|
Post by dorn on Sept 22, 2018 8:04:33 GMT -6
Considering the scale of the attacks made against the US carriers and the fact that in many cases the attacking forces were suicidally, fanatically dedicated to pressing home the attack, I would say that the USN did a very good job protecting its carriers in the late part of the war. The idea that protection is only good if nothing gets through even in massive attack waves is pure BS
Dorn: You are right however you need to notice how large fleet it was, how much fighters were defending the fleet. Than scale it down as nobody has resources to have such scale fight up to end of 1944.
Ark Royal operated reasonably successfully in the Mediterranean and was more akin to the Yorktown class than the Illustrious class, so yes, I would say that the Yorktowns could probably have done at least as well in the Mediterranean as the Illustrious class did - possibly better, since the greater number of aircraft carried by the Yorktowns might've been better protection during for example Operation Excess than the heavier AA batteries carried by the Illustrious class, particularly considering that AAA accuracy at that stage of the war was rather less than stellar.
Of course, that assumes that a British Yorktown would've had an air group the size of those that the American Yorktowns had; with the Fleet Air Arm's limited supply of aircraft, that may not have been the case and all that would have been gained was a relatively emptier carrier. Dorn: Aeson, you need to go into very detail. Just look on operations of HMS Ark Royal, when and where she was. Than compare it to where X. Fliegerkorps was at that time. You will find that HMS Ark Royal was under attack only once with only 28 attacking aircraft from X. Fliegekorps and was not hit at all (at the time of presence of X. Fliegerkorps at Sicily she operated a lot in Atlantic escorting convoys and hunt for Bismarck). This is completely different from the attack of X. Fliegerkorps on Illustrious class carriers. If HMS Ark Royal recieved hits e.g. as Illustrious or Formidable she will probably not survive the attack as she was not designed for that. The same is valid for Yorktown class, they were not designed against 500 kg, and certainly not against 1000 kg, so such bombs would explode in vital parts of the ship. Slow carrier in the Med is dead carrier. What was happening in the Mediterranean was very similar to what happened Japanese in Midway, but higher scale, practically non-stop bombing as you cannot hide and the bombs were much more lethal than bombs carried by Japanese (500 kg and 1000 kg bombs of X. Fligerkorps vs. 500 lb of Japanese bombs). Just note: I take Italians mainly as distracting defenses as I am not aware of any important hit they achieved except lucky (as fleet do not know about the lone bomber) one torpedo hit. The Royal Navy had global commitments; the idea that the Illustrious, Indomitable, and Implacable classes were designed specifically for use in the Mediterranean when Britain had known for 20 years or so that Japan was an emerging potentially-hostile power which the Royal Navy needed to be ready to face in the Pacific strikes me as highly suspect and looks like an ex post facto justification to cover up the fact that a design choice was made at least in part because Britain, then still one of the greatest maritime powers in the world, wasn't giving its fleet the resources it needed.
Dorn: Sorry, but your are not right, you do not take into consideration all reasons RN needed to consider. Illustrious class was designed specially to fight in confine waters in European Theatre. Ark Royal was designed when Europe was peaceful place and expanding Japan was seen as threat. But situation in Europe change quickly with Abyssinian crisis and force RN to fight this threat. So they need to design carrier which will operate closed to coast within operation of enemy land air force.
Second important thing is that UK has worldwide Empire but not all part of the Empire has same value. Defense of home island and the North Afrika especially was top priority (more valuable), much more than Far east. RN knew in 30s that Japan will never attack UK alone as RN was superior to IJN (This thoughts was not only in RN but in IJN was well aware about situation too). So they expected that Japan will attack them when RN would be occupied elsewhere, probably in Europe. RN knew that at that time they will be not able to fight in Europe and in Far east together, so they have strategy Europe first and only after RN would send the whole fleet to counter Japan (this even historically happened). So the essence was Europe so you need to build carrier which are able to fight in Europe. You need to design ship for toughest environment. And this is the reason why Illustrious class had a lot of defensive features including armored box on costs of they air group (hangar capability, HMS Ark Royal 60, HMS Illustrious 33-36, USS Yorktown - I am not sure, about 45). HMS Ark Royal fight well in Europe but main reasons were that she operated a lot outside power of land air force or where enemy land air force was not so dangerous, she was never under attack that Illustrious class was.
Just note to HMS Ark Royal. She was ideal blue ocean carrier, have higher capacity than Yorktowns but doctrine and design was not on par on Yorktowns and she was unable to do large strikes as Yorktown class historically did.
EDIT: aeson - I would provide you source of British thoughts and strategy in half of 30s but I cannot remember where I read it. I just remember that I found it quite interesting and after analyzing it quite correct analyze of their abilities.
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on Sept 22, 2018 8:29:10 GMT -6
Dorn: You are right however you need to notice how large fleet it was, how much fighters were defending the fleet. Than scale it down as nobody has resources to have such scale fight up to end of 1944.
Which was the reason why it was parked off the coasts of Japan in 1945, and not 1943. But american carriers had been operating within radius of japanese land strikes for the whole of the war, since the very first carrier raids on the Gilberts and Marshalls, down to the raid at Truk (the most defenced base in the central/south pacific area). And they were perfectly able to do so and fend for themselves in the process. Seems that operating within striking distance of land strikes without an armored deck was of little consequence. Having it in a closed hangar british configuration meant that you could carry only half the planes. And -THAT- would've had far more consequences in those raids. In whose wet dream, precisely?. Ark Royal's initial design intended to achieve an aircraft complement of 72 planes, yet operationally she was limited to 60 planes, tops. Meanwhile Yorktowns could operate air wings of 90 planes+ (And enterprise did so several times during WW2) How does exactly 60 equal to a "higher capacity" than Yorktown's 90?
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Sept 22, 2018 9:37:50 GMT -6
ramjb with all due respect, you have provide a lot words which on first look seems right until you start to dig in and start go deep into the subject, read original reports, see whole picture etc. There are even sometimes facts error which seems you did not study the subject at all (Victorious was never thought to join force Z, it was Indomitable). Sometimes it happened everybody to put information that is not verified however you did it regularly. If you just provide this unverified facts I will not answer them, if you would like to discuss when you read something I would gladly discuss the issue. I always interesting in conversation with oldpop2000 or any other member but I have strong feel they you are not here to discuss, provide verified information and learn. And I have no time to spend several hours and wrote back arguments on that point for that reason. I will choose only some which I can quickly answer as I know them quite well without looking again into sources. Your wording in bold. Illustrious was kicked out of the war by damage no worse than Enterprise survived during the war.Illustrious survive damage by 6 hits (probably 1x1000 kg, 3x500 kg, 1x250 kg, 1 smaller bomb) and additional near misses over several minutes (source: damage report), not taking consideration another bombs in Malta. Please provide me any example of more damage inflicted on USS Enterprise. I do expect that you do not compare damage from several battles to damage sustained in one action of HMS Illustrious My comment about USN carriers: But in Europe theatre it was kept out of danger zones. USS ranger took active part in combat operations in the Atlantic, including taking a prominent part of Operation Torch, And conductiong patrol operations in the North Sea (well within range of german Ju-88s).
Operations in the Atlantic was in same manner as in Pacific hit and run mainly (patrolling South Atlantic, invasion of Marocco with no high air force opposition, allied landings in North Africa etc) - so kept out of danger zones
FLiegerkorps X didn't use any Bf109s at all. It was a geschwader of naval attack dedicated JU87s and JU88s with some assorted planes for secondary tasks (He111s), but no fighters whatsoever.
You are not true. However I did mistake, Bf109 was not used against carriers but against Malta. Bf110 were used regularly. Illustrious was disabled by a force of around two dozen Stukas in a first strike, and a follow up dozen completed the job in a second attack (those stukas, incidentally, were intercepted by fulmars, no Stukas were shot down. Let that thought sink, a naval fighter that was useless enough to shoot down Stukas. Yet you say it "was adequate for the job". But I digress). Not a single Stuka was lost.
Attack on that day: 1. single SM79 - shot, than 2xSM79 - not detected, no hit scored 2. about 30 Ju87 - 3 Stuka lost, 6 hits - no CAP at that time as fighters in air without ammo because of shooting on recons and previous attack, or was still in low altitude (something similar what happened Japanese in Midway) - so there was no interception as you wrote 3. 7 SM79 - near misses temporary disabled steering gear not including another strikes when Illustrious was in Malta Yorktown took two bombs, one of which (250kg SAP, Illustrious was vulnerable to those too if hit in the lifts) penetrated four decks and exploded in one of the hangars. Illustrious was not vulnerable against and when dropped over height: 250 lb SAP over 11500 feets 500 lb SAP over 7000 feets 1000 lb AP over 4500 feets No 500 lb SAP and lower get through her deck armor, so in reality she was practically proof against 500 lb SAP. 1000 kg bomb which get through deck armor of HMS Illustrious has so small penetrating power left exploding quite above hangar deck. Think what would do 1000 kg (not lb) to Yorktown. Main point is that enemy need to use AP or SAP bombs to disable carrier which has much lower explosive charge than GP bombs. lets remember here, HMS Ark Royal sank after taking a single submarine torpedo hit).
She was not "armored carrier" so what is the relevance. And even torpedo protection of HMS Ark Royal was not on pair with Illustrious class carrier, this torpedo was over the designed protection of HMS Ark Royal. On my comment: Dorn: The reason was that they were needed in Europe and Allies knows well that they are better in Europe and Yorktowns in PacificNaval fighting in the ETO was pretty much over by the time Italy pulled out of the war and the landings off the italian coast were accomplished. Even more after D-day had been a success, and even more after Tirpitz was sunk. That means that as early as June 1944, and as late as November 1944 there was no real reason to keep all the carriers in the ETO. Yet british fleet carriers didn't venture into the Pacific well into 1945.Facts don't seem to back your given reason.
Study the reasons why RN has difficulties to operate in Pacific and latter struggle. Some examples - they were not allowed to construct all equipment even on their own land by USN. USN do not want RN to attack Japan they want do the job alone as question of nation pride. On my comment: I agree with you that the Illustrious class could not do the same job but their were not designed for it. Could the Yorktown class did same job as Illustrious did in the Mediterranean? Both classes were designed for completely different environment. This argument makes no sense. HMS Eagle operated in the mediterranean too and did well enough until hit and sunk, not by an airplane, but by a submarine (and went down exactly the same way Illustrious would had she been the one struck by that spread of torpedoes).
She was not used some way Illustrious was in most dangerous zones.
Asking wether a Yorktown could do what the other, much less capable, carriers did in the mediterranean or not, when much less capable ships already did, is a no-brainer. Of course they could, and far better than what the british fleet carriers did (there's a "certain" advantage in operating almost twice as many planes per carrier when we speak about carrier ops).
Much less capable, no reason given - just word. What type of planes in 1941, how much fighters to defend yourself? How well she could absorb 1000 kg or 500 kg bomb hit? How they can intercept raids if she had not radar and raids was done through the whole day. So how much fighters could effectively be on CAP all the time?
USS Wasp was in that list of carriers, btw, she was part of Spitfire Mk.V ferry operations in the mediterranean in 1942. So in a way she already answered that question 76 years ago.
Yes, ferry role. Furious did this job well too, but Wasp was better as have better capacity.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Sept 22, 2018 9:48:53 GMT -6
Which was the reason why it was parked off the coasts of Japan in 1945, and not 1943. But american carriers had been operating within radius of japanese land strikes for the whole of the war, since the very first carrier raids on the Gilberts and Marshalls, down to the raid at Truk (the most defenced base in the central/south pacific area). And they were perfectly able to do so and fend for themselves in the process. Seems that operating within striking distance of land strikes without an armored deck was of little consequence. Having it in a closed hangar british configuration meant that you could carry only half the planes. And -THAT- would've had far more consequences in those raids. Dorn: So if we like to compare it to the Mediterranean, the Japanese knew of USN fleet (which consist only single carrier) or was able to find it and was able to bomb them several days with several hundreds (100-400) aircraft ready to sink him. Could you confirm it that we can compare it? I do know all actions in Pacific well. In whose wet dream, precisely?. Ark Royal's initial design intended to achieve an aircraft complement of 72 planes, yet operationally she was limited to 60 planes, tops. Meanwhile Yorktowns could operate air wings of 90 planes+ (And enterprise did so several times during WW2) How does exactly 60 equal to a "higher capacity" than Yorktown's 90? Please do not attack the post, study it and read it. Look several pages back, you will find comparison of hangars of several carriers including these types. You cannot compare hangar capacity of one carrier to complete capacity of carrier including deck park and spares. If you are really study carriers of WW2, you know that USN give numbers of aircraft including spares and deck parks, however RN standard numbers are only the ones stored in hangar without any spares.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Sept 22, 2018 10:08:29 GMT -6
dorn , Ark Royal covered fleet operations and convoys to Malta while operating from Gibraltar with Force H and covered fleet operations in the Eastern Mediterranean while operating from Alexandria with the Mediterranean Fleet, and passed through the Strait of Sicily several times during the war. This is not materially different from how Illustrious was used, nor was Ark Royal kept more distant from terrestrial air bases for fear of Italian or German air attack than Illustrious was.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Sept 22, 2018 10:27:11 GMT -6
dorn , Ark Royal covered fleet operations and convoys to Malta while operating from Gibraltar with Force H and covered fleet operations in the Eastern Mediterranean while operating from Alexandria with the Mediterranean Fleet, and passed through the Strait of Sicily several times during the war. This is not materially different from how Illustrious was used, nor was Ark Royal kept more distant from terrestrial air bases for fear of Italian or German air attack than Illustrious was. You are completely right for that how she was used. I can see difference in other thing (if I do not describe it well I apologize). And it is how she came under attack. If you compare how mainly HMS Illustrious and HMS Formidable was regularly under attack of X Fliegerkorps, HMS Ark Royal was not under such a threat. She was (as I am aware) only once under attack of X Fliegerkorps and frankly Italians was best as decoys to lure off the fighters before Fliegerkorps attacked (this is a little speculation but based on what Italians achieved it seems correct). You cannot have luxury to ignore Italians however they were not good, however they several times exhausted ammo of fighters just in time where Fliegerkorps got in range. I have very doubts that HMS Ark Royal would be able to live after attacks several Illustrious class was under. But she was much better strike carrier. And I have even higher doubts about Yorktown class as she has no fighter direction at that time which was quite crucial for the Mediterranean (not only) and if Illustrious class did not have this ability I think they would be put out of action much earlier. My conclusion is that fighter direction from RAF helped them not to be hit so often and their excellent design in terms of passive defenses give them ability to sometimes survive hits with minimum damage sometimes survive hits which would sink other carrier.
