Update: FAA pilot Henry "Hank" Adlam's view: From "On and Off the Flight Deck: Reflections of a Naval Fighter Pilot in World War II"

Added extracts from the book by FAA pilot Henry "Hank" Adlam, "On and Off the Flight Deck: Reflections of a Naval Fighter Pilot in World War II" relating to the Seafire to the Seafire Development page.

Adlam few Wildcats and Hellcats during his operational service during World War II and held a generally contemptious view of the Seafire. But his view as to its value was mollified by its performance as an interceptor with the British Pacific Fleet (and the additon of 89 gallon fuel tanks).

Immediatley after the war he few one for the first time: 

Well, I flew the damn thing and found that it was a beautiful machine to fly. An absolute thoroughbred of an aircraft requiring only the most delicate pressures on the controls for it to respond immediately and perfectly. 

Update: Original ADM 267/84 report on Formidable

An OCR (Optical Character Recognition) transcript of HMS Formidable's damage report for Operation MAQ3 is attached here.

Rights to reproduce in full the photographs and drawings which were part of ADM 267/84 have not been purchased.

To see images sourced elsewhere, as well as my depictions of some of the engineers drawings and first-person accounts of the action, follow this link to HMS Formidable's bomb damage page.

It is also disappointing to note that most of the pictures detailed in the National Archive report's index appear to be missing. From the descriptions, it is possible some may have been mixed with other reports and inappropriately attributed to Illustrious, for example.

* CLICK HERE to read the original ADM 267/84 report for HMS Formidable

* CLICK on the title of this post to activate the feedback panel

 

Update: Original ADM267/83 report on Illustrious

An Optical Character Recognition (OCR) capture of the original Damage Report (Shell and Bomb) for HMS Illustrious, January 1941, has been uploaded.

Crown Copyright rights to reproduce the associated pictures and drawings have not been purchased.

The drawings and pictures on the Bomb Damage to HMS Illustrious page have been sourced from elsewhere or are my own interpretations of the original diagrams.

* CLICK HERE or on the pointer panel at the right of this post to go to ADM267/83.

* CLICK on the title of this post to activate the feedback panel

Update: Links added

Have added links to external War Damage Reports for United States Naval carriers.

Any comparison, of course, is only approximate with so many variables to be taken into account (weapon weight, weapon velocity, weapon type, structural nature of impact point, structural nature of detonation point...)

But they can give a general point of comparison.

Links to Fulmar and Seafire pilots notes, as well as original performance data, also have been added to the appropriate pages.

To reply to this post, please click the headline to activate the text field.

Debunking the armoured carrier essays of Slade and Worth

This website originated after my interest in the history of carrier combat led me to these articles, which are generally touted online as the definitive word on armoured carriers.

Even at that very early stage, I noticed several substantive errors of fact being used to justify their position.

I don't have a problem with their position.

I'll state right now that I think that, overall, the US Essex class carriers were clearly the superior assault carriers of World War II.

But there seems to be a certain insecurity about that in some circles, perhaps because so many assault carriers were "mission killed" by kamikazes while the armoured carriers appeared to shrug them off. Then there's the extraordinary difference in casualty figures.

Opinions are opinion.

But these need to be argued against a background of fact and "apples-versus-apples" context.

 

Regrettably, these error-riddled essays are cited as authoritative wherever the armoured carriers are mentioned on the web.

That needs to end.

 

For this purpose I have accessed as much "primary source" material as I can afford to obtain (unlike the bomb damage reports for Franlkin, Enterprise etc, those for Illustrious, Formidable, Indomitable etc are only available through purchase through Britain's National Archives) along with as many first-person accounts and well-cited analyses as I can find..

With the correct information in hand - feel free to form your own opinions.

CLICK HERE for my line-by-line rebuttal of Slade and Worth.

* Click on the link above to be taken to the full rebuttal, where you can leave specific comments in the panel at the bottom of the article. Click on the headline above to leave more general comments on this introductory panel.

Update: More video, screen captures

I've found another handful of relevant British Pathe Youtube videos. These are scattered through the site (though the 'Home Fleet at Sea' showing the carriers in huge seas on the Design and Development page is a doozy, and the "In Action in the Mediterranean" video - the first one you come across on the MAQ3 page - contains quite rare footage of the carriers in the Mediterranean during the early war years).

