Well, my take on it echoes the 1941 sentiment. Were the Shokakus, full picture (including doctrine, AA upgrades, etc.) better in 1941? Definitely.
And then I look at the 1942 battles. How many times was the Shokaku hit at least as hard as a Yorktown-class CV and survived, or came out of the battle in better shape? Three times, right (Coral Sea, Eastern Solomons, Santa Cruz)? Those ships were legendary, as far as IJN CVs go. By the middle and late war, the USN doctrines (and the experience of the remaining Yorktown, Big E) had them outclassed. But if you're just looking at the ship itself, as designed and built, the Shokakus were the best around. "Were" being the operative word.
Just think if they'd had the improved damage control routines that the USN developed...
Was Shokaku class the best CV class in Dec 41?
Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
RE: Was Shokaku class the best CV class in Dec 41?
Opinions differ, but we are talking about 1941. US carriers were just beginning to get primitive radar sets and nobody had figured out how to use them to best effect yet. American ship AA at war's start was probably a little better than Japanese, but not by a wide margin. US air defense doctrine that kept the escorts with the capital ships was superior, but that is a doctrine issue and not pertinent to the original point.
The Shokaku's war record does speak for itself. She was hit many times and survived all but the fatal torpedoing from a submarine in 1944. By late 42 American damage control doctrine was better than the Japanese, but that was because the USN was faster at learning lessons than the Japanese. The Lexington was lost in large part because the USN did not bleed avgas lines when not in use. After Coral Sea they did. The Japanese didn't start that practice until much later.
The Yorktown class was roughly contemporary of the Hiryu and Soryu. Compared to them, the Yorktowns were much better carriers. The Shokaku class was more equivalent to the Essex class. Both classes were the first designs their countries did without treaty limits. The Japanese got the jump on the US and got their unrestricted design to war faster. Comparing the Shokaku and the Essex class, the Essex class benefited from early war experiences while under construction and improvements were built in before commissioning, so there is a bit of apples and oranges comparison. They also were at their peak at very different times. But the two are about the closest comparisons between countries designs.
By 1944 when the Shokaku was lost, IJN crew quality was declining, pilot quality was very bad, and they were running on very poor grade bunker fuel (Borneo crude oil instead of a refined product). By the time the Essex was ready, the war was in a very different place for the USN and all USN ships had improved radar, improved AA, and many improved doctrines.
Both ship classes were very tough to sink. The USN damaged the Shokaku three times (I think) in 1942 and she survived each time. The Zuikaku was never hit until her sister was sunk and was sunk in the next battle as a decoy, but I think the designs were very sturdy with a high ability to absorb damage and keep going.
I don't know about plane handling ability. This is a factor that the WitP family doesn't really address very well. The Lexington class always suffered from few elevators and the forward elevator was very slow until the Saratoga's was replaced in a refit in late 1944. The Yorktowns had fast elevators and good aircraft handling capabilities, though the deck edge elevator on the Wasp and Essex class made it even better.
Shattered Sword talks a bit about some poor aircraft handling capabilities on Japanese carriers, but I don't know how efficient their elevators were. Joseph Reeves was a pioneer of carrier aviation. He pioneered many ideas and doctrines. It's possible Japan got the idea for Pearl Harbor from him. He proved a couple of times that surprise attack on PH was possible. He also pioneered multi-carrier ops which took better hold in the IJN than the USN.
One thing he was also obsessed about that influenced American carrier design was speed of carrier ops. He was always pushing his crews to speed up flight ops as fast as possible. He set and broke many records for number of cycles in a given time period. Because of his influence the USN started experimenting with catapults on carriers and built faster elevators as well as deck edge elevators. The idea was in the heat of combat, the ability to cycle planes through the carrier as fast as possible could mean the difference between life and death. Aircraft are the main battery of a carrier. Just like surface ships and a focus on rate of fire, cycling aircraft fast keeps your ordinance flying towards the enemy.
I'm not sure the Japanese took that particular lesson to heart, so the USN might have had some advantages in plane cycling ability. It definitely did by 1944. The Battle of the Philippine Sea was a defensive win for the USN because they kept the Hellcats airborne all day.
Back to the original question, I think the Shokaku class probably would qualify as the best built carrier in commission in 1941. Doctrine comes into play as well as technological changes that came after 1941 that tilts the balance towards the USN by 1943. By 1944 the Essex class eclipses the Shokaku class, but much of it is due to improvements that came along after the war started.
Bill
The Shokaku's war record does speak for itself. She was hit many times and survived all but the fatal torpedoing from a submarine in 1944. By late 42 American damage control doctrine was better than the Japanese, but that was because the USN was faster at learning lessons than the Japanese. The Lexington was lost in large part because the USN did not bleed avgas lines when not in use. After Coral Sea they did. The Japanese didn't start that practice until much later.
The Yorktown class was roughly contemporary of the Hiryu and Soryu. Compared to them, the Yorktowns were much better carriers. The Shokaku class was more equivalent to the Essex class. Both classes were the first designs their countries did without treaty limits. The Japanese got the jump on the US and got their unrestricted design to war faster. Comparing the Shokaku and the Essex class, the Essex class benefited from early war experiences while under construction and improvements were built in before commissioning, so there is a bit of apples and oranges comparison. They also were at their peak at very different times. But the two are about the closest comparisons between countries designs.
By 1944 when the Shokaku was lost, IJN crew quality was declining, pilot quality was very bad, and they were running on very poor grade bunker fuel (Borneo crude oil instead of a refined product). By the time the Essex was ready, the war was in a very different place for the USN and all USN ships had improved radar, improved AA, and many improved doctrines.
Both ship classes were very tough to sink. The USN damaged the Shokaku three times (I think) in 1942 and she survived each time. The Zuikaku was never hit until her sister was sunk and was sunk in the next battle as a decoy, but I think the designs were very sturdy with a high ability to absorb damage and keep going.
I don't know about plane handling ability. This is a factor that the WitP family doesn't really address very well. The Lexington class always suffered from few elevators and the forward elevator was very slow until the Saratoga's was replaced in a refit in late 1944. The Yorktowns had fast elevators and good aircraft handling capabilities, though the deck edge elevator on the Wasp and Essex class made it even better.
Shattered Sword talks a bit about some poor aircraft handling capabilities on Japanese carriers, but I don't know how efficient their elevators were. Joseph Reeves was a pioneer of carrier aviation. He pioneered many ideas and doctrines. It's possible Japan got the idea for Pearl Harbor from him. He proved a couple of times that surprise attack on PH was possible. He also pioneered multi-carrier ops which took better hold in the IJN than the USN.
One thing he was also obsessed about that influenced American carrier design was speed of carrier ops. He was always pushing his crews to speed up flight ops as fast as possible. He set and broke many records for number of cycles in a given time period. Because of his influence the USN started experimenting with catapults on carriers and built faster elevators as well as deck edge elevators. The idea was in the heat of combat, the ability to cycle planes through the carrier as fast as possible could mean the difference between life and death. Aircraft are the main battery of a carrier. Just like surface ships and a focus on rate of fire, cycling aircraft fast keeps your ordinance flying towards the enemy.
I'm not sure the Japanese took that particular lesson to heart, so the USN might have had some advantages in plane cycling ability. It definitely did by 1944. The Battle of the Philippine Sea was a defensive win for the USN because they kept the Hellcats airborne all day.
Back to the original question, I think the Shokaku class probably would qualify as the best built carrier in commission in 1941. Doctrine comes into play as well as technological changes that came after 1941 that tilts the balance towards the USN by 1943. By 1944 the Essex class eclipses the Shokaku class, but much of it is due to improvements that came along after the war started.
Bill
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
RE: Was Shokaku class the best CV class in Dec 41?
