Where the armoured carriers worthwhile?
You have spent pages explaining that the armoured carriers got bombed (and then took a long time to fix) and where very good kamikaze targets. None of this actually goes towards answering the question of where the armoured carriers worthwhile.
Aircraft carriers (the way the US used them) where required to provide aircraft, both fighters and attack, to a fleet environment as a means of attaching enemy sea and land-based forces. Let’s examine them from this perspective. The cost of a warship in WWII was almost directly proportional to its construction weight i.e. how much steel had gone into building it. The amount of time taken to build the ship was also very closely related to the cost and weight of steel (as long as we are comparing similarly complex naval ships with steam turbines, not the much simpler construction arrangement of merchant ships).
The Essex class carriers had a design standard displacement of 27,500 t (metric). To get to a building weight I have done rough calculations of the following; ammunition = 1,200 t, equipment = 2,700 t, aircraft = 500 t, personnel & stores = 800 t giving us a construction weight of 22,300 t.
The Illustrious class carriers had a design standard displacement of 23,500 t (metric). To get to a building weight I have done similar rough calculations; ammunition = 700 t, equipment = 1,500 t, aircraft = 200 t, personnel & stores = 300 t giving us a construction weight of 20,800 t.
An Essex class carrier has a construction weight 7% higher than an Illustrious class carrier. The US (with 3 shipyards involved) managed to build and commission 14 Essex class carriers before hostilities ended. Based on the above they would have been able to construct 15 Illustrious class carriers with the same expense and effort in the same timeframe.
14 Essex carriers each with 95 operational aircraft (happy to debate this with you) gives a total compliment of 1,330 aircraft. 15 Illustrious carriers each with 55 operational aircraft gives a total compliment of 825 aircraft or only 62%.
That, in itself, is a fairly glaring difference but that is just telling us carrying capacity and does not relate to operational ability. The point of having carriers is to be able to project power in an area for days or even weeks as the US fleet had to do repeatedly through 1944 and 45. Due to the limited aviation fuel (and perhaps fuel oil and ammunition) stores of the Illustrious class you will note that throughout operation Iceberg the BPF was only able to stay on station for 2 days. They then had to withdraw and refuel which took at least 2 days (3 or more earlier on). The UK carriers had to be relieved by a US escort fleet task group for the days they were not on station.
Hence, we either have to accept that we have a task group of 15 aircraft carriers that are only available 50% of the time (not really practical or useful for the US fleet based on the operational history during WWII) or you had to divide the 15 carriers into two groups of 8 and 7 so that you actually had carriers on station full time.
The Essex class were able to stay on operational duty for at least 5 days between resupplies based on operational descriptions and just a simple comparison of the fuel capacity between the 2 (240,000 gal vs 60,000 gal). That means that the Essex class could be on station for 5 days out of 7 or 71% of the time.
A fleet of 10 Essex class carriers could be kept on station full time (obviously within reason but definitely up to 1 month at a time) with a total fleet of 14 carriers (10 on station with 4 resupplying). 10 Essex class carriers would provide an operation air group of 950 aircraft.
8 Illustrious class carriers would provide an operation air group of 440 aircraft or 46%.
That is the true cost of the armoured box and the US would not have been able to support the fleet operations that they did with such a substantial reduction in available aircraft.
I know that you are now going to say, “but the Mediterranean”. You have provided no evidence that the Essex class would have been any worse off than the Illustrious class in the 3 arial bombing actions in the Med. In fact the only authorative evidence you provided was from the BuShips assessment which stated “The question is often asked as to what the results would have been if a ship of the CV 9 class had been subjected to the same attack as the Illustrious Assuming the hits to have occurred in approximately the same locations in CV 9, as in the Illustrious, there seems no reason to believe that the CV 9 would not also have survived. The bomb striking the middle portion of the flight deck would almost certainly have had its fuze action initiated at the flight deck and therefore might have detonated before reaching the hangar deck, or it might have penetrated the hangar deck and detonated after penetration with severe but probably not fatal, structural damage.”
So as to the question “where the armoured carriers worthwhile” I would say that unless you want an air group of only 46% the size then the answer has to be no.
Apples with apples
As to your “The "apples with apples" comparison is the similarity of construction dates, the similar stage of doctrine evolution under which they were designed (no war experience), and the same treaty limitations.” argument, it holds absolutely no water either.
Similarity in construction dates – USS Yorktown was laid down on 21st May 1934, HMS Illustrious was laid down 27th April 1937, USS Essex was laid down April 1941. HMS Illustrious and USS Yorktown were 35 months apart, USS Essex and HMS Illustrious were 48 months apart. In your world 3 years apart is a similar construction date but 4 years apart is completely different time frames? This is another instance of you being disingenuous to further your narrative on this website.
Similar stage of doctrine – you make a big deal about USS Essex being designed after the start of the war and how many lessons had been learned and how much technology had changed (in fact you laughably compare this to the difference between the Fulmar and the Hellcat but I will get to that later) between the design of Illustrious and Essex. I can only assume that you have no technical background if you think that the design of the Essex class happened post not only the outbreak of war in Europe in 1939 but post carrier operations in the European theatre that they could actually have learned from (late 1940’s – Illustrious in the Med??). As USS Essex was laid down in April 41 the construction drawings must have been finalised months before that to be approved to go for construction. The actual design would have had to be finalised long enough before that for the drawings to be produced (by hand back then). This is not a 2-week process we are talking about, this would have taken a few years. The description of the design talks about taking into account learnings from the Yorktown class and from USS Wasp (deck edge lift) and only just in time. USS Hornet (CV-8) was laid down in September 1939 to a very slightly modified Yorktown class design. Treaty restriction were out the window by then, but they couldn’t just come up with a new design overnight, hence the Yorktown class design.
But if you still want to stick to this argument, please list all the design attributes that were changed for the Essex class based on the extensive wartime operational experiences with aircraft carriers of the Royal Navy – go ahead, I’ll wait.
Same treaty limitations – you are 100% correct, both the Yorktown class and Illustrious class were designed under treaty limitations. Unfortunately, you have not bothered to read about these naval treaties (isn’t not doing your own research something you have accused a few other people of on your website?) because they were not constructed to the same treaty limitations. The Yorktown class (Yorktown and Enterprise anyway) were constructed under the limitations of the Washington Naval Treaty which was in effect from 1923 until 1936 (some items were further tightened by the London Naval Treaty of 1930 but did not impact carriers). This restricted both the US and UK to a maximum cumulative of 135,000 tons for aircraft carriers. This is why the US experimented with USS Ranger (at a standard displacement of only 14,500 tons) to try and get as many carriers as possible out of the limits and constructed USS Wasp at 14,700 tons to use the last remainder of their 135,000-ton allowance. The Washington Naval Treaty allowed a maximum standard displacement of 27,000 tons (exception of 2 converted capital ship hulls at 33,000 tons) for an aircraft carrier. As such the Essex class would actually have complied with the Washington Naval Treaty (as close as most ships were anyway)
The illustrious class was built under the limits of the Second London Naval Treaty, signed in March 1936, which dropped the total limit for any class of ship but included a restriction of aircraft carriers to a maximum of 22,000 tons. This was only requested by the British, for reasons unknown, no other country wanted this clause. The Japanese refused to sign, the Italians didn’t even attend the conference and of course the Germans were not even invited. Hence the only signatories that matter were the UK and US (France signed but didn’t build an aircraft carrier). Japan immediately started building carriers bigger than this and no-one else finished an aircraft carrier, so it doesn’t really count. Ark Royal and the first 3 Illustrious carriers were the only aircraft carriers ever built to this treaty limit of 23,000 tons. The reason I specifically mention the first 3 is that Indomitable with a deep load displacement 1,000 tons higher than Illustrious must have a higher standard displacement and Implacable and Indefatigable at 5,000 tons more are even larger (addition of a 20 ft section in the middle of the hull will do that).
