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 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.