Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Considering that there are no large surface guns or anything else to guide from the top mast, it does seem silly.That mast looks ridiculous. I can no longer keep quiet about it.
Perhaps it was a private jacuzzi, swimming pool, sauna and bar for the admiral.Considering that there are no large surface guns or anything else to guide from the top mast, it does seem silly.
View attachment 762911
That's why you have a dozen torpedo armed bombers onboard to kill an enemy raider before they get within range. Of course, Hermes could be captained like HMAS Sydney and sail right up to an enemy raider - then you'll need your guns, but at that range you don't need the fighting top and huge mast.The idea of the trade protection carrier was similar to that of the trade protection cruiser, and she was expected to be able to fight a gun battle vs enemy raiders on the trade routes. Plus the Admiralty realized that the Hermes was too slow to be sure of evading gun combat
The Lexington's did actually have 8X8 8' guns so...Eagle, when finally completed, had a similar mast and fighting top arrangement for her 9x6" guns.
View attachment 762983View attachment 762984
Battleships-Cruisers.co.uk
Lest those in the USA think this a peculiarly British thing, here is the superstructure of the CV-2 Lexington as completed at the end of 1927 cobtaining all the fire control and spotting facilities to support its 4 twin 8" turrets.
View attachment 762982
That's why you have a dozen torpedo armed bombers onboard to kill an enemy raider before they get within range. Of course, Hermes could be captained like HMAS Sydney and sail right up to an enemy raider - then you'll need your guns, but at that range you don't need the fighting top and huge mast.
The reason for the 5.5-6" guns on the RN carriers was not to do with them operating in a trade protection role. It was envisaged from late WW1 that the carriers, icluding Hermes, would be operating in conjuction with the battlefleet but might become detached from it at some point (e.g. while launching / recovering aircraft or to avoid the ensuing big gun fleet action) and would run into enemy cruisers or destroyers, against which they would have to defend themselves.
Open hangars and deck parking vs. enclosed hangars and all aircraft struck below is a good indication of weather-related decisions on carrier designs and ops.One reason I've read for why battleships were still a thing in WWII (apart from shore bombardment etc.) was that they were less weather dependent than WWII era naval aviation, and only later in the post-WWII era carrier aviation became more or less all-weather.
So, what were these limitations, and what specifically caused them? Presumably wind per se wasn't an issue, as more wind just made it easier to launch and recover aircraft. Was it an issue of wind gusts, where a gust coming in from a slightly different direction could flip a plane over the side of the ship? And this was related to the wing loading of the aircraft? As aircraft got bigger, faster and got higher wing loading, they were relatively less impacted by wind gusts? Or was it something else that made aircraft capable of operating in windier conditions?
I would guess night operations per se should be doable in WWII, or at least the RN had developed and used that capability.
The ship rolling and pitching presumably can be a problem as well, but my guess would be that as carriers are pretty big ships, at the point where the ships movement in the sea prevents air operations the wind is above the limit as well? Unless we're talking about the aftermath of a big storm or such.
Anyway, did navies have regulations specifying when air operations were allowed, or was it up to the individual commanders? And in either case, what were the practical limits then, say, spanning 1920-1945 (presumably they changed dramatically over that time)?
Which carrier was it again that joined the line of battle in the Med?HMS Unicorn, a carrier serving as a fleet support vessel, carried out shore bombardments in the Korean War with it's 4" guns.
Formidable at Matapan in March 1941Which carrier was it again that joined the line of battle in the Med?