|
Post by quincannon on Mar 5, 2015 17:04:44 GMT -6
She probably needed at least a limited availability, if not an overhaul, but you are correct, she sat at dockside, when a fifth carrier could have made a lot of difference by teaming up with the then undamaged Hiryu on the afternoon of 4 June. With her present may also have been possible for more options with regard to the returning Midway strike. Really stupid, always stupid, to cling to tradition and norm, when battles are won by innovation, and throwing convention in the waste bin.
|
|
|
Musashi
Mar 5, 2015 17:16:38 GMT -6
Post by dave on Mar 5, 2015 17:16:38 GMT -6
QC Thank you for pointing out what I meant to say. You have said what I meant to say far better than I did. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Musashi
Mar 5, 2015 17:32:38 GMT -6
Post by welshofficer on Mar 5, 2015 17:32:38 GMT -6
She probably needed at least a limited availability, if not an overhaul, but you are correct, she sat at dockside, when a fifth carrier could have made a lot of difference by teaming up with the then undamaged Hiryu on the afternoon of 4 June. With her present may also have been possible for more options with regard to the returning Midway strike. Really stupid, always stupid, to cling to tradition and norm, when battles are won by innovation, and throwing convention in the waste bin. QC,
Admittedly the IJN didn't realise their codes had been penetrated and expected 4 v 1 (just the unsinkable Midway airfield), but the Zuikaku would have been priceless as events turned out. Credit to Yamaguchi though for recovering some balance after those disastrous 5 mins, for taking out the patched-up Yorktown when he was 1 v 4 and probably thought he was no worse than 1 v 3 (and one of the three, Midway Island, being severely degraded).
WO
|
|
|
Musashi
Mar 5, 2015 17:55:55 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on Mar 5, 2015 17:55:55 GMT -6
We ought to bend our knee, and thank the gods of war that Yamaguchi Tamon was not present at Guadalcanal. He was in my estimation the IJN's most competent and aggressive carrier commander.
Getting back to BB's though, Musashi was to far along for any carrier conversion. The third sister less so and she was converted, only to be sunk pre-shakedown, by I think Archerfish. Dave correct me if I am wrong.
|
|
|
Musashi
Mar 5, 2015 18:01:55 GMT -6
Post by welshofficer on Mar 5, 2015 18:01:55 GMT -6
QC,
Musashi was nearly completed. The 3rd hull, Shinano, was the real fiasco...she wasn't even completed when sunk....
WO
|
|
|
Musashi
Mar 5, 2015 18:38:25 GMT -6
Post by dave on Mar 5, 2015 18:38:25 GMT -6
QC You are correct that USS Archerfish sank her 4 torpedoes. One of 8 Japanese carriers sunk by US subs. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Musashi
Mar 5, 2015 19:53:39 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on Mar 5, 2015 19:53:39 GMT -6
Dave: Thanks for the confirmation. My sub stuff is in the basement library, and if I went down to check the Madam would have me folding laundry.
WO: I'll bet you did not know that Shinano had a pink flight deck.
LBM: I thought Tang had been located. Not sure, but I though I had heard something about her a couple of years back.
Anyone know if Trigger and Seawolf have ever been located?
Chris: You may know this. Is the Sealion wreck still visible at Cavite in the PI
|
|
|
Musashi
Mar 5, 2015 20:26:48 GMT -6
Post by dave on Mar 5, 2015 20:26:48 GMT -6
QC
There are 5 US lost subs lost in action that have been located:
USS Lagarto (SS371)
USS Wahoo (SS238)
USS Grunion (SS216)
USS Perch (SS176)
USS Flier (SS250)
The R-12 lost in a training accident during the war has been located off Key West
These are the only located boats that I know of at this date.
Regards
Dave
|
|
|
Musashi
Mar 5, 2015 21:28:49 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on Mar 5, 2015 21:28:49 GMT -6
Add Darter to your list. She is mostly above water on a reef. Sealion was for many years partially above water at Cavite, but I don't know if the Philippine Navy has scrapped the wreck. It was there as late as the 1970's
|
|
|
Musashi
Mar 5, 2015 22:01:16 GMT -6
Post by dave on Mar 5, 2015 22:01:16 GMT -6
QC Good catch on the Darter I had forgotten about her. I did not know about the Sealion so thank you for the information. That is why I love this board. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Musashi
Mar 5, 2015 23:26:44 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on Mar 5, 2015 23:26:44 GMT -6
Dave: Thanks for the info on Sealion you sent by PM.
I think we know where Conchino is too, but even at this late date I don't believe we are going to tell anyone about it. Interesting story about that boat. I wonder who Philo was, but I am damned sure he was not a civilian sonar expert.
