Aircraft carrier and its aircraft

[osuorsa]

There were two main players in WW2 who build much for the carrier force, the United States and Japan. There were also great input by Britons and a little effort by Germans.

Britons, Germans and Japanese upgraded its planes to be carrier capable. USA build new planes for carriers and it evolved into huge sum of great carrier planes like the famous 'cat-series' and Corsair!

Give me your opinions about carriers and its aircrafts in WW2.

[MerkavaMK4]

1941 carriers of Japanese fleet were the best, they and their aircraft outclassed most of the carriers present in US navy (essex is a BIG exception)

1943 carriers of US fleet were the best and their aircraft was the best too.

Original japanese thinking was dedicated into producing aircraft (zero) that highly maneuverable, fast, but it always lacked firepower and durability. In 1941 Zero's were nightmares against old american planes like devastator. In 1943 Zero's became prey to -Cat series, Avengers and thunderbolts.

Zero's could withstand almost nil-damage and their hulls were toilet-paper thin. A solid hit from guns of any new american fighter meant certain death for Zero and its pilots.

Japanese never developed any new aircraft. In 1944 they were flying same (upgraded) zero. In fact during WW-2 Japan was so rigid in its thinking and tactics that that alone would account for 99% of their losses. They constantly under-estimated americans and were prone to making very complicated plans that had to be executed precisely, but murphy's law always interfered there.

Japanese never defended their convoys from american subs and they made several fatal blunders in their fleet operations. Japanese never did manage to appreciate a radar as important tactical and strategic tool.

US carriers were thinly armored and had no deck armor, but they were highly compartmentalised and had excellent damage control teams.

[HunterFN]

Interesting subject, very broad. But to answer the question directly..

British carrier force was not a serious contender to be honest. Their carriers were largely poorly designed, too small and handicapped, and their naval aircraft were even less impressive if possible. A testament to this is the fact they acquired American naval aircraft whenever possible. Their own aircraft consisted of navalised Hurricanes and Spitfires which were extremely poorly suited for carrier ops. They had no proper torpedo planes apart from the age old Swordfish and divebombers were Skuas and other completely unimpressive performers.

Japanese had some excellent designs, which were somewhat hampered by the "poor" design of their naval aircraft. While I definitely agree the A6M was a superb design in the early war years, it did not have proper folding wings unlike the American F4F fighters. This meant a severe disadvantage in the number of aircraft stored, and it was not even decidedly superior to the American F4F's which were able to put up a good fight almost every time they met in combat. Land based US fighters were not so equal, but did remarkably well despite that.

All in all, the Americans had it made, IMO. They had well designed aircraft carriers and not half assed last minute attempts. They also posessed an excellent range of naval aircraft purpose built for naval operations, without similar shortcomings as their japanese (though still undoubtedly good) counterparts.

[bf-fly]

The Zero design, was driven mostly by the fact the Japan were behind in engine technology. The simply were unable to produce high HP engines prior to the war, so their solution was to build one extremely light, ie, no armour but very maneuverable. It worked for a while. Also I believe that they had a small cadre of excellent pilots. As the war continued their training programs could not produce equal replacements. The US of course trained them by the bushel.

[bf-fly]

Here's a good historical account of the design and the engine limitations

http://rwebs.net/dispatch/output.asp?ArticleID=4

[sicsok]

In the last year divers found the WW II German aircraft carrier, the Graf Zeppelin. Did not do much in the war, and the Russians took it to Poland for a short time, sunk it than re-floated it and used as heavy cargo transport and troop-transport. Then she was taken to the sea on the North-Eastern shore of Poland and sunk again, for good this time.
If you use the "search" window with this name, the news and location is available. Swedish and other nationalities' divers are interested to explore and maybe re-float it for museum.
Large size 3-view plans can be downloaded too, copies of the originals.

