Note time. To connect design differences between Akagi and Kaga with all following carriers above 18,000 tonnes, you can view them in this playlist: th-cam.com/play/PLb04icwYsuHxMRMlbMu2lyC0BIowEHp2z.html&si=i5Py-lKFqG_BbZA1 This wraps up the design phase of Japan's big boi carriers. It is finally time to move onto the smaller vessels such as Hosho and Zuiho. As I stated in the video, Akagi and Kaga had more issues, I just list major points. Considering that Akagi and Kaga are arguably the worst of Japan's large carriers design wise, they were still valuable units in battle. As far as carrier conversions go, I would consider Akagi and Kaga among the best with Lexington and Saratoga. I do not focus on the reconstructions of the ships. I only mention the reconstructions where early design issues remained.
I dont think we can blame Kaga or Akagis loss on leaking AVGas unlike Taiho, Shinano, and a few others... seriously At Least 4 Japanese CVs or CVLs were lost due to leaking AVGas and low quality damage control. At Least.
The book "Shattered Sword" is an excellent book to read on the Battle of Midway, where these two ships were sunk. Some of Japan's older carriers had fire fighting main made of cast iron. The metal can shatter and break if shaken, like from an explosion. If this happens, you've just lost part of your fire fighting capability. This is a serious weakness.
True and the cast iron becomes shrapnel when shattered that rips open fuel lines, aircraft fuel tanks, water mains, fire fighthing hoses and of course personnel.
It's how the Yorktown managed to survive as long as it did at Midway, and the fact that the damage control was so effective caused the Japanese air forces to attack it a second time after apparently taking it out of operation.
Nice job. Very informative. I try to imagine how the spirit of the US public soared when they learned about four Japanese carriers, the ones who attacked Pearl Harbor, all sunk at Midway. Must have been true elation.
These Japanese carriers are honestly my favorite. Because they look absolutely absurd. It peaks my interest how they were so successfully used regardless.
Very nice video. It should be noted that these two were basically prototypes built on existing hulls. The Shokaku class ships were excellent when built.
I drop what I'm doing and watch every video of your on the Imperial Navy. They've all been outstanding productions, and this one is no different. WELL DONE.
They weren't there from the beginning. And I don't think they were added by naval design expert either. I read somewhere that they were added after one of their aircraft tried to land on enemy carrier or something but don't quote me on that.
Thank you so much for this video. I have seen and read alot post-conversion but not much on their first build except conversations about the failed 3 flight deck system. I am now subscribed and will look at your back catalogue.
To be fair to the Japanese, the triple-flight-deck design was something the British dabbled with as well. To me Akagi and Kaga are more examples of how fast navy aviation was moving; ships that were at the forefront of innovation were horribly ineffective within a few years. And conversions were always inefficient, only the Lexington's really pulled it off and they did that be being absolutely massive. And I think HMS Formidable missed the memo about carriers should never be attempting to get into gun range of surface ships.. Informative video though, the non-uniform hanger arrangement was something I didn't know about, but is probably a crucial to maximising space efficiency.
The idea of a double or triple flight deck in itself is also a good idea, as long as it works with the available aircraft (which it did at the time of introduction, but not later on). Being able to launch your fighters while there are landing operations on the main deck is a great feature to have (and the US Navy also tried to retain a similar feature as late as WW2 by placing catapults inside the hangar of early Essex class ships, launching sideways). You also reduce the number of aircraft that have to be moved with the elevators, which would decrease the time between strikes. The concept is not that much different to the angled decks of modern carriers.
The problem with US escort carriers they were to slow to get away from other combatants. If Taffy Three’s Escort carriers could have managed over 30 knots they could have gotten away. Most escort carriers couldn’t even do 20knts so they were dead meat if ever sighted.
@@matthewhuszarik4173 As the Spartans famously said: "If". It's a given that carriers really weren't supposed to end up in surface actions, it did happen more than once.
@@facubeitches1144 Light carriers and fleet carriers had the speed to easily outrun the Japanese battleships at well over thirty knots. The Escort carriers many couldn’t even mange 20 knots.
@@matthewhuszarik4173 Fain enough, but cruisers and destroyers are faster than battleships, and carriers did sometimes get damaged, and couldn't make full speed. Should carriers have been built to go gun to gun with battleships, no. But having something more than a popgun isn't a terrible idea, either. Carriers getting into surface actions was rare, but it did happen.
@@facubeitches1144 Fleet aircraft carrier and Light aircraft carriers could out run Battleships and a lot of heavy Cruisers and they had the armament to fight Light Cruisers and Destroyers. Some had 8” and all had more 5” guns than any Destroyer or Light Cruiser. The converted Battle Cruiser Lexington Class and Saratoga were more heavily armed than a lot of Heavy Cruisers, better armored, and faster.
