Better luck for the RN carrier force 1939-1941

[Admiral Beez]

Ark Royal was most likely doomed once that single torp had hit her. Due to a mix of lucky hit in the worst possible location with construction faults any damage control effort may have only slowed her sinking but could not prevent it.
Restarting the engines to provide power for pumps proved fatal for the structurally weakened ship, torp hit and long delay to stop engines after hit had inflicted a lot of hull damage.

It's a rare event that an aircraft carrier is sunk by a single torpedo hit. IJNS Taihō is another example, with a single torpedo in combination with poor designs for avgas stowage and venting, plus poor decisions saw Japan's latest carrier sunk by a single fish.

Looking at the list of fleet carriers (excluding light, escort and merchant aircraft carriers) sunk by torpedoes, perhaps IJNS Unryū would also have sunk from the single torpedo, as it was in deep trouble until the second torpedo ignited the Okha kamikaze aircraft on-board and blew the ship in two. I'm sure HMS Eagle didn't need four torpedo hits to doom her, especially as WW1 era designs did not age well in under water protection). Otherwise, it's a rare thing for a single torpedo to sink a fleet carrier.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Skua II had folding wings vs fixed wings on Val and SBD-3 [edit: folding wing tips on the Val]

SBD-3 was ~25% heavier than a Skua II

Basically, if the IJN and/or USN had used Skuas at Midway, the results would very likely have been the same.

If the IJN had folding Skuas instead of fixed wing Vals, wouldn't they have more aircraft? That has to make a difference.

 

[fastmongrel]

If the IJN had folding Skuas instead of fixed wing Vals, wouldn't they have more aircraft? That has to make a difference.

The Skua going by my 1/72 scale model folded to 10 ft (3m) x 36 ft (11m) so roughly 2 Skuas per Val in the hangar.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The Skua going by my 1/72 scale model folded to 10 ft (3m) x 36 ft (11m) so roughly 2 Skuas per Val in the hangar.

Which makes a big difference. Just look at the Vals taking all the space below. And folding wings would allow easier movement of aircraft and it appears two Skuas per lift.

It's thus surprising to me that the USN went from the folding Vought SB2U to the non-folding Douglas SBD and then back to folding on the Curtiss SB2C. I don't believe the Royal Navy, from 1917's Sopwith Cuckoo through the entirety of WW2 ever operated a non-folding strike aircraft on their carriers, likely to keep fragile biplanes out of the North Sea weather.

 

[fastmongrel]

I think the Japanese preferred not to increase aircraft weight by having wing folding mechanisms. This changed in later designs.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I think the Japanese preferred not to increase aircraft weight by having wing folding mechanisms. This changed in later designs.

For dive bombers yes, but every monoplane (and I believe biplanes too) torpedo bomber that served on a Japanese carrier had folding wings.

Nakajima B5N Kate

Nakajima B6N Tenzan

Aichi B7A Ryusei (multirole torpedo / divebomber)

 

[Denniss]

Folding wing might me too much stress for pull-out from near-vertical dive. Or too much weight gained by strengthening the folding mechanism to survive pull-out

 

[Admiral Beez]

Folding wing might me too much stress for pull-out from near-vertical dive. Or too much weight gained by strengthening the folding mechanism to survive pull-out

You're probably right, and early Japanese carrier aircraft do seem to be built more daintily than British or US types. For example, accordingly to Wikipedia, an empty Aichi D3A weighs 5,309 lb, compared to an empty (and smaller) Blackburn Skua at 5,496 lb. and much heavier empty Douglas Dauntless at 6,404 lb.

Looking at the A6M Zero, its empty weight of 3,704 lb is lower than anything the British put on a carrier since the 3,217 lb (empty) Gloster Gladiator. The Fairey Swordfish, which is basically metal tubes and canvas with an engine stuck to the front weighs 4,195 lb empty.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Courageous and Ark Royal weren't lost needlessly, it was bad luck and inadequate damage control, while on a mission.

The other two I would agree with.

Looking back on this older thread. Yes, I agree bad luck rather than needlessly risky use was the deciding factor. When Courageous was sunk in 1939 the Germans had a total of twenty-six blue water U-boats. The odds of one being in the right place was slim.

When I originally conceived of this thread my thoughts were of having two additional carriers for the 1940 Oran/Mers El-Kebir and Taranto raids and battle of Calabria, the 1941 Battles of Taranto and Denmark Strait, followed by three additional carriers in the Med and Indo-Pacific into 1942.

 

[Shortround6]

When Courageous was sunk in 1939 the Germans had a total of twenty-six blue water U-boats. The odds of one being in the right place was slim.

bad luck rather than needlessly risky use was the deciding factor

You can't have it both ways. If the Germans only had 26 blue water U-boats (defined how?) then the Courageous had a slim chance of actually finding one and doing anything about it.
If the Courageous has a chance of finding and attacking one of these scarce U-boats then the U-boat has a chance of finding and attacking the Courageous.
Trading even two or three U-boats of around 2100 tons for a 24,000 ton fast fleet carrier is a poor trade.
Sending such a valauble asset out with only 4 destroyers as the rest of it's hunter/killer group is not bad luck, it was needlessly risky.

