Carriers!!

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Hope interesting. I would say that the runs to Malta were hell, but if the convoys were going the long way around up the Red Sea, then why not sit in the way and wait?

Any one know what forces were doing in the Red Sea
 
Hunter368 said:
I am no expert on battleships (like some of you are) but I believe I have read that their battleships were, fast but they (Vittorio Veneto, Caio Duilio and Conte di Cavour) were alittle light on armor. Is that true or no?
Click to expand...

Yes they were very lightly armoured and that was there downfall. They had good firepower and good speed though. After Taranto happened the Italians never really sortied there fleet again.
 
I never said it was a "Milk Run". I have read about the convoys to the Island the invasion that failed. Thanks for the bood I will look for it. Sorry if I sounded cheap or disrespectful
 
The saga of the Ohio is close to unbelievable. A tanker carrying aviation fuel that was hit by a torpedo, caught fire, had at least one German aircraft crash into it (some say two), straddled by bombs, dead in the water and basically made it into harbour by lashing two escorts to it to keep it afloat. You couldn't make it up.

I don't think many people realise that a date had been set for the surrender of Malta and it was this convoy that saved it.
 
Havent been here in half of forever, so thought i would try a post. How does everyone feel about the japanese battleship/carriers? They performed poorly, but the idea does seem sound to me. If they could of angled the deck out to the side they could have used small amounts of wheeled aircraft, fighters or divebombers, not both. But as it was, they screwed everything up. no angled deck, frikkin' seaplanes, and to top it off, they used battleships that were already begging for a refit. they should have done one or the other, fixed the battleship, or made carriers, or angle deck...whats everyone else think?
 
You mean something along the lines of those Soviet Kiev class hybrid cruisers? Hmmm, interesting thought. What would have been the point? You'd really be stuck with a ship that couldn't perform in either role especially well, angled deck or not. It would handle poorly and lack the armament and armour to make an effective battleship, and wouldn't carry the aircraft to make a decent carrier. If you want a carrier, build a carrier. Likewise for a battleship or cruiser.
 
Very true, i was just trying to make the best of a bad descision. I always thought they looked so cool though. Alot like the battlecruiser, it was meant for other times. The battlecruiser was meant for the times before aircraft carriers, and was often misused. A battle/carrier well, hard to tell. Would be good against ungaurded convoys, but anything with guns bigger than eight inches (heavy cruisers) or torpedoes would put the thing under. I love battlecruisers and battle/carriers, something about them is so cool to me. but if you want quality, stick with true battleships/fast battleships, or real carriers.
 
A hybrid battleship/carrier is about the worst possible idea. The whole purpose of an aircraft carrier is to carry as many aircraft as possible so you can stike your enemy far away.

Either you have a full flight deck and hanger to carry the planes, or you do away with it and build a pure battleship/cruiser.
 
I have always liked Japanese Aircraft carriers. I mean, they understood the importance of the carrier. They made some good ones too! Kaga and Akagi, Hiryu and Soryu. Some of them could carry ninety or more aircraft, and the pilots were good. If they had better tactics and their fighters advanced reasonably, they would have stood a better chance of prolonging the war, even after midway. They launched several carriers after midway, and had they kept up with production of better planes, and had a decent pilot training program, they could have put up more of a fight, but they still would have lost. Im just saying, maybe the Marianas turkey shoot wouldnt have been SO one sided. I like the way the Japanese concerted merchant ships and the like, and the way they built new ones, and converted BB hulls. Shinano would have been a damn nice carrier. If they were thinking ahead, they would have converted the Musashi too.
 
Unfortunately the Jap hybrid carriers only carried floatplanes which would have had a life expectancy on minutes in combat. So you do get the worst of all things, a bad battleship and a bad carrier carrying bad aircraft.
If the Japs had looked ahead and not built the Shinano, Musashi or Yamato would anyone like to guess how many Hiryu's they could have built? Total guess but I reckon six wouldn't be a bad estimate.
That could well have tipped the balance.

As for coverted merchantmen I feel that the British had the edge. Some of our conversions were fully battleworthy.
 
The Akagi, Kaga, Hiryu, and Soryu were poor designs that were dispatched quickly at Midway because of their flaws.

They had poor damage control design and philosophy, a small cramped "island" design that hampered fleet operations, and aircraft stowage on a couple of them was low for their size. They had poor AAA, and the AAA they had was hampered by poor arcs for fire control.

The Shokoku designs were far better, but even then, they were more similar to the Yorktown/Hornet/Enterprise carriers than the more advanced Essex class.
 
Certainly agree with your comments about the Jap Damage Control which was poor in design and training. But the comments about AA is't quite so clear cut. At Midway I would say that the Jap AA guns were a lot better than the American. Later of course in particular when the 40mm became available it was a one way street for the USA.
 

The IJN AAA accounted for no US aircraft shotdown. Not one.

All USAAF/USN loss's were from the fighters.

Further, IJN AAA was pathetic throughout the war. Their guns had horrible rates of fire and limited effective ranges. The USN was already using the 5" DP guns and although the 1.1" MG's were not up to the task, they were still better than the IJN 25mm.
 
I didn't know that the USA didn't lose a plane to AA fire, do you know how many the Japs lost?

As for the 25mm it was a lot better than the 30mm used by the USA which was probably the worst weapon deployed by the USA in WW2. The only alternative was the HMG which was too light lacking range and punch.

The 25mm wasn't a great gun but not terrible. One of the main problems that it had was the magazine which only held 15 rounds causing a number of stoppages to reload.

The USN 5in was the best DP gun of the war but without the proximity fuse the chances of hitting anything were remote.
 
I'm reading a fantastic book right now tht looks from the battle of Midway from the japanese perspective. The author uses many sources to determine how the US aircraft were shot down and his research shows that the AAA was almost a non factor in fleet defense.

The name of the book is "Shattered Sword".

As soon as I'm done with it, I will be starting a thread to discuss the many myth's that have sprung up over the years about this battle.

Even Leonards dad was mentioned in it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
List of sunken aircraft carriers
Replies
5
Views
2K
wheelsup_cavu
C
How many US Aircraft Carriers were enough?
2 3
Replies
58
Views
8K
SaparotRob
A
Aircraft carriers as fast transports?
Replies
7
Views
2K
GreenKnight121
Pearl Harbor and the carriers?
2
Replies
27
Views
9K
parsifal
G
1930's Japanese Navy - What would you have done differently?
7 8 9
Replies
160
Views
27K
parsifal
Menu
Log in
Register