|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 1, 2017 10:44:25 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Jul 1, 2017 17:53:01 GMT -6
HMS Ark Royal and Yorktown were both launched in 1937, with construction starting in 1934. The Admiralty by this time had realized that they were behind in carrier development and made attempts to catch up. The problem is by this time she was behind in carrier aircraft development which takes far more time than developing carriers. Let's take a look at some of the early carriers where naval aircraft development would have had to take place. HMS Eagle could only carry 20 aircraft, Hermes could only carry 20, the next carrier to be launched was HMS Ark Royal, that was almost 13 years later. In fact she wasn't commissioned until 16 December 1938. The US had launched Lexington and Saratoga in 1927, then Ranger in 1934 then Yorktown. We had also used all those early carriers in Fleet Problems to sort out how best to use them. From the launch of Langley in 1922 to the launch of Yorktown in 1937, we launched three carriers. Now that doesn't sound like much, a carrier every five years, but considering the depression and economic issues plus the two naval treaties, that isn't bad. If you don't have the carriers, you cannot test and validate carrier designs with fleet problems and you cannot develop advanced aircraft especially without funding and the Air Ministry channeling your funds. I admit that they did, but the Admiralty did not help themselves. They sat on the sidelines so the Air Ministry which by 1932 had a threat in the burgeoning Luftwaffe, so they had to begin to develop defensive fighters and an air defense system to protect the country from bombers. The Germans did not have any carriers, they were not a real threat in that area. The follow-on carriers for the British, the Illustrious class were good carriers but they were not launched until 1940 and 1941. Why are you not counting HMS Courageous (converted to an aircraft carrier between 1924 and 1928) and HMS Glorious (converted to an aircraft carrier between 1924 and 1930)? If you're discounting them because they're conversions, well, so were Lexington and Saratoga (I acknowledge however that Courageous and Glorious were conversions of ships which had already been completed and commissioned whereas Lexington and Saratoga were conversions of incomplete vessels). Carrier (year commissioned, nominal size of air wing) 1British: Argus (1918, 18), Eagle (1924, 20), Hermes (1924, 20), Furious (1925 2, 36), Courageous (1928 3, 48), Glorious (1930 3, 48), Ark Royal (1938, 54) American: Langley (1922, 36), Lexington (1927, 78), Saratoga (1927, 78), Ranger (1934, 76-84), Yorktown (1937, 90), Enterprise (1938, 90) Japanese: Hosho (1922, 15), Akagi (1927, 66), Kaga (1929, 72), Ryujo (1931, 48), Soryu (1937, 63), Hiryu (1939, 64). 1I'm using Wikipedia's numbers for these since it's more convenient for me to look them up that way. My apologies for any resulting inaccuracies. 2After reconstruction as flush-deck carrier. 3After conversion to aircraft carrier. I don't disagree that the British focus on home defence and trade protection was the right choice - that wasn't the part of your argument I was addressing though - your argument was that the British didn't have the carriers (and the carriers weren't large enough to operate modern aircraft (for the mid-to-late-1930s), so they didn't develop modern aircraft. I was providing data suggesting that they did have the carriers, and those carriers could operate those aircraft. As for the fleet problems and developing carrier doctrine, even prior to Ark Royal being commissioned the RN was able to launch over 100 aircraft if it had to - comfortably enough to test theories. However, (and this is going from memory), in the interwar period, even with relatively low carrier capacities, the FAA didn't build enough aircraft to always have their carriers fully stocked with modern aircraft - again, pointing away from 'they didn't have the carriers' (as they didn't even fill the ones they did - one of the reasons Eagle's capacity is often listed as 20 aircraft (when, at her peak, she could carry 30 - and I suspect this was without a deck park) was because she was very rarely full - it's worth noting the cubic metre size of Eagle's hangar was (going from Navypedia) 10,483 m3, compared with 16773 m3 for Yorktown - still smaller, but not that much smaller - it's the same story with Courageous and Glorious, where the 48 is based on actual aircraft carried, rather than actual aircraft capacity which, even without a deck park, may have been noticeably larger). Now, I don't disagree that the British focus on home defence was sensible, but the Admiralty still had a budget outside of that. If the Admiralty had been taking money from their budget for FAA aircraft, instead