A heavy sprinkling of screen captures from various Fleet Air Arm / British Pacific Fleet DVDs has been scattered through the Task Force 57 / Operation Iceberg battle reports.

To reply to this post, please click the headline to activate the text field.

Stuka Ju87B performance data needed

I've borrowed, bought and scrounged as may books as I can find on the iconic Stuka, but have not had much success finding detailed payload-range-performance data.

Specifically I'm looking for the operational radius of the Ju87B while carrying a 1000kg (2200lb) bomb.

There are several first-person accounts stating how the gunner had to be left behind and how sluggish the aircraft was under that load ... but most range/performance tables only detail 500kg  (1100lb) bomb data - it's normal load.

Can anyone point me to a good source of such obscure, detailed information?

It is particularly relevant to these pages as 1000kg (2200lb) bombs were used against both HMS Illustrious and Formidable and were attributed to being dropped by II/SG2's Ju87Bs. However, Ju88 and He111 squadrons also claimed hits in these actions - and to me they seem to have been more likely to carry that weight of bomb over the ranges involved.

To reply to this post, please click the headline to activate the text field.

Update: Fulmar and Seafire pages live

The Fulmar and Seafire pages are now up (see bottom of the homepage), though I am continuing to gather first-person accounts and archive documents to flesh them out.

The Seafire articles will soon be fleshed-out with more technical data and a section on the Seafire's performance during Operation Iceberg added to the Operational History page.

To reply to this post, please click the headline to activate the text field.

Update: Video and future pages

Thankyou for your interest in armouredcarriers.com

I am continuing to update entries and research new articles on this site, so please come back from time to time to see what has been added.

I'll post status updates here in the blog.

I have finished scouring YouTube (and in particular the British Pathe channel) for relevant video and inserted them in the best context I can find.

If anyone knows of any other footage (in particular of the kamikaze attacks on the BPF - I know it exists, but I cannot find it) please leave a note by clicking on the title of this post.

At the moment my "pending" tray is filled mostly with material relating to the FAA aircraft the Fairy Fulmar and Supermarine Seafire.

These aircraft appear to have received the same "bad press" as the armoured carriers themselves.

The Fulmar appears to be  instantly dismissed as an effective fighter in comparision to the performace of the Hellcat etc (though in reality the true point of comparison in  1940 is the F3F "Flying Barrel" biplane and A6M 'Zero').

The Seafire is roundly condemned for being too fragile. Yes they were less than ideal conversions of land-based interceptors, but a detailed look at the battle that gave it such a poor reputation - Salerno - makes one wonder just how much better other contemporary carrier fighters would have performed.

The Fulmar article is almost complete

The bulk of the Seafire research has now been done - it's just a matter of writing it up.

* CLICK on the title of this post to activate the feedback panel

Question: Quarterdeck winch 'for splash target'

Hallo,
lease do not have a photo or sketch" winch for splash target" on quarterdeck
aircraftcarrier HMS Victorious /ILLUSTRIOUS/ ? Thank.
Regards
Petr

I am afraid I have seen very few pictures of the quarterdeck's of these carriers, and even fewer images taken from aboard / inside these ships.

Apologies for not being of any assistance.

* CLICK on the title of this post to activate the feedback panel

Question: On Indomitable's freeboard

Dear WebMaster, ArmouredCarriers.com:
Thank You and Congratulations on a very interesting-looking website, and theme.
I have been looking for a definitive comparison - preferrably drawings, but one or two key dimensions/specifications could also suffice - quantifying the difference, if any, in freeboard height between HMS Illustrious as-launched, and HMS Indomitable, also as-launched, with her extra "half-height" hangar.
So far my every attempt to measure (at which I am expert) the above difference from historical photos - some of which even present the two (sub-classes) alongside each other - although suggesting Indomitable to be taller than Illustrious/Victorious (though this could also be an optical illusion of their very stark camouflage schemes), have failed to reliably yield any quantitative difference(s).  Thus, the question still remains open in my mind.
Can you provide any guidance to the best source(s) - again, drawing(s) preferred, but key freeboard/flight deck elevation specs or even suitable historical photo-references also potentially sufficient - to resolve the above question?
Any help greatly appreciated!

Beyondsun

 

Thankyou for your feedback.

I do recall seeing reference to this several times in my reading.

Indomitable quite clearly had the highest freeboard because of the combination of her 16ft and 14ft hangars.

