How many carriers?
-
gabriel pagliarani
- Member
- Posts: 1583
- Joined: 01 Aug 2002, 04:11
- Location: ITALY
You stated that Shoho carried more aircraft and men than Lexington, I proved you wrong.
Now your talking about Icebergs?
Ok, I should have wrote mass not weight ... fine, I'll give you that one.
And as pointed out, Shoho didn't have an armored flight deck, so you analogy is way off target.
Talk about offensive, can't you admit when your facts are wrong. If I make a mistake in one of my posts, I freely admit it, give credit to those who corrected me and move on.
BTW, I like how you edit your post after I ask what you are talking about ...
But there are about 2.67 planes on Lexington for every plane on Shoho. (80:30 - 2.67:1) - seems my premise is pretty accurate on this occasion - remember I said, all things being equal.
Ok, this time lets keep it simple, you said the Shoho carried more planes and more men then the Lexington, care to back that statement up?
Now your talking about Icebergs?
Ok, I should have wrote mass not weight ... fine, I'll give you that one.
And as pointed out, Shoho didn't have an armored flight deck, so you analogy is way off target.
Talk about offensive, can't you admit when your facts are wrong. If I make a mistake in one of my posts, I freely admit it, give credit to those who corrected me and move on.
BTW, I like how you edit your post after I ask what you are talking about ...
32000 tons/12000 tons means a ratio Lexington Vs Shoho 2,67/1. If your sillogism is OK there must be at least 2,67 US planes on Lexington and only 1 on Shoho. But this is not the right way to compare those boats. You are comparing the prices of onions with the prices of oranges.
But there are about 2.67 planes on Lexington for every plane on Shoho. (80:30 - 2.67:1) - seems my premise is pretty accurate on this occasion - remember I said, all things being equal.
Ok, this time lets keep it simple, you said the Shoho carried more planes and more men then the Lexington, care to back that statement up?
more CV stuff
"You're begining to sound like a moderator already" Too much time as a teacher...!
If we're distinguishing mass from weight, why are we still speaking in terms of tons?
A peek at the Coral Sea OoB at
http://www.warships1.com/index_oob/OOB_ ... al_Sea.htm
will show that Lexington carried 70 planes and Shoho 18. It should be obvious that there's a generalized correlation between the size of a carrier and the size of its air group. The fact that this general truth does not apply absolutely in each specific case does not seem a matter worth debating. Illustrious was larger than Ark Royal but carried fewer planes. The reasons for such an aberration can be pinpointed--a change in carrier philosophy and armoring. Essex was smaller than Lex but had more planes--a newer purpose-built ship ratehr than a conversion. I think this is all a matter of common sense. The larger the capital ship, the heavier the weaponry--this is obvious, isn't it? Yet obvious exceptions like Iron Duke vs Tiger don't cancel the general truth.
If we want to talk about ice bergs, is anyone familiar with Habbakuk?
If we're distinguishing mass from weight, why are we still speaking in terms of tons?
A peek at the Coral Sea OoB at
http://www.warships1.com/index_oob/OOB_ ... al_Sea.htm
will show that Lexington carried 70 planes and Shoho 18. It should be obvious that there's a generalized correlation between the size of a carrier and the size of its air group. The fact that this general truth does not apply absolutely in each specific case does not seem a matter worth debating. Illustrious was larger than Ark Royal but carried fewer planes. The reasons for such an aberration can be pinpointed--a change in carrier philosophy and armoring. Essex was smaller than Lex but had more planes--a newer purpose-built ship ratehr than a conversion. I think this is all a matter of common sense. The larger the capital ship, the heavier the weaponry--this is obvious, isn't it? Yet obvious exceptions like Iron Duke vs Tiger don't cancel the general truth.
If we want to talk about ice bergs, is anyone familiar with Habbakuk?
Oh lordy, what I have missed. And I thought this thread long dead.
Gabriel,
I am very interested in how you classify the Lexington(CV-2) as a 2nd line carrier and the Shoho as a 1st line carrier. Please tell me more! Seeing as the Lexington did not have an armored deck this should be good. I believe the Coral Sea is classified as an American victory because the Japanese lost the Shoho, the Zuikaku had her air group decimated, and the Shokaku was heavily damaged. Not to mention the Japanese invasion force of Port Moresby was turned back. For this the American suffered the loss of the Lexington, Sims, and Neosho as well as damage to the Yorktown.
As for the aircraft carrying capacity difference between the Lexington(CV-2) and the Shoho, folding wings are a small part of the equation. The Kate was equipped with folding wings, and to a lesser degree the Val, only the Zero lacked folding wings(they had folding wing tips). The large part of the equation is that the Lexington had two hanger decks to the Shoho’s one deck, and the Lexington hangers were much larger than Shoho’s.