If you were to say which class is better as of '41, to some extent it also depends upon what you value. Shokaku was faster (34 v 32 kts) but had less range (about 1000 miles), had better deck and ship's armor, but a smaller air group capability, was bigger but didn't have radar. Finally in terms of AA protection, as of '41 Shokaku comes out on top, with 16 127mm guns vs 8 five inchers, 36 mm vs 16 1.1 inchers. If you don't consider the human factor and "training" (such as damage control policy and training or the air crew training) it does look like the Shokaku comes out on top. However it does come back to what you value.
-
HansBolter
- Posts: 7191
- Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
- Location: United States
RE: Was Shokaku class the best CV class in Dec 41?
ORIGINAL: mind_messing
ORIGINAL: slpatgun
The Yorktown's "were" designed from the keel up as aircraft carries, this is a fact.......
...and it's also a fact that they were designed with the Washington Treaty limit of 135,000 tonnes in mind, with the Wasp thrown in to make up the numbers.
The Japanese had no such concerns regarding Shokaku.
Then why did the Yorktowns turn out better?
Hans
-
mind_messing
- Posts: 3394
- Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:59 am
RE: Was Shokaku class the best CV class in Dec 41?
ORIGINAL: HansBolter
ORIGINAL: mind_messing
ORIGINAL: slpatgun
The Yorktown's "were" designed from the keel up as aircraft carries, this is a fact.......
...and it's also a fact that they were designed with the Washington Treaty limit of 135,000 tonnes in mind, with the Wasp thrown in to make up the numbers.
The Japanese had no such concerns regarding Shokaku.
Then why did the Yorktowns turn out better?
They didn't. As Lokasenna said, the Shokaku came out better off than the Yorktowns at Santa Cruz, Coral Sea and in the Solomons.
Granted, the Yorktown class was superior in some aspects, but in terms of the actual ship itself (disregarding AA, radar, damage control ect), the Shokaku was better. Shokaku's with good damage control and a good AA package would be very formidable indeed...
RE: Was Shokaku class the best CV class in Dec 41?
You can't have it all. Those wooden flight decks were easily repaired where and armored flight deck could be damaged and put the ship out of action.
Todd
I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768
I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768
RE: Was Shokaku class the best CV class in Dec 41?
warspite1ORIGINAL: tocaff
You can't have it all. Those wooden flight decks were easily repaired where and armored flight deck could be damaged and put the ship out of action.
Armoured fight decks had their uses.
The famous USN liaison officer quote: [aboard HMS Indefatigable] "When a kamikaze hits a U.S. carrier it means 6 months of repair at Pearl. When a kamikaze hits a Limey carrier it’s just a case of "Sweepers, man your brooms!" [:)]
Now Maitland, now's your time!
Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
-
Jorge_Stanbury
- Posts: 4345
- Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:57 pm
- Location: Montreal
RE: Was Shokaku class the best CV class in Dec 41?
thanks for the great responses,
so it looks like in several aspects the Shokakus were better or equal than Yorktowns, but there is one critical point that still tips the balance, in my opinion, in favor of the Yorktown: Bigger air group size.
A bigger Air Groups allows for better CAP defense, more Search, more strike, etc. This the Japanese only balanced with better pilots early on; but that is not part of a carrier's design.
so it looks like in several aspects the Shokakus were better or equal than Yorktowns, but there is one critical point that still tips the balance, in my opinion, in favor of the Yorktown: Bigger air group size.
A bigger Air Groups allows for better CAP defense, more Search, more strike, etc. This the Japanese only balanced with better pilots early on; but that is not part of a carrier's design.
RE: Was Shokaku class the best CV class in Dec 41?
The Shokaku class tends to rate higher in terms of survivability over the Enterprise class due to it's better arrangement of the machinery spaces, reducing the liklihood of a singular disabling hit to the machinery spaces. Friedman's carrier book waxed poetic on this. Hornet's disablement was one example of this.
a big factor that often gets missed though is ordinance type. The USN benefited from the fact that their pre-war carriers faced nothing bigger than 250kg bombs of the HE and SAP variety. (550lb) This helped make flight deck repairs more manageable....esp if the hit was SAP. (the con of course being assuming proper detonation, the latter type might penetrate deep into the hull causing damage that would make an intact flight deck superfluous) Enterprise got lucky on at least one occasion when a deep penetrating SAP failed to detonate properly.
