at a variety of scenarios - in descending order of priority - from Home Waters (North Sea, Biscay), North Atlantic, Mediterranean, Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean. Naturally, it built its ships to these priorities.
A good book looking at this issue is American & British Aircraft Carrier Development, Hone, Friedman and Mandeles Also Friedman's much more recent Fighters Over The Fleet
|
|
|
Post by armouredcarriers on Mar 28, 2019 17:28:20 GMT -6
Thank you immensely for this. It is of great help. Well, the journey of a thousand miles takes the first step. So, this is the first step. Unless you can find later drawings and you might be able to, this maybe what you have to use. Just keep in mind, that she was upgraded with a hurricane bow and an angled deck. That changed her hull structure and the hangar bays. So, keep marching forward. If I find a later set of drawings or make another visit to her, I will try to find something. Adieu. Absolutely. Which is why I've not yet published anything on these Battle Carriers. I'm just not confident enough that what I have is of sufficient quality. If I get it wrong, I'll be opening myself up for all sorts of attacks for bias! My intention is to treat the Midway class as I did the Audacious Class: To encapsulate their wartime designs up to their build condition, to demonstrate how experience shaped carrier development. So, as with HMS Victorious and Eagle and Ark Royal, I will not detail their lator major reconstructions. (and besides, I need some sort of cut-off point or else this project will take forever)
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 28, 2019 17:34:49 GMT -6
Just thinking "laud". Does not have Julian Corbett view on naval strategy still impact on carrier evolution in Royal Navy thus protecting vital trade routes near land?
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 28, 2019 19:16:48 GMT -6
Just thinking "laud". Does not have Julian Corbett view on naval strategy still impact on carrier evolution in Royal Navy thus protecting vital trade routes near land? Corbett makes the statement in Principles of Maritime Strategy that He also said: Corbett, Julian S.. Principles of Maritime Strategy (Dover Military History, Weapons, Armor) (pp. 99-100). Dover Publications. Kindle Edition.
|
|