The greater the freeboard, the more force of a cross-wind your boat or ship will be exposed to while under way. There were classes of prewar ships that were death-traps in comparison to their modern counterpart: Salt Lake/Indianapolis Class compared to the Brooklyn/Cleveland Classes. Half of the former ended up on the bottom. In the latter, only Helena went down after a clash with the IJN.
very well done video. Kinda glossed over a KEY issue with these two ships. they started their lives as battle cruisers and NOT carriers. so their structure was wrong to start with. so they went with 3 tier flight deck due to the narrow beam.
Around the time I got Carlo Cestra's book on Musashi, from Kageo's Super Drawing's In 3d series of books, I ordered Stefan Draminski's book on Akagi, for a friend who was planning on building a 1/350 scale model on her. This was about the end of 2017, and it came in the week of Christmas. I always liked Japan's flattops, great video again. Take care, and all the best.
The US Lexington class didn't remove their cruiser guns until early 1942. On the other hand, their guns were on the side of the flight deck on both ends of the superstructure.
They were 1920s battleship/battlecruisers with an aircraft carrier superstructure stacked on top of them. Poor construction and damage control meant any damage they took had the potential to be catastrophic. When you couple this with a lack of radar, a disaster like Midway was probably bound to happen at some point.
Part of the problem with being among the first large, fleet carriers entering service in the 1920s. New stuff has problems, especially made worse that these were not purpose built carriers. Akagi was a battlecruiser conversion and Kaga from a battleship. I'm not sure if their American equivalents from the same era had as much problems, i.e. the Lexington-class battlecruiser to carrier conversions (Lexington and Saratoga). As far as having 8" guns on them, it made sense for the time they entered service in the 1920s. The Lexingtons had 8" guns, too. You have to remember that aircraft in the 1920s were weak and had bad range. The ability for aircraft to be launched, travel afar to scout was very poor. The US Navy started using their new Lexington-class carriers in "Fleet Problems" (massive fleet exercises and wargames) in the late 1920s. You can find cases of the Lexingtons running into opposing surface forces and getting sunk in these games. There's also an example of them surprising US Army & Navy defenders at Hawaii. So big guns for self defense had merit at the time. The US Navy ditched the big 8" guns off their Lexingtons eventually in 1942. None of their later carriers ever had such large guns ever again. The Imperial Japanese Navy followed suit with their later carriers lacking large guns. The 1930s saw aircraft technology improving. They were becoming stronger with better range but it really became pronounced in the very late 1930s. There was no need for big guns on them.
Japanese carriers in WW2 also only had specialized damage control teams trained, not the whole crew like American carriers. Another weakness. If these specialized DC teams got killed, you had no one else trained to fight the fires.
So the design was more of a bluff than an actual operationally superiour aircraft carrier. "Just get it out fast to scare the opposition." I guess they forgot those shortcomings
I knew the Japanese Marine Naval program was sketchy, but wow. I had no idea it was so 40K Ork in its application. Its kind of amazing these things never sunk themselves.
Bear in mind that the Akagi, and the Kaga were designed as battleships, and construction started in 1920, The washington Naval Treaty of 1922 limited the number of battleships nations could have. Finishing these two ships as battleships would have put Japan in violation of that treaty, so they were redisigned as aircraft carriers (over 1 year into their construction). It is unfair to describe the design limitations as faults, as these ships were not designed, or intended to to be carriers. Turning these ships into carriers was a bit like trying to put a square peg into a round hole, as the belt armor, and secondary gun hardpoints were already installed. As for air compliment, the Kaga, and Akagi carried 90 aircraft (72 opperational), Very comparable to the U.S. Ranger, Yorktown, and Lexington class carriers
The US carriers had fuel standpipes which when not fueling aircraft would be pressurized with Nitrogen forcing the fuel back down the storage tanks safe from attack. The Japanese carriers did not have this feature and this proved disastrous.
@centralcrossing4732 do you happen to know which carrier is shown at 8:43? I thought I have seen every WW2 picture but that one is totally new to me. Thanks for the videos!
Japanese Damage Controll was abysmal throughout the whole war. Even Yamato and Musashi showed that their super compartmentalization didnt help once the generators failed. No redundant systems. Just like the Zero they were made to shoot not be shot at.
The weather agency rears its ugly head once again at 3: 30 with the concept of the open hangar. The US went with open hangars. How did this affect survival/damage control, and, of course, flight ops?
As discussed in volumes such as "Shattered Sword" by J. Parshall and A. Tully the open hangars allowed for the venting of blast overpressures when the ships were hit by bombs, causing less damage to the flight decks. Also the hangars were much better ventilated and avgas fumes from fueling planes in the hangar would not accumulate. In fact the ventilation was good enough for planes to warm up their engines in the hangars prior to being brought up to the flight deck, if need be. And if there was danger of planes, fuel, and ordnance catching fire due to enemy hits equipment could be shoved into the sea through the side openings, something the Japanese could not do at all when their carriers were hit at Midway. The U.S. design was not perfect - the lack of armor on the flight deck itself meant that bombs could be expected to penetrate into the hangar (British carriers in contrast had armoured flight decks). And USS WASP was destroyed by the shattering of her avgas fueling system as well as planes on her flight and hangar deck smashing up from the shock of torpedo hits.