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on Sept 22, 2018 11:10:16 GMT -6
Fliegerkorps X wasn't using SC1000 bombs in the mediterranean. Illustrious couldn't have been hit by a 1000kg bomb. Please, ensure your sources are reliable to begin with. I'll provide a detailed list of the hits on her later.
But you ask me to provide examples of Enterprise surviving damage like that?. I'll go a step further; not the Enterprise, not the Yorktown, but Shokaku. She survived Coral Sea after at least three 1000lb bombs (454kg). Went back to Japan, got repaired, got a new airgroup, was sent to Guadalcanal and was again mauled at St Cruz Islands. Sources are unreliable here, but Shokaku took from three to five 1000lb bombs again, still was able to steam back to Truk (which wasn't next door ,you know) and survive again.
As for Enterprise, I'm not more fond of wasting my time than what you say you are - there's no need to look for details on that one because I already gave the damage report of two of her sisters. One survived 3 bomb hits, 2 torpedo hit and a kamikaze hit and only was sunk because a japanese submarine happened to stumble upon her. The other was hit by 3 bombs, 3 torpedoes, 2 kamikazes, an unregistered number of american torpedoes, and at several hundred 5 inch destroyer rounds, and was still refusing to sink hours later when the japanese found her.
The North Sea was a hotly contested area during WW2. operating off Bodo, on the northern side of Norway, was operating on the nose of the same numerous air strike forces that were making murmansk convoy life miserable. To say that those were "not danger zones" is just hillarious, not to call it worse . It's like saying that the USN raid on Truk was "operating out of danger zones" or that the carriers used in the repeated strikes conducted on Tirpitz were "being kept out of danger zones".
Sorry, that's just utter bullcrap.
Fliegerkorps X was an ad-hoc strike air wing purposefully trained for operations against shipping after the underwhelming result of the stuka strikes against channel shipping in summer of 1940. For all purposes other than a combined mix of Stukas and Ju-88s, FlKps-X was the equivalent of a luftwaffe's regular KampfGeschwader. German fighters never operated in anything other than Jagdgeschwaders, and there weren't any in the Mediterranean in January 1941.
Bf109s were indeed used over malta but they weren't part of Fliegerkorps X and weren't there during the attack on Illustrious. In fact by the time Illustrious was struck there were no Bf109s based on italy at all - the first Bf109 squadron based there was JG26, operating Bf109E7s, which arrived to Italy in March 1941 . And the whole attack force sent against HMS Illustrious had no fighter cover whatsoever.
So, I'm terribly sorry but "I am true".
you're right on one account - three stukas were lost that day. I'm at fault at that one (happens when I talk off memory and I do it all the time. My mistake.)
You're wrong in the other account - six fulmars were aloft by the time the second wave of 13 stukas arrived (The first wave was made up of 24 stukas). They intercepted them and failed to shoot down any of them. As for the fulmars having to respond to many threats it's no excuse - a similar thing happened to Yorktown when Hiryu's kates attacked - only two wildcats were aloft and a handful more were launched even while they weren't refuelled nor rearmed after having had to deal with the previous wave. Most kates were shot down. Meanwhile, most stukas survived. IT's the difference between having a proper Carrier based fighter, and having a joke of a plane.
Japanese Vals in anti-ship loadout to attack US carriers used 250lb SAP bombs as default. And those bombs did a number when going off. Reduced explosive charge or not, a 250kg bomb is some serious stuff, yet you seem to think they were firecrakers
Illustrious wasn't hit by any 1000kg bombs, again. SC1000 bombs weren't available for FliegerKorps X. I'm not repeating past mistakes here and I'm checking my sources. I'm quoting this (literal) from Norman Friedman's "British Carrier Aviation: The Evolution of the Ships and their Aircraft" here
All those bombs were SC variants btw, (two direct SC250s, 4 SC500s). SC bombs were the equivalent of AP - which had even less explosive charge than SAP bombs.
There were no 1000kg bomb hits. Unsurprising because FlKpsX didn't operate with them. So no, I don't have to think what a 1000kg bomb would've done to Yorktown.
the relevance is comparing what a british 1936 ship carrier design wasn't able to take, and what a 1936 US carrier design was able to take and survive. Carriers didn't sink only because being hit by bombs, torpedoes were also a risk, and armored decks would've made no difference in that regard - torpedoes don't jump out of the water to hit it.
first part is pretty much point on: "difficulties to operate in the pacific" means limited range and limited operative endurance - both were lacking in british designs, weren't in the US design. They simply weren't up to the task to operate for long periods of time away from home port. American CVs were.
Second part is utter bull. The USN was more than happy to take the RN carriers within their Task Forces as soon as the british decided to send them over - first time over Okinawa, later operating off the coast of Japan itself. That the british didn't send any before was because they didn't want to.
Again - that's utter bullcrap of the worst class. And actually incredibly disrespectful to that ship and her crew.
HMS Eagle was part of several convoy escort task groups that covered merchants straight into Malta itself, and , indeed, was sunk during Operation Pedestal, as part of yet another naval force tasked with escorting yet another convoy down the western mediterranean, directly into the jaws of the Regia Aeronautica and the Luftwaffe, and downright into La Valetta harbor. HMS Eagle was used in the most dangerous zones indeed, as those convoys were the subject of some of the most vicious attacks ever seen in the mediterranean, and Eagle survived them all - only to be sunk by a submarine.
I've given the reasons more than half a dozen times already by now. No need to repeat myself yet again - read my posts, you know why they were much less capable. Oh ,come on, you insist? ok, there we go again.
-little more than half the size of the carrier air wing...and that was by making use of extensive deck parking.
