WI: Germany license produces Japanese aircraft carriers

Sargon

Donor
Monthly Donor
I have to admit, I'm somewhat flummoxed as to how a mission kill is going on when the carrier is back in action and fighting for a considerable time afterwards, presumably carrying out its mission. Aren't mission kills usually implied to be interpreted as an end to the, er well, mission and having to return to base as soon as possible?


Sargon
 
Last edited:

McPherson

Banned
This is not going to make many people happy.

a. Americans were the ones who did in theater repair on British flattops in the late Pacific War because the British could not.

b. Armor flight deck to hull versus superstructure over armored hanger deck.


15.00-17.00 minutes onward. As I wrote, it will not be very pleasant viewing for the armored flight deck armored hanger box carrier proponents.

Pay close attention particularly to 21.00 onward.

McP
 
This is not going to make many people happy.

a. Americans were the ones who did in theater repair on British flattops in the late Pacific War because the British could not.

b. Armor flight deck to hull versus superstructure over armored hanger deck.


15.00-17.00 minutes onward. As I wrote, it will not be very pleasant viewing for the armored flight deck armored hanger box carrier proponents.

Pay close attention particularly to 21.00 onward.

McP

His facts are not half truths. Norman has got books to sell and is playing to the crowd.

Both ship types have a main armoured deck (either flight deck or hanger) and BOTH have secondary protection over vitals.

Both RN and USN had dual protection. Flight deck and hanger deck vs hanger deck and splinter deck.

Both RN and USN had dual protection. Flight deck and hanger deck vs hanger deck and splinter deck.

Both Yorktown and Illustrious, the major damage was by marine near bursts. Neither by direct bomb impacts, below their respective lower protection.

Yorktown went out with jury fixes, as ordered by Nimitz and this quicken its sinking (see damage report) when hit again

Illustrious was hit with 2200lb (not 830lb), and was hit again in port. Many more times by larger munitions, most double or more that hit Yorktown

Of course all ships were repaired in US. You are not sending ships half way round the world to the Uk?
 
Last edited:

McPherson

Banned
His facts are not half truths or plain rubbish.

Both ship types have a main armoured deck (either flight deck or hanger) and BOTH have secondary protection over vitals.

A lot of untruths right through the presentation

Both RN and USN had dual protection. Flight deck and hanger deck vs hanger deck and splinter deck.

Both Yorktown and Illustrious, the major damage was by marine near bursts. Neither by direct bomb impacts, below their respective lower protection.

Yorktown went out with jury fixes, as ordered by Nimitz and this quicken its sinking (see damage report) when hit again

Illustrious was hit with 2200lb (not 830lb), and was hit again in port. Many more times by larger munitions, most double or more that hit Yorktown

Of course all ships were repaired in US. You are not sending ships half way round the world to the Uk


That is Norman Friedman. His scholarship certainly may be questioned... but one may have to be very sure of the rebuttal offered, cause he is an EXPERT. About one of the five BEST living on matters naval.

In this case the rebuttal of fact offered may not be good enough. YMMV and it certainly can be, but for the record... Case offered needs more proof to suggest that he is full of rubbish.

His facts are not half truths or plain rubbish.

A lot of untruths right through the presentation

Come to think of it, may I suggest a re-watch of the video... a careful re-watch because some of rebuttal statements offered about Yorktown as an example are just plain WRONG as to her protection scheme.

And as for Americans repairing British carriers, it is my opinion, that makes the Americans more qualified as to what they reported as out of service and mission kills than what the British reported?

McP.
 
That is Norman Friedman. His scholarship certainly may be questioned... but one may have to be very sure of the rebuttal offered, cause he is an EXPERT. About one of the five BEST living on matters naval.

In this case the rebuttal of fact offered may not be good enough. YMMV and it certainly can be, but for the record... Case offered needs more proof to suggest that he is full of rubbish.



Come to think of it, may I suggest a re-watch of the video... a careful re-watch because some of rebuttal statements offered about Yorktown as an example are just plain WRONG as to her protection scheme.

And as for Americans repairing British carriers, it is my opinion, that makes the Americans more qualified as to what they reported as out of service and mission kills than what the British reported?

McP.

The protection schemes is in his own books, of which I have most.

1596773650392.jpeg


1” non-cemented armour Hanger deck
It covers similar area as Yorktown

A very flippant presentation. But we all have books to sell.

Ironically, modern US carriers are based on the very armoured deck model he dismisses to this crowd, but notes in his books.

I find Friedman great on many things but not carriers. Polmar and others are much more balanced
 
Last edited:
The protection schemes is in his own books, of which I have most.

View attachment 572976

1” non-cemented armour Hanger deck
It covers similar area as Yorktown

A very flippant presentation. But we all have books to sell.

Ironically, modern US carriers are based on the very armoured deck model he dismisses to this crowd, but notes in his books.

I find Friedman great on many things but not carriers. Polmar and others are much more balanced
full size
Click on the above image for an expanded view. This is a Norfolk Navy Yard comparison drawing of the side armour arrangements of HMS Illustrious and an Essex. Picture courtesy 'Researcher at Large'
 

marathag

Banned
Ironically, modern US carriers are based on the very armoured deck model he dismisses to this crowd, but notes in his books.
And how many tons are they? and can't quite use the Panama Canal.

Tradeoffs,
Really big ships let you have speed, large airgroups and armor
 

McPherson

Banned
The protection schemes is in his own books, of which I have most.

View attachment 572976

1” non-cemented armour Hanger deck
It covers similar area as Yorktown

A very flippant presentation. But we all have books to sell.

Ironically, modern US carriers are based on the very armoured deck model he dismisses to this crowd, but notes in his books.

I find Friedman great on many things but not carriers. Polmar and others are much more balanced

Ironically that post has just proved my points I raised in direct rebuttal to the previous assertions made about Mr. Freidman's contentions being inaccurate or not true.

ENDIT. No further discussion.

McP.
 
Last edited:
McPherson's opinion appears to be the classic Slade and Worth, a lot of which uses Friedman as a source.

The problem is that it has been completely de-bunked!
 

McPherson

Banned
It has not been debunked.

Modern US practice is not to mount the flight deck in such a way as to transmit shock to the hull from a flight deck bomb hit. Lesson learned from repairing damaged British flattops. This can be seen in HOW the Midways were built. (^^^)

McP.
 
Last edited:
McPherson's opinion appears to be the classic Slade and Worth, a lot of which uses Friedman as a source.

The problem is that it has been completely de-bunked!
I was very disappointed with Slade and Worth’s paper.

A whole lot of Strawman arguments!!


An example is the armoured RN carriers were junked after the war. Well yes, Illustrious and Formidable both had 2000lb bomb near misses that damaged their hulls, but so did Yorktown (a 830lb), but didn’t survive long term. All needed major dock time to fix properlyNot due to hanger fires or structure.

Indomitable was listed for decommissioning in 1950, as the Centaur class was due in 1955. The fire in ‘53 has hastened that. No one is spending money repairing a dead ship. Especially after the stuff up of Victorious’ modernisation

The most severely damaged Essex class, Franklin and Bunker Hill spent months being repaired post damage. Post war, neither were modernised, and stayed on the bottom of the list. As angled decks were introduced they were forgotten and scrapped. The same as older RN carriers!
 
It has not been debunked.

Modern US practice is not to mount the flight deck in such a way as to transmit shock to the hull from a flight deck bomb hit. Lesson learned from repairing damaged British flattops. This can be seen in HOW the Midways were built. (^^^)

McP.
On Slade and Worth ...
... scratching the surface of their work reveals the essays to be riddled with factual error, a lack of knowledge relating to Mediterranean and Atlantic operations, as well as minimal understanding of the circumstances of Task Force 57's operations off Sakishima Gunto.

The magnitude of such factual errors render their conclusions suspect.
The Midways were the last class of USN Carriers with the lineage of Ranger, with the Hangar and Flight Deck built as a superstructure over the hull.

From the Forrestals onwards US Carrier design adopted the Royal Navy design practice, everything since Ark Royal, of making the Flight Deck the Main Strength Deck.
(The abortive USS United States would have been the first)
 
The armored deck is not built according to British practice at all. I do not know where the British armored hanger carrier fans get that baloney. The Americans do not want shock transmitted directly into the hull,
Oh I don't know!
Because of their immense size they were built to a new, deep-hulled design that incorporated the armored flight deck[2][3] into the hull (previous American design practice was to design the flight deck as superstructure). This was a very similar structural design as used on British "armored" carriers, and grew out of the requirement for such a very large carrier, because carrying the strength deck at the flight deck level produced a stronger and lighter hull.[4]*
(*Friedman, Norman. U.S. Aircraft Carriers: An Illustrated Design History. Naval Institute Press. p. 250)
 

McPherson

Banned

I trust the USN more than Wiki. If you look at the Forrestal examples provided you will see that there are TWO strength decks in the illustration. The second deck sits atop the torpedo defense deep- in the hull. Also your wiki article contradicts itself.