The Implacables had two 14ft hangars, and the Illustrious class a single 16ft.

It really was (almost) a simple as that: The remainder of the ships' designs were so similar.

Exactly what those figures were I will have to search for.

Regrettably I have just put most of my books into temporary storage in preparation for moving house! (And I had deliberately decided to keep too many statistics and figures out of the website- at least until I build a comparative table).

Until I can get my hands on my books, the following may help you extrapolate freeboard:

a) A link to a pdf the Anatomy of the Ship Victorious book:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/136024395/Conway-Maritime-Press-Anatomy-of-the-Ship-Aircraft-Carrier-Victorious

b) a portion of the original battle-damage 1:16 scale drawing for Indomitable (with length in feet marked out along the bottom)

Indomitable---Sheet-1.jpg

c) As for the books I recommend (but I cannot guarantee these have the figures you are looking for), they are in my References page on armouredcarriers. com:

http://www.armouredcarriers.com/reference/

- British Aircraft Carriers (Hobbs)
- British Naval Aviation (Friedman)
- Aircraft Carriers of the British and Commonwealth Navies  (Hobbs)

 

UPDATE:

I found this line in British Aircraft Carriers (Hobbs) about Indomitable's freeboard:

Page 100

"The flight deck was 14ft higher above the water level than that in Illustrious, making her less likely to ship 'green water' in rough seas and a better sea boat overall."

Within Friedman's British Carrier Aviation is this about Indomitable:

Page 143

"She was not altered from keel to upper deck, but by adding 6ft to the total hull depth (73ft 9in rather than 67ft 9in as in Illustrious) the constructors were able to provide two hangars."

* CLICK on the title of this post to activate the feedback panel

Feedback: On bias

I was first made aware of your fine website within a few days of its appearance, through one of my favourite discussion forums (World Naval Ships Forum).  I am pleased to see it has sprouted tendrils elsewhere, too. 
I hope your well-presented and most engaging effort will also go far toward dispelling some very bad RN armoured-carrier “press” which had been published by certain, un-named “pundits” of decidedly USN bias, a number of years ago. 
Rest assured, I will be watching as this fine, new website continues to develop!
Best wishes for its success!

Sincerely,
repulse1936

 

Thankyou. 

I feel there has been a bias - but mostly because of the very poor degree of information "out there" about these ships and their actions.

This is in part due to the RN's reticence to beat its own chest, the extensive and long-lived secrecy applied to these ships and their actions - and the opposite being the case for the USN!

It is also due to an accumulation of factual errors in print (originally seeming little more than editing errors in certain high-profile publicatons, but these have - in turn - been coped as rote by other, lazier, authors with larger audiences!).

This scant information has resulted in numerous intensely poor essays and articles that base their argument on a mass of incorrect and false "facts", and opinions accepted as fact.

The above is why I presented this web page in the format I have: Not to launch into any nationalistic/ego-centric chest-beating exercise (I'm neither British nor American), but to lay down the details as best I can find them in a manner that can be easily understood and in which their context is maintained.

Any conclusions a reader may come to is therefore hopefully of their own formation. Afterall, it is somewhat easier to find comprehensive details about US and even Japanese carrier operations to compare and contrast.

In many ways, the Royal Navy's historic reticence (which has given it the nickname "silent service" in political and media circles - no reflection on the submariners out there!) has done itself a lot of harm when it comes to the history of the 20th century.

So blaming other nations for being proud of their own achievements is not entirely fair.

* CLICK on the title of this post to activate the feedback panel

Welcome to armouredcarriers.com

It has taken a month to start writing this blog, but now the site is up and running it is probably time to throw it open to public feedback.

I am continuing to seek and locate the originals of pictures used in this website and directly link back to the source from the image. This is largely completed for all images I've been able to find at the Imperial War Museum (Britain). I am continuing to browse the Imperial War Museum (Australia) and other archive and blog sites to ensure attribution is given where due. But it takes time...

I also am continuing to assemble new material on the subject - thanks to suggestions from readers. Books such as Sea Flight (Hugh Popham) and The British Pacific Fleet: An Eyewitness Account (Waite Brooks) sit on my bedside table and on my iPad in various stages of completion.

I hope you find this website informative and detailed.

If you have any questions or concerns, do not hesitate to click on a title of one of these blogs and enter your feedback - or email armouredcarriers@gmail.com 

* CLICK on the title of this post to activate the feedback panel