-No provision for operation of dive bombers
-limited range
-far less operational capability (far less capacity of avgas and aircraft storage to keep the ship in an operational footing)
-closed hangar operative issues (no warmup of engines before elevating them to the flight deck, far more susceptible to structural damage)
As for the rest, again, no 1000kg bombs were ever scored in illustrious so I might aswell ask how she'd absorbed one.
And what's that about Yorktown having no radar?. She was fitted with a CXAM radar set - and in fact her radar detection finding was vital for both early warning and for vectoring fighters in CAP duties against japanese incoming strikes both during the battle of the Coral Sea and during Midway.
Seriously, man, get a grip. You don't even know that both the Yorktowns and Lexingtons had radars?. Do you know ANYTHING about ANY carrier that wasn't british to begin with?
Ferry roles were still dangerous, and honestly Wasp wasn't used for anything else because while she was operating in the area there were no Pedestal- like escort convoys towards Malta, because she'd been sent in one for sure had there been any.
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on Sept 22, 2018 11:27:23 GMT -6
Look several pages back, you will find comparison of hangars of several carriers including these types. You cannot compare hangar capacity of one carrier to complete capacity of carrier including deck park and spares. If you are really study carriers of WW2, you know that USN give numbers of aircraft including spares and deck parks, however RN standard numbers are only the ones stored in hangar without any spares. I don't need any excess information of anything I already know about. I know the differences between aircraft listed hangar capacities. I also know what those carriers actually achieved during operations. To be more precise, the usual US Carrier wing of mid-1942 (around Midway) looked like this: -27 F4Fs -36 SBDs -14 TBDs I'm not making it up, this is the actual complement of USS Hornet as she went into battle. Those are 77 planes, and Enterprise and Yorktown carried similar wings. Which means that for all intents and purposes an US Yorktown class carrier could handle, operationally, 80 plane wing sizes without problems. Essex class carriers were bigger and were nominally able to handle wing sizes of 100+ planes,but it was never done because even while the space was there, the practical tempo of the operations didn't allow the operation of that many planes simultaeously, not to mention the overtaxing of the workshops and mainteinance crews involved. In practical terms they operated carrier air wings of similar size to Yortown, as USS Essex carrier composition (dated March 1943) proves: -28 F6F Hellcats -36 SBDs -15 TBFs for a total of 79 planes. US Carriers were able to keep those wing sizes within the hangar, so even while deck parking was an usual practice with good weather, on bad weather planes were struck down to avoid problems. Meanwhile (At the time of Midway ,to establish a comparison with the Yorktowns) Victorious struggled to carry 54 planes around, only 18 of them having any strike capability, and that strike ability incarnated in the abhorrent Albacore, an abomination it only finally left behind when loaned to the USN and the planes replaced with Avengers (even while she had to be refit in a hurry with new arrestor gear because the one she had couldn't deal with the plane). However, Victorious coudln't handle more than 40 planes on her hangar, the rest had to be handled through deck parking practices, so when confronted with heavy seas and bad weather, those planes had to be tethered to the flight deck, with the everpresent risk of tethers breaking loose and planes being thrown overboard, or smashing themselves against planes parked besides, thus damaging them in the process. Which obviously was a significant problem, even while it never was a critical one. Need more proof that I know what I'm talking about?.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Sept 22, 2018 15:25:35 GMT -6
I'll get involved in this a bit later (getting married today, have other priorities ) but based on what I've read, the truth lies closer to Dorn than anyone else in this convo, then aeson, then rambj (for a start, I haven't seen claims anywhere that the Yorktowns could hold all of their air group in their hangars - and plenty of evidence to the contrary, some sourcing to support your claims would be well warranted). Based on the hangar dimensons over at Navypedia, the floorspace of the hangars in a Yorktown was 2,919 square metres, compared with 2,638 square metres in the Illustrious, a little over ten per cent more. Given the Illustrious class could only carry 34 or so aircraft in a hangar of 2,638 square metres, the claim that 77 aircraft could be carried within Hornet with no deck park with only ten per cent more floor space strikes me as rather adventurous. Also - the Albacore was _not_ replaced by the Swordfish, it was the other way around. I'm not sure where you get that impression, but I've got a spreadsheet (based on various sources, but primarily on Carrier Operations in World War II, by JD Brown) that has complements of various carriers at various times and other than when Formidable embarked Swordfish because her air wings were being attrited too quickly to keep up with reinforcements (ie, it was a case of 'put on any aircraft we can', not 'drop the Albacores and bring back the Swordfish' - Albacores were embarked at the same time) and Furious in 1943 no British carrier embarked Swordfish after they had embarked Albacores. When you make claims like this, which are patently false, it casts doubt on your other (often and perhaps entirely unsourced) claims. Anyways, I'm off now, got better things to do! Will be back later. I highly recommend sources and context for all arguments.
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on Sept 22, 2018 15:56:40 GMT -6
Holy **** getting married today and you come in here to post? I see I'm not the only one who's got a serious problem hhehehehehee .Gratz btw. Sources about the Midway OOBS are plentiful, both online and in books. For me the online bible of WWII-related topics is navweaps.com and there you can look at the details of the carrier wing compositions during the battle of Midway. I quote Enterprise's: which is 78 operational planes. Hornet's: 76 planes. Yorktown's: 71 planes (lower than the other two because Yorktown still was suffering from the consecuences of the bomb hit in the hangar she suffered during Coral Sea, so she had some hangar space that wasn't usable and could accomodate less operational planes than her two sisters). source link: www.navweaps.com/index_oob/OOB_WWII_Pacific/OOB_WWII_Midway.phpThe Albacore did, indeed replace the swordfish - just not on main fleet units. Many of the new CVEs coming online since 1942 were initially supposed to carry Albacores, not Swordfishes. The Royal navy ditched the whole idea and replaced that abomination with the trusty stringbags. It's not that squadrons with the Albacores were rolled back to the Swordfish, that didn't happen, but if what happened with the CVE complements isn't replacing the Albacore with the Swordfish I don't know what it is. Aboard the fleet carriers unlucky enough not to embark TBF/TBMs, the Albacore replacement was the Barracuda. Another uninspiring plane which the best one could say about it is that it did it's job. The worst thing you could say about it...I'll better not go there XD.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Sept 22, 2018 15:59:24 GMT -6
Fliegerkorps X wasn't using SC1000 bombs in the mediterranean. Illustrious couldn't have been hit by a 1000kg bomb. Please, ensure your sources are reliable to begin with. I'll provide a detailed list of the hits on her later. Dorn: First assesement on board was 500 kg bomb. However it was not deep analysis. When HMS Illustrious was repaired in USA, USN analysis claims it was 1000 kg bomb. Same evaluation afterwards was done by RN. Read the reports.
But you ask me to provide examples of Enterprise surviving damage like that?. I'll go a step further; not the Enterprise, not the Yorktown, but Shokaku. She survived Coral Sea after at least three 1000lb bombs (454kg). Went back to Japan, got repaired, got a new airgroup, was sent to Guadalcanal and was again mauled at St Cruz Islands. Sources are unreliable here, but Shokaku took from three to five 1000lb bombs again, still was able to steam back to Truk (which wasn't next door ,you know) and survive again. Dorn: I ask you to provide example of higher bombs hits. You provide Shokaku which 3x1000 lb hits were much less and was almost lost on way to Japan (compare to Illustrious which was never at that danger), and 3-5x1000 hits (quite uncertain) which was still less. No 1000 kg bombs which has completely different damage potential.As for Enterprise, I'm not more fond of wasting my time than what you say you are - there's no need to look for details on that one because I already gave the damage report of two of her sisters. One survived 3 bomb hits, 2 torpedo hit and a kamikaze hit and only was sunk because a japanese submarine happened to stumble upon her. The other was hit by 3 bombs, 3 torpedoes, 2 kamikazes, an unregistered number of american torpedoes, and at several hundred 5 inch destroyer rounds, and was still refusing to sink hours later when the japanese found her. Dorn: But ships were already dead, no point to save them. It is similar to Bismarck and discussion who sink him. He was dead, zero value.The North Sea was a hotly contested area during WW2. operating off Bodo, on the northern side of Norway, was operating on the nose of the same numerous air strike forces that were making murmansk convoy life miserable. To say that those were "not danger zones" is just hillarious, not to call it worse . It's like saying that the USN raid on Truk was "operating out of danger zones" or that the carriers used in the repeated strikes conducted on Tirpitz were "being kept out of danger zones". Sorry, that's just utter bullcrap. Dorn: It is diferent when you have mission hit and run into dangerous zone as you expect to be out of the zone before enemy can fully retaliate (similar mission is Taranto in the Mediterranean) and if your position is exactly known and you need to proceed waiting for bombing (missions of defending convoys in Mediterranean, actions around Greece and Crete).Fliegerkorps X was an ad-hoc strike air wing purposefully trained for operations against shipping after the underwhelming result of the stuka strikes against channel shipping in summer of 1940. For all purposes other than a combined mix of Stukas and Ju-88s, FlKps-X was the equivalent of a luftwaffe's regular KampfGeschwader. German fighters never operated in anything other than Jagdgeschwaders, and there weren't any in the Mediterranean in January 1941. Bf109s were indeed used over malta but they weren't part of Fliegerkorps X and weren't there during the attack on Illustrious. In fact by the time Illustrious was struck there were no Bf109s based on italy at all - the first Bf109 squadron based there was JG26, operating Bf109E7s, which arrived to Italy in March 1941 . And the whole attack force sent against HMS Illustrious had no fighter cover whatsoever. Dorn: This we agree. So what we need is that X Fliegerkorps was effective any time there was no opposition and quite dangerous even with opposition. There is difference between strikes on carrier in Pacific and the Mediterranean. Usually in Pacific when you were discovered you know time about enemy strike can come. In the Mediterranean you know strikes will continue through the whole ddy.
So, I'm terribly sorry but "I am true". you're right on one account - three stukas were lost that day. I'm at fault at that one (happens when I talk off memory and I do it all the time. My mistake.) You're wrong in the other account - six fulmars were aloft by the time the second wave of 13 stukas arrived (The first wave was made up of 24 stukas). They intercepted them and failed to shoot down any of them. As for the fulmars having to respond to many threats it's no excuse - a similar thing happened to Yorktown when Hiryu's kates attacked - only two wildcats were aloft and a handful more were launched even while they weren't refuelled nor rearmed after having had to deal with the previous wave. Most kates were shot down. Meanwhile, most stukas survived. IT's the difference between having a proper Carrier based fighter, and having a joke of a plane. Dorn: As I wrote, there were Fulmars, but either without ammunition or just take off with no possibility to catch Skutas before bombing hence no fighters available to defend carrier. You should compare apples to apples. There is completely differentt way how strikes were done. Japanese Vals in anti-ship loadout to attack US carriers used 250lb SAP bombs as default. And those bombs did a number when going off. Reduced explosive charge or not, a 250kg bomb is some serious stuff, yet you seem to think they were firecrakers Dorn: No, they were dangerous however they could not do serious damage to Illustrious class. But 500 kg bomb or 1000 kg bombs just has much higher damage potential and specially can pierce much more armor. Yorktown class has now arrmor to defeat 1000 kg bomb to protect her vitals. Shokaku had, was well designed to protect her vitals however her other passive protection was not on pair to Illustrious class.Illustrious wasn't hit by any 1000kg bombs, again. SC1000 bombs weren't available for FliegerKorps X. I'm not repeating past mistakes here and I'm checking my sources. I'm quoting this (literal) from Norman Friedman's "British Carrier Aviation: The Evolution of the Ships and their Aircraft" here Dorn: Friedman is not correct in this case as he probably did not read USN report.All those bombs were SC variants btw, (two direct SC250s, 4 SC500s). SC bombs were the equivalent of AP - which had even less explosive charge than SAP bombs. Dorn: Yes, another advantage of armored carrier design, you need AP bomb to have chance to do some vital damage at all.There were no 1000kg bomb hits. Unsurprising because FlKpsX didn't operate with them. So no, I don't have to think what a 1000kg bomb would've done to Yorktown. Dorn: You do not know. It will depend when it would hit, as it could pierce to Yorktown vitals.Again, read report, number 4 hit was 1000 kg.the relevance is comparing what a british 1936 ship carrier design wasn't able to take, and what a 1936 US carrier design was able to take and survive. Carriers didn't sink only because being hit by bombs, torpedoes were also a risk, and armored decks would've made no difference in that regard - torpedoes don't jump out of the water to hit it. Dorn: we were speaking about Illustrious class carriers, so design of Ark Royal is irrelevant especially that Illustrious class carrier was designed with better torpedo protection than Ark Royal.first part is pretty much point on: "difficulties to operate in the pacific" means limited range and limited operative endurance - both were lacking in british designs, weren't in the US design. They simply weren't up to the task to operate for long periods of time away from home port. American CVs were. Dorn: yes, RN did not have to as having bases around the world. Why design ship for enviroment which is less likely to fight. At the end they fight and was able with dificulties fight.Second part is utter bull. The USN was more than happy to take the RN carriers within their Task Forces as soon as the british decided to send them over - first time over Okinawa, later operating off the coast of Japan itself. That the british didn't send any before was because they didn't want to. Dorn: Read some material, USN admirals in Pacific was happy but King as supreme commander was reluctant to do this and it is well known.Again - that's utter bullcrap of the worst class. And actually incredibly disrespectful to that ship and her crew. HMS Eagle was part of several convoy escort task groups that covered merchants straight into Malta itself, and , indeed, was sunk during Operation Pedestal, as part of yet another naval force tasked with escorting yet another convoy down the western mediterranean, directly into the jaws of the Regia Aeronautica and the Luftwaffe, and downright into La Valetta harbor. HMS Eagle was used in the most dangerous zones indeed, as those convoys were the subject of some of the most vicious attacks ever seen in the mediterranean, and Eagle survived them all - only to be sunk by a submarine. Dorn: She was part of force of 3 carriers (on memory I think one was just only ferry aircrafts). It is quite difference against to be sole carrier responsible for air defences. If you compare you need to have similar conditions.I've given the reasons more than half a dozen times already by now. No need to repeat myself yet again - read my posts, you know why they were much less capable. Oh ,come on, you insist? ok, there we go again. -little more than half the size of the carrier air wing...and that was by making use of extensive deck parking. Dorn: I do not disagree that for Illustrious, but not for Indomitable and especially for Implacables. However in early years in Mediterranean when Axis had overwhelming strike capabilities more important was providing air cover than strike power.