wasn't the real problem the Japanese had was that the hanger were filled with bombs, planes and fuel when they got hit.Isn't that more punishment than the Japanese carriers took, especially Akagi which only took one hit?
wasn't the real problem the Japanese had was that the hanger were filled with bombs, planes and fuel when they got hit.Isn't that more punishment than the Japanese carriers took, especially Akagi which only took one hit?
No, Taihos are fatally flawed, with poor underwater protection, no means of effectively removing avgas vapour, and poor AA and crappy radar. So, IJN copies the Illustrious design instead, create your own POD to get to that end.Surely you mean four Taihos, Admiral Beez? That is the japanese equivalent of the Illustrious class. If taken at literam, how on earth do the japanese board and capture all those four Illustrious?
The IJN carriers now have weapons lifts to the flight deck. Wouldn't they use them?Aircraft would still be exclusively armed below deck, CO2 would still not be pumped into the fueling system during attacks, the ordnance removed from around half the strike package to be replaced with anti-shipping weapons would still be left on the hanger decks and not returned as removed to the more protected magazines, and the D/C effort would still be amateur hour.
Yes, as CalBear points out. However if the Illustrious decks protect the hangar, this clumsy use of munitions may save the day.wasn't the real problem the Japanese had was that the hanger were filled with bombs, planes and fuel when they got hit.
depends on if the US1000 pound bombs penetrate. If they do it's more then likely a re-run of OTL. if not the Japanese could potentially pull off a win.Yes, as CalBear points out. However if the Illustrious decks protect the hangar,
Ah yes, I should have known to look on that webbite.
Isn't that more punishment than the Japanese carriers took, especially Akagi which only took one hit?
Is it actually ASB? The IJN was modelled on the RN, and the alliance was still intact when the RN and IJN got started in naval aviation. Is it possible to come up with some sort of PoD that causes Japanese damage control practices to mirror those of the RN - you're probably not going to get armoured carriers since they were a specific response to the RN having to work in very confined waters, but the fire precautions and armoured hangar floor seem possible.To make a difference you have to effectively replace the IJN personnel, top to bottom, with RN personnel, using RN doctrine. That sort of morphs the question into "WI the RN and USN fought at Midway", which is likely an interesting, albeit ASB, discussion.
Someone needs to lose a carrier in a peacetime avgas explosion, followed by a public inquiry. That'll shake up damage control doctrine.Is it actually ASB? The IJN was modelled on the RN, and the alliance was still intact when the RN and IJN got started in naval aviation. Is it possible to come up with some sort of PoD that causes Japanese damage control practices to mirror those of the RN - you're probably not going to get armoured carriers since they were a specific response to the RN having to work in very confined waters, but the fire precautions and armoured hangar floor seem possible.
I am just picturing them figuring out a way to hook a spool up for a A6M and taking a cat shot.
http://time.com/3924549/navy-aircraft-carrier-electromagnetic-launch/
Probably not a great of a difference than might be imagined. The one big difference would seem to be the radar, but since most IJN fighters had their radios removed by the pilots (to reduce weight) there is no real help as far as fighter direction. There is also the reality that there were TWO IJN destroyers (Kazegumo and Makigumo) with the Kido Butai that were equipped with Type 22 radars, while these were no on the carriers there was radar with Nagumo's ships.