The Forrestal-class carriers, like the Midway class that preceded it, were designed with armored flight decks.[5][6][7][8]
\

So what is it? Built like a Midway or built like an Indomitable? I'll give you a HINT.

fordparts.jpg


From here:


Note; the construction involved.


Pay close attention at 14.34 and ask yourself why the segment being rafted in, with its arch, is shaped the way it is. Strength deck, pfui.
 
Last edited:
I trust the USN more than Wiki. If you look at the Forrestal examples provided you will see that there are TWO strength decks in the illustration. The second deck sits atop the torpedo defense deep- in the hull. Also your wiki article contradicts itself.
As you haven't actually provided an illustration of the Forrestals I'm going to take this as you are simply debating in bad faith and decline to discuss it further.
 

McPherson

Banned
The evidence is there. The arch trusses were in plain sight as the aircraft carrier was put together.. ENDIT. No further discussion.
 

Ok, I'm finally getting back to this thread now that my schoolwork has slackened a bit. Thanks to everybody for the informed responses.

Moving back to the original topic, I guess it isn't really viable for the Germans to license an IJN carrier, and McPherson and Calbear, thanks for the info on the Fi-167 and the BF-109T. I researched it some more and it looks like you guys are right, I underestimated the effect the additional weight would have on the T and the unsuitability of the Fi-167.

Thinking about the Aquila, this is my idea. The Italians were kicking around the idea of building a carrier for all of the 1930s, but it never got done. My POD is that the Spanish Civil War for some reason doesn't happen (let's say the worker's militia are able to suppress the Nationalists in Seville and the whole coup sputters out). The amount of money that both Italy and Germany spent on that war was INSANE; Italy dropped $415,000,0000 in 1939 dollars on it (that amount of money would have been enough to build about ten King George V class battleships for comparison). With those increased resources, Mussolini gives them the go ahead in late 1936. It's plausible, the countries that operated them at that point were mostly countries like Britain, France, the U.S., and Japan that had far-reaching colonial possessions, and Italy was in that club after they conquered Ethiopia. With more available resources, Mussolini might well have decided to do it. This triggers a mini-arms race, with the British authorizing another Illustrious-class, and Germany responds to the trends and decides it would be good to have at least one proper fleet carrier. Nazi naval strategy seems like it was literally random, so who knows, they probably could do that. So they modify the Graf Zeppelin design to reflect this...no more excessive armor and guns, larger air wing. That's the ships.

The second part is the planes. The Bf-109T wasn't a great design, but the carrier-borne version of the Reggiane 2001 had promise. The Germans reviewed and rated it more highly than their own. It could also carry torpedos. Both were powered by the DB-601 engine. My idea was, what if the DB-605 was fielded earlier instead of in 1942 as IOTL? That was the more powerful evolution of the DB-601, and it was basically the same as its predecessor that dated from 1935, except that the German engineers figured out they could drill the cylinders four centimeters wider and get a huge performance boost. The Bf-109 and Reggiane 2005 (basically just the 2001 with the 605 instead of the 601) both maxed out at over 400 mph with it. If the Daimler-Benz engineers drill the cylinders a little wider to create the 605 in like 1937, it would allow them to create the Bf-109G and the Reggiane 205 early, which would give them a carrier fighter with extra horsepower to handle the additional weight of carrier fighter equipment. For a bonus, if the Italian design turns out way better, the Nazis could order it to get a better fighter that can also fill the torpedo bomber role. There was precedent...the Luftwaffe used foreign-sourced planes, the Czech Avia B-543, in their carrier program.

I think this is a pretty realistic POD involving earlier decisions that were made later and minor modifications to engine technology. What do you think? I am trying to troubleshoot a TL idea that I have, I'll admit that, and I'm trying to do my own research, I was just wondering if anyone here had any thoughts because there's a lot who know more than me. If it just isn't plausible, I can accept that.
 
Top