-No provision for operation of dive bombers Dorn: How you come to this? They operated dive bombers.-limited range Dorn: Not important in European theatre.-far less operational capability (far less capacity of avgas and aircraft storage to keep the ship in an operational footing) - Dorn: Not important in European theatre.-closed hangar operative issues (no warmup of engines before elevating them to the flight deck, far more susceptible to structural damage) Dorn: Yes, they operated in European theatre including North sea. With opened hanger they will quickly operated no aircraft. Open hangar has some pros and cons. Cons are heating engines as you mentioned, however later even this issue was overcome, structural damage was issue but mainly after war, so for war not relevant. Firefighting in case of fires in hangar. Advantages is saving weight as closed hanager with main deck as structural deck is more effective by weight. It has additonal positive effect with armored box. It was better for bad weather which was common in European theatre. So for European theatre they take most important advantages and for Pacific they were in disadvantage but I never told that they were ideal carrier for Pacific. As for the rest, again, no 1000kg bombs were ever scored in illustrious so I might aswell ask how she'd absorbed one. And what's that about Yorktown having no radar?. She was fitted with a CXAM radar set - and in fact her radar detection finding was vital for both early warning and for vectoring fighters in CAP duties against japanese incoming strikes both during the battle of the Coral Sea and during Midway. Dorn: in 1942, 1-2 year after most fighting in the Mediterranean. You need to compare same time period else you can tell that Essex was because of Midways.Seriously, man, get a grip. You don't even know that both the Yorktowns and Lexingtons had radars?. Do you know ANYTHING about ANY carrier that wasn't british to begin with? Dorn: most of carriers get this radar at end of 1941, I am awere only about Yorktown which had this radar earlier. But if I am not wrong (just by memory) this radar had lower capabilities of air tracking distance that used by RN.Ferry roles were still dangerous, and honestly Wasp wasn't used for anything else because while she was operating in the area there were no Pedestal- like escort convoys towards Malta, because she'd been sent in one for sure had there been any. Dorn: Yes, it was, however usually carriers providing ferry turn back much earlier than carriers providing cover for convoys thus less dangerous as they were less time in dangerous zone and far from enemy bases.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Sept 22, 2018 16:08:21 GMT -6
I'll get involved in this a bit later (getting married today, have other priorities ) but based on what I've read, the truth lies closer to Dorn than anyone else in this convo, then aeson, then rambj (for a start, I haven't seen claims anywhere that the Yorktowns could hold all of their air group in their hangars - and plenty of evidence to the contrary, some sourcing to support your claims would be well warranted). Based on the hangar dimensons over at Navypedia, the floorspace of the hangars in a Yorktown was 2,919 square metres, compared with 2,638 square metres in the Illustrious, a little over ten per cent more. Given the Illustrious class could only carry 34 or so aircraft in a hangar of 2,638 square metres, the claim that 77 aircraft could be carried within Hornet with no deck park with only ten per cent more floor space strikes me as rather adventurous. You were even a little pesimistic on Illustrious class. However they have another limiting factors and it was their deck which was much smaller.
A did some research and put it into forum for some thoughts and it seems that usually authors compares whole space including lifts which have no sence.
I will just note, it is just usable space squared, no other thing is taking into consideration and it was only RN and USN carriers. As you can see the largest hangar space had Ark Royal, even larger than Essex class.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Sept 22, 2018 16:22:02 GMT -6
Holy **** getting married today and you come in here to post? I see I'm not the only one who's got a serious problem hhehehehehee .Gratz btw. Sources about the Midway OOBS are plentiful, both online and in books. For me the online bible of WWII-related topics is navweaps.com and there you can look at the details of the carrier wing compositions during the battle of Midway. I quote Enterprise's: which is 78 operational planes. Hornet's: 76 planes. Yorktown's: 71 planes (lower than the other two because Yorktown still was suffering from the consecuences of the bomb hit in the hangar she suffered during Coral Sea, so she had some hangar space that wasn't usable and could accomodate less operational planes than her two sisters). source link: www.navweaps.com/index_oob/OOB_WWII_Pacific/OOB_WWII_Midway.phpThe Albacore did, indeed replace the swordfish - just not on main fleet units. Many of the new CVEs coming online since 1942 were initially supposed to carry Albacores, not Swordfishes. The Royal navy ditched the whole idea and replaced that abomination with the trusty stringbags. It's not that squadrons with the Albacores were rolled back to the Swordfish, that didn't happen, but if what happened with the CVE complements isn't replacing the Albacore with the Swordfish I don't know what it is. Aboard the fleet carriers unlucky enough not to embark TBF/TBMs, the Albacore replacement was the Barracuda. Another uninspiring plane which the best one could say about it is that it did it's job. The worst thing you could say about it...I'll better not go there XD. Thanks Short posts are a nice distraction prior to the hustle and bustle later today, but this will be the last time I'm here today until tomorrow . I have the same numbers for Midway, but my understanding was that they had a deck park (ie, the issue isn't that they could carry those complements - they could, and at it's highest Enterprise carried a whopping 88 aircraft for the Battle of the Eastern Solomons - but that they couldn't all be struck below deck.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Sept 22, 2018 16:56:22 GMT -6
One problem that I have with the claim that the armored flight decks were all that relevant to the apparent ability of British carriers to withstand damage is that, as nearly as I can tell, most bomb hits on British carriers with armored flight decks did not strike the armored portion of the flight deck. That, at any rate, is the claim here, and appears to be supported in the damage report on HMS Illustrious found here, assuming the thick black line at the flight deck level in the ship cross-section showing bomb hit and detonation locations represents the armored region of the flight deck. (If someone has better online sources for damage reports and ships' armor coverage I wouldn't mind taking a look.) The navweaps page also cites Nelson to Vanguard as saying that only one of the kamikaze hits sustained by British carriers with armored flight decks was actually defeated by the armored flight deck; the other three kamikaze hits on British carriers off Okinawa were apparently considered likely to have failed to penetrate an unarmored flight deck such as on the US carriers.
If the bombs that hit your ship are not hitting your armor, then your armor is not meaningfully contributing to your ship's ability to survive damage. The greater structural strength resulting from placing the strength deck at the level of the flight deck rather than at the level of the hangar might possibly be contributing to the ships' apparent ability to resist damage, and the smaller number of aircraft and commensurately-smaller quantity of avgas and munitions for the aircraft carried by the British carriers might also be contributing, but these are only tangentially related to the ship having an armored flight deck.
If we're going to base arguments on hits sustained, then what hit each ship, where each hit was sustained, what the ship was doing when it was hit, and what was in the affected area(s) of the ship need to be considered, because simple number of hits or even number x type of hits doesn't provide any meaningful understanding of why one ship survived an attack that scored multiple hits with reasonably heavy bombs when another ship sank after being hit by only a relatively small number of lighter bombs or why almost a thousand people died on one ship while a similar attack against another ship killed only a handful. Congratulations.
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on Sept 22, 2018 17:07:17 GMT -6
Dorn: I ask you to provide example of higher bombs hits. You provide Shokaku which 3x1000 lb hits were much less and was almost lost on way to Japan (compare to Illustrious which was never at that danger), and 3-5x1000 hits (quite uncertain) which was still less. No 1000 kg bombs which has completely different damage potential.
No 1000kg bombs because no 1000kg bomb ever hit HMS Illustrious.
Dorn: It is diferent when you have mission hit and run into dangerous zone as you expect to be out of the zone before enemy can fully retaliate (similar mission is Taranto in the Mediterranean) and if your position is exactly known and you need to proceed waiting for bombing (missions of defending convoys in Mediterranean, actions around Greece and Crete).
It's in no way different in the sense that those ships still could be detected, so here's a big risk involved indeed - in those operations the enemy can locate you while you're within their operational radius and will strike. Otherwise you'd be claiming that the british fleet that struck Tarento did so risking nothing in the move, which is just utter bollocks.
Anyway it's pretty obvious by this point that you're trying to lay a smokescreen to distract the attention from your obvious misjudgement and mistake: To claim that USS Ranger wasn't used in risky operations is just plain wrong.
Dorn: First assesement on board was 500 kg bomb. However it was not deep analysis. When HMS Illustrious was repaired in USA, USN analysis claims it was 1000 kg bomb. Same evaluation afterwards was done by RN. Read the reports.
Well, I've already told you: Fliegerkorps X was never issued SC1000 bombs. Those things weren't common and none had been delivered to the mediterranean by the time the Illustrious attack happened. That on one hand. On the other hand the Stuka model FlKps X used, the Ju-87R, couldn't carry a SC1000 bomb without leaving the gunner back in the base and loading a very limited load of fuel. No german documents show any Ju-87 flying with the pilot alone that day. That fact number 1.
Fact number 2 is that I've given you a source that's considered almost a bible about WWII British Carrier history authored by one of the most respected experts on naval history of the XX Century. I have done enough reading about Illustrious myself, and I'm certain that Mr. Friedman did a far better in-deep research than me using primary sources himself before publishing a book that gave a detailed list of the bomb hits sustained by HMS Illustrious January the 10th of 1941 and listed no bomb hit over 500kg.
If somehow you think that you have done a more in-depth research than one of the most respected authors about XX Century's naval warfare, please bring your grudges towards him telling him how exactly you know more about the topic than him.
In the meantime - I gave a detailed list of bomb hits and near misses on HMS Illustrious, I gave you the source, and you're giving nothing but your gut feelings.
Dorn: As I wrote, there were Fulmars, but either without ammunition or just take off with no possibility to catch Skutas before bombing hence no fighters available to defend carrier. You should compare apples to apples. There is completely differentt way how strikes were done.
Records of the action (Again I refer to Mr Friedman's book so if you have a grudge with it, take it to him, given that you obviously know more about the action than he does) say six fulmars engaged the 13 Stukas that came in the 2nd wave. You don't engage without ammo.
That planes just launched from the carrier couldn't intercept was only because the Fulmar was a pisspoor performed, slow as molasses and with the acceleration and climbrate of a light attack plane, not that of a fighter. As I already mentioned before, when USS yorktown detected the incoming Kate strike from Hiryu only two F4Fs were airborne, and the carrier launched those she had aboard (Even while they had almost no fuel and ammo themselves), and they achieved interceptions both in the way in and in the way out and most of the torpedo bombers were shot down as a result.
That fulmars were unable to shoot down the incoming strike, and the newly launched ones couldn't intercept the withdrawing Stukas give an approximate idea of how appropiate they were for the task they were intended to fullfit.
No, they were dangerous however they could not do serious damage to Illustrious class. But 500 kg bomb or 1000 kg bombs just has much higher damage potential and specially can pierce much more armor. Yorktown class has now arrmor to defeat 1000 kg bomb to protect her vitals. Shokaku had, was well designed to protect her vitals however her other passive protection was not on pair to Illustrious class.
One more time I hate to insist: there were no 1000kg bombs dropped on HMS Illustrious. Stop making hyperboles referring to hits by bombs that never happened.
Yes, another advantage of armored carrier design, you need AP bomb to have chance to do some vital damage at all.
Sorry to dissapoint, but no. Germans used SC class bombs against warships of all classes (including destroyers). They weren't "forced" to carry those because of some mythical ability of british armor to deflect bombs (underscored by the fact that 500kg SAP bombs could do the job as perfectly as 500kg AP bombs could)- it was an integral part of their antisurface doctrine.
Dorn: You do not know. It will depend when it would hit, as it could pierce to Yorktown vitals.Again, read report, number 4 hit was 1000 kg.
Take it to Mr. Friedman, not to me. I'll trust the report provided by the guy who swimmed through original sources while writting his book more than the wishes of a random fanboy in the interwebs, or a damage report assessment written months after the action had taken place.
In the meantime I don't have to think about 1000kg bomb hits on Yorktown to compare the effects with those of a 1000kg bomb hit on Illustrious, simply, because the most reliable sources available (and those aren't you) say there were no such bombs in that theater at that day, that FliegerKorps X flew no single-crew Ju-87 (which was demanded in order to carry that bomb) and that there were no such hits on that ship.
Stop making stuff up based on your wishes, and base them on reliable sources.
Dorn: we were speaking about Illustrious class carriers, so design of Ark Royal is irrelevant especially that Illustrious class carrier was designed with better torpedo protection than Ark Royal.
We're speaking of contemporary carriers, and HMS Ark Royal was contemporary with Yorktowns. The Illustrious were a later evolution and if we were to compare it with the Yorktown evolution you're in deep trouble because that'd be the Essex class CVs. But whatever. Have your way, doesn't change a thing because torpedo hits had nothing to do with the design flaws forced by the british "closed hangar" concept anyway.
Dorn: yes, RN did not have to as having bases around the world. Why design ship for enviroment which is less likely to fight. At the end they fight and was able with dificulties fight.