of the RAF, there's a reasonable chance that the aircraft may have had a bit more resources put into them (at the very least, building enough to fill their carriers) - and it would have come at the expense of other Admiralty items instead (and, in the context of five BBs, four CVs and a mess of DDs and CLs, a relatively small amount skimmed off the top of that would have gone a long way in aircraft development). Just an argument, by no means conclusive, but I'm trying to line my argument up with the facts as best I can. It is, of course, speculative - but given the ban on building BBs prior to 36, I'd have expected the Admiralty using their budget for FAA aircraft instead of the RAF would have resulted in better aircraft, even with the traditional British preference for big guns. On arrestor gear and catapults, both Courageous and Glorious had both by 1937 (arrestor wires in the early 1930s, catapults in '37). Both were actually fitted with arresting gear when built, but it was the longitudinal arresting wires in use at the time (which didn't turn out to be the best way to do things - although this article - navalaviationnews.navylive.dodlive.mil/2013/11/19/carrier-arresting-gear-it-all-began-with-sandbags/ - suggests the US also used longitudinal instead of transverse arresting wires for a time on Langley (but not the Lexingtons), but that the hydraulic, transverse wires fitted to Lexington only came in 1931). The fact that both British and US carriers tried different types of arresting gear in the interwar period, and both ended up with broadly the same system, suggests both were trying new things and adapting, rather than that the US spent a lot of money to get it right, and the British neglected it.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 1, 2017 17:58:30 GMT -6
Why are you not counting HMS Courageous (converted to an aircraft carrier between 1924 and 1928) and HMS Glorious (converted to an aircraft carrier between 1924 and 1930)? If you're discounting them because they're conversions, well, so were Lexington and Saratoga (I acknowledge however that Courageous and Glorious were conversions of ships which had already been completed and commissioned whereas Lexington and Saratoga were conversions of incomplete vessels). Carrier (year commissioned, nominal size of air wing) 1British: Argus (1918, 18), Eagle (1924, 20), Hermes (1924, 20), Furious (1925 2, 36), Courageous (1928 3, 48), Glorious (1930 3, 48), Ark Royal (1938, 54) American: Langley (1922, 36), Lexington (1927, 78), Saratoga (1927, 78), Ranger (1934, 76-84), Yorktown (1937, 90), Enterprise (1938, 90) Japanese: Hosho (1922, 15), Akagi (1927, 66), Kaga (1929, 72), Ryujo (1931, 48), Soryu (1937, 63), Hiryu (1939, 64). 1I'm using Wikipedia's numbers for these since it's more convenient for me to look them up that way. My apologies for any resulting inaccuracies. 2After reconstruction as flush-deck carrier. 3After conversion to aircraft carrier. I don't disagree that the British focus on home defence and trade protection was the right choice - that wasn't the part of your argument I was addressing though - your argument was that the British didn't have the carriers (and the carriers weren't large enough to operate modern aircraft (for the mid-to-late-1930s), so they didn't develop modern aircraft. I was providing data suggesting that they did have the carriers, and those carriers could operate those aircraft. As for the fleet problems and developing carrier doctrine, even prior to Ark Royal being commissioned the RN was able to launch over 100 aircraft if it had to - comfortably enough to test theories. However, (and this is going from memory), in the interwar period, even with relatively low carrier capacities, the FAA didn't build enough aircraft to always have their carriers fully stocked with modern aircraft - again, pointing away from 'they didn't have the carriers' (as they didn't even fill the ones they did - one of the reasons Eagle's capacity is often listed as 20 aircraft (when, at her peak, she could carry 30 - and I suspect this was without a deck park) was because she was very rarely full - it's worth noting the cubic metre size of Eagle's hangar was (going from Navypedia) 10,483 m3, compared with 16773 m3 for Yorktown - still smaller, but not that much smaller - it's the same story with Courageous and Glorious, where the 48 is based on actual aircraft carried, rather than actual aircraft capacity which, even without a deck park, may have been noticeably larger). Now, I don't disagree that the British focus on home defence was sensible, but the Admiralty still had a budget outside of that. If the Admiralty had been taking money from their budget for FAA aircraft, instead of the RAF, there's a reasonable chance that the aircraft may have had a bit more resources put into them (at the very least, building