Another question I have for you is when you refer to the “external elevator” in your sentence “Not only, the external elevator Japs never had allowed to US carriers to stock planes in those deck areas Japs were obliged to keep free during flight operations.” What external elevator are you referring to? The “deck edge” elevator was not seen until the Essex class. This was well after each nation had decided upon it’s doctrine for carrier flight ops. The Japanese and British tended to service and store their aircraft in the hanger deck/s, while the Americans chose the flight deck. Thus, the duration of American flight cycles tended to be shorter.
It’s very easy to compare carriers by weight/displacement. This is why the Lexington is usually compared to the Shokaku or Akagi, and not little Shoho. What can I get for 34,000 tons? As for comparing an armored deck carrier to a non-armored deck carrier, just revert to the closest match in tonnage.
Sam H.,
Your tonnage to aircraft comparison works for the Lex vs. Shoho, but for most others it’s a bust. Using your “rule of thumb”, when comparing the Yorktown class to the Lexington class, the Lexington should be able to carry more aircraft, but it did not.
Tiornu,
Habbakuk, wasn’t that the British(?) idea to create an aircraft carrier from an iceberg. If so, it’s going to make Gabriel very happy. I know very little about it, but would like to know more.
Gabriel,
I am very interested in how you classify the Lexington(CV-2) as a 2nd line carrier and the Shoho as a 1st line carrier. Please tell me more! Seeing as the Lexington did not have an armored deck this should be good. I believe the Coral Sea is classified as an American victory because the Japanese lost the Shoho, the Zuikaku had her air group decimated, and the Shokaku was heavily damaged. Not to mention the Japanese invasion force of Port Moresby was turned back. For this the American suffered the loss of the Lexington, Sims, and Neosho as well as damage to the Yorktown.
As for the aircraft carrying capacity difference between the Lexington(CV-2) and the Shoho, folding wings are a small part of the equation. The Kate was equipped with folding wings, and to a lesser degree the Val, only the Zero lacked folding wings(they had folding wing tips). The large part of the equation is that the Lexington had two hanger decks to the Shoho’s one deck, and the Lexington hangers were much larger than Shoho’s.
Another question I have for you is when you refer to the “external elevator” in your sentence “Not only, the external elevator Japs never had allowed to US carriers to stock planes in those deck areas Japs were obliged to keep free during flight operations.” What external elevator are you referring to? The “deck edge” elevator was not seen until the Essex class. This was well after each nation had decided upon it’s doctrine for carrier flight ops. The Japanese and British tended to service and store their aircraft in the hanger deck/s, while the Americans chose the flight deck. Thus, the duration of American flight cycles tended to be shorter.
It’s very easy to compare carriers by weight/displacement. This is why the Lexington is usually compared to the Shokaku or Akagi, and not little Shoho. What can I get for 34,000 tons? As for comparing an armored deck carrier to a non-armored deck carrier, just revert to the closest match in tonnage.
Sam H.,
Your tonnage to aircraft comparison works for the Lex vs. Shoho, but for most others it’s a bust. Using your “rule of thumb”, when comparing the Yorktown class to the Lexington class, the Lexington should be able to carry more aircraft, but it did not.
Tiornu,
Habbakuk, wasn’t that the British(?) idea to create an aircraft carrier from an iceberg. If so, it’s going to make Gabriel very happy. I know very little about it, but would like to know more.
etc
Takao, you've adopted the name of my favorite cruiser class. What a handsome design. (The cruiser, I mean.)
The deck-edge lift appeared first in Wasp. I say "appeared," but it's barely visible. Really it was just a big T-bar that planes could back onto, kinda cute.
If you ever saw a Back to the Future movie, you probably have a feel for the sort of guy Geoffrey Pyke was--"eccentric inventor" is the usual phrase. The nature of his personality makes it hard to tell where the truth ends and the embellishment begins. In Sept 1942, with the Battle of the Atlantic raging, Pyke submitted a 100-page proposal to Lord Louis Mountbatten. His aim was to bring long-range patrol planes to mid-ocean on floating bases made of ice. Not just any ice, mind you--this would be Pykrete (Pyke's concrete) made from water, wood pulp, and fairy dust. (All right that last one was embellishment.) Legend says Pyke demonstrated the durability of this substance by setting a block of it before a bevy of high-ranking brass and battering it with pistol fire, simultaneously proving its resistance to damage and portraying the gleeful chaos of ricocheting bullets. Here are the specs ultimately worked out for Habbakuk.