 

[fastmongrel]

Sending such a valauble asset out with only 4 destroyers as the rest of it's hunter/killer group is not bad luck, it was needlessly risky.

It was even worse 2 of the Destroyers were off assisting a merchant vessel.

 

[Shortround6]

It was even worse 2 of the Destroyers were off assisting a merchant vessel.

Exactly, you need destroyers (or escorts) in sufficient numbers to prosecute one or more contacts (subs spotted by aircraft) while assisting at least one damaged merchant ship (or rescuing survivors) while still having an effective (for the time) screen around the carrier. Two destroyers to send out from the group for whatever duty and two left to guard the carrier was an insufficient number. Poor planning, needlessly risky.

 

[swampyankee]

That not-so-old study of operations research found hunter-killer operations were not a good way of dealing with submarines, as search and detection technologies just weren't good enough. Better to convoy and let the subs come to the bait.

 

[Admiral Beez]

It was even worse 2 of the Destroyers were off assisting a merchant vessel.

Courageous isn't getting off scot-free for her negligent use. We're just letting her get to port instead of sinking. But Courageous has taken two torpedo hits causing significant, near-fatal damage. It'll be a year before she's ready to sail again I'd guess.

I am wondering about the damage two torpedoes might have done whilst still enabling Courageous to get to shore. Ark Royal was sunk by a single hit, Eagle sunk by four hits, though one or two might have sufficed. Here's a good review of the damage from a single torpedo hitting the more robustly-built HMS Indomitable. Presumably the two hits on Courageous would need to be far apart, so not to break her back or to cause quickly uncontrollable flooding.

I'll suggest one hit in the port bows... about where the ladder is.

And the other impacting against the portside anti-torpedo bulge, near the ladder. These two hits should cause a lot of damage but enable Courageous to run under her own steam for home.

With bows that now look like USS St. Louis or USS New Orleans, the carrier Courageous will need all her luck and courage to make across the Irish Sea.

The trip home will be an epic story of seamanship and courage. Look at where Courageous was when hit, approximately 395 nautical miles from HM Dockyard in Devonport, equal to fifty hours sailing at eight knots. Maybe Swansea in Wales is the better option, it's about twenty miles further, but the Bristol Channel may present better seas. The RN might need to beach Courageous at the first sight of friendly shores.

 

[fastmongrel]

Great photos. When built the class wasn't strong enough to fire it's main guns and the first rough sea they encountered tore off rivets and buckled the plating and deck at the bow. I presume they must have been strengthened when they were dry docked for conversion. They had bulges fitted but whether they got improvement in the torpedo defence I don't know.

They had been designed to be one use a way to get big guns into the Baltic sea to support Churchill's and Adm Fishers bonkers plans to invade Germanies northern coast. They were very large Light Cruisers not even as tough as a Battle Cruiser.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Great photos. When built the class wasn't strong enough to fire it's main guns and the first rough sea they encountered tore off rivets and buckled the plating and deck at the bow. I presume they must have been strengthened when they were dry docked for conversion. They had bulges fitted but whether they got improvement in the torpedo defence I don't know.

They had been designed to be one use a way to get big guns into the Baltic sea to support Churchill's and Adm Fishers bonkers plans to invade Germanies northern coast. They were very large Light Cruisers not even as tough as a Battle Cruiser.

They are lightly built for certain. Check out the collision damage to HMS Glorious below. The merchant ship she hit looks like it was made of stronger stuff. HMS Glorious Collision, SS Florida 1938.

But HMS Furious soldiered on into 1944 before being withdrawn as being totally clapped out, granted she was mostly used as an aircraft ferry after taking a machinery-wrecking near miss off Malta during the same op where HMS Eagle was sunk.

 

[fastmongrel]

That's not a bow that's a crumple zone. Everyone thinks SAAB invented the crumple zone but the British naval architects got their first.

 

[Admiral Beez]

That's not a bow that's a crumple zone. Everyone thinks SAAB invented the crumple zone but the British naval architects got their first.

Some good reference pics here https://culturepics.org/on-this-day...+Collections&day=&month=&year=1930#NMMNPB0505

Note how little structure there is forward, especially in the bows. These are lightly built ships.

The first torpedo hit, I propose in the bows between sections 15-33 might well blow straight through both sides causing significant structural damage. The second torpedo hit I propose would hit between sections 135-155, at the aft part of the torpedo bulge. Note from 135-145 her old battlecruiser's sloped torpedo bulkheads remains, which in combination with the bulge may reduce the damage.

And just a little sad, here is the former HMS Furious at the scrap yard.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Another pic, from the public media so likely not accurate. Still fun to click on and zoom in for details.

 

[SaparotRob]

Another pic, from the public media so likely not accurate. Still fun to click on and zoom in for details.

View attachment 601366

You were right. I now know what all that ductwork looks like. I imagine it was even more Byzantine than that with the Lexington class.