Guns on a plane carrier? I considered the idea many times in my "what if" scenarios, usually ditching the 8" armament . . . until today, when I realized that WW2 carrier flight ops was severely limited by sea state and weather. There was a definite chance your carrier would find itself in a running duel with enemy battlecruisers or cruisers during rotten weather . . . we laugh at 6" or 8" guns on a carrier now, but I bet the captain of HMS Glorious wished he had a few, despite the inequity of his situation.
We laugh at the idea of a gun-armed carrier and for a good reason. Guns are dead weight. They pose a risk. They are useless. Carriers shall never ever meet a surface force within their gun range. Even if, a 6" or 8" armed carrier will be underarmed against 10", 12" or bigger adversaries as they are completely unarmored against their guns and rightly so. When you want to protect a carrier as part as a battle line, you will get a 70.000 ton monster that carries 40'ish small fighters or less bombers/torpedo bombers. Shinano could carry 47 planes. 47 for 68.000 tons. Mind you, the light carrier Ryujo carried 48 planes for 12.000 tons. For comparison, the Essex class carried twice the amount of planes in less than half of the displacement.
@@karstentopp This is also why the idea of fast battleships operating alongside carriers ended up not being effective enough to justify the expense: the battleships ended up as gigantic destroyers rather than capital ships to defend the carriers from surface attack.
@@memadmax69 that doesn't really answer my question nor do I think that's the main reason. Simply because that wasn't really the case when ships like uss ranger, yorktown and wasp were first introduced to the navy. The aircraft operated at the Time wouldn't get that reputation just yet although they were heading in that direction.
When it comes to the USN, they had different operations and approach. The open hangar had roll up doors along each opening that were closed under normal sailing circumstances to assist in controlling the climate within the hangar. The Japanese would use the same doors aboard Shinano as it had an open hanger. The aircraft parked on deck had their engines covered under normal sailing circumstances, like can be seen in the video at 8:26 aboard Akagi. While the Japanese did not permanently park aircraft on the flight deck to increase their numbers, they still did temporary deck parks and needed to cover the engine as can be seen in the timestamped photo. You can look up photos of US carriers sailing around with the aircraft engines covered. Both navies suffered from the same problem but decided upon different solutions to it.
The Langley and Ranger were open sided because enclosing the hangar would make the ship top heavy. Later designs had partially enclosed hangar decks with roll down doors for protecion during bad weather events. The lighting equipment needed for night time aircraft maintenance and repair became a homing beacon for enemy submarines so the doors were kept closed at night. Enclosed decks required a strong ventilation system to prevent a build up of gasoline fumes and carbon monoxide.
The compromise of adapting obselesent Battle-cruisers and Battle-ships into fast aircraft-carriers was always going to be a highly risky decision. Yet,despite the accidents and combat fatalities, these vessels made a tremendous contribution to Japanese fleet capabilities. Unlike the British, who except for one or two conversions completely overlooked this possibility.
These conversions have nothing to do with the ships being "obsolescent". That is also not why the UK didnt have any large conversions. The main reason why these conversions exist is the Washington Naval Treaty from 1922, which limits how many capital ships (= battleships & battlecruisers) each nation can have. It also forbids the construction of new ones. That treaty also meant multiple capital ships then under construction were not allowed to be completed, that includes the 6 Lexington class battlecruisers, 1 Colorado class battleship, 6 South Dakota (1920 design) class battleships, 4 Amagi class battlecruisers, and 2 Tosa class battleships then under construction. It did allow for the conversion of up to 2 hulls into aircraft carriers (not allowing them to be over 33.000 tons displacement, which was promptly ignored by everyone), which is what happened to Lexington, Saratoga, Akagi, and Amagi (not Kaga!). All other ships, so 4 Lexingtons, 1 Colorado, the 6 South Dakotas, 2 Amagis and the 2 Tosas, had to be cancelled, with all existing construction being scrapped. Tosa and Washington (one of the Colorados) were already so far complete that both nations launched them and used their hulls for target practice and damage analysis before scuttling them. Amagis hull structure was so heavily damaged in the 1923 Great Kanto earthquake, that she could not be completed at all (the damage was simply everywhere), which resulted in her being scrapped and the second Tosa class battleship, Kaga, taking her place for carrier conversion. The British Royal Navy does not show up in this conversion list because they had no large captial ship under construction at the time the Washington Naval Treaty was being made. They had completed Hood before that, and were just about to start construction on the 4 G3 battlecruisers and 4 N3 battleships, but no real work had been done on them yet. That meant that the British Royal Navy simply had no unfinished hull where a conversion would make sense. Also, none of the converted ships were considered obsolescent. As mentioned, all of them were new ships that werent even completed yet. And the battlecruisers which combined high speed with a heavy armament and okayish armor (far better armor than anything that blew up at Jutland, with the exception of the Lexingtons) were still very much needed in the early 1920s. It was only in the 1930s that engine technology improved to the point that allowed battleships to be fast and truly made the battlecruisers obsolete.
@@xxnightdriverxx9576 Rather than ships under construction, the Royal Navy converted the freak hybrid battlecruisers Courageous and Glorious into aircraft carriers.
Naval treaty pushed IJN to use cruiser hulls for early carriers, all of which were highly experimental. Also, spending 30% of GDP on the military during a global depression and having limited access to metals resulted in stripped-down, compromise designs of lower quality in everything from rifles to logistic support anything, tanks, aircraft, and ships. Finally, an utterly brittle and abusive command culture stifled initiative, tech, and doctrine, and left line personnel in all services hungry, exhausted, and poorly trained… for things like fire fighting on ships, for example. In short, everything about the Imperial military was designed for a short-short conflict, even though their out-of-control Army leadership pulled the country into multi-year conflicts with no definable or even remotely-achievable strategic goals. They were fucked right out of the box.
Well you really aren't fully accurate. The Kido Butai (the aircraft carrier group) was a pretty mighty hammer which for 6 months did immense damage. Also, they had excellent training for torpedos and night fighting. They kicked our butt at the Battle of Save Island. Also, certain admirals like Raizo Tanaka and Gunichi Mikawa were excellent.I have no idea what you are talking about stripped down designs. The Zero fighter was extraordinary (though like all designs with certain weaknesses). You are right that their Army leadership were basically crazy fanatics.
They weren't designed as aircraft carriers in the first place. They basically stuck a flight deck onto a cruiser and called it a aircraft carrier ! Even the american escort carriers were better than these ships operationally.
They were battlecruiser/battleship conversions (Kaga substituted for Amagi which was damaged in the Tokyo earthquake) just like Lexington/Saratoga and Courageous/Glorious. They were FAR MORE CAPABLE ships than escort carriers. Faster speeds and much greater aircraft capacity.
Note time.
To connect design differences between Akagi and Kaga with all following carriers above 18,000 tonnes, you can view them in this playlist:
th-cam.com/play/PLb04icwYsuHxMRMlbMu2lyC0BIowEHp2z.html&si=i5Py-lKFqG_BbZA1
This wraps up the design phase of Japan's big boi carriers. It is finally time to move onto the smaller vessels such as Hosho and Zuiho.
As I stated in the video, Akagi and Kaga had more issues, I just list major points.
Considering that Akagi and Kaga are arguably the worst of Japan's large carriers design wise, they were still valuable units in battle. As far as carrier conversions go, I would consider Akagi and Kaga among the best with Lexington and Saratoga.
I do not focus on the reconstructions of the ships. I only mention the reconstructions where early design issues remained.
I dont think we can blame Kaga or Akagis loss on leaking AVGas
unlike Taiho, Shinano, and a few others... seriously At Least 4 Japanese CVs or CVLs were lost due to leaking AVGas and low quality damage control. At Least.
The book "Shattered Sword" is an excellent book to read on the Battle of Midway, where these two ships were sunk. Some of Japan's older carriers had fire fighting main made of cast iron. The metal can shatter and break if shaken, like from an explosion. If this happens, you've just lost part of your fire fighting capability. This is a serious weakness.
True and the cast iron becomes shrapnel when shattered that rips open fuel lines, aircraft fuel tanks, water mains, fire fighthing hoses and of course personnel.
Add to that that they used bamboo to insulate pipes and vents.
I heartily recommend that book
ABSOLUTELY the best book on Midway!
@@DrBobcf Yup. Other nations used far safer materiels like Asbestos to insulate pipes... Wait a minute... 🤔
As an old sailor, Damage Control isn't "sexy," but it's what greatly saved our Navy in the beginning. Ask the Moskva about it.
A real Russian man doesn't engage with unmanly occupations like damage control.
Only weaklings do, don't you know you decadent Westener!?! 🤪
It's how the Yorktown managed to survive as long as it did at Midway, and the fact that the damage control was so effective caused the Japanese air forces to attack it a second time after apparently taking it out of operation.
Imagine taking off and "splitting the goalposts" between those two turrets. 😬
Nice job. Very informative. I try to imagine how the spirit of the US public soared when they learned about four Japanese carriers, the ones who attacked Pearl Harbor, all sunk at Midway. Must have been true elation.
The Japanese had six aircraft carriers, not four, that participated in the attack on Pearl Harbor.