The Shokaku's at times took hits from bombs of twice the weight (1000LB "General Purpose"....which could be fused for HE or SAP though in 42 it tended to act primarily as HE)
This resulted in big blasts at the flight deck and hanger deck level, resulting in disablement of flight operations but along with hull deck armor helped keep damage above the waterline.
Against the type of bombs encountered in the Med theater.....I don't think either Pacific oriented carrier design would have faired well though if i'm a betting man i'd rather have a Shok than an Enterprise for getting out of the combat zone purposes for repairs. I think the class did hold up remarkably well given the pounding it took.
Air Group size is a contentious subject and people will tend to never agree fully on the pros and cons. Some argue a bigger Air group will lead to bigger protection thus ensuring survivability yet it can be noted that no determined air attack in the four Pacific battles ever fully stopped an attack resulting in hits and in 3 of 4, a carrier was lost. The UK carriers took a beating that I don't think any IJN or USN pre-war design would have survived and made it back to base. Yes....RN fighter assets were more sparce but this was partially compensated by at the time the world's best developed Fleet Defense doctrine. It should be recalled too that in 41, USN and IJN fighter groups were not much bigger than UK ones. (18-21 fighters) Over time all 3 navies saw the need for more fighters. The UK eventually found ways to foot more planes despite the capacity limitations.
a big factor that often gets missed though is ordinance type. The USN benefited from the fact that their pre-war carriers faced nothing bigger than 250kg bombs of the HE and SAP variety. (550lb) This helped make flight deck repairs more manageable....esp if the hit was SAP. (the con of course being assuming proper detonation, the latter type might penetrate deep into the hull causing damage that would make an intact flight deck superfluous) Enterprise got lucky on at least one occasion when a deep penetrating SAP failed to detonate properly.
The Shokaku's at times took hits from bombs of twice the weight (1000LB "General Purpose"....which could be fused for HE or SAP though in 42 it tended to act primarily as HE)
This resulted in big blasts at the flight deck and hanger deck level, resulting in disablement of flight operations but along with hull deck armor helped keep damage above the waterline.
Against the type of bombs encountered in the Med theater.....I don't think either Pacific oriented carrier design would have faired well though if i'm a betting man i'd rather have a Shok than an Enterprise for getting out of the combat zone purposes for repairs. I think the class did hold up remarkably well given the pounding it took.
Air Group size is a contentious subject and people will tend to never agree fully on the pros and cons. Some argue a bigger Air group will lead to bigger protection thus ensuring survivability yet it can be noted that no determined air attack in the four Pacific battles ever fully stopped an attack resulting in hits and in 3 of 4, a carrier was lost. The UK carriers took a beating that I don't think any IJN or USN pre-war design would have survived and made it back to base. Yes....RN fighter assets were more sparce but this was partially compensated by at the time the world's best developed Fleet Defense doctrine. It should be recalled too that in 41, USN and IJN fighter groups were not much bigger than UK ones. (18-21 fighters) Over time all 3 navies saw the need for more fighters. The UK eventually found ways to foot more planes despite the capacity limitations.
RE: Was Shokaku class the best CV class in Dec 41?
ORIGINAL: warspite1
warspite1ORIGINAL: tocaff
You can't have it all. Those wooden flight decks were easily repaired where and armored flight deck could be damaged and put the ship out of action.
Armoured fight decks had their uses.
The famous USN liaison officer quote: [aboard HMS Indefatigable] "When a kamikaze hits a U.S. carrier it means 6 months of repair at Pearl. When a kamikaze hits a Limey carrier it’s just a case of "Sweepers, man your brooms!" [:)]
I read on a comparison of the two flight decks.
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-030.htm
I'm not so sure on that analogy.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
RE: Was Shokaku class the best CV class in Dec 41?
ORIGINAL: Lecivius
ORIGINAL: warspite1
warspite1ORIGINAL: tocaff
You can't have it all. Those wooden flight decks were easily repaired where and armored flight deck could be damaged and put the ship out of action.
