The Center Red area shows the engine room and true funnel. (Forward "funnel" is a fake for camouflage,)
The Rear Red area shows the steering room.
I don't know what the Purple area show.
fontessa
Yep. USS Henderson (AP-1, laid down in 1915 and commissioned in 1917) was designed and built specifically to serve as the a means for moving the landing force - what was designated at the time as the "advanced base" regiments, from the US to the island being assaulted (either in the Caribbean or the Pacific, presumably) with some 1,600 Marines, and including attached artillery (8 to 14 guns); the boat group included two artillery lighters (shallow draft craft capable of carrying pieces in the 76mm to 127mm range ashore, complete with motorized vehicles to tow them, and a variety of shallow draft personnel craft, 11 in total; all capable of being launched over the side via the ship's cranes/derricks and/or davits. She also had 6 127mm pieces of her own for self-defense and shore bombardment; four were designed to be dismounted and placed ashore to support the infantry as seacoast guns, if needed.fontessa wrote: ↑13 Jan 2022, 23:06Oh, I would like to withdraw "1934 when the United States and Britain never thought about it.".daveshoup2MD wrote: ↑13 Jan 2022, 21:10The USN built and designed dedicated amphibious transports (Henderson and Heywood) with dedicated boat groups and facilities before and after WW I (Heywood was designed but not built); the British had been involved with the Danube flo-flo ferry designs that gave rise to the LSD as far back as the 1920s. Shinshu Maru is impressive for actually being designed and built, but both the USN and the British were considering similar concepts a decade earlier.
One question, Was U.S. Navy category AP intended landing operations?
fontessa
Yes they were, but the Nomenclature would change over the course of the warfontessa wrote: ↑13 Jan 2022, 23:06Oh, I would like to withdraw "1934 when the United States and Britain never thought about it.".daveshoup2MD wrote: ↑13 Jan 2022, 21:10The USN built and designed dedicated amphibious transports (Henderson and Heywood) with dedicated boat groups and facilities before and after WW I (Heywood was designed but not built); the British had been involved with the Danube flo-flo ferry designs that gave rise to the LSD as far back as the 1920s. Shinshu Maru is impressive for actually being designed and built, but both the USN and the British were considering similar concepts a decade earlier.
One question, Was U.S. Navy category AP intended landing operations?
fontessa
True. The US Navy's "AP" type ships were both pure troopers and dedicated amphibious transports (generally better accommodation, heavier davits and cargo-handling gear, landing craft rather than boats, naval crews), generally known as "attack transports" or "combat loaders" until early in 1943, when the amphibious troopers were re-designated (and in many cases, re-numbered) in the APA series; naval freighters ("AK") similarly fitted out for assault duties with landing craft, etc, were re-designated "AKA" at the same time.Brady wrote: ↑14 Jan 2022, 00:17Yes they were, but the Nomenclature would change over the course of the warfontessa wrote: ↑13 Jan 2022, 23:06Oh, I would like to withdraw "1934 when the United States and Britain never thought about it.".daveshoup2MD wrote: ↑13 Jan 2022, 21:10The USN built and designed dedicated amphibious transports (Henderson and Heywood) with dedicated boat groups and facilities before and after WW I (Heywood was designed but not built); the British had been involved with the Danube flo-flo ferry designs that gave rise to the LSD as far back as the 1920s. Shinshu Maru is impressive for actually being designed and built, but both the USN and the British were considering similar concepts a decade earlier.
One question, Was U.S. Navy category AP intended landing operations?
fontessa
https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Online ... /ap-no.htm
https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Online ... apa-no.htm
Very helpful, it could be that they were scouts or simply being use to assist with navigation, referring to the two Kates:Linkagain wrote: ↑14 Jan 2022, 01:29See the following link on IJN airplane Losses at Wake December 1941...
viewtopic.php?f=65&t=141426&p=1234495&h ... e#p1234495
fontessa - thank you very much for the details. Tooday I've learned something about landing ship.
Let me talk about Perl Harbor attack a little more. I wasn't sure if there were spare airplanes on the aircraft carriers.
The return of Cardiv2, which was split due to the attack on Wake Island, was as described above, but the main force of the 1st Air Fleet returned to Kure on December 23, a little earlier. But they couldn't stay laid back. They must prepare the support for Rabaul and Kavieng capture operation, which will be activated early next year.
Thank you very much for those details.fontessa wrote: ↑17 Jan 2022, 07:58The below picture shows the notice on the 31st.
31日附本年内令第365号飛行機供給表及艦船飛行機搭載表中ノ通改正ス
Navy Order No.365 “Airplane supply table and ship airplane loading table” issued on 10 April 1941 was revised on the 31st.
別表第4中1AFノ部ヲ左ノ如ク改ム
1st Air Fleet part of the attached table was revised.
...
If they were operational and had aircrew, they wouldnt've been called "spare".Brady wrote: ↑17 Jan 2022, 09:05There seems to be a lot of confusion around the term, spare, Originally I had thought that these aircraft were in a disassembled state, that they were surplus to requirements, but more recently I’ve come to understand that was simply not the case, that these aircraft were actually operational and they were used on operations and they did have assigned aircrew.
I have no idea about Niehorster's sources. But they doesn't confirmed with the official data on IJN aircraft assignments.