So, let’s play your apples with apples game. The Yorktown class had a design standard displacement of 19,800 tons, the Illustrious class had a design standard displacement of 23,200 tons (info on your website). The Illustrious class are 3,400 ton heavier but more importantly they are 17.2% heavier. The reason the percentage is import is because if you add 1,000 tons to a ship, the impact of this dependent on much the ship weighs. Add 1,000 tons to a ship that only weighs 1,000 tons and you have increased its displacement by 100% - that is huge. Add 1,000 tons to a ship that weighs 10,000 tons and you have increased its displacement by 10% - still a very useful increase but certainly not the same as doubling. Add 1,000 tons to a ship that weighs 100,000 tons and you have only increased its displacement by 1% - that would be of limited use. The Essex class had a design standard displacement of 27,100 tons. That is an increase over the Illustrious class of 16.8%, so there is a smaller difference between the Essex class and Illustrious class than there is between the Illustrious class and Yorktown class.
The Illustrious “apple” and the Yorktown “apple” are as similar to each other as the Essex “pear” (I assume you don’t consider it an apple as well) is to the Illustrious “apple”. If you think it is fair to compare the Illustrious class to the Yorktown class, I contend that it is equally fair to compare the Essex class to the Yorktown class.
I said I would get back to your aircraft comparison so here goes. “The Essex is a 1940s ship built after the abandonment of treaties and the first lessons of war from Europe. The Illustrious is a 1936 design and built under treaty restrictions. It is like comparing the Fulmar to the Hellcat – one of which belongs to a generation which learned and built upon the generation preceding it.”
Firstly, comparing the Hellcat with the Fulmar is again being disingenuous. The Fulmar was a handicapped concept from the start, 2-seater fighters were just not competitive and not a useful idea. I would be willy to be a month’s salary that there is nothing Grumman learnt from the FAA operating the Fulmar that influenced a single one of the Hellcats design features.
Your comparison of carriers to aircraft is fundamentally flawed because although the Hellcat would have learnt a number of lessons from the Wildcat, technological advances were responsible for more of the improvement than pure lessons learnt. If the Hellcats the P&W R-2800-10W producing 2,250 hp was available when they design the F4F-3 Wildcat do you really believe that they still would have chosen the P&W R-1830-76 producing only 1,200hp?? A faster, more powerful aeroplane would obviously have been preferable, they didn’t need war experience to find this out. The technology physically wasn’t there to produce the Hellcat when the Wildcat was designed.
Ships didn’t go through anything like the technology improvement that aircraft did. There was no massive increase in powerplant output, no increase in speed through the entire war at all (Yorktown and Essex had the same maximum speed of 33 knots). The improvements that did happen, AA upgrades, radar etc. were applied as easily to existing ships as they were to new designs.
You say that the Illustrious class cannot be compared to the Essex class because of the generationally learning between the two and all the “lessons of war” accumulated by the RN that changed the Essex class design. Once again, please make a list of all the design attributes that were changed for the Essex class based on these “lessons” – go ahead, I’ll wait.
Aircraft compliment
Firstly, there is no reason to continually place “reserve” or “spares” in quotation marks, this is not a direct quote or book title and if they are intended to indicate sarcasm or irony you misunderstand the meaning of both words.
The aircraft compliment of the Yorktown Class carriers at Midway is incredibly easy to determine and requires very little further research. All you have to do is read the action reports and logs on the cv6.org website that you gleefully post links to everywhere on your site for the Enterprise damage report “CLICK HERE TO COMPARE”!. A brief reading of these reports would have answered your questions so I can only presume that either you haven’t bothered to read any of the material on that website or that you found it very quickly and decided to ignore it because it contradicts the narrative you are trying to force through.
A very quick review of “Action Report (Serial 0133)” for the Battle of Midway section gives the launchings sequence by Enterprise from her commanding officer. The strike itself (commencing at 09:06) consisted of 32 VBs, 14 VTs and 10 VFs giving 56 aircraft in the strike. Further, at 11:29, 8 VF were launched on the 2nd CAP and 8 VF from the 1st CAP were landed at 11:45 (the launch of the 1st CAP is missing from the time stamps, but I assume even you will accept that if aircraft were landed from a CAP they must first have been launched from that carrier).
