The US started to implement some of the armor of Implacibles into the Essex planning. The Essex was based on the design CV-9F, while the Midways were started from CV-9G, which had an armored flight deck.
@@josepetersen7112 The Midways grew in size and weight because of the armor of the flight deck and the size air group they wanted them to have. But the Midway was akin to the Essex with the main strength deck being the hanger deck. The first "deep hull" carrier was the Forrestal which had the flight deck as the strength deck. Part of the reason the Midway's were so wet was because of the main strength deck being the hanger deck and the weight of the armored flight deck above it.
I agree about flight deck armour; if you’re expecting to operate carriers at very long range from your bases, increasing their resilience to a “soft” kill is very useful. Losing the ability to operate aircraft, or just losing too many aircraft to ditching or hits penetrating the hangar (and associated personnel, of course) takes you out of the fight and it’s a _looong_ way back home.
I'd assume if it was taken up by the Australians it would of been one of the two that had been moth balled at the end of ww2 so Franklin or Bunker Hill after seeing repaired and not modernized as the plan was wait till the final Essex modernization and do them.
John Brown built Queen Mary at 310 Meters so loads of room to make a longer carrier. Though on typing that I had a thought....what was the longest dry dock in the far east.....sure they would have realized they probably would see action out there.....may explain why the ship was built to that length.
a small point in the defense of the Shokaku class, their strategy was to have their aircraft out-range any opponent so the carriers would stay outside of range of any fire... which they did succeed in at a few points during the war and failed at spectacularly so at other times
Classic instance of when it worked was the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot. Of course, even though the Americans carriers couldn't reach the Japanese, submarines could and did.
Historical "What if" What if at the outbreak of WW2 the Admiralty, looking at the available shipyard space, thought "Not enough", and secured UK Government approval to place Warship orders in the (still neutral) US yards (assume that the Govt handled all the diplomatic/legal issues), and three additional Implacables are laid down November 1939 in US Yards, with the yards told "crash build them, theres a bonus for early completion." So in December 42, when the US need carriers, theres another option other than "USS Robin", three largely complete Implacables sitting in US Yards. Question: What would the USN make of the Implacables? They're designed to different doctrinal requirements, and have different operating capabilities to those the USN is used to - how would the US operate them, what lessons (positive or negative) would they learn from them?
Question answer, part I: IJN gets lightly armoured flight decks on fleet carriers and damage control procedures from the Royal Navy, replaces the Type 96 25mm AA guns with something a bit more effective, and strip out any gun over 40mm and put that displacement towards the armoured flight deck and a couple more aircraft, assign defense to escorts and the CAP. Training wise, more work on night operations, and use the USN system for rotating experienced aircrew back home to act as training cadre to increase the quality of replacement pilots and avoid losing too many experienced 'in one go' when you lose a carrier. Fantasy level, the IJN steal the sto-wing design from Grumman and cram even more aircraft on board.
I know of the IJNs ambush strategy but everytime you explain it Dr. Clarke I can't help but wonder what if one of those ambushes is too successful or successful enough like and whoever their opponent is, decides to retreat before they can engage with the battle fleet? I mean that would give them control of the sea but only until their opponent comes back with a rebuilt fleet or allies.
As you were explaining the question my mind immediately went to additional speed into the Essex as my first thought, before you even mentioned it. But also the additional night operations equipment from Implacables for fundamentally the same core reason (assuming of course that sufficient training for the aircrew occurred): The focus on raiding. Being able to more quickly move after launching a strike, or between enemy strike waves, can increase survivability by forcing the enemy strike to need to search more ... or at least need to plan on reserves for a larger search box. Then being able to launch or recover strikes earlier/later into the day aids with being able to get those strikes in before the enemy has been able to get theirs and/or effective CAP in the air as well, perhaps even catching them on the deck/ground being prepared for the day. For both the Shokaku and Implacables my answer is the same: larger deck and hangar area ala Essex - It's hard to go wrong with just being able to put more of your aircraft into the air at the same time. I can't think of any WW2 Naval Planner that wouldn't like more aircraft in their strike packages, no matter where they're intended to be used. Barring that, speed for Implacables and Night Operations equipment for Shokaku for basically the same reasons as for the Essexes - Both increase survivability and improve your ability to strike targets and not be QUITE where the counter strike expects. Honestly I think looking too closely at the defensive armaments of the carriers themselves is a little bit of a distraction because they should also be operating along with other vessels that can contribute to the air defense - and by late war some of the American task forces (where I'm admittedly more familiar) would reach almost the same levels of AA as some European cities just from the ship. One thought I had, and maybe my ADHD kicked in and I focused on something else during the precise minute you might have mentioned it, how do they compare on overall maneuverability? Things like turning circle at speed, crash stop distances, etc. That might be a place to look for where to borrow from the other designs because of the impact that maneuvers would have on avoiding dive bombers and torpedos (from bombers or subs). I know the USN would have been happier if Saratoga had sucked up a torpedo or two less......