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on Mar 16, 2015 17:29:39 GMT -6
QC You are correct that USS Archerfish sank her 4 torpedoes. One of 8 Japanese carriers sunk by US subs. Regards Dave Dave,
It's the Taiho and Shinano that interest me, as the IJN reverted to being influenced by RN design philosophy. Both had armoured flight decks, the Taiho even had a hurricane bow. I don't think the USN moved in the RN direction until the Midway class carriers.
WO
|
|
|
Post by dave on Mar 16, 2015 21:30:53 GMT -6
WO
The RN influence on Japan goes back to the before turn of the 19th century as you stated. All of Japan's battleships were built in Great Britain as were many other units her fleet prior to the 1905 Russo-Japanese. They closely followed all of British designs for carriers prior to 1941.
The Japanese never did learn about filling fuel lines with inert gas, ventilating the hanger decks of their ships and their damage control traing was very poor. The Taiho was lost to one torpedo while the Shinano sank because of poor damage control.
During WW II the US learned to its sorrow that armored flight decks would have saved a couple of carriers lost.
Royal Navy Firsts
1st full length flight deck carrier with HMS Argus
Armored flight deck
Catapult
Angled flight deck
Optical Landing System
Ski Jump flight deck
Regards
Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 16, 2015 22:43:03 GMT -6
The iron rule of mobilization is to keep in production what is already in production. There were pre war orders placed and construction started on the first eleven of the Essex Class. Two more were ordered in December 41, Bennington and Boxer, just a few days after Pearl. The Midway design was complete before June of 42, and the armored decks were a result of RN experience with Illustrious, among others. The repeat Essex Class was ordered after the Midway design was complete, primarily because the USN determined that you could not produce a Midway as fast as an Essex, and the USN needed decks. As it was Midway and the FDR were built rather rapidly, but neither could have been combat capable until early 46, and that was pushing it. Coral Sea took longer because there were modifications incorporated into the Midway design.
We were ;prepared to take the risk of the Douglas Fir flight deck, for speed of production. Minor damage to those decks even from Kamikazi hits could often be repaired at forwarded bases by AR's. I have a picture of Randolph in my collection that has a hole in the F/D as big as a decent sized swimming pool, and she was repaired forward, without a yard. If the hit only caused a fire that could be quickly contained chances are they could be fixed and back in action fairly soon. With Franklin, Bunker Hill, Princeton, Enterprise and Intrepid, that fast fix was not in the cards. You see some real bad things happen to the armored deck carriers in later years, and for them it is not months but years in the yard before they are made right.
The hurricane bow is another interesting subject. We knew of the advantages of an enclosed bow from out experience with Hornet in that typhoon, where her forward flight deck was crushed. When we started the 27A and 27C modification to the Essex Class in 47 based upon the prototype Oriskany, followed by Essex and Wasp such a structure was considered. The trade off would have been a much reduced AA battery forward, primarily the two twin 3" 50 Cal mounts on the bow. This was a time of uncertainty as to the effectiveness of AA missiles, so they traded off the protection of the hurricane bow for the armament. By 53 or so when they were planning and designing the 125 mod which gave the 27A's and C's the hurricane bow and angled deck that time had passed, and while still not in the fleet the AA missile for fleet defense was proven on Mississippi and Norton Sound, so the risk could be accepted. Don't know if anyone has ever seen the design drawings of the United States CV 58, but it too did not have a hurricane bow., so the same factors cited above were still present.
|
|
|
Musashi
Mar 17, 2015 11:25:49 GMT -6
Post by welshofficer on Mar 17, 2015 11:25:49 GMT -6
WO The RN influence on Japan goes back to the before turn of the 19th century as you stated. All of Japan's battleships were built in Great Britain as were many other units her fleet prior to the 1905 Russo-Japanese. They closely followed all of British designs for carriers prior to 1941. The Japanese never did learn about filling fuel lines with inert gas, ventilating the hanger decks of their ships and their damage control traing was very poor. The Taiho was lost to one torpedo while the Shinano sank because of poor damage control. During WW II the US learned to its sorrow that armored flight decks would have saved a couple of carriers lost. Royal Navy Firsts 1st full length flight deck carrier with HMS Argus Armored flight deck Catapult Angled flight deck Optical Landing System Ski Jump flight deck Regards Dave Dave,
The IJN also never learnt to avoid hull integral AVGAS tanks in their fleet carriers, which was a catastrophic blunder.
I think the Hermes was the first hurricane bow fleet carrier, but somebody will correct me if I am wrong. We never built another new build without one. The USN went for a hurricane bow with the Lexingtons, I recall, but not again until the Midways. When they also went with armoured flight deck.
WO
|
|