That adds a further 18 aircraft on CAP which brings the total to 72 aircraft launched. We also know that this was not the full compliment because, with a little extra reading, the Bombing Squadron 6 actions report states that on June 4 “eighteen SBD-2 and SBD-3 planes assigned and all were in commission” and the Scouting Squadron 6 actions report states that on June 4 “There were eighteen SBD-3 planes assigned and all were in commission”. This means there were actually 36 SBDs, resulting in at least 76 aircraft operational. The reason I say at least 76 is because it is highly unlikely that you could have 100% of the aircraft on board operational. I do not mean that in your concept of “spare” aircraft hanging from the roof either assembled or disassembled. What I mean is physically operational, able to start their engines and fly. Even modern aircraft with reliable gas turbines do not achieve anywhere near a 100% availability, so although it is possible that the maintenance crew made an inhuman effort and got every single aircraft on board flyable, I find it highly unlikely.
Now let’s consider the rest of the fleet. Open-source descriptions of the Battle of Midway record that Enterprise and Hornets combined strike consisted of 67 VBs, 29 VTs and 20 VFs. This means that Hornet actually launched 35 VBs, 15 VTs and 10 VFs of her own. To assume that she would not also have had a similar CAP up is being disingenuous. That would bring her total flyable compliment to 76 aircraft as well.
As to your statement that “Clearly at least some percentage of Yorktown's listed air group for Midway was made up of "reserve" aircraft as there are multiple references to these aircraft being unslung from the hangar ceiling and rolled over the side during damage control efforts” in all the reading that I have done about the Battle of Midway I have never found a specific reference to aircraft being unslung from the hangar ceiling. Aircraft in the hangar were definitely rolled over the side to reduce weight and assist the list after her torpedo hits but these were normal operational aircraft still on board. Please provide a reference for this statement if you intend to cling to this argument.
Kamikaze’ ain’t kamikazes
Your continued comparison of kamikaze attacks against RN carriers with the Franklin and Bunker Hill attacks can only be due to a technical lack of understanding of the situation or a deliberate disingenuous use of an example you know is not comparable to try and further your one sided agenda on this site.
No RN carriers were ever attacked (either by bombs or kamikaze) with a full deck load of aircraft fueled and armed for a strike. In the worst case according to your own website, the Formidable attack on the 9th May, 3 x Corsairs were set on fire and only 2 of them were fully fueled with drop tanks. Not a single aircraft was ever armed with bombs.
Compare this with Franklin's damage report (which you have so kindly posted numerous links to), which clearly records 2 x 550lb bomb hits (so I don't understand why you repeatedly write "1 (or possibly 2)" like it is somehow in dispute...). 5 x SB2C's fueled and with x250lb and 2x500lb bombs each, 14 x Avengers fueled with 4 x 500lb bombs each, 12 x Corsairs fueled with belly tanks and 1 x Tiny Tim on the flight deck. 11 x F6F fueled with belly tanks and 5 x Corsairs fueled with belly tanks and 1 x Tiny Tim in hangar deck. 66 x 500lb and 10x250lb bombs on the flight deck. Also 10,670 gallons (40,390 liters)of avgas. Another 6,400 gallons 24,200 liters was in the hangar. In total this was 28% of the avgas that the Illustrious class could carry.
Based on the damage assessment report they believe that 60% of the bombs on deck detonated high order, that is 39x550lb and 6x250lb totaling 22,950lb of bombs. These were general purpose bombs which have just over a 50% fill of explosives, so 11,475lb of TNT.
The 2,200lb Esau that you go on and on about is an armor piercing bomb with a 16% fill which is 350lb. The explosives detonated on Franklin's deck equate to 32 of these bombs.
The majority of the aircraft and all of the bomb tonnage mentioned above was on the flight deck at the time. An armored deck would have made no difference to being able to ignite this.
I would say that far from being the prime example of how weak and vulnerable the Essex class were the Franklin example shows that she survived substantially more damage than any other carrier was exposed to during WWII, certainly far more than any Illustrious class carrier, and still managed to steam all the way to New York under her own power.