HMS Dasher

Discussions on all aspects of the The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth during the Inter-War era and Second World War. Hosted by Andy H
Post Reply
Linkagain
Member
Posts: 454
Joined: 13 Apr 2021, 19:04
Location: US

HMS Dasher

#1

Post by Linkagain » 11 Dec 2021, 06:21

In regard to the Loss of HMS DAsher..any speculation as to what caused her explosion?

One advantage Royal Navy aircraft carriers had over US Navy carriers is that the RN carriers flight decks were armored,,,US carriers not...!

LineDoggie
Member
Posts: 1275
Joined: 03 Oct 2008, 21:06

Re: HMS Dasher

#2

Post by LineDoggie » 11 Dec 2021, 12:10

Wasnt a LW Kamikaze or bomb run so the Armoured flight deck or lack means nothing in this case
"There are two kinds of people who are staying on this beach: those who are dead and those who are going to die. Now let’s get the hell out of here".
Col. George Taylor, 16th Infantry Regiment, Omaha Beach


EwenS
Member
Posts: 446
Joined: 04 May 2020, 12:37
Location: Scotland

Re: HMS Dasher

#3

Post by EwenS » 11 Dec 2021, 15:25

The official enquiry in 1943 into her loss concluded that the cause was a petrol explosion. Because her loss involved a new ship (she was less than 9 months old), of a new type (she was amongst the earliest escort carriers to enter service) and occurred in a location only a few miles from the British coast no public announcement of her loss was made until 1945. That secrecy has generated all sorts of speculation and conspiracy theories around her loss to gain ground over the years with some even Turing up this past year again.

http://www.royalnavyresearcharchive.org ... bSbx8qnyhA
https://www.submerged.co.uk/dashertragedy/

Dasher’s sister ship Avenger was also lost to a single torpedo hit in her bomb room that had little protection.

One outcome of the Dasher enquiry was that all subsequent US built escort carriers underwent modifications either in the U.K. or Canada to improve their aviation fuel storage and handling facilities and bring them closer to RN practices. One result of this was that their aviation fuel capacity was substantially reduced. Avenger’s loss also fed into these modifications.
http://www.royalnavyresearcharchive.org ... rydock.htm

Subsequently in 1944/45 both Thane and Nabob which had undergone these modifications were torpedoed but survived to be brought safely into harbour although both were then classed as irreparably damaged and not repaired until postwar.

US escort carriers, designated CVE, did not receive Admiralty type modifications and continued to suffer horrifically when damaged. It came to be understood that CVE stood for Combustible, Vulnerable and Expendable.

Due to a lack of fleet carriers the RN never considered the escort carriers expendable. It also brought in the Merchant Aircraft Carriers, the MAC ships, as ships with even less aviation facilities.

The question of the RN’s Armoured Flight deck generates much discussion and criticism around the Internet. The fundamental problem in the 1930s was that when the size of carriers was limited by Treaty (23,000 tons when it was adopted by the RN) you could have a large air group or an Armoured deck but not both. The USN and the RN chose different paths in 1936 both having their own very good reasons for doing so.

Eventually both the USN and the Imperial Japanese Navy adopted the Armoured flight deck, but being outwith the Treaty regime did so on ships with a much greater tonnage. See Taiho for the IJN and for the US the Midway and unbuilt 1945 Fleet Carrier postwar CVA-58 USS United States designs. On the other hand Britain went the other way with the final design of the unbuilt Malta class going the unarmoured flight deck route.

You will find much information and discussion of the subject here
https://www.armouredcarriers.com/

And also in many threads over on the NavWeaps Forum pages if you run searches there.
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/warship ... ionboards/

Linkagain
Member
Posts: 454
Joined: 13 Apr 2021, 19:04
Location: US

Re: HMS Dasher

#4

Post by Linkagain » 11 Dec 2021, 16:49

Thanks for replying :thumbsup: :idea:

daveshoup2MD
Member
Posts: 1541
Joined: 01 Feb 2020, 19:10
Location: Coral and brass

Re: HMS Dasher

#5

Post by daveshoup2MD » 04 Jan 2022, 08:53

Linkagain wrote:
11 Dec 2021, 06:21
In regard to the Loss of HMS DAsher..any speculation as to what caused her explosion?

One advantage Royal Navy aircraft carriers had over US Navy carriers is that the RN carriers flight decks were armored ... US carriers not...!
The earliest US-built escort carriers (including HMS Dasher) were converted C3 merchant ships; they were wartime expedients, and their ability to absorb damage was roughly the same as any converted merchant ship - as witness the lives and deaths of HMS Audacity and HIJMS Taiyo, Unyo, Chuyo, and Shinyo.

The follow-on designs were converted T3 tankers (which were significant larger ships than the C3 freighters); or "purpose-built" CVEs that were still based on the C3 hull, or the slightly smaller S4 hull; and then finally "purpose-built" CVEs that were, again, based on the T3 hull.

The tanker-based CVEs were by far the most capable and could withstand more damage, but numbers were what was needed, and so the C3s were converted, and both C3-based and S4-based designs went forward.

FWIW, the USN only lost one C3-based CVE during WW II, USS Block Island; Liscome Bay, St. Lo, Gambier Bay, Ommaney Bay, and Bismarck Sea were all S4-based.

Linkagain
Member
Posts: 454
Joined: 13 Apr 2021, 19:04
Location: US

Re: HMS Dasher

#6

Post by Linkagain » 04 Jan 2022, 17:51

Thanks for replying :thumbsup:

daveshoup2MD
Member
Posts: 1541
Joined: 01 Feb 2020, 19:10
Location: Coral and brass

Re: HMS Dasher

#7

Post by daveshoup2MD » 05 Jan 2022, 05:42

Linkagain wrote:
04 Jan 2022, 17:51
Thanks for replying :thumbsup:
Sure.

Post Reply

Return to “The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth 1919-45”