It's amazing that the plane sitting at the end of that flight deck survived relatively intact. (8:30)
These Japanese carriers are honestly my favorite. Because they look absolutely absurd. It peaks my interest how they were so successfully used regardless.
Thank you for a very informative video. Flaws in ships can contribute to a sinking of a one along with the damage it receives.
What a wonderful, well argued assesment. You explained so much in less than ten minutes.
Very informative, I learned more in 9 minutes than about 20 hours of other videos on the topic.
Very nice video. It should be noted that these two were basically prototypes built on existing hulls. The Shokaku class ships were excellent when built.
I drop what I'm doing and watch every video of your on the Imperial Navy. They've all been outstanding productions, and this one is no different. WELL DONE.
I have always been fascinated by the ships of the IJN. Great video.
Excellent analysis of the design faults of those carriers.
It always makes my day when there is an upload. Your channel is my go to for Japanese naval design.
I am certainly no naval design expert, but I would consider painting a giant red bull's-eye on your flight deck to be a major design flaw.
Almost as bad as putting a sniper reticle on it
They weren't there from the beginning. And I don't think they were added by naval design expert either.
I read somewhere that they were added after one of their aircraft tried to land on enemy carrier or something but don't quote me on that.
Quality content. Always look forward to your presentations.
Thank you so much for this video. I have seen and read alot post-conversion but not much on their first build except conversations about the failed 3 flight deck system.
I am now subscribed and will look at your back catalogue.
Great little video summarizing the faults of these vessels.
To be fair to the Japanese, the triple-flight-deck design was something the British dabbled with as well. To me Akagi and Kaga are more examples of how fast navy aviation was moving; ships that were at the forefront of innovation were horribly ineffective within a few years. And conversions were always inefficient, only the Lexington's really pulled it off and they did that be being absolutely massive. And I think HMS Formidable missed the memo about carriers should never be attempting to get into gun range of surface ships..
Informative video though, the non-uniform hanger arrangement was something I didn't know about, but is probably a crucial to maximising space efficiency.
The idea of a double or triple flight deck in itself is also a good idea, as long as it works with the available aircraft (which it did at the time of introduction, but not later on).
Being able to launch your fighters while there are landing operations on the main deck is a great feature to have (and the US Navy also tried to retain a similar feature as late as WW2 by placing catapults inside the hangar of early Essex class ships, launching sideways). You also reduce the number of aircraft that have to be moved with the elevators, which would decrease the time between strikes. The concept is not that much different to the angled decks of modern carriers.
The Lex's had their own problems, but there's always a learning curve.
Hubris.
Japanese designers: A carrier should never shoot at another ship with its guns.
Carriers of Taffy3: Well, you say that...
The problem with US escort carriers they were to slow to get away from other combatants. If Taffy Three’s Escort carriers could have managed over 30 knots they could have gotten away. Most escort carriers couldn’t even do 20knts so they were dead meat if ever sighted.
@@matthewhuszarik4173 As the Spartans famously said: "If". It's a given that carriers really weren't supposed to end up in surface actions, it did happen more than once.
@@facubeitches1144 Light carriers and fleet carriers had the speed to easily outrun the Japanese battleships at well over thirty knots. The Escort carriers many couldn’t even mange 20 knots.
@@matthewhuszarik4173 Fain enough, but cruisers and destroyers are faster than battleships, and carriers did sometimes get damaged, and couldn't make full speed. Should carriers have been built to go gun to gun with battleships, no. But having something more than a popgun isn't a terrible idea, either. Carriers getting into surface actions was rare, but it did happen.
@@facubeitches1144 Fleet aircraft carrier and Light aircraft carriers could out run Battleships and a lot of heavy Cruisers and they had the armament to fight Light Cruisers and Destroyers. Some had 8” and all had more 5” guns than any Destroyer or Light Cruiser. The converted Battle Cruiser Lexington Class and Saratoga were more heavily armed than a lot of Heavy Cruisers, better armored, and faster.
The greater the freeboard, the more force of a cross-wind your boat or ship will be exposed to while under way. There were classes of prewar ships that were death-traps in comparison to their modern counterpart: Salt Lake/Indianapolis Class compared to the Brooklyn/Cleveland Classes. Half of the former ended up on the bottom. In the latter, only Helena went down after a clash with the IJN.
Definitely the best youtuber on the subject of the imperial Japanese navy
Well done presentation!
Similar inefficiencies in design of all conversions, Courageous et al, Lexington et Al were cases in point.
Nice work. Learned something new.
very well done video. Kinda glossed over a KEY issue with these two ships. they started their lives as battle cruisers and NOT carriers. so their structure was wrong to start with. so they went with 3 tier flight deck due to the narrow beam.
Well done as always.
Excelent work. Learned a lot
Fantastic video.
It would be an interesting video to compare these adapted battlecruisers to those of the USN, Saratoga and Lexington.
