Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Angled Carrier Deck 1941

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Angled Carrier Deck 1941

    Something I have occasionally pondered upon is what if the Japanese had invented the Angled Carrier Deck in 1940.

    I dont even pretend to have an idea on what impact this would have had on their war but Midway and planes caught on deck re-arming etc springs to mind.

    Would it have made any difference? In the long run I don't think so but in 1940 there is no reason to believe that an Angled deck couldn't have been possible.

  • #2
    You'd have to go back further than that. See the Japs built their fleet over about 20 years given their industrial constraints and it's unlikely more then one or two new angled deck carriers would have been availible in 1942. Just my opnion.
    How many Allied tanks it would take to destroy a Maus?
    275. Because that's how many shells there are in the Maus. Then it could probably crush some more until it ran out of gas. - Surfinbird

    Comment


    • #3
      what were the causes or technical constrainsts for angled decks?
      "Freedom cannot exist without discipline, self-discipline, and rights cannot exist without duties. Those who do not observe their duties do not deserve their rights."--Oriana Fallaci

      Comment


      • #4
        A bigger question is what would be the impetus for them? Not dissing any navy visionaries, but who even would have attempted both take-off and landings at the same time with slow-speed props? Without someone trying both sides of carrier ops, where's the need to use an angled deck to accomplish both at the same time?
        If voting could really change things, it would be illegal.

        Comment


        • #5
          Might not make much of a difference without catapults. Aircraft during WW2 were usually spotted right up to the rear of the carrier for launch. Even with angled decks, no planes could land.

          Comment


          • #6
            My opinion is the Japanese would have been better off designing their carrier aircraft to have folding wings that close compactly to the side of the aircraft. US aircraft like the Hellcat and Avenger had wing that would turn up and then fold back. They could have also used large shutters on the flight decks to vent vapors and fumes like the US carriers.

            Japanese aircraft carriers also had poor elevator design. The Japanese typically used two elevators which divided the hangar decks into three sections. US Essex class carriers were the first I have seen to use deck edge elevators.

            One other inovation of the US was deck edge extensions that stuck out over the water allowing storage of aircraft on deck, without stopping flight operations.

            If you give most of the post 1930 (including Kaga and Akagi after re-building) carriers deck edge elevators, compact stowing aircraft and an angled flight deck, you would have been amazed at the increase in tempo of air operations and combat projection. This would also mean use of catapults and wire arrestors. Quite frankly the Zero and its shipmates aboard the carriers would have all failed.

            Pruitt
            Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

            Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

            by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

            Comment


            • #7
              Just to add to your points, it's not possible for Japanese carriers to have shutters on the sides or to have side elevators. Their carriers follow the same design philosophy as the British carriers, with fully enclosed sides. (To this day, British carriers do not have side elevators.)

              Comment


              • #8
                Actually I remember only one Japanese carrier being armored, and it sank like the rest. One flaw in Japanese carrier design was the ventilation system. Several carriers were blown up when vapors that were being vented ignited. Shutters along the side would have negated this problem. The gasoline lines may still have blown....This feature also allowed running engines in the hangar deck area on American carriers.

                I am not convinced fully enclosed sides were a good thing on a Japanese carrier. If you have the strength deck as the bottom hangar deck, I don't see why one can't have side elevators.

                My thought as to why the British don't use side elevators is they are expensive. British politicians can and do demand cheap ships at times.

                Pruitt
                Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

                Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

                by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

                Comment


                • #9
                  two Jap carriers were armored.

                  the Taiho, who got sunk by USS Cavalla (a sub) torpedoes and indeed, what the explosions did was rupture the fuel pipes and fuel vapors led to the carrier to explode a tribute to Japanese Navy very poor damage control (and perhaps untrained crew). sad end on it's first mission of a beautifull ship.

                  the other was the Yamato-class Shinano, converted to super-heavy carrier, with lots of armor, etc. here too a US submarine in 1945 (I think USS archerfish, if my memory serves me right) hit it with torpedoes. and the new ineperienced crew, botched the ballasting manoever to put it straight and the ship capsized and sunk - on a simple relocation cruise (to put it farther from B-29 range - it WAS a large target!)
                  "Freedom cannot exist without discipline, self-discipline, and rights cannot exist without duties. Those who do not observe their duties do not deserve their rights."--Oriana Fallaci

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    No British carriers were ever designed with open sides. You need open sides for side elevators. Side elevators are no more expensive than central elevators. It's more the design philosophy.

                    Another thing that slowed down Japanese flight op tempo is that several of them had two hangar decks, one on top of the other, and planes had to be brought from much further down.

                    But the primary constraint remained that without catapults, air groups had to be spotted all the way to the rear, which would preclude even the use of angled decks for landing.

                    It was the combination of catapults together with angled decks that allowed for flexi ops (as opposed to cyclic ops).

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Ogukuo,

                      Most larger carrier had two decks. The problem was in elevator design. The design you are referring to had an elevator with two decks. This only went one deck higher/lower. The problem was to take planes from the lowest deck to the flight deck. One had to load them, take them up one deck, unload, bring the elevator down and re-load on the upper surface to bring to the flight deck. The better way to do this was to have just one elevator surface that went to all floors.

                      Yes, Taiho had an armored flight deck like the later British designs (Midway as well). This also meant that Taiho had one large hangar deck as well. I would hesitate to call the Shinano in the same class as the Akagi and Kaga also were battleship/battlecruiser conversions and also had extensive armor belts and a cap on its lower hangar deck.

                      The problem with using the armor box design on carriers is it put so much weight high on the ship. That is why these ships only had one hangar deck. I am not sure the Midway had only one deck, but I have to start getting ready for work soon...

                      The British also used the sides of the hangar decks for work areas and storage space. This squeezed the hangar deck capacity to hold aircraft! I believe the US practice was to use the front and rear of the hangar deck for this, leaving a "boxier" space to hold aircraft.

                      Pruitt
                      Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

                      Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

                      by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

                      Comment

                      Latest Topics

                      Collapse

                      Working...
                      X