For the japanese, I would take the RNs night fighting abilities. The japanese were already planning night attacks with destroyers & cruisers. Add night time air attack & Coral Sea & Midway may have been very different. For the US, the armoured flight deck of the Implacables. For the RN, the speed of the Shokakus (without compromising manoeuvrability) to help with evasion and the higher hangars & deck edge lifts of the Essex (although an armoured deck edge lift solution would be a challenge)
The USN Considered a slanted flight deck for the Essex design, but Admiral King rejected it early in the design process because of the risk of delays to production.
The Yorktowns were not the only design that the USN looked at creating an improved version of. Amongst the surviving material from the 1940s is a plan designated 'CVX' for an improved version of USS Wasp (CV-7) that would have been capable of 32knots. Thankfully the USN realised that the design was not viable and didn't proceed with mass producing them.
A longer carrier, deck edge lift. British tall masts for night flying might be nice, as well as the training to go with it. TBH, the speeds at around 33knts is about enough for CV operations. I think these fit all the general doctrines. The British might've been able to use more fuel in addition to this. The potential strike packages seem hampered by this. The Essex's hangar heights might do better than smaller two-storey hangars that limit plane sizes. The USN doesn't quite need very much more for the doctrine beyond the general changes. What they really needed was HMS Unicorn IMO. Dedicated rear-repair CV, that works in concert to keep the spares to the forward CVs. The Japanese might've been able to use a bigger air group perhaps? 40mm Bofors would be nice.
Question; do you think the RN would actually have got the Maltas if the Implacables hadn’t been delayed/delayed as much? It strikes me that the Malta project would also have then been a bit further along before the end of the war.
Well from the point of view of the men in the hangar the British have the best idea for deck armor. The guys on the flight deck will always be the most vulnerable no matter which style you choose.
BZ. Perhaps it's just my naivety and maybe also the benefit of hindsight, but I think that despite differences in doctrine, a sort-of dream carrier for all three navies would be much closer to each other than the historical Shokakus/Implacables/Essexes. IJN and USN get the armored deck. IJN gets a proper funnel integrated with the island superstructure, and much improved AA. Maybe the Type 98 100mm for heavy AA, and some kind of (historically non-existent) 35-40mm medium AA instead of the terrible 25mm gun they had. And also much better AA fire control. And better damage control, though this is maybe more a crew/doctrine question rather than a feature of the carrier itself? As for speed, how much extra machinery weight did the 34.5 kn top speed of the Shokakus cost? Could they have saved a lot of tonnage by aiming for, say, 32 kn? USN installs the 5"/38 turrets recessed below the level of the flight deck, 8 twin turrets on both sides of the flight deck similar to the Implacable class 4.5" installations. As for the RN, I don't know, they did most things right. Maybe make it a bit bigger than the Implacables? Both USN and RN, forget the 20mm Oerlikons, just fit as much 40mm Bofors guns as possible instead. Size-wise, with the above changes all three would be a bit bigger than historically. The USN at least really wants their carrier to fit within the Panamax limits. Maybe RN too, depending on how the Pacific war goes?
Camel Lairds, Harland & Wolf, both Vickers Yards... all the RN Dockyards baring Chatham & more besides... basically any yard which had built a Dreadnought style battleship could have.
56:04 they could technically romance the USN into committing their battle fleet to a Kentai Kessen type battle, if the Japanese instead went on full offensive attack on Philippines and bait the US fleet into sending battleships to attack IJN fleet in the Philippines per USN War Plan Orange.
oh please don't start, the fact that books were written from both sides during the war of the love of x reforming y to whichever side has always to an extent disturbed me...
@@DrAlexClarke ok, that was cruel. How would you feel about a story about the crew of MN Bearn erm keeping the French gold "safe" in a south american port, of a country without extradition treaty?