Around the time I got Carlo Cestra's book on Musashi, from Kageo's Super Drawing's In 3d series of books, I ordered Stefan Draminski's book on Akagi, for a friend who was planning on building a 1/350 scale model on her. This was about the end of 2017, and it came in the week of Christmas.
I always liked Japan's flattops, great video again.
Take care, and all the best.
Very interesting video!
Great video!
The US Lexington class didn't remove their cruiser guns until early 1942. On the other hand, their guns were on the side of the flight deck on both ends of the superstructure.
They were 1920s battleship/battlecruisers with an aircraft carrier superstructure stacked on top of them. Poor construction and damage control meant any damage they took had the potential to be catastrophic. When you couple this with a lack of radar, a disaster like Midway was probably bound to happen at some point.
Part of the problem with being among the first large, fleet carriers entering service in the 1920s. New stuff has problems, especially made worse that these were not purpose built carriers. Akagi was a battlecruiser conversion and Kaga from a battleship. I'm not sure if their American equivalents from the same era had as much problems, i.e. the Lexington-class battlecruiser to carrier conversions (Lexington and Saratoga).
As far as having 8" guns on them, it made sense for the time they entered service in the 1920s. The Lexingtons had 8" guns, too. You have to remember that aircraft in the 1920s were weak and had bad range. The ability for aircraft to be launched, travel afar to scout was very poor. The US Navy started using their new Lexington-class carriers in "Fleet Problems" (massive fleet exercises and wargames) in the late 1920s. You can find cases of the Lexingtons running into opposing surface forces and getting sunk in these games. There's also an example of them surprising US Army & Navy defenders at Hawaii. So big guns for self defense had merit at the time.
The US Navy ditched the big 8" guns off their Lexingtons eventually in 1942. None of their later carriers ever had such large guns ever again. The Imperial Japanese Navy followed suit with their later carriers lacking large guns. The 1930s saw aircraft technology improving. They were becoming stronger with better range but it really became pronounced in the very late 1930s. There was no need for big guns on them.
Thank you. Good content! :)
It's a nice bite sized overview, rather than the nine course meal I might find elsewhere.
Japanese carriers in WW2 also only had specialized damage control teams trained, not the whole crew like American carriers. Another weakness. If these specialized DC teams got killed, you had no one else trained to fight the fires.
Yes even Admiral Spruance knew how to use a fire hose. When his flagship got hit, they found hm calmly fighting the fire with one.
Too bad it took another tragedy for the USN to relearn that all crew need to be able to fight the fires with USS Forrestal.
@@rizon72 was this not the case? All I know is that the ship was an inferno. Were there problems with damage control as well?
@@rocketguardian2001 Explosions wiped out the highly tried fire fighters and the rest of the crew wasn't trained.
Very well done
So the design was more of a bluff than an actual operationally superiour aircraft carrier. "Just get it out fast to scare the opposition." I guess they forgot those shortcomings
Good job. Thanks.
I knew the Japanese Marine Naval program was sketchy, but wow. I had no idea it was so 40K Ork in its application. Its kind of amazing these things never sunk themselves.
No problem! their imagination and desire powers those ships!
Bear in mind that the Akagi, and the Kaga were designed as battleships, and construction started in 1920, The washington Naval Treaty of 1922 limited the number of battleships nations could have. Finishing these two ships as battleships would have put Japan in violation of that treaty, so they were redisigned as aircraft carriers (over 1 year into their construction). It is unfair to describe the design limitations as faults, as these ships were not designed, or intended to to be carriers. Turning these ships into carriers was a bit like trying to put a square peg into a round hole, as the belt armor, and secondary gun hardpoints were already installed. As for air compliment, the Kaga, and Akagi carried 90 aircraft (72 opperational), Very comparable to the U.S. Ranger, Yorktown, and Lexington class carriers
Yes this video has some major flaws. Their aircraft complement was quite reasonable.
Oustanding explanation
Well done .. the Royal navy could use its carriers for direct anti ship work during night as we had radar but otherwise no mistakes
Faults or not, both are very interesting ships, with a different concept.
The US carriers had fuel standpipes which when not fueling aircraft would be pressurized with Nitrogen forcing the fuel back down the storage tanks safe from attack. The Japanese carriers did not have this feature and this proved disastrous.
Thanks IJN carriers info
nice!
@centralcrossing4732 do you happen to know which carrier is shown at 8:43? I thought I have seen every WW2 picture but that one is totally new to me. Thanks for the videos!
Yes, that is Shokaku following the battle of Santa Cruz. Thank you.
That photo caught my eye too, and for the same reason.
Thats a good idea with that three deck flight deck if you could pull that off.
Japanese Damage Controll was abysmal throughout the whole war. Even Yamato and Musashi showed that their super compartmentalization didnt help once the generators failed. No redundant systems. Just like the Zero they were made to shoot not be shot at.
Interesting
🥰
The Shokakus fixed most of these design faults, it should be noted.