Length oa 2000 ft
Beam 300 ft
Draft 150 ft
Disp 1,800,000 tons
Speed 7 knots on 40,000hp
Air group 200 Spifires or 100 Mosquitoes
Complement 3590
The manufacturing challenges inherent in this project, along with the rise of more orthodox aviation solutions, eventually killed off the project. Warship V has a nice summary of the story.
Don't ya love stuff like this?
The deck-edge lift appeared first in Wasp. I say "appeared," but it's barely visible. Really it was just a big T-bar that planes could back onto, kinda cute.
If you ever saw a Back to the Future movie, you probably have a feel for the sort of guy Geoffrey Pyke was--"eccentric inventor" is the usual phrase. The nature of his personality makes it hard to tell where the truth ends and the embellishment begins. In Sept 1942, with the Battle of the Atlantic raging, Pyke submitted a 100-page proposal to Lord Louis Mountbatten. His aim was to bring long-range patrol planes to mid-ocean on floating bases made of ice. Not just any ice, mind you--this would be Pykrete (Pyke's concrete) made from water, wood pulp, and fairy dust. (All right that last one was embellishment.) Legend says Pyke demonstrated the durability of this substance by setting a block of it before a bevy of high-ranking brass and battering it with pistol fire, simultaneously proving its resistance to damage and portraying the gleeful chaos of ricocheting bullets. Here are the specs ultimately worked out for Habbakuk.
Length oa 2000 ft
Beam 300 ft
Draft 150 ft
Disp 1,800,000 tons
Speed 7 knots on 40,000hp
Air group 200 Spifires or 100 Mosquitoes
Complement 3590
The manufacturing challenges inherent in this project, along with the rise of more orthodox aviation solutions, eventually killed off the project. Warship V has a nice summary of the story.
Don't ya love stuff like this?
-
ChristopherPerrien
- Member
- Posts: 7054
- Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
- Location: Mississippi
Iceberg? airfields were a strange idea.
One of the reasons it would not have worked is that because of weight and pressure, items heavier than water will melt into and though a block of ice.
There is some mention of these in "Allied Secret weapons" - Brian Ford
Armoured flight decks are a detriment because they cause a carrier to be top-heavy, subtract from both space and the carrying capacity, and are not effective against any anti-ship weapons. They protect the planes in the hangers from framents and such, and could stop a plane from crashing though the deck (enemy or friendly!).
Carriers would be better served having "hanger" deck armour over the magazines and machinery and perhaps better torpedoe protection. But really speed, aircraft, and other ships is what defends carriers. Anyway as to whether or not armoured decks saved any carriers, I will be un-fair and will note that the British lost more carriers than the Americans.
One of the reasons it would not have worked is that because of weight and pressure, items heavier than water will melt into and though a block of ice.
There is some mention of these in "Allied Secret weapons" - Brian Ford
Armoured flight decks are a detriment because they cause a carrier to be top-heavy, subtract from both space and the carrying capacity, and are not effective against any anti-ship weapons. They protect the planes in the hangers from framents and such, and could stop a plane from crashing though the deck (enemy or friendly!).
Carriers would be better served having "hanger" deck armour over the magazines and machinery and perhaps better torpedoe protection. But really speed, aircraft, and other ships is what defends carriers. Anyway as to whether or not armoured decks saved any carriers, I will be un-fair and will note that the British lost more carriers than the Americans.
armor
The only armored deck carriers lost in the war were the Japanese pair; both succumbed to torpedo attack. The British almost lost Indomitable to a single aerial torpedo. This was not a vulnerability inherent in the armored-carrier concept, but it is a strike against the Illustrious design in particular.
-
gabriel pagliarani
- Member
- Posts: 1583
- Joined: 01 Aug 2002, 04:11
- Location: ITALY
Exactly the thing I was trying to explain to Sam H. I am not as much skilled about ships as you are, but we are comparing weapons not cargoes. A banana carrier could be compared to another by payload or nos. of bananas carried but there is an obvious ratio between displacement vs. payload. Talking about weapons, we must add time of refuelling of planes, maximum range, recce coverage ect ect. If you compare flight authonomy of jap planes vs. americans only (f.e. only) the treaty was enormous for US carriers. Jap planes were able to hit any enemy doubling range respect with the Point of No Return of allied planes. Try to read "Samurai" by Saburo Sakai...Fortunately their recce equipment (planes, radioes, encoders, crypters and strategy) was totally uneffective if compared to US Navy one. A powerful long arm but blind. I want remember you that at Midway the misfunctioning of radio equipment on Jap recce planes caused the lost of the 4th Jap carrier. I am not particularly happy about icebergs...the cost of an iceberg is 0 and it is unsinkable. The only defect is its own totally out of control drift...but it could be easily pulled on any route.Takao wrote:..Your tonnage to aircraft comparison works for the Lex vs. Shoho, but for most others it’s a bust. Using your “rule of thumb”, when comparing the Yorktown class to the Lexington class, the Lexington should be able to carry more aircraft, but it did not.