enough to fill their carriers) - and it would have come at the expense of other Admiralty items instead (and, in the context of five BBs, four CVs and a mess of DDs and CLs, a relatively small amount skimmed off the top of that would have gone a long way in aircraft development). Just an argument, by no means conclusive, but I'm trying to line my argument up with the facts as best I can. It is, of course, speculative - but given the ban on building BBs prior to 36, I'd have expected the Admiralty using their budget for FAA aircraft instead of the RAF would have resulted in better aircraft, even with the traditional British preference for big guns. On arrestor gear and catapults, both Courageous and Glorious had both by 1937 (arrestor wires in the early 1930s, catapults in '37). Both were actually fitted with arresting gear when built, but it was the longitudinal arresting wires in use at the time (which didn't turn out to be the best way to do things - although this article - navalaviationnews.navylive.dodlive.mil/2013/11/19/carrier-arresting-gear-it-all-began-with-sandbags/ - suggests the US also used longitudinal instead of transverse arresting wires for a time on Langley (but not the Lexingtons), but that the hydraulic, transverse wires fitted to Lexington only came in 1931). The fact that both British and US carriers tried different types of arresting gear in the interwar period, and both ended up with broadly the same system, suggests both were trying new things and adapting, rather than that the US spent a lot of money to get it right, and the British neglected it. Good post, nice to see contributions like yours. I still don't agree with your conclusions but I have stated my position and I believe posted my sources so I will keep quiet.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 1, 2017 19:51:56 GMT -6
I thought I would introduce a thought that I probably have failed to consider. Maybe many of you have also, I can't say. We have 20/20 hindsight, the clearest vision in the world. It is hard for us in the 21st century to understand the social, political and economic distress that was felt by the British people and reflected in their government. We probably can't understand the British governments attitude towards the poor performance of the Royal Navy in the Great War. It had a tremendous effect on it and the people. Since the War with Spain and the Napoleonic Wars, the British Navy had been the bulwark that protected England. WW1 seems to have changed that, especially with the economic effects of the submarine campaign. I also have to remind myself that the Royal Navy did try to catch up in its carrier design and aircraft development, but could not predict the German invasion of Poland on September 3,1939. They probably understood that if a war started again with Germany, Italy would be their ally and this meant a naval war in the Med which would require a large part of the British Navy to protect supply lines to Egypt and Malta. Many times, nations are caught with too little too late, we in the US are just as guilty of that after Pearl Harbor. I will remind myself of this "catch" as I call it, and I hope all of you will do so also. Note: I found out that the steam catapult was developed in about 1946 about, but the British. They caught of fast.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jul 1, 2017 20:51:28 GMT -6
Catapults are almost always needed for carrier jets, Pearl was pretty much just putting all of you're (exploding) eggs in one basket
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 2, 2017 8:21:06 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Jul 2, 2017 16:10:40 GMT -6
Thanks for the article and your reply above . I definitely want to reinforce that I'm making an argument, not asserting a fact. My argument is based on facts, but these things can be interpreted in many ways. I could absolutely be wrong, although I'm not trying to be. Speaking of which - in the article it notes that Enterprise had her starting catapults replaced with ones that could cope with 11,000lb aircraft, as her original catapults were too weak. Ark Royal, on the other hand, was built with catapults of that strength from the get-go, half a decade earlier. Now, I'm not suggesting that means the RN were ahead of the USN in carrier development or anything like that, but it does suggest they weren't that far behind (or, possibly, behind at all) on catapult development (while the RN's early carriers didn't have catapults, they weren't necessary for the launching of early aircraft, and the RN's cruisers built in the 1920s definitely had powder catapults installed). At the very least, we can both agree that the US was ahead in its 'large carrier strike' doctrine, sortie rates, and in ensuring its carriers had enough fuel to support extended operations off enemy coastlines .
