Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Don't know if you've read "Shattered Sword" but in it, the authors have a good comparison between IJN and USN carrier life, both for the crew and the officers. Also a very informative page where they compare and contrast the flag arrangements vis a vis Akagi v. USN CV (Enterprise & Yorktown in this case).Watching the first vid makes me feel that the amenities and accommodations for pilots on IJN carriers was more Klingon than USN.
With no Treaty displacement limitations why did the IJN's designers think this tiny island was sufficient?On Akagi, Nagumo and his staff were crammed into a small bridge alongside the captain and his staff
Valid question considering the opposition:With no Treaty displacement limitations why did the IJN's designers think this tiny island was sufficient?
View attachment 593699
Nice. But if it's size of island relative to size of ship, HMS Hermes wants a word.Valid question considering the opposition:
View attachment 593714
Take away the funnel and HMS Glorious' island is about the same size as IJNS Kaga's.Many of the early carriers had no island superstructure but still I agree with you. The IJN had taken much inspiration from the RN. The HMS Eagle had a large island superstructure. I'm not sure of the configuration of HMS Glorious at the time of the conversion of Kaga and Akagi.
One of the reasons I believe is that even in 1940 when the Essex class were being laid down, no one REALLY knew the total extent of carrier warfare yet. Even at Midway Parshall and Tully state that it was a weapons system being "cut from whole cloth", as such it was an emerging technology that was still a year or two (after Midway) coming into full fruition. Heck, the USN hadn't even operated a cohesive carrier battle group at that point, and it can be argued that they didn't do a very good job of that at Midway either. A 1944 USN CBG would have put down Akagi, Kaga, Soryu and Hiryu as a matter of course and then went about their business.One thing I don't understand is why none of the carrier operators included an accommodation deck directly below the flight deck. This would have freed up a lot of space, and served as spaced armour protection for the fight deck. Today's CVN's have this, called the Gallery deck, where the pilots sleep.
View attachment 593726
Whilst I agree with your sentiment, that's a picture of U. S. S. Enterprise, CV 6, the most decorated warship of WWII. I would say the Yorktown class were the most beautiful ships (eye of the beholder of course).Okay, maybe this is a thread of its own but U.S.S. Yorktown is the most beautiful ship of the Second World War.
To be fair, without the losses to date 1944 an IJN CBG would have four Taiho class, with radar well developed, radio-equipped A7M Reppu fighters and Aichi B7A torpedo bombers and Yokosuka D4Y dive bombers, each properly sorted out prior to service (as opposed to being rushed into service with faults). Otherwise, a RN CBG of 1941 could wipe out the IJN CBG of 1944.A 1944 USN CBG would have put down Akagi, Kaga, Soryu and Hiryu as a matter of course and then went about their business.
I knew that. The "6" on the forward end of the flight deck tipped me off. However, when I see shots of Yorktowns, I always think of the picture of the brand new CV-5. The one Drachinifel uses in his vid about WW II carriers. There's also a very slight difference of the bridge between the two. Damn if I can remember what it is.Whilst I agree with your sentiment, that's a picture of U. S. S. Enterprise, CV 6, the most decorated warship of WWII. I would say the Yorktown class were the most beautiful ships (eye of the beholder of course).