Fighters?
- Thread starter shakespear
- Start date
Wulf Corbett
Mongoose
This inspired an immediate post-war idea of rubber-coated carrier decks, and fighters with NO UNDERCARRAGE - to save weight. Tested with Vampire jets. Fine except for the same problem as the German Komet - landing on a skid mesnt they couldn't get out of the way of the next 'plane in!Reaverman said:
Wulf
Lord David the Denied
Mongoose
Reaverman said:
He was the cousin of my mother's first cousin. I don't know whether makes him umpteen times removed or just a third cousin, but he was definitely a cousin.
And I'm 23 if you're wondering...
Wulf Corbett said:
Actually, everything I've heard about it was that the rockets were to be fired first then the unit turned on a run at a nearby bomber, cockpit section was jettisoned and the engine portion allowed to ram said bomber. have to check my cutaway on it but I dont recall seeing any para recovery option on the back half or seeing that as a possibility. could be wrong though, have to check. either way it's one of those "they really thought this was practical? wth?!" sort of things the germans were famous for.
Locutus9956
Mongoose
Cousin is one of those little misleading terms that doesnt bother with little prefixies like grand and great grand etc etc 
On the subject of relatives in the navy. Both my gradfathers were sailors, one was in the Merchant navy and spent most of the war running north atlantic oil convoys (though he would never talk about it (which I can understand, he wasnt sunk himself but I got the impression he had seen other tankers go down...))
My other grandfather was in the Royal Navy and served about the Gallant (Destrouyer) until it was sunk, then after some time in hospital spent most of the rest of the war tearing about the channel in MTBs.
Which reminds me.... are there going to be smaller vessels like torpedo boats in VAS?
On the subject of relatives in the navy. Both my gradfathers were sailors, one was in the Merchant navy and spent most of the war running north atlantic oil convoys (though he would never talk about it (which I can understand, he wasnt sunk himself but I got the impression he had seen other tankers go down...))
My other grandfather was in the Royal Navy and served about the Gallant (Destrouyer) until it was sunk, then after some time in hospital spent most of the rest of the war tearing about the channel in MTBs.
Which reminds me.... are there going to be smaller vessels like torpedo boats in VAS?
Wulf Corbett
Mongoose
No MTBs as yet, despite my nagging Matt :wink:Locutus9956 said:
Wulf
Lord David the Denied
Mongoose
Nag him some more, Wulf.
:twisted: Wulf Corbett
Mongoose
PT boats in the Pacific would use the same rules though. And there were plenty of MTBs and S-Boats in the Channel, the busiest waterway in the world.Reaverman said:
Wulf
Reaverman said:
Ah, another one of these little naval myths. Armoured decks have their uses and strengths, but they also have a few downsides. Although there is much literature out there on this for those who are interested in this here's a good short article, well worth the read:
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-030.htm
Not a myth, it was observed several times in action. Of course the reason why armoured decks were effective against Kamikazes was because the penetrative capability of the aircraft and bomb together was sigificantly less than the bomb by itself, and the bombs carried were generally set to detonate on contact.
Lord David the Denied
Mongoose
Nice. Like that avatar too. 8)
captainsmirk
Mongoose
I think the thing about the british carriers was not so much the fact that they survived the kamikazes better but that they just swept the deck of wreckage, filled the dent with concrete and went back to flying operations again.
Not something a wooden decked carrier could manage.
However of course they were much smaller and handicapped by the single hanger deck most of them had. US carriers could carry lots more aircraft...
Nick
Not something a wooden decked carrier could manage.
However of course they were much smaller and handicapped by the single hanger deck most of them had. US carriers could carry lots more aircraft...
Nick
Wulf Corbett
Mongoose
You don't still have 147 different varieties of MTB do you? :wink:DM said:
Wulf
The thing to remember about the differences between US and RN carrier design was the operational environment and hence the threat, operating profiles, tasks within the fleet etc. in which they were expected to work, which were quite different. As these merged towards the end of th war, and operational experience could be effectively incorporated in new CV design its interesting to notice the convergence taking placein the Midway and Malta class carriers.
DM said:
Quite right.
The point I was trying to make was that just because RN carriers were "armoured" they were somehow better suited to operations in the Pacific towards the end of the war. Sometimes the abilities of the RN carriers are overrated in these terms while the design principles behind the USN carriers are trashed when in fact they did excedingly well in the longterm. Then there is also the difference between the well built fleet carriers and the rather more expendable escort carriers.Of course they were designed with competely different threat in mind and area to operate it. The experiences of the armoured carriers in the Medi show that to an extent this approach had its merits.