[F-14blaze]

well, i dont profess to know much, but my dad took a tour of the USS Midway while he was in San Diego, and it was pretty cool. i'll get more details later

my dad actually picked up a t-shirt for me, it has a pin up girl on the back in a naval uniform, thankfully non-nude, my teachers hate it tho, and try to make me cover it up

[zb10948]

The Zero design, was driven mostly by the fact the Japan were behind in engine technology. The simply were unable to produce high HP engines prior to the war, so their solution was to build one extremely light, ie, no armour but very maneuverable. It worked for a while. Also I believe that they had a small cadre of excellent pilots. As the war continued their training programs could not produce equal replacements. The US of course trained them by the bushel.

Agreed. Their main driving force was their fanaticism, and quantity. But they found themselves technologically inferior to their adversaries in middle of the war.

[sicsok]

around Edwards and Mojave (maybe S.D. too) most of the older flyers will tell that the Zero was not an original Japanese design. There was an American designer with a smaller aircraft company that wanted to supply the Navy with a light naval fighter and thus built a couple of these (or 3?). Upon evaluation flights which were over the Pacific Ocean it was getting less than enough attention (it seemed) from the Navy. On one of these evaluation flights they disappeared, one ditched in a return-attempt, told about another that crashed but the third flew away in the direction of a Japanese-occupied island. One year later the Japanese test-flew the "Zero".

[ATFS_Crash]

I think it was during World War II, shortly after Pearl Harbor was bombed that there was a urgent need to move the aircraft carriers quickly through the so they used the Panamá Canal. The Panamá Canal was built to the specifications of the aircraft carrier supposedly however they did not correctly identify and use the correct specifications. The width of the canal was made to the width of the hall but did not take into account the superstructure. Apparently they remembered the superstructure in designing the locks, however apparently they forgot about it when they put up light poles and railings along the canal. So they had to get people out there with cutting torches and cut down many of the light poles and railings so the superstructure could clear. The superstructure actually overhung the canal walls.

Originally Posted by sicsok

around Edwards and Mojave (maybe S.D. too) most of the older flyers will tell that the Zero was not an original Japanese design. There was an American designer with a smaller aircraft company that wanted to supply the Navy with a light naval fighter and thus built a couple of these (or 3?). Upon evaluation flights which were over the Pacific Ocean it was getting less than enough attention (it seemed) from the Navy. On one of these evaluation flights they disappeared, one ditched in a return-attempt, told about another that crashed but the third flew away in the direction of a Japanese-occupied island. One year later the Japanese test-flew the "Zero".

I have never heard it that way. I have heard a lot of suspicion that some of the techniques used to build were copied from American manufacturing. However I've never heard (or don’t remember) of an American fighter prototype that was similar to the zero, let alone being lost or getting lost in free flight at sea near Japan waters.

Do you know the name or designation of the prototype fighter? Do you have any links to any of this information?

The speculation I have heard was that they copied some of the designs from the type of aircraft that Amelia Earhart flew, I think it was the Lockheed Electra. (Even though it was a different type of aircraft, the aluminum and type of metallurgy could been key) I am not sure but I think Japan may have even bought one or more. There was even some speculation they may have found studied Amelia airplane.

Japan bought one or more auto gyros from the US and copied them and use them on very light carriers.

The Japanese Army developed the Kayaba Ka-1 Autogyro for reconnaissance, artillery-spotting, and anti-submarine uses. The Ka-1 was based on an American design first imported to Japan in 1938. The craft was initially developed for use as an observation platform and for artillery spotting duties. The Army liked the craft's short take-off span, and especially its low maintenance requirements. In 1941 production began, with the machines assigned to artillery units for spotting the fall of shells. These carried two crewmen: a pilot and a spotter.

Later, the Japanese Army commissioned two small aircraft carriers intended for coastal antisubmarine (ASW) duties. The Ka-1 was modified by eliminating the spotter's position in order to carry one small depth charge. Ka-1 ASW autogyros operated from shore bases as well as the two small carriers. They appear to have been responsible for at least one successful submarine sinking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrocopter