Coronation Fleet Review 1937
Instead of intentionally sending cruisers and lesser ships on international trips, the IJN decides to make a show of power at the 1937 Coronation Fleet Review, and sends Kaga (re-constructed 1935,...
View ArticleRe: Coronation Fleet Review 1937
I think the RN should realize the inefficiencies that come with a carrier converted from a battleship from their own experience with Eagle (not to mention Furious, Glorious, Courageous). 40k tons is...
View ArticleRe: Coronation Fleet Review 1937
SeaTurtle Prince wrote:They will be laughing at those ten 8" guns in the casemates, and asking "So is 28 knots really the best you can doTo be fair, observers wouldn't know her top spee...Read More
View ArticleRe: Coronation Fleet Review 1937
yes, the fleet review is in plenty of time to make no changes to the Illustrious class.
View ArticleRe: Coronation Fleet Review 1937
The RN/FAA was not prepared to analyze this ship anymore than it could analyze the much-publicized Lexingtons. The RN was in denial about the aircraft capacity of the latter, primarily because it did...
View ArticleRe: Coronation Fleet Review 1937
jlyons97 wrote:And BTW and IMHO, the C & G twins were for their size perhaps the best of the 'conversions' in any navy.You may be right there. Certainly their near sister Furi...Read More
View ArticleRe: Coronation Fleet Review 1937
jlyons97 wrote:The RN/FAA was not prepared to analyze this ship anymore than it could analyze the much-publicized Lexingtons. Yes, but the Lexingtons are not a surprise. IIRC...Read More
View ArticleRe: Coronation Fleet Review 1937
Actually, the 'Bara is taking off, on one of the Tirpitz strikes, carry a US 1600lb AP bomb.Recalling Furious had no accelerators, to take off with this weight, the marginally powered 'Bara required...
View ArticleRe: Coronation Fleet Review 1937
You may well be right there, explaining why might educate anyone who asks and stays for an answer. OTOH perhaps "Furious" should be reserved for a step change in naval aviation ship, which the new...
View ArticleRe: Coronation Fleet Review 1937
jlyons97 wrote:And BTW and IMHO, the C & G twins were for their size perhaps the best of the 'conversions' in any navy.How so? I'm not arguing, just curious. I can see that ...Read More
View ArticleRe: Coronation Fleet Review 1937
In absolute terms they'd better be, they're smaller. Per ac, dunno.
View ArticleRe: Coronation Fleet Review 1937
I don't think there were that much smaller, though they were certainly lighter in displacement, so likely less robustly constructed. Other conversions like Eagle were heavier, but smaller. Double...
View ArticleRe: Coronation Fleet Review 1937
jlyons97 wrote:Recalling Furious had no accelerators, to take off with this weight, the marginally powered 'Bara required a flight deck extension. You can see the wooden framework in the left...
View ArticleRe: Coronation Fleet Review 1937
ChrisPat wrote:jlyons97 wrote:Recalling Furious had no accelerators, to take off with this weight, the marginally powered 'Bara required a flig...Read More
View ArticleRe: Coronation Fleet Review 1937
Let's get back to the IJN carrier? Ok, then. I continue to opine the Kaga would be evaluated through the prism of the RN's on experience and doctrine. It would not have been a surprise to the Intel...
View ArticleRe: Coronation Fleet Review 1937
They knew from years earlier that Japan had been converting the battlecruisers Amagi & Akagi to carriers, as per the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922... and they knew the dimensions and estimated...
View ArticleRe: Coronation Fleet Review 1937
There are two photos of the extension 'in service' with 'Barra's on Furious. Both taken from the 'Port Nav' at the port forward corner of the flight deck. This open position was the US equivalent of...
View Article
