Onime No Kyo
ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo
The British had a completely "British" approach to carrier combat. In the halls of the British admiralty it had been held as dogma since Nelson's days that the Royal Navy would only be effective if its ships and sailors were significantly better trained and prepared for combat than their adversaries. The same idea was then applied to the naval air arm, which is why they never saw the comparatively small airgroups as an issue. This is despite the fact that it took them a looong time to actually wrest control of the fleet air arm away from the RAF (which is why their naval air hardware, arguably, sucked).
As for British CV durability, they did not really consider carriers as a supporting force. They saw them as a vital component of naval operations. However, they realised that any CV vs CV engagement is pretty much a mutual anihilation scenario. They predicted (quite rightly, as Coral See had shown, and Midway was supposed to show, except that that was a fluke as was agreed in another thread on this forum) that in future CV combat if your 4 CVs engaged their 3 CVs, you were likely to lose 2 of yours for 3 of theirs. Thus, they saw carrier survivability as very importaint which is why Brit CVs are so heavily armored. Also, they were designed to operate in large numbers from numerous, well-supported bases where they could rearm and resupply (in the Indian ocean as well as Atlantic and the Med). US carriers were designed to operate in the vast Pacific with no source of supply for miles. IIRC, the British pre-war battle plan called for 6 fleet carriers in the Indian ocean. Overal, they planned on having 15 or 16 CVs altogether. That strategy called for UK CVs to clear the area of enemy CVs as a first step. The remaining carriers could then assist the battle line in doing its thing.
On the question of TB vs DB....torpedoes are pretty much universally acknowledged to be the most dangerous thing for a ship. While naval engiering had created a whole host of things to counteract bomb damage, no one had ever come up with a truly effective way of counteracting torpedoes (it has been shown fairly conclusively by experience that bulges and crumple zones are nice, but they dont really work). So if you were designing a strategy around heavily armored, fast carriers with a comparatively small AG, and highly trained pilots, which are intended to fight other CVs, TBs are the way to go.
How many Japs carriers were sunk by the British, how many were sunk by the Yanks?
The mist famous uses of British carriers were an attack on Toranto and jamming the steering of the Bismark.
Torpedo bombers are not as accurate as dB.
Other than sub how many Japs carriers were sunk by torpedo versus DB/FB.
Listen the British did not used their carrier for amphibious landing on Burma/Malaysia coast until April 1945, Why?
The plans that I mentioned did not incude the US being involved. In fact, just as all pre war plans, it was a "best case scenario", basically a long wish list of things which also included 6-7 BB in the Indian Ocean as well as 3 full divisions and 250 aircraft in Singapore. As with most plans, it did not survive contact with the enemy.
So....by the time the war started, the Brits had nowhere near the number of CVs they planned on in addition to the losses they took in the ETO. By the time that enough Brit carriers arrived in the Pacific, the USN had deep sixed pretty much everything Japanese that floated.
British amphib ops depended more on amphib assets and cooperation and sharring of assets between the allies more than it had to do with CV availibility.
I'm just telling you what I know about pre-war plans as I had been told/read about them.
"Mighty is the Thread! Great are its works and insane are its inhabitants!" -Brother Mynok