Next wargame on your Oblate Spheroid call me, Tiornu. I wanna play as Admiral Habbakuk against your silly Navy...silly
When it comes to silly, Habbakuk pretty much takes the cake. How about those round Russian gunboats? I've seen drawings for a proposed Soviet submarine LST--talk about Large Slow Target! The Russians do appear to have had a penchant for the unsual. Between the wars, they tried mounting a 12in recoilless rifle on a destroyer. Yeah--I'm glad I wasn't the guy who designed that one. "But Comrade Stalin, it seemed like such a good idea..!"
Gabriel,
I'm still waiting for you to explain how the Shoho carried more planes and more men then the Lexington. You argued it for several posts and then it disapeared from your argument.
Or, did you make a mistake and just aren't man enough to admit it?
Takao
Just as, in a general rule, the larger the combat surface ship, the larger the guns you would expect it to carry. You'd expect a Battleship (often around 35,000 tons) to carry larger guns than a cruiser (up to 13,000 tons), right?
Yes, I know, there will be exceptions.
I'm still waiting for you to explain how the Shoho carried more planes and more men then the Lexington. You argued it for several posts and then it disapeared from your argument.
Or, did you make a mistake and just aren't man enough to admit it?
Takao
You have to understand, I was trying to convince the unconvincable that a 13,000 ton aircraft carrier would not, under normal circumstances, carry more men and more aircraft than a 33,000 ton aircraft carrier. I know it was not an exact science and I know that it would be wrong in many instances, but as a general rule ... the larger the carrier the more planes you would expect it to be able to carry.Sam H.,
Your tonnage to aircraft comparison works for the Lex vs. Shoho, but for most others it’s a bust. Using your “rule of thumb”, when comparing the Yorktown class to the Lexington class, the Lexington should be able to carry more aircraft, but it did not.
Just as, in a general rule, the larger the combat surface ship, the larger the guns you would expect it to carry. You'd expect a Battleship (often around 35,000 tons) to carry larger guns than a cruiser (up to 13,000 tons), right?
Yes, I know, there will be exceptions.
-
gabriel pagliarani
- Member
- Posts: 1583
- Joined: 01 Aug 2002, 04:11
- Location: ITALY
Sam H., I could be a woman and your habits still unfair, pls control yourself. This is a forum, not a ring. You were right about men and planes, obviously. I have nothing to loose in admiting any thing you want and my super-ego will survive to this drama ...but I am waiting from other guests more informations to solve your "thumb" wrong equation 2.67:1 because I am still convinced that Shoho was a weapon as much effective as Lexington or Yorktown. What about Yorktown? Wasn'it heavily damaged in Coral Sea? Your "thumb" equation lacks...and guns are not the main weapons on a carrier. Only a soft link between caliber and tonnage of dreadnoughts, even if dreadnoughts could not be armourless as a carrier. 
...but I am waiting from other guests more informations to solve your "thumb" wrong equation 2.67:1 because I am still convinced that Shoho was a weapon as much effective as Lexington or Yorktown. What about Yorktown? Wasn'it heavily damaged in Coral Sea? Your "thumb" equation lacks...and guns are not the main weapons on a carrier. Only a soft link between caliber and tonnage of dreadnoughts, even if dreadnoughts could not be armourless as a carrier.
Last edited by gabriel pagliarani on 28 Aug 2003, 14:47, edited 1 time in total.
Yes, Yorktown was damaged at Coral Sea, but it was repaired so quickly that it was able to join the battle fleet at Midway, were as the Japanese carriers were not able to join the fleet for the epic battle.
Prove my rule of thumb wrong ... it make no diffrence, I set out to prove a point that Shoho was not as valuable an asset as Lexington, I think that has been accomplished.
Prove my rule of thumb wrong ... it make no diffrence, I set out to prove a point that Shoho was not as valuable an asset as Lexington, I think that has been accomplished.
-
gabriel pagliarani
- Member
- Posts: 1583
- Joined: 01 Aug 2002, 04:11
- Location: ITALY
-
gabriel pagliarani
- Member
- Posts: 1583
- Joined: 01 Aug 2002, 04:11
- Location: ITALY