This one is pure gold. The US Navy had major installations all across the pacific. From San Diego in the West Coast, Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, and Manila in the phillipines - not to mention several minor bases all across the way where refuelling was possible (Midway, Wake, Guam, just to name a few). They were the ones who had plenty of bases around the Pacific, yet they designed ships with an exceptional operative range anyway - because they understood the importance of having ships station times being as prolonged as possible, not because they somehow lacked refuelling bases in the Pacific.
Meanwhile the Royal navy had no naval base of any importance nor entity west from Hong kong while down south the british had no bases once you were past Australia. Still there were plenty of british possessions in the paficic. I guess those didn't need RN protection. Right?. Maybe what happened is that that the carrier designers in england forgot about those posessions and dominions that needed their fleet protection when designing their ships.
Or rather, maybe what REAlly happened is that they had to accept a severe limitation in range in order to accomodate for the tremendous compromises that their awful "closed hangar" concept and the weight of that armored deck imposed on carrier designs.
Who knows, right?.
Also, if "at the end they fight and were able to fight with difficulties" was because those carriers were operating alongside those of the US Navy and taking advantage of their excellent logistics train and their experience in underway refuelling (Something the RN had not mastered yet by the end of the war). Had those carriers had to operate off the coasts of Okinawa or Japan using only the logistics of the Royal Navy they'd have to return home after a couple days of combat operations, and that being optimistic (given that the nearest major naval base was off Ceylon).
Dorn: Read some material, USN admirals in Pacific was happy but King as supreme commander was reluctant to do this and it is well known.
King was a well known anglophobe but wasn't the commander sitting at US Navy Pacific HQs at Pearl Harbor. That one was Nimitz and Nimitz never had a problem with it. What the americans (And Adm. King) never did was to ask the Royal Navy to get involved - but as soon as the Royal Navy wanted to join the fight against Japan with their carriers, they were welcome to do so.
The british never did it until 1945. Paint it the way you want, try to make it seem what it was not , the mere fact here is that the RN didn't feel ready to operate in the Pacific in strenght until then. That's the crude reality of it.
Dorn: She was part of force of 3 carriers (on memory I think one was just only ferry aircrafts). It is quite difference against to be sole carrier responsible for air defences. If you compare you need to have similar conditions.
Your literal quote:
Turns out that yes, she was used in the most dangerous zones (and several times at that), exactly as Illustrious would've been used (HMS Victorious was Illustrious' sister ship and also part of those convoys, so indeed Eagle was used in the same role as the Illustrious carriers) but now suddenly what somehow matters is that she was part of a force with more carriers?
Stop bullshiting everyone in this discussion, here. Stop it.
Stop.making.excuses.for.your.wrong.statements.
You were wrong. You have been proven wrong (in this thing and in many others). You keep on running away from admitting you were wrong and are constantly trying to make stuff to save face and not admit you were wrong.
Look, a couple posts back I made a wrong comment, saying no stukas were lost in the attack to Illustrious. I made that statement without checking my sources and talking off memory. I made a mistake, you told me about it, my answer was not twisting what I said to make it seem as I was wright - I openly stated "my mistake"
Please LEARN TO DO THE SAME ALREADY. It's about time you do, because this discussion is dragging heading nowhere because each time I point out at how, exactly, you're making wrong claims, you try to divert attention in any way you can to try to save face. It's useless to have an honest debate with someone that makes wrong claims yet plainly refuses to admit he's been proven wrong.
Dorn: I do not disagree that for Illustrious, but not for Indomitable and especially for Implacables. However in early years in Mediterranean when Axis had overwhelming strike capabilities more important was providing air cover than strike power. . .
Not important in European theatre.
The Royal Navy was the navy of the UK, a worlwide empire spanning the whole globe, and one that knew the japanese empire was growing even more threatening as time went by.
That some of their most important assets (namely, battleships and carriers) were strangled for fuel when it came down to operate in the Far East, a tremendously important theater of operations for the navy (Singapore was "the crown's asiatic jewel", India was what gave the King of England the title of Emperor, and the UK had colonies and dominions all across the pacific) couldnt' cope with an hypotetical conflict against Japan was an unforgivable design flaw. Both on the RN carriers AND the King George V.
Yes, I know about the treaties. Yet I also know the US also was bound by them, yet they produced a class of long range, treaty compliant, 16'' gunned fast battleships (The North Carolinas), and a class of long range, treaty compliant, fleet carriers (The Yorktowns). The treaties are no excuse. Poor design work (result of extreme mismanagement by the political levels of the Royal Navy and the political mingling into navy matters by the UK government itself) is poor design work. Even when the poor designers involved in the process and forced to produce viable designs when constrained by stupid demands like the completely failure the "armored carrier" concept was did the best they could given the situation. It wasn't their fault, because, for all other purposes, they were excellent designers (as they went on to prove once their shackles were removed and designed engineering superb marvels like amongst many others, HMS Vanguard or HMS Malta, even if the latter was cancelled).
Dorn: How you come to this? They operated dive bombers.
If you count the Skua as such, then they operated hopeless, awful and atrocious divebombers then. So awful and atrocious that they were retired from active service on the carrier fleet ASAP.
No other carrier based, british designed, FAA WWII attack plane was a divebomber. The Barracuda was supposed to be able to do it but the aircraft fluttered so bad with the dive brakes deployed that it they never were used operationally in that role, instead used as either a torpedo bomber or a conventional light bomber (very much like the TBM Avenger was used, just being a lot worse at it).
So no, for all practical and realistic purposes the RN carriers didn't operate dive bombers, not since the Skua was retired from the carriers (and that had already happened by late 1940). Even when given US lend-lease aircraft the RN carriers embarked Avengers, not SBDs neither (thankfully because the plane was a dog) Helldivers - which they could have, had they wanted to.
Dorn: in 1942, 1-2 year after most fighting in the Mediterranean. You need to compare same time period else you can tell that Essex was because of Midways.
Wrong again. USS Yorktown was fittted with the CXAM Radar set in September of 1940, the sixth ship in the fleet to be given one such set.
Lexington, Saratoga, Enterprise and Wasp were fitted with CXAM-1 in Autumn 1941.
dude, seriously, you just don't know about the topic you're talking about. Just stop. For your own sake.
Dorn: most of carriers get this radar at end of 1941, I am awere only about Yorktown which had this radar earlier. But if I am not wrong (just by memory) this radar had lower capabilities of air tracking distance that used by RN.
Two posts ago, you wrote the following quote:
Proving that once again you wrote something that was plainly wrong, yet now "suddenly" you of course were very much well aware that those ships had radars. And no matter how your so-claimed "lower capabilities" of the american radar set were compared with the british one, they were more than good enough to give accurate and invaluable information to the american carriers during both the Coral Sea engagement, and the battle of Midway.
once more you're doing the same - you lack the knowledge about what you're talking about, and when caught in a blatant error, you try to save face by making excuse and deviating attention.
Please stop it already. It's getting old.
|
|