Armoured fight decks had their uses.
The famous USN liaison officer quote: [aboard HMS Indefatigable] "When a kamikaze hits a U.S. carrier it means 6 months of repair at Pearl. When a kamikaze hits a Limey carrier it’s just a case of "Sweepers, man your brooms!" [:)]
I read on a comparison of the two flight decks.
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-030.htm
I'm not so sure on that analogy.
But that doesn't look favorably on the RN so he'll ignore it.
-
Jorge_Stanbury
- Posts: 4345
- Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:57 pm
- Location: Montreal
RE: Was Shokaku class the best CV class in Dec 41?
My main critique to that article on http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-030.htm is that the long term, post war "career" of a WW2 aircraft carrier is not too important for the very short term objective of winning a total war.
I would prefer a carrier that remains on battle for longer, even if I know it's structural integrity will suffer in the long term
I would prefer a carrier that remains on battle for longer, even if I know it's structural integrity will suffer in the long term
RE: Was Shokaku class the best CV class in Dec 41?
I was not offering a critique. Just information on the discussion [;)]
If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
RE: Was Shokaku class the best CV class in Dec 41?
Shokaku was a much bigger ship too. If you had a limited construction workforce you'd have to consider that you could build either 4 Shokakus or 5 Yorktowns.
RE: Was Shokaku class the best CV class in Dec 41?
warspite1ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
ORIGINAL: Lecivius
ORIGINAL: warspite1
warspite1
Armoured fight decks had their uses.
The famous USN liaison officer quote: [aboard HMS Indefatigable] "When a kamikaze hits a U.S. carrier it means 6 months of repair at Pearl. When a kamikaze hits a Limey carrier it’s just a case of "Sweepers, man your brooms!" [:)]
I read on a comparison of the two flight decks.
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-030.htm
I'm not so sure on that analogy.
But that doesn't look favorably on the RN so he'll ignore it.
What on earth did you come out with that snide remark for you twat?
The question was whether the Shokakus were the best carriers in 1941. That - as I made clear in my earlier post - meant a comparison between the Yorktowns and the Japanese ships. I didn't mention the British carriers at all as part this discussion. The only reason I mentioned them subsequently was because someone brought up the armoured deck - and I recalled that famous quote.
Now Maitland, now's your time!
Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
RE: Was Shokaku class the best CV class in Dec 41?
The article was controversial from the day it was first begun at the end of the 90's. I too had issues with the long term argument angle that the authors took. British publications have a different view on things (unsurprisingly) Looking at detailed reports from sources such as Brown help one form one's own view.
For the book challenged however our wonderful internet offers alot more online references than was available back "in the day" (lol.....)
such as thing one. Cheers
http://www.armouredcarriers.com/
For the book challenged however our wonderful internet offers alot more online references than was available back "in the day" (lol.....)
such as thing one. Cheers
http://www.armouredcarriers.com/
RE: Was Shokaku class the best CV class in Dec 41?
warspite1ORIGINAL: Nikademus
The article was controversial from the day it was first begun at the end of the 90's. I too had issues with the long term argument angle that the authors took. British publications have a different view on things (unsurprisingly) Looking at detailed reports from sources such as Brown help one form one's own view.
For the book challenged however our wonderful internet offers alot more online references than was available back "in the day" (lol.....)
such as thing one. Cheers
http://www.armouredcarriers.com/
But didn't the British come around the US view toward the end of the war? [:)]
Now Maitland, now's your time!
Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
RE: Was Shokaku class the best CV class in Dec 41?
sort of. Being Americans we could afford to combine the best of BOTH worlds in the form of USS Midway
Cuz thats just how we roll..... neener. [:)]
Cuz thats just how we roll..... neener. [:)]
RE: Was Shokaku class the best CV class in Dec 41?
warspite1ORIGINAL: Nikademus
sort of. Being Americans we could afford to combine the best of BOTH worlds in the form of USS Midway
Cuz thats just how we roll..... neener. [:)]
[8D] [;)]
Now Maitland, now's your time!
Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815