PDA

View Full Version : brit carrier!!



fordfan25
10-08-2004, 10:55 AM
just seen the tech vid for the first time and wow does that britsh carrier look kool. from what i could see of it it looks like an awsome design i like the way thay placed the AA guns.were can i get some info on that thing does any one have any links? Ill try googling it at any rate. how did it rate aginst jap and yank carriers of its time? looked strang to me seeing spits takeing off from it lol

fordfan25
10-08-2004, 10:55 AM
just seen the tech vid for the first time and wow does that britsh carrier look kool. from what i could see of it it looks like an awsome design i like the way thay placed the AA guns.were can i get some info on that thing does any one have any links? Ill try googling it at any rate. how did it rate aginst jap and yank carriers of its time? looked strang to me seeing spits takeing off from it lol

Snootles
10-08-2004, 11:55 AM
The British were basically the first to introduce armored-deck carriers, and they were very hard to damage severely (none were lost). In fact, the unofficial cry of British carrier sailors in the Pacific was, "Gentlemen, man your brooms!" Referring to sweeping Kamikaze wrecks off the armored deck.

owlwatcher
10-08-2004, 02:32 PM
The armored-deck design was great for bomb protextion.
The weakness though from my reading was the torpedo protextion.

When hit with a torpedo the design seem to come apart at the seams. Wish I could explain it or find the link that did so.

None of the Essex class were lost ether.
though badly damaged.

If you look at the CVs that were hit , most of the time it was the armed planes on deck or in the hanger that was the culprit of a quick kill or very heavy damage to a CV.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
10-08-2004, 03:41 PM
Salute

The U.S. Carriers were much more vulnerable.

There may have not been any ESSEX class carriers officially lost, but the FRANKLIN was complete junk by the time the Kamikazes got finished with her. British Carriers took similar type hits from Kamikazes and were either operationally within hours, or within a month or so.

All Carriers were vulnerable to torpedoes, not just the British. A 2,000 lb explosive device is nasty. Bombs carried in Air to Sea attack roles did not exceed 1000 lbs in WWII. (excluding things like the mistel or the guided German missiles)

fordfan25
10-08-2004, 03:46 PM
didnt the essex have the heavest aa fire power for a carrier durring the war? not to take away from the brit design just asking.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
10-08-2004, 03:53 PM
Salute

The ESSEX class had definite advantages over the Brit Carriers, the biggest being that it carried approx. 80 aircraft as compared to the Illustrious's 45.

The armoured flight deck imposed definite penalties in the available hanger space and the elevator design.

The British Carriers were designed to deal with the realities of the Mediterranean. It is a very small sea area compared to the Pacific, and Carriers can be hit from land bases much more easily, spotted more easily, and cannnot hide as easily.

I think USN carriers operating in the Med in '41 and '42 would have had serious problems if they went into harm's way.

The USS WASP was in the Med for a while during this time period, but it stayed away from getting too close to German air range, contenting itself with flying off Spitfires for Malta at long range.

Giganoni
10-08-2004, 04:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fordfan25:
didnt the essex have the heavest aa fire power for a carrier durring the war? not to take away from the brit design just asking. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Shinano (which we are supposedly getting) would have probably eclipsed the Essex in sheer firepower. 16 5 in DPs, 145 25mm aa! And 12 28 barreled rocket launcher AA. Which is 336 rockets. However, Bofors were certainly better AA guns than the 25mm aa, so probably the Essex had the more effective AA. Knowing WWII rockets I doubt the rocket aa would have been too accurate, but fire enough of them and it will hit something. Shinano was more of a defense carrier anyway.

This does beg the question that if the Shinano is still being planned, will it have rocket aa.

scootertgm
10-08-2004, 04:53 PM
336 rockets being fired... can you say laaaaaaagggg

Spitf_ACE
10-08-2004, 05:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by scootertgm:
336 rockets being fired... can you say laaaaaaagggg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know, how should all those g's sound? Is it the same as just one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

MEGILE
10-08-2004, 05:47 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif