Lets see what you guys think about the fleet aircraft carriers of the WW2.
Conditions are - over 30 aircraft, and over 25 knots speed, operational by august 1945. Slight differences (long/short nosed Essex) are counted as the same class, large mods like Soryu/Hiryu are different classes.
Which is the best fleet aircraft carrier class of WW2?
Moderators: Timmy C, Gernot, Olaf Held, JWintjes
-
PetrOs
- PetrOs Modellbau
- Posts: 1822
- Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:58 am
- Location: Munich, Germany
- Contact:
-
PetrOs
- PetrOs Modellbau
- Posts: 1822
- Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:58 am
- Location: Munich, Germany
- Contact:
-
Dan K
- Posts: 9049
- Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:56 am
- Location: New York City
-
PetrOs
- PetrOs Modellbau
- Posts: 1822
- Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:58 am
- Location: Munich, Germany
- Contact:
-
Walt
- Posts: 250
- Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 7:02 pm
- Location: Connecticut
-
Lesforan
- Posts: 559
- Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 7:22 pm
- Location: Ogallala, Nebraska, USA
Best carrier?
PetrOs,
One may fairly ask, "best for what?", or "best in what way?'.
But I voted for Essex class anyway.
At the time, only 6 votes had been cast, for only 3 classes.
Tayho, as you know, was destroyed in a catastrophic explosion while under attack. Apparently, fuel lines carrying aviation gasoline ruptured in the hanger, causing the enclosed space to fill with explosive fumes. This may have been human error (not shutting off and purging the fuel lines when attacked), or the result of a design flaw.
Ark Royal, while one of my favorite ships, didn't really have a long enough battle history to prove the design. She was a beautiful thing.
When she was sunk as a result of a torpedo attack, only one crewmember was killed. This could very well have been a testiment to her good design.
But the Essex class would have to be the winner here in my opinion. Not only were they evolutionary development of the Yorktown class, but their speed and durability, as well as ability to operate sustained flight operations, speak well of the design.
But what is their strongest point is their longevity. This class was so well designed that the original ships were able to be modified to carry aircraft far more capable than those they were designed to carry. The class was not only rebuilt with angled decks and enclosed bows, but were built into both attack carriers and ASW carriers (and don't forget CV16 Lexington's service as a floating flight school).
One may fairly ask, "best for what?", or "best in what way?'.
But I voted for Essex class anyway.
At the time, only 6 votes had been cast, for only 3 classes.
Tayho, as you know, was destroyed in a catastrophic explosion while under attack. Apparently, fuel lines carrying aviation gasoline ruptured in the hanger, causing the enclosed space to fill with explosive fumes. This may have been human error (not shutting off and purging the fuel lines when attacked), or the result of a design flaw.
Ark Royal, while one of my favorite ships, didn't really have a long enough battle history to prove the design. She was a beautiful thing.
When she was sunk as a result of a torpedo attack, only one crewmember was killed. This could very well have been a testiment to her good design.
But the Essex class would have to be the winner here in my opinion. Not only were they evolutionary development of the Yorktown class, but their speed and durability, as well as ability to operate sustained flight operations, speak well of the design.
But what is their strongest point is their longevity. This class was so well designed that the original ships were able to be modified to carry aircraft far more capable than those they were designed to carry. The class was not only rebuilt with angled decks and enclosed bows, but were built into both attack carriers and ASW carriers (and don't forget CV16 Lexington's service as a floating flight school).
Les Foran
On the Oregon Trail
On the Oregon Trail
-
RNfanDan
- Posts: 862
- Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 3:17 pm
- Location: EN83
This question has been raised before. It all comes down to the ships' design and operating environments being matched well. In the vast Pacific, the Essex class were arguably the best, and their design reflected their intended strategic and operational purposes. I wouldn't bet on them surviving in an Axis-controlled Mediterranean, however.
Almost diametrically opposing this, were the armored-deck British carriers of the Illustrious class, not well-suited at all to Pacific operations, but arguably the best carriers for the close confines of the Med., where land-based planes from two enemies were a constant threat.
The poll is also a bit convoluted, in my opinion--many of the ships listed weren't "classes", while others were. I feel that a ship class should be defined as more than one vessel. For example, Wasp (CV-7) wasn't part of a larger ship class, but a means of using-up leftover treaty tonnage in a positive way. No subsequent carriers of her design were either planned or built.
Shinano, Kaga and Akagi were all converted capital ships, as were Lexington (CV-2) and Saratoga. However, as the latter ships were both completed to a common design, they are worthy of the moniker. The three Japanese ships were not intended to be repeated.
Taiho and Ark Royal, like Wasp (CV-7), were also one-offs; each was the only one of its kind to be built and none belonged to a larger class.
Soryu and Hiryu, although slightly different, were actually of the same class--so were Illustrious and Indomitable. On the other hand, Indefatigable was an Implacable-class carrier, neither part of the Illustrious class, nor the name-ship of her own class. (whew!)
Anyway, since the issue is not only complex but has been defined in such terms, there really is no single "best".
Almost diametrically opposing this, were the armored-deck British carriers of the Illustrious class, not well-suited at all to Pacific operations, but arguably the best carriers for the close confines of the Med., where land-based planes from two enemies were a constant threat.
The poll is also a bit convoluted, in my opinion--many of the ships listed weren't "classes", while others were. I feel that a ship class should be defined as more than one vessel. For example, Wasp (CV-7) wasn't part of a larger ship class, but a means of using-up leftover treaty tonnage in a positive way. No subsequent carriers of her design were either planned or built.
Shinano, Kaga and Akagi were all converted capital ships, as were Lexington (CV-2) and Saratoga. However, as the latter ships were both completed to a common design, they are worthy of the moniker. The three Japanese ships were not intended to be repeated.
Taiho and Ark Royal, like Wasp (CV-7), were also one-offs; each was the only one of its kind to be built and none belonged to a larger class.
Soryu and Hiryu, although slightly different, were actually of the same class--so were Illustrious and Indomitable. On the other hand, Indefatigable was an Implacable-class carrier, neither part of the Illustrious class, nor the name-ship of her own class. (whew!)
Anyway, since the issue is not only complex but has been defined in such terms, there really is no single "best".
-
Werner
- Posts: 2299
- Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:10 am
- Location: (42.24,-87.81)
It comes down to fire.
A carrier is a holocaust waiting to happen. Only the last few Essex and the earlier ones as refit in 1945 were satisfactory.
A carrier is meant to carry airplanes. The more the better. After 70 or so, the next most important features are fire mains, sprinklers, fog and foam.
At Midway, the fires on the Japanese carriers were fairly small for five or ten minutes. The fire mains had all ruptured, though, and there was no way to put the fires out.
Early Essex were a smoke deathtrap. They fixed that in the refits. Of course, these early ships would still survive damage that would sink nearly any other ship in the world, irrespective of type.
If you want to disregard the survivability of the ship and the people on it, we can talk about Victorious or Taiho. As a package, only those late Essex are satisfactory.
A carrier is a holocaust waiting to happen. Only the last few Essex and the earlier ones as refit in 1945 were satisfactory.
A carrier is meant to carry airplanes. The more the better. After 70 or so, the next most important features are fire mains, sprinklers, fog and foam.
At Midway, the fires on the Japanese carriers were fairly small for five or ten minutes. The fire mains had all ruptured, though, and there was no way to put the fires out.
Early Essex were a smoke deathtrap. They fixed that in the refits. Of course, these early ships would still survive damage that would sink nearly any other ship in the world, irrespective of type.
If you want to disregard the survivability of the ship and the people on it, we can talk about Victorious or Taiho. As a package, only those late Essex are satisfactory.
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.
-- "A Nation at Risk" (1983)
-- "A Nation at Risk" (1983)
-
Seasick
- Posts: 1550
- Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 8:58 pm
- Location: Houston, Texas
The Essex class was the best overall design. The USN got the idea about fire; though it wasn't finally cured untill the 1970s.
USN:
1. Essex class is the best.
2. Yorktown class is second.
3. Wasp was a half-cooked Essex.
4. The Independance class CVL was a conversion acceptable but not awesome.
5. The Lexington (CV-2) class was no more effective than a Yorktown but on a larger displacement.
6. The CVE types were all good for their limited rolls. The Saramongas were head and sholders above the rest.
7. Ranger was the worst of the built from the keel up carriers.
Marine National (France):
1. Bearn was a nearly useless as a fleet carrier. She spent the war mainly as a aircraft ferry.
Kriegsmarine:
1. Graf Zepplin: A disaster waiting to happen. Never finished and had a list when launched.
Royal Navy:
Furious, Courageous, and Glorious were miserable as 'Cruisers' and only acceptable as carriers. They were worn out when WW2 started. Furious went into reserve in 1944.
Eagle, Hermes, and Argus survived in service to the beginning of ww2 by fiscal miricle. Already old and worn out, they operated as very light carriers. Argus was the only survivor of the group and was decomissioned in 1945.
Ark Royal: A short and tormented career, she had lots of good features.
The Illustrious class had needed armor but the later units after Victorious were a little to heavily armored.
I'll consider the IJN later.
USN:
1. Essex class is the best.
2. Yorktown class is second.
3. Wasp was a half-cooked Essex.
4. The Independance class CVL was a conversion acceptable but not awesome.
5. The Lexington (CV-2) class was no more effective than a Yorktown but on a larger displacement.
6. The CVE types were all good for their limited rolls. The Saramongas were head and sholders above the rest.
7. Ranger was the worst of the built from the keel up carriers.
Marine National (France):
1. Bearn was a nearly useless as a fleet carrier. She spent the war mainly as a aircraft ferry.
Kriegsmarine:
1. Graf Zepplin: A disaster waiting to happen. Never finished and had a list when launched.
Royal Navy:
Furious, Courageous, and Glorious were miserable as 'Cruisers' and only acceptable as carriers. They were worn out when WW2 started. Furious went into reserve in 1944.
Eagle, Hermes, and Argus survived in service to the beginning of ww2 by fiscal miricle. Already old and worn out, they operated as very light carriers. Argus was the only survivor of the group and was decomissioned in 1945.
Ark Royal: A short and tormented career, she had lots of good features.
The Illustrious class had needed armor but the later units after Victorious were a little to heavily armored.
I'll consider the IJN later.
???????
? Seasick?
???????
? Seasick?
???????
-
Werner
- Posts: 2299
- Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:10 am
- Location: (42.24,-87.81)
Ark Royal was the most like the American pattern of the lot. As for British armored flight decks, the 1943 Malta class had open sided hangers and minimal deck armor, a complete cop to US practice. I'm sure this was not done to make Americans happy, but because the Admiralty and the DNC considered the American design superior.
Could we make a list of the misspelled ship names?
Sometimes it's the tiny features that make the difference. I met a guy who served on Saratoga. After Coral Sea, they installed a jeep engine on a sled just above the aviation tanks. The exhaust pipe output into the fuel tank. His job was to make sure it ran all the time. The result was no aviation fuel fire on Saratoga.
After Midway, according to Shattered Sword, the IJN kept the enlisted and warrant officers away from the Navy and did not interview them. Their existence was a source of humiliation. Lessons like the one for Saratoga were lost to them.
Could we make a list of the misspelled ship names?
Sometimes it's the tiny features that make the difference. I met a guy who served on Saratoga. After Coral Sea, they installed a jeep engine on a sled just above the aviation tanks. The exhaust pipe output into the fuel tank. His job was to make sure it ran all the time. The result was no aviation fuel fire on Saratoga.
After Midway, according to Shattered Sword, the IJN kept the enlisted and warrant officers away from the Navy and did not interview them. Their existence was a source of humiliation. Lessons like the one for Saratoga were lost to them.
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.
-- "A Nation at Risk" (1983)
-- "A Nation at Risk" (1983)
-
bengtsson
- Posts: 868
- Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 9:32 pm
- Location: northern Minnesota
early war carriers: Ark Royal for the Atlantic
Victorious for the Med.
Shokaku
Enterprise tie for pacific
later war Essex for all but the Medit.
Question: why all nations built the enclosed hanger decks [i.e. part of the hull body], and the USN built the open flight deck. In other words a complete hull with attached flight deck. More planes of course, but why else?
My favorite carrier on just personal likes: Ark Royal
Bob B.
Victorious for the Med.
Shokaku
Enterprise tie for pacific
later war Essex for all but the Medit.
Question: why all nations built the enclosed hanger decks [i.e. part of the hull body], and the USN built the open flight deck. In other words a complete hull with attached flight deck. More planes of course, but why else?
My favorite carrier on just personal likes: Ark Royal
Bob B.
-
ArizonaBB39
- Posts: 1321
- Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 7:29 pm
- Location: Tempe, Arizona
- Contact:
-
Lesforan
- Posts: 559
- Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 7:22 pm
- Location: Ogallala, Nebraska, USA
Carrier design
Hi Guys,
I think it is interesting to note that as the war progressed, and the British and American navies had a chance to evaluate each other's designs, each one thought the other side had better ideas.
For instance, the British moved from armored-decked carriers to minimal deck armor (Malta class) while the Americans introduced deck armor (Midway class).
As to why the Americans didn't make the hanger integral with the hull: by adding the hanger above the hull, a larger hanger could be constructed, both in length and width. By not extending the hull sides up alongside this, weight could be saved and the hanger would be more "airy". USN carrier hangers were (are) equipped with lightweight roller doors and many large openings. The doors could be raised and engines run up safely while still in the hanger. The first Essex class carriers could even launch planes (to a limited extent) out of the hanger! This was to enable scouts to be launched without disturbing planes spotted on the deck above.
Conversely, the British carriers did have their hangers enclosed by the hull sides. While this made for a smaller hanger, many British carriers used a double hanger in a two-storey arrangement.
British carriers always carried fewer planes than USN carriers of comparable size. This was not so much because of hanger space, but because of operating procedures. It was British practice to bring the planes up for launching shortly before operations, and to strike them below as they landed. This had the effect of keeping the flight deck clear, minimizing collisions if something went wrong. Also, by keeping the planes safe in their hangers below an armored flight deck, They were much less vulnerable to an unexpected air attack.
The Japanese, who liked to copy British practice as much as possible, operated the same way. It is indeed ironic that at the point of their greatest defeat, the Battle of Midway, their carriers were caught with their aircraft on deck exposed.
The British (and the Japanese, of course) also tried the trick of flying aircraft out of the hanger. In this case, the carriers had a short flight deck extending straight out the forward end of the hanger, in addition to the main flight deck above. This practice was pretty much abandoned by the start of WWII. Apparently it was outweighed by the advantage of having a longer flight deck topside.
The Americans, of course, followed the practice of keeping as many planes as possible parked on the flight deck. This led to a lot of plane handling but allowed more to be carried.
Before I end this post, I want to comment that the British lead the world in carrier innovation. Many of the features of American carriers were developed by the British: steam catapults; optical landing aids; angled flight decks are three that come to mind immediately, and I know there are many more.
I think it is interesting to note that as the war progressed, and the British and American navies had a chance to evaluate each other's designs, each one thought the other side had better ideas.
For instance, the British moved from armored-decked carriers to minimal deck armor (Malta class) while the Americans introduced deck armor (Midway class).
As to why the Americans didn't make the hanger integral with the hull: by adding the hanger above the hull, a larger hanger could be constructed, both in length and width. By not extending the hull sides up alongside this, weight could be saved and the hanger would be more "airy". USN carrier hangers were (are) equipped with lightweight roller doors and many large openings. The doors could be raised and engines run up safely while still in the hanger. The first Essex class carriers could even launch planes (to a limited extent) out of the hanger! This was to enable scouts to be launched without disturbing planes spotted on the deck above.
Conversely, the British carriers did have their hangers enclosed by the hull sides. While this made for a smaller hanger, many British carriers used a double hanger in a two-storey arrangement.
British carriers always carried fewer planes than USN carriers of comparable size. This was not so much because of hanger space, but because of operating procedures. It was British practice to bring the planes up for launching shortly before operations, and to strike them below as they landed. This had the effect of keeping the flight deck clear, minimizing collisions if something went wrong. Also, by keeping the planes safe in their hangers below an armored flight deck, They were much less vulnerable to an unexpected air attack.
The Japanese, who liked to copy British practice as much as possible, operated the same way. It is indeed ironic that at the point of their greatest defeat, the Battle of Midway, their carriers were caught with their aircraft on deck exposed.
The British (and the Japanese, of course) also tried the trick of flying aircraft out of the hanger. In this case, the carriers had a short flight deck extending straight out the forward end of the hanger, in addition to the main flight deck above. This practice was pretty much abandoned by the start of WWII. Apparently it was outweighed by the advantage of having a longer flight deck topside.
The Americans, of course, followed the practice of keeping as many planes as possible parked on the flight deck. This led to a lot of plane handling but allowed more to be carried.
Before I end this post, I want to comment that the British lead the world in carrier innovation. Many of the features of American carriers were developed by the British: steam catapults; optical landing aids; angled flight decks are three that come to mind immediately, and I know there are many more.
Les Foran
On the Oregon Trail
On the Oregon Trail
-
RNfanDan
- Posts: 862
- Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 3:17 pm
- Location: EN83
Danny DON'T "waterline"...!-
Lesforan
- Posts: 559
- Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 7:22 pm
- Location: Ogallala, Nebraska, USA
Toting Planes
Dan,
I'm sure Werner meant operational aircraft, as in from the ship.
You can sure pack 'em in if you don't have to fly 'em off.
Take, for instance the original US carrier CV1, USS Langley. This thing didn't even have a hanger. The planes were stowed disassembled in the hold, brought up and assembled for flight. Not a good idea if you have to scramble a CAP. (NASCAR pit crews were not around then).
This ship was converted into a seaplane tender, then into an aircraft transport. Even this ship could carry a good number of planes if she didn't have to launch them.
Another example was the French aircraft carrier Bearn. This converted battleship was either too small or too slow for regular carrier ops, so it was used as an aircraft transport. After the war, I think the French may have used it as a carrier.
No discussion of this subject should go without mention of the funkiest carriers of all. These would be the HMS Furious (many ideas and configurations of this one), and, most of all, the only two paddle-wheel driven carriers in the world, operating in Lake Michigan (what were they named, Werner? What finally happened to them?)
I'm sure Werner meant operational aircraft, as in from the ship.
You can sure pack 'em in if you don't have to fly 'em off.
Take, for instance the original US carrier CV1, USS Langley. This thing didn't even have a hanger. The planes were stowed disassembled in the hold, brought up and assembled for flight. Not a good idea if you have to scramble a CAP. (NASCAR pit crews were not around then).
This ship was converted into a seaplane tender, then into an aircraft transport. Even this ship could carry a good number of planes if she didn't have to launch them.
Another example was the French aircraft carrier Bearn. This converted battleship was either too small or too slow for regular carrier ops, so it was used as an aircraft transport. After the war, I think the French may have used it as a carrier.
No discussion of this subject should go without mention of the funkiest carriers of all. These would be the HMS Furious (many ideas and configurations of this one), and, most of all, the only two paddle-wheel driven carriers in the world, operating in Lake Michigan (what were they named, Werner? What finally happened to them?)
Les Foran
On the Oregon Trail
On the Oregon Trail
-
chuck
- Posts: 3384
- Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:21 pm
- Location: equidistant to everywhere
Uhem. Malta was derisively refered by the DNC as the furniture van design.Werner wrote:Ark Royal was the most like the American pattern of the lot. As for British armored flight decks, the 1943 Malta class had open sided hangers and minimal deck armor, a complete cop to US practice. I'm sure this was not done to make Americans happy, but because the Admiralty and the DNC considered the American design superior.
Malta class was a reflection of British view that the air wing of a certain size, made up of aircraft of certain type, is the minimum that would be viable. It also reflect the understanding that British resource was not up to the challenge of building a proper carrier of the necessary size to accommodate it. Furniture van is the only tool for that end all that could be afforded at the moment.
-
Werner
- Posts: 2299
- Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:10 am
- Location: (42.24,-87.81)
Er, we're both speaking of the 60,000 ton 900 foot carrier?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malta_clas ... ft_carrier
I don't see anything at all to be ashamed of in the Malta.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malta_clas ... ft_carrier
I don't see anything at all to be ashamed of in the Malta.
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.
-- "A Nation at Risk" (1983)
-- "A Nation at Risk" (1983)
-
RNfanDan
- Posts: 862
- Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 3:17 pm
- Location: EN83
Re: Toting Planes
Yeah, I was just pickin' on him...but I do want to stress something easily overlooked here: It took a helluva lot more to disable the flight operations of a British armored carrier, than a US or IJN one of that era. The famous comment made about the Brit carriers operating in the Pacific, by a US naval officer aboard one--something about kamikazes hitting a US carrier and it's six months in Pearl, but on the RN carrier it's "Sweepers, man your brooms!"--speaks to this issue.Lesforan wrote:Dan,
I'm sure Werner meant operational aircraft, as in from the ship.
You can sure pack 'em in if you don't have to fly 'em off.
Furious was a great success, as it turned out. I think this is one of Jim Baumann's "adopted children", a beautiful build he did of the ship and featured here at MW. At any rate it was, loosely, an aircraft carrier equivalent to HMS Warspite. Both finished a very busy war service, worn-out and obsolete but boy, did they ever earn their keep!No discussion of this subject should go without mention of the funkiest carriers of all. These would be the HMS Furious (many ideas and configurations of this one), and, most of all, the only two paddle-wheel driven carriers in the world, operating in Lake Michigan (what were they named(?)
I believe one of those Great Lakers was named "Wolverine" and, like that similarly-named football team, wasn't capable of operating in the state of Ohio....
Last edited by RNfanDan on Sun Nov 19, 2006 12:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Seasick
- Posts: 1550
- Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 8:58 pm
- Location: Houston, Texas
) just chugged along. Admiral Fisher was nuts to build her but she managed to have a useful career as an aircaft-carrier. -
chuck
- Posts: 3384
- Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:21 pm
- Location: equidistant to everywhere
Actually, it's a 45,000 ton, 900 foot carrier. It was substantially smaller than what the Admiralty initially wanted, which was a ship capable of carrying 120 fully modern aircraft (Sea furies and the like, not Swordfishes) all under full top and side armor inside a hull hanger, with room to accommodate further growth in aircraft size expected while the ships are under construction.Werner wrote:Er, we're both speaking of the 60,000 ton 900 foot carrier?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malta_clas ... ft_carrier
I don't see anything at all to be ashamed of in the Malta.