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 2, 2017 16:48:03 GMT -6
Thanks for the article and your reply above . I definitely want to reinforce that I'm making an argument, not asserting a fact. My argument is based on facts, but these things can be interpreted in many ways. I could absolutely be wrong, although I'm not trying to be. Speaking of which - in the article it notes that Enterprise had her starting catapults replaced with ones that could cope with 11,000lb aircraft, as her original catapults were too weak. Ark Royal, on the other hand, was built with catapults of that strength from the get-go, half a decade earlier. Now, I'm not suggesting that means the RN were ahead of the USN in carrier development or anything like that, but it does suggest they weren't that far behind (or, possibly, behind at all) on catapult development (while the RN's early carriers didn't have catapults, they weren't necessary for the launching of early aircraft, and the RN's cruisers built in the 1920s definitely had powder catapults installed). At the very least, we can both agree that the US was ahead in its 'large carrier strike' doctrine, sortie rates, and in ensuring its carriers had enough fuel to support extended operations off enemy coastlines . One of the issues for the US Navy was that their aircraft development moved at a rapid rate, far greater than the British. You can't retrofit a better catapult without the carrier going into the yards. The TBF Avenger was the problem aircraft as she had a loaded weight of 17,893 lbs. Her design was accepted and production commenced in 1940. Sometimes, the right hand is not talking to the left, in other words, the Naval Air systems wasn't talking to the carrier designers to let them know how heavy this aircraft was until she was built and tested, which is a little late. In the Pacific, in 1941, we only had Lexington and Enterprise, Saratoga was in Bremerton being upgraded with Yorktown in the Atlantic. How do they install a new catapult since the yards at Pearl Harbor were not ready to perform those kinds of the changes. The carrier would have to go back to Bremerton to retrofitted or wait until the yards in Pearl Harbor were capable of performing the job. If they did this, then they would only have one serviceable carrier so with the new aircraft not built in sufficient quantities and the pilot testing not accomplished, you go with what you got. Now, Saratoga and Yorktown were in the Pacific and ready to fight, with Hornet on its way, then you could park Enterprise in the yard at Pearl Harbor and upgrade the catapult. Its not that we were behind, its just that we were ahead of ourselves in aircraft development. This is the way I view it but even the British catapult installed on the British carriers would not have been able to launch the TBF without a gale blowing across the deck. The H2-1 catapults that replaced the older catapults were only used to provide an assist to launching the aircraft, the carrier had to turn into the wind to generate about an 18-20 knot wind across the deck and a longer run on the deck, even the TBF could launch with a full load of fuel and a torpedo. The catapult wasn't doing the whole job, it was just assisting. Throughout much of the war, deck launch was the name of the game, as catapults could fail.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jul 2, 2017 21:40:26 GMT -6
slightly off topic, but if the avenger was so heavy how were they launched?
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 2, 2017 22:16:54 GMT -6
slightly off topic, but if the avenger was so heavy how were they launched? The carrier would turn into the wind and go to max speed. With a 30 knot wind across the deck and the catapult a fully loaded TBF with fuel and torpedo could takeoff. Before the cat, she could only carry half the fuel load depending on the length of the carrier deck. CVE only had a 400 foot deck which meant the cats were critical.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jul 2, 2017 23:44:14 GMT -6
what if the winds were calm?
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jul 3, 2017 0:28:33 GMT -6
what if the winds were calm? Oldpop's comment almost certainly assumes that the winds are calm. The majority of the fleet and light fleet carriers in USN service in the Second World War were capable of 30+ knots, and a ship moving through completely still air at 30 knots will experience an apparent 30-knot wind over its deck.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 3, 2017 10:26:49 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Jul 3, 2017 15:45:43 GMT -6
Aye, there's no question that during the war, US carrier aircraft developed faster than anyone else. The British caught up in about 1946 with aircraft like the Sea Fury and Firebrand, but during the war the US was on top of the game. Cheers for the vids .
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 3, 2017 17:02:42 GMT -6
Aye, there's no question that during the war, US carrier aircraft developed faster than anyone else. The British caught up in about 1946 with aircraft like the Sea Fury and Firebrand, but during the war the US was on top of the game. Cheers for the vids . Well, when you have the largest ocean in the world in front of you and a most aggressive naval power on the other side... with carriers. It's great motivating factor, probably a lot more than the Italians and a navy-less Germany. I am glad you enjoyed those vids, they do tell a good story.
|
|