The Shokaku's would need improved survivability, more armor, fighter direction capablity, or AA fire would fit without radically changing crew training or sacrificing speed. Night strike in any capacity would be a boon for their strategic ability. The Essexs could use more speed but night strike capacity would massive increase in their raiding flexibility. The Implacable's, hanger hight and hopefully the increase in displacement allows for a increase of speed. In all other respects the ships fit the doctrin of their respective navy's or require
The obvious two to me are giving the Shokaku class the AA suite and deck catapult (and, later, two deck catapults) of the Essex. They were originally deployed without catapults (I may be wrong about that, I was just reviewing specs on Wikipedia) and IJN AA was never as good as it could have been. For that matter, I doubt RN captains would have argued with a second catapult either, although at least the Implacables had one. If the IJN had been able to launch even marginally heavier loads on their dive bombers early in the war - say, 750lb bombs instead of 500lb, or with drop tanks - a number of heavily damaged US carriers might have been sunk instead. **cough**Enterprise**cough** Since the point of the Essex was "mass production" I'm not sure how many changes you could make to the design without compromising on that? Making it bigger/faster would add cost and complexity, and IIRC the turbine/boiler sets for them were already a bit of a bottleneck. The hangar level flying-off decks of earlier IJN carriers is an interesting idea to me - I know it didn't pan out, and the Shokaku didn't have one, but because of the sheltered nature, I wonder if it would have been useful for Northern European operations? If you could get a strike airborne in bad weather, it could be sneaky - assuming weather had cleared up by recovery-time. You'd need really good weather forecasting for that, though.
32 minutes in, British fuel supplies and strategy. So putting it in WW1 Trench Warfare terms, the British are looking ar a "Bite and Hold" strategy - something you can do with less logistics to hand, then repeat fairly quickly because rebuilding the logistics necessary to take the next bite is a (relatively) small task. A strategic varient on the RN's "continuous operations" tactical doctrine..
Regarding Passion and the US. Could a blockaded Douglas MacArthur in the Philippines been able to apply political pressure on the USN to show up? i.e., fight in the Philippines, but pressure MacArthur, not defeat him. Make it look like he's able to hold out, if only the USN would run a Malta-style resupply to him. Admittedly, this plays a lot of political and media games, more akin to a modern war, rather than what they did and understood about the US.
The IJN doctrine has the carriers serve primarily in the attritional phase of their plans. For this, they would likely benefit from the range and spare aircraft of the Essex class. The RN could probably benefit from going bigger, like the Essex class. More tonnage would allow for bigger hangers and bigger air groups, in order to maintain constant flight operations, while still having that alpha strike capability, while retaining the protection and night-fighting systems. I'm not sure how the Essex class could be improved, because it did everything the USN asked of it, and then some. More armor would probably make them harder to build and repair as fast as they were. They had the best hangers of the three, and had the most room for upgrades. Maybe the night-fighting systems of the Implacable class could be beneficial, but I don't think night-fighting was a big part of USN doctrine.
Slight correction. The Essexes were fitted with night fighters in 44 and USS Bonhomme Richard was given a Night Air Group when she was deployed towards the end of the War. It’s just that for the USN’s night carrier needs they delegated USS Independence a light carrier and later Enterprise and Saratoga (older fleet carriers) to that role.
IJN need to take the USN / RN Pilot training and operation doctrine, could have lost a knot of speed and get created a better Damage control system. The Implacables need to increase the height of the hanger deck, and have the USN of the IJN to create the best carrier for RN in time for ww2. the Essex are could have had a little more amour and may be the fight control from RN, the USN and IJN are fighting different battles, but starting the war with IJN Pilot training, which mean you only take the top 1% however with a large population this might work, however need to remember to rotary your pilot to allow them to train your top 10% to be as good as you can.
Pretty much my thoughts. RN: longer hull and larger (higher) hangar with deck edge lifts. USN: bit more armour and better flight control / night flying the maximise aviation capability on a fantastic hull. INJ: Better force regeneration of aviation and survivability of aircraft. Much more focus on defensive capabilities, radar and nighttime operations.
I don't know about the doctrine thing. Maybe the ethics's could have been a little more survivable. I don't know about that though, cuz the US was right to emphasize the big deck loads. I think the implacables could have been a little bigger, but I would be curious to know what that would do to Suez draft. A lot of work had to be put in to get those kgvs to go through there. As for the Japanese, I think they would have to build super carriers to match their super yamato's. I legitimately don't understand how they thought they were going to win that war though. I think everybody just got stupid, a form of mass psychosis / groupthink. It happens with organizations where the punishment for being on the wrong side is significant.
Stockpiling the entire quantity of fuel used by both sides in the entire war is a brilliant strategy. Think the Axis was short of fuel in WWII as it happened? That's nothing. Which is exactly what is left for the Axis powers (and also the USA, France, the USSR, China, ...)
I think the main features I would like to take is the deck edge lifts and higher hanger height from the Essex for the Implacable. The deck edge lifts allow for more survivability and quicker restoration of flight operations, which would help RN doctrine in contested waters. For the Shokakus, definitely the RN’s homing system to enable easier navigation when recovering alpha strikes. That would let them be more aggressive at launching late afternoon/evening strikes. For the Essex, I am less sure.