How do Akagi and Kaga compare to other early carriers? I believe IJN was way ahead of other navies when it came to carriers in the 1920s.
Hind sight is 20/20.
The weather agency rears its ugly head once again at 3: 30 with the concept of the open hangar. The US went with open hangars. How did this affect survival/damage control, and, of course, flight ops?
As discussed in volumes such as "Shattered Sword" by J. Parshall and A. Tully the open hangars allowed for the venting of blast overpressures when the ships were hit by bombs, causing less damage to the flight decks. Also the hangars were much better ventilated and avgas fumes from fueling planes in the hangar would not accumulate. In fact the ventilation was good enough for planes to warm up their engines in the hangars prior to being brought up to the flight deck, if need be. And if there was danger of planes, fuel, and ordnance catching fire due to enemy hits equipment could be shoved into the sea through the side openings, something the Japanese could not do at all when their carriers were hit at Midway. The U.S. design was not perfect - the lack of armor on the flight deck itself meant that bombs could be expected to penetrate into the hangar (British carriers in contrast had armoured flight decks). And USS WASP was destroyed by the shattering of her avgas fueling system as well as planes on her flight and hangar deck smashing up from the shock of torpedo hits.
@@takashitamagawa5881 US carriers hangars had flexible steel curtains that could be closed during heavy weather.
They also painted big red dots on the flight deck, not realizing this meant bullseye for American dive bombers
Which carrier was depicted in the final photo image? The one witb the buckled flight deck with the lettering, "A" thru "D."
Shokaku following Santa Cruz.
A design that left open the possibility that a gun turret could block a flight deck is hilarious looking back
What are the fan-like markings on the flight deck at 6:35? Were pilots supposed to fit their props inside those lines or something?
Nothing tests equipment like BATTLE. The arcs of those machines were not lucky enough. Thanks.
Oh, no ! Rising terminals !
What was the life of the sailors on WW2 carriers
Guns on a plane carrier? I considered the idea many times in my "what if" scenarios, usually ditching the 8" armament . . . until today, when I realized that WW2 carrier flight ops was severely limited by sea state and weather. There was a definite chance your carrier would find itself in a running duel with enemy battlecruisers or cruisers during rotten weather . . . we laugh at 6" or 8" guns on a carrier now, but I bet the captain of HMS Glorious wished he had a few, despite the inequity of his situation.
If a aircraft carrier got in a gun duel even a destroyer could sink them easily. A crusier or battlecruiser would have sunk them very easily.
We laugh at the idea of a gun-armed carrier and for a good reason. Guns are dead weight. They pose a risk. They are useless. Carriers shall never ever meet a surface force within their gun range. Even if, a 6" or 8" armed carrier will be underarmed against 10", 12" or bigger adversaries as they are completely unarmored against their guns and rightly so. When you want to protect a carrier as part as a battle line, you will get a 70.000 ton monster that carries 40'ish small fighters or less bombers/torpedo bombers. Shinano could carry 47 planes. 47 for 68.000 tons. Mind you, the light carrier Ryujo carried 48 planes for 12.000 tons. For comparison, the Essex class carried twice the amount of planes in less than half of the displacement.
@@karstentopp
This is also why the idea of fast battleships operating alongside carriers ended up not being effective enough to justify the expense: the battleships ended up as gigantic destroyers rather than capital ships to defend the carriers from surface attack.
@@bkjeong4302 That's why they invented the light AA cruiser of the Atlanta class for instance
@@karstentopp
Only after wasting resources on the Iowas.
Ok so if they had to enclose the hanger to protect the aircraft from the elements; the how did the Americans manage an open hanger and deck park?
Tougher aircraft.
Better maintenance programs.
@@memadmax69 that doesn't really answer my question nor do I think that's the main reason.
Simply because that wasn't really the case when ships like uss ranger, yorktown and wasp were first introduced to the navy.
The aircraft operated at the Time wouldn't get that reputation just yet although they were heading in that direction.
When it comes to the USN, they had different operations and approach. The open hangar had roll up doors along each opening that were closed under normal sailing circumstances to assist in controlling the climate within the hangar. The Japanese would use the same doors aboard Shinano as it had an open hanger. The aircraft parked on deck had their engines covered under normal sailing circumstances, like can be seen in the video at 8:26 aboard Akagi. While the Japanese did not permanently park aircraft on the flight deck to increase their numbers, they still did temporary deck parks and needed to cover the engine as can be seen in the timestamped photo. You can look up photos of US carriers sailing around with the aircraft engines covered. Both navies suffered from the same problem but decided upon different solutions to it.
@@Caktusdud. Being a former USN sailing engineer (MM2(SW)), I may know some things... Not everything... but close... ^.^
The Langley and Ranger were open sided because enclosing the hangar would make the ship top heavy. Later designs had partially enclosed hangar decks with roll down doors for protecion during bad weather events. The lighting equipment needed for night time aircraft maintenance and repair became a homing beacon for enemy submarines so the doors were kept closed at night. Enclosed decks required a strong ventilation system to prevent a build up of gasoline fumes and carbon monoxide.
