"Late war" is the operative  phrase here.

By then the USN had built carriers that had much, much larger displacement (with the same a/c capacity) & also greatly increased subdivision, which many authors maintain is what really will keep a ship afloat & fighting.

Those late war CV's still did NOT have armored flight decks, unlike the RN, making them vulnerable to Kamikaze attack while, according to USN observers, a RN CV hit by a kamikaze "would do little more than just send out a sweep-up crew & continue on"<sic>!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

On Thursday, June 4, 2020, 08:25:39 AM MST, xxxxxx@gmail.com <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:


I don't know, some of the USN carriers of the late war (CVs) took a heck of a pounding and kept afloat and fighting. Flight ops is harder once you have damaged planes and burning gas from them on your deck but it took a lot to sink a CV.

They did, however, have a lot of good luck at Midway. If things had went a wee bit different here or there, they might have been on the receiving end of the drubbing.

I was aboard the Missouri in Pearl a few years back. That was something. It feels like there is an entire football pitch between the front turret and the tip of the bow. The #1 turret looms over you like a building. The bridge has armoured windows and and outer ring with some crew, but then there's another 12" of armour and an inner area with controls. And aft of that, another heavy wall (maybe another 12") and then there's what I'd call the ops center or the planning area. Bombs at the right place are probably bad news for a battlewagon like that, but they are not weakly defended. And the guns were supplemented by missiles, phalanx, and so on (cruise missiles too). And lots of secondary and AAA installations.



On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 11:18 AM Phil Pugliese - philpugliese at yahoo.com (via tml list) <xxxxxx@simplelists.com> wrote:
Well they all to go with what they had.
The IJN only actually built one w/ an armored deck (Taiho) & immediately began building more 'flimsies' like the Soryu & Hiryu once things got hot.
Now the RN not only had armored flight decks but they considered the avgas storage to be the same as a magazine so they were armored too.
I read once that one of their CV's was hit by a 1,000lb AP bomb, dive-bombed from a Ju-88!
Not only did it NOT cripple the ship but normal flight ops were still conducted.
Something like that would've probably blown a USN or IJN CV to pieces.
Funny how "what goes around, comes around" where, not too long after WWII, CV construction went back to 'less than tinclad' construction.
Relying solely on the embarked air wing & escorts to keep the enemy at bay.


On Thursday, June 4, 2020, 06:26:05 AM MST, Thomas RUX <xxxxxx@comcast.net> wrote:


Hello all,

This reminds me of the Battle of Jutland. Reading about the battle and seeing a couple of documentaries one conclusion for the loss of so many RN ships was the gun crews failed to follow Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) leaving hatches open to the powder magazines. Then we have WW II when the USN carriers went to sea with unarmored flight decks even though there was good evidence from both the British and Japanese that armored filght decks were a good idea.

Tom Rux
On June 3, 2020 at 8:44 PM xxxxxx@gmail.com wrote:

This is interesting. A deniable strike to punish either a greedy noble or a greedy corporation or the like. Nice!

The one thing that would make this even more reasonable as a scenario would be this:

If everyone is in the middle of active fighting, they're going to know very quickly that this omission is a glaring gaff. Hell is going to be raised right then and there.

If, on the other hand, these ships were built in peacetime, and nobody really had figured they'd have to go into main line of battle anytime soon (show the flag, chase pirates, hammer smaller vessels, etc. but no serious fleet actions with similar sized classes), then the shortcoming, while known to the crews, might not be as big of a deal as long as none of the ships of the class got gutted by a hostile combatant.

Then along comes a real fight, bang goes the ship with the scion, and now you have 'the ancient Rite of Canly' as Duke Leto Atreides would have called it.

Something like that might make the omission's existence for a long period sort of 'it ought to be there, but the ship still does okay in its uses' during peacetime followed by.... real fights and real heavy damage or ship losses.

TomB

On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 11:14 PM Ethan McKinney < xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
Ken Burnside asked me to post this:

While kvetching about the canonical lack of Meson Screens on certain classes of warships I have to make scenarios around for Squadron Strike: Traveller... I came up with the idea for a campaign arc. I bounced it off of my Traveller line developer ( Michael Llaneza ) and...
We got this: Justice by Design A doctrinal error by the Imperial Navy has led to the death of a scion of a noble family. The gallant young officer went down fighting in the finest traditions of the Imperial navy, but might have survived victorious if their ship had been equipped with a meson screen. It was supposed to. Despite the master construction plans and bills of material clearly stating “put a Mk8 Meson Screen in this compartment”, those compartments were used for PO berthing on every single vessel in the class equipped for a humaniti-majority crew (Vegan Confederation destroyers of this class used it for a high-humidity rec area). Someone made an ungodly sum of money on this deception. Someone highly placed, able to interfere with the distribution of construction blueprints for a major class of Imperial warship to dozens or hundreds of naval yards.  These people will pay in blood and in the destruction of all their works. The contract specifies seven generations worth of damage. Every effort will be made to provide (deniable) assets as required. You have been offered the job. What do you do?

-----
The Traveller Mailing List
Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com
To unsubscribe from this list please go to
http://archives.simplelists.com


-----
The Traveller Mailing List
Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com
To unsubscribe from this list please go to
http://archives.simplelists.com


 

-----
The Traveller Mailing List
Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com
To unsubscribe from this list please go to
http://archives.simplelists.com

-----
The Traveller Mailing List
Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com
To unsubscribe from this list please go to
http://archives.simplelists.com

-----
The Traveller Mailing List
Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com
To unsubscribe from this list please go to
http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=EwREIRgLK8vaUEhNlnoNdSGKwnjoID8a