Comments by "josh thomas-moore" (@joshthomas-moore2656) on "'Armoured' and 'Unarmoured' Carriers - Survivability vs Strike Power" video.

  1. Ok so personally for me i would rather survivability over strike power, now i can certainly see the argument for strike power but i would rather keep the ships and crew alive then put them more at risk for greater strike potential. (Note: i am British so do take that into account) Taking coral sea as an example, yes the British carriers would likely not have done some much damage to Zuikaku and might have done less damage to Shoukaku then the Americans but i would still have the carriers and the air group can be replaced or replenished much quicker then a carrier would. Remember Lexington and Yorktown were sunk and heavily damaged respectively, now if they were British carriers they might not have been so heavily damaged (I am assuming one is still sunk and i have the same number available at Midway as the Americans have historically) and when Midway comes about i have three active full working carriers rather then two full and one functional but still damaged carriers. But i can see the counter argument that if i have more striking power i could sink more, say two or three more ships and this i do concede, but i would rather keep my ships afloat, so i feel it needs mentioning that the US could much more easily replace a lost carrier then the British could have done as the British were being bombed day and night while the Americans not so much. And i do think Drach has it right over all the best is the middle ground but if i was forced to pick one or the other i would pick surviving.
    1