US Aircraft carriers
Author
Discussion

Dr Jekyll

Original Poster:

23,820 posts

290 months

Sunday 20th May 2012
quotequote all
According to the Economist, there was a period in WW2 when the US were building 8 aircraft carriers a month! Can this possibly be right?

FourWheelDrift

92,234 posts

313 months

Sunday 20th May 2012
quotequote all
Escort carriers. Much smaller, production line modular build.

Godalmighty83

417 posts

283 months

Sunday 20th May 2012
quotequote all
Seems about right, although you have to keep in mind a few factors-

The carriers were much much smaller then todays beasts.
The carriers were much much simpler.
Many of the carriers were CVL's or CVE's, not much more then cargo ships or cruisers with a flat top bolted on.
They were in a actual war and had a massive impetuous to build very quickly.

So yes they were building a hell of a lot of carriers (out producing the Japanese 10:1 at some points if memory serves, the pacific war was massively one sided) but on average each of those carriers was nowhere near as much of a engineering feat as a modern carrier.



Simpo Two

92,662 posts

294 months

Sunday 20th May 2012
quotequote all
Wow, just thnk of that. Something cheap and simple to build with a flat top you can operate aircraft from.

Can we get some?

Godalmighty83

417 posts

283 months

Sunday 20th May 2012
quotequote all
Simpo Two said:
Wow, just thnk of that. Something cheap and simple to build with a flat top you can operate aircraft from.

Can we get some?
The Invincible class carriers we currently run (or ran) were classed as CVL's and not actual full carriers.

While iam aware you may be joking its important to note that CVE's were often refered to as 'combustible, vulnerable and expendable' and those who sailed on them didn't usually expect a long life expectancy.

Also in the modern day of logistics heavy massive jets there's no such thing as 'cheap and simple' unless you are planning on a helicopter carrier. Its the size of complexity of the aircraft that has caused the massive hike in size and complexity of the carrier.


shed driver

3,059 posts

189 months

Sunday 20th May 2012
quotequote all
Even as fast as they were building them, they were losing them quicker. One of my recent posts described how the US requested loan of an aircraft carrier from the RN for the Pacific theatre - HMS Victorious became USS Robyn survived some Kamikaze attacks because of the armoured flight deck - American carriers tended to have wooden decks.

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

SD

Tango13

10,047 posts

205 months

Monday 21st May 2012
quotequote all
shed driver said:
Even as fast as they were building them, they were losing them quicker. One of my recent posts described how the US requested loan of an aircraft carrier from the RN for the Pacific theatre - HMS Victorious became USS Robyn survived some Kamikaze attacks because of the armoured flight deck - American carriers tended to have wooden decks.

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

SD
I was reading about both the aircraft and torpedo Kamikaze attacks during the Pacific campaign. When a USN carrier got hit by an aircraft it went home for repairs. When an RN carrier got hit the call to man brooms went out and the wreckage was swept over the side.

A friend of mine did part of his National Service on HMS Indefatigable just after the Korean war and he said it still had a dent in the side of the island from a Kamikaze attack.