The biggest design flaw was the American bombs that landed on them.
C.A.P. = "cap"
The compromise of adapting obselesent Battle-cruisers and Battle-ships into fast aircraft-carriers was always going to be a highly risky decision. Yet,despite the accidents and combat fatalities, these vessels made a tremendous contribution to Japanese fleet capabilities. Unlike the British, who except for one or two conversions completely overlooked this possibility.
These conversions have nothing to do with the ships being "obsolescent". That is also not why the UK didnt have any large conversions.
The main reason why these conversions exist is the Washington Naval Treaty from 1922, which limits how many capital ships (= battleships & battlecruisers) each nation can have. It also forbids the construction of new ones. That treaty also meant multiple capital ships then under construction were not allowed to be completed, that includes the 6 Lexington class battlecruisers, 1 Colorado class battleship, 6 South Dakota (1920 design) class battleships, 4 Amagi class battlecruisers, and 2 Tosa class battleships then under construction. It did allow for the conversion of up to 2 hulls into aircraft carriers (not allowing them to be over 33.000 tons displacement, which was promptly ignored by everyone), which is what happened to Lexington, Saratoga, Akagi, and Amagi (not Kaga!). All other ships, so 4 Lexingtons, 1 Colorado, the 6 South Dakotas, 2 Amagis and the 2 Tosas, had to be cancelled, with all existing construction being scrapped. Tosa and Washington (one of the Colorados) were already so far complete that both nations launched them and used their hulls for target practice and damage analysis before scuttling them. Amagis hull structure was so heavily damaged in the 1923 Great Kanto earthquake, that she could not be completed at all (the damage was simply everywhere), which resulted in her being scrapped and the second Tosa class battleship, Kaga, taking her place for carrier conversion.
The British Royal Navy does not show up in this conversion list because they had no large captial ship under construction at the time the Washington Naval Treaty was being made. They had completed Hood before that, and were just about to start construction on the 4 G3 battlecruisers and 4 N3 battleships, but no real work had been done on them yet. That meant that the British Royal Navy simply had no unfinished hull where a conversion would make sense.
Also, none of the converted ships were considered obsolescent. As mentioned, all of them were new ships that werent even completed yet. And the battlecruisers which combined high speed with a heavy armament and okayish armor (far better armor than anything that blew up at Jutland, with the exception of the Lexingtons) were still very much needed in the early 1920s. It was only in the 1930s that engine technology improved to the point that allowed battleships to be fast and truly made the battlecruisers obsolete.
@@xxnightdriverxx9576 Rather than ships under construction, the Royal Navy converted the freak hybrid battlecruisers Courageous and Glorious into aircraft carriers.
good grief the sing song delivery .
Wow, what a POS design, I'm astonished they were so bad
Naval treaty pushed IJN to use cruiser hulls for early carriers, all of which were highly experimental. Also, spending 30% of GDP on the military during a global depression and having limited access to metals resulted in stripped-down, compromise designs of lower quality in everything from rifles to logistic support anything, tanks, aircraft, and ships. Finally, an utterly brittle and abusive command culture stifled initiative, tech, and doctrine, and left line personnel in all services hungry, exhausted, and poorly trained… for things like fire fighting on ships, for example. In short, everything about the Imperial military was designed for a short-short conflict, even though their out-of-control Army leadership pulled the country into multi-year conflicts with no definable or even remotely-achievable strategic goals. They were fucked right out of the box.
Well you really aren't fully accurate. The Kido Butai (the aircraft carrier group) was a pretty mighty hammer which for 6 months did immense damage. Also, they had excellent training for torpedos and night fighting. They kicked our butt at the Battle of Save Island. Also, certain admirals like Raizo Tanaka and Gunichi Mikawa were excellent.I have no idea what you are talking about stripped down designs. The Zero fighter was extraordinary (though like all designs with certain weaknesses). You are right that their Army leadership were basically crazy fanatics.
@@lawrencewood289 / I agree, where they DID invest they did well.. which is really the final point for any military. I was speaking in generalities.
Converted ships they’re not even designed they’re thrown together lol
They weren't designed as aircraft carriers in the first place. They basically stuck a flight deck onto a cruiser and called it a aircraft carrier !
Even the american escort carriers were better than these ships operationally.
They were battlecruiser/battleship conversions (Kaga substituted for Amagi which was damaged in the Tokyo earthquake) just like Lexington/Saratoga and Courageous/Glorious. They were FAR MORE CAPABLE ships than escort carriers. Faster speeds and much greater aircraft capacity.
But didn't the Americans solve all of the design issues with those carriers at Midway?? 😆😆😅
I face palmed three times...