Comments by "" (@BobSmith-dk8nw) on "'Armoured' and 'Unarmoured' Carriers - Survivability vs Strike Power" video.

Yes. Very well done. Each Navy designed their ships for the environment they would operate in. Ship design and aircraft development were still in their early stages. RAF control of RN aircraft - was not a good thing but those types of mistakes were common amongst the worlds nations in what was the infancy of many such weapons. The US still has problems with that in that the Air Force won't let the Army have fixed wing aircraft and regards such planes as the A-10 and ground attack as a chore they'd as soon not have to support. So the Army has to make do with Rotor Wing Aircraft. A few more comments. First, with wooden flight decks, for some levels of damage the US flight decks were easy to repair - as with the Yorktown at Midway after the first attacks. Second, one of the big things about an open hangar is that it's more conducive to working on aircraft as you can run the engines more easily (without as much need for forced ventilation) without killing everyone from the exhaust. Third - all that extra space comes in handy for working on aircraft too, just from it easing moving things around inside a less cramped hangar. Fourth, since the USN knew that it's primary enemy would be Japan - it was more important to sink Japanese Carriers than it was to preserve our own - since we could always build more and they couldn't. Fifth - storing aircraft on deck and losing them to weather and such - when we were producing such vast numbers of aircraft and had the smaller carriers there to restock the larger ones (their original purpose) was considered a small price to pay for the extra striking power when we chose to use it. Sixth - towards the end of the war - Allied Carriers off Okinawa and Japan - operating as part of massive fleets that had such as destroyer radar pickets were able to defend themselves against massive Kamikaze attacks. The radar controlled vectoring of fighters to intercept incoming aircraft allowed us to shoot down most of the Kamikazes before they got near the ships, otherwise the use of such Guided Weapons would have been as effective at the Japanese wanted them to be. And yes - all of this was a part of the evolution of Carrier design. They are still changing things up today. They've moved the Island position several times, they have armored doors on the hangar decks that can be opened or closed depending on the situation, armored flight decks, angled flight decks and decades of cumulative experience in what they're doing. Today - the biggest reason behind Carrier Design - is cost. The Americans are the only ones producing or operating full on Super Carriers but then the Americans are the main western power defending the western world. How long we'll be able or willing to keep doing that remains to be seen. I am not a fan of ski ramp/VSTOL Carriers. They're in use - because they're cheaper - not because they're better. One of the things people don't think about from the Falklands - was that the Argentinian Aircraft had been ordered NOT to engage the British Aircraft - which were suffering such high operational losses they had to start using RAF Land Based Harriers as the naval versions were running out. If the Argentine Aircraft had engaged and shot down even a few of the Harriers - instead of just trying to run away and being shot down themselves - the RN task force might well have run out of planes. The United States is not the same Nation it was in 1940. For one thing - most of that Texas Oil is gone. Our people are different as well and not always for the best. We're scrapping our older Super Carriers instead of preserving them - and in the event of another major war where we start losing them - are going to wish we hadn't done that. .
2