When Japan Built a Frankenstein Aircraft Carrier Based on Allied Strongest Ships
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 май 2024
- The Pacific Ocean shuddered awake with the ferocity of the Battle of the Philippine Sea, where the pride of Japan's naval might, the aircraft carrier Taiho, steered into the gale to unleash her lethal fleet: 16 Zeros, 17 "Judy" dive bombers, and 9 "Jill" torpedo bombers into the fray's peak.
Taiho, a masterpiece of Japanese ingenuity equipped with a unique armored deck, stood as a veritable floating fortress. This steel shell rendered her near impervious to the bomb, torpedo, or shell-standing in stark contrast to the unarmored decks of her American counterparts, allowing her to shrug off damage that would cripple lesser ships.
Yet, unbeknownst to her crew, the backbone of Taiho's defenses-her armored flight deck-was poised to become her Achilles' heel. The heavens above were ablaze with anti-aircraft fire and the dance of Zeros tangling with American Hellcats. On the surface, Taiho reigned supreme, her armor-plated belt and deck a defiant challenge to any foe that dared cross her path.
However, lurking beneath the waves, the American submarine USS Albacore had the giant in her sights for hours, waiting to strike when her heavy armor would make it impossible for her to outrun her fate…
Taiho was designed in 1939 and laid down before Pearl Harbor. Her island design was protoyped on the Hiyo and Junyo. She wasn't a frankencarrier design. She was the next logical step after the Shokaku's were freed of the tonnage limitations of the Washington Naval Treaty. The IJN and USN both had their reasons for not going directly to the armoured box design in their armoured carrier designs.
Similarly, the RN had reasons based on their expected context for their designs. The Med had hazards very different from the open Pacific, especially after Germany conquered Greece and Crete. As Taiho was the IJN's first carrier not Treaty limited, the USN's Essex class was the first carrier class not limited by Treaty. Interestingly, Essexes were "only" ~31K tons, well short of the Treaty-era battleship limit of 35K tons. But in the context of the USN's carrier fleet, the Essex class was more than 50% larger than the Treaty-limited Yorktown class. It could not be entirely foreseen when designed and built, but the Treaty-limited Shokaku and Yorktown classes both were excellent and very tough.
@@petestorz172 agree with most everything, just need to correct that the Shokaku's were not built to treaty limitations. USN, IJN, and RN were heading in the same direction of needing larger displacements to get all the features they wanted.
most exactly😄
The armoured design was to counter land-based aircraft, which were virtually unlimited and can carry far bigger bombs. Out in the ocean, you only need to protect against other carrier planes, so a sufficient number of fighters are enough. Against land-based planes, it will never be enough, you will get hit and hit hard, so you must survive the hit. Illustrious was focus-targetted by 61 bombers in a single attack, how big an air group do you need to defend against that? In the end, all other navies went the armoured route.
And this is why damage control drills are important.
And a real emergency is an excellent incentive to set General Quarters as fast as possible. My Navy ship once expetienced a fire in the JP5 pump room late one night! Once the alarm was given, we were able to set Condition Zebra in 90 seconds! Half the best time we managed in drills! Many of us showed up to our GQ stations in our skivvies, some remembered to bring shoes and pants with them. 😅
Being an ET, my GQ station was one deck down from my ET/EW shop, in the radio room.
That's why the UK used armoured decks, but ask Humphey Bogart where he got his famous scowl from, a piece of wooden deck lodged in his top lip
The UK used armored deck carriers because their Carriers were designed primarily for operations in the North Atlantic, North Sea, and confined European waters. In this environment they faced great risks from shore weapons. Plus in the more confined bodies of water there was much greater risk of coming into range of a warships naval guns without the freedom of movement to escape. See; HMS Glorious. The seas that they operated in were much rougher and more violent. Requiring much more reinforced ships with high enclosed Atlantic bows. The high sea states could also often limit speeds and the rough weather limited visibility and sensors. In contrast the US Carriers were built for the Pacific. Which was a different beast. In the vast reasonably calm open waters of the Pacific, Speed, Distance, and a large enough air group to find the enemy first were your best armor.
And the US Navy never lost a fleet carrier after 1942, even after being hit by Kamikazes, they may have been damaged but never sunk, as a matter of fact the old enterprise was hit by bombs several times and was not sunk, the Hornet didn't sink from the numerous bombs that hit it, she was finally sunk by torpedoes, the Yorktown was damaged in coral sea by bombs, was repaired fought in the battle of midway was hit several times by bombs got underway by herself as she was being towed and was sunk by torpedoes, just like the British we lost carriers in the beginning of word war two, so I don't know where your anger and hate comes from, but I suggest you do your research, American carriers also Carry's a much larger Airgroup aboard their carriers than the British did further more British carriers didn't show up until very late 1944-45 and were not subjected to the punishment and attacks that American carriers had been, basically we already had the Japanese navy at the bottom of the ocean WAY BEFORE YOU BRITS SHOWED UP!! 🤡
US fleet carriers were only ever sunk by several torpedo hits. The RN lost a couple of aircraft carriers (and a couple battleships) to a single torpedo.
Bogart never served on a carrier and there are different stories about that scowl, none having to do with an aircraft carrier and one involving a scuffle.
@@jackdaniel7465Actually please get dates right Hms Victorious served in the Pacific in 1943.She was lent to US Navy with crew and was known as USS Robin.
She served alongside USS Saratoga transferring her bombers etc to Saratoga with US fighter personnel transferring to Victorious as British better at controlling fighters/interceptors.
British and Americans work best together 🍻
@@jeremyjones5436 That was one Ship, ONE SHIP, I said the British navy did not show up in the Pacific theater until very late 44-45, so what battle did the Victorious fight in the Pacific in 1943?? None!!
Liked the pic of the USS Langley
Actually it was a combination of both. Numbers and very well-trained pilots. The Japanese problem was they didn't rotate experienced Pilots back to the mainland to train the new guys. They just made him fight until they died so none of that experience was passed on
At a certain point , that was just one issue. They also did not have enough fuel to run enough drills for new pilots at one point. Not to mention that the Zero and the flight doctrine of the Japanese was made outdated as well as the Americans adapted to the Japanese air operations.
The fuller picture of Midway and the experiences of Shokaku are more complex than armored vs. unarmored. Akagi, Kaga, and Soryu were caught with their hangars full of fully armed and fueled planes and a lot of ordnance in unprotected temporary stowage. Worse for Akagi and Kaga, their damage control facilities lacked redundancy and the ability to bypass compromised sections, a vulnerability Soryu and Hiryu may have shared. Soryu and Hiryu suffered from packing too much into too little (similar in this respect to USS Ranger and USS Wasp, CV-7). They simply could not have had armored flight decks and be stable. tl;dr version, Soryu and Hiryu were "easily" overwhelmed. The Shokaku class were unarmored, but more robust, apparently including damage control facilities. Shokaku was heavily damaged in two battles, each time by multiple bombs, but not sunk. WRT USN carrier losses and damage, the fatal damage to Lexington and Yorktown (CV-8) was by torpedoes. Enterprise survived bomb hits in two battle in the Solomons and by a Kamikaze late in the war. USS Wasp, CV-7 was sunk by torpedoes. Several Essex class carriers were hit by bombs or Kamikazes, but not lost, and all repaired back to operational condition (as was Enterprise). Now, imagine the Marianas Turkey Shoot with fleet carriers carrying ~50 instead of ~80 planes (and the CVLs either not existing or having unarmored flight decks) ... yeah, would not have happened. Different oceans and battlefields led to different solutions. While, hypothetically, USN carriers would have been more vulnerable in the Atlantic near Europe, squadrons of Stukas and Ju-88s would have had a very tough go against US carrier task forces' layered defensive formations, with radar- and CIC-directed CAP, 5"/38s with proximity-fused shells, and 40 mm and 20 mm medium and light AA.
Good evening the fleet carriers that were already under construction at the end of the war, the Midway class, had armored flight decks. Even the United States knew that it was time to do that. And in all honesty had just saw you and hear you been designed with armored flight decks, they probably would have survived. Because the one of them was hit with a thousand pound Bond the other one suffered from 500 lb bomb hits which for sure wouldn't have penetrated the flight deck wouldn't have made a difference because it 100% would have because they would have been designed with them
At 16.2K and 17.6K tons, armoring Soryu and Hiryu would have been unrealistic. The stability problem from the weight of armor that high in the ship precluded it. Unlike the Yorktown class (19.8K tons, belt only), the Essex class did have armor (on 30.8K tons), but on the hangar deck. This protected the vitals of the ship without the stability issues an armored flight deck might entail. The Midway class did armor the flight deck ... on 45,000 tons. By way of contrast, the 23K ton RN Illustrious class had armor, but only carried about as many aircraft as an Independence class light carrier. Except for HMS Victorious, Illustrious class carriers, like the ~20K ton USS Enterprise, were scrapped as too damaged, too worn out, and too small to modernize for the jet age. The Essexes served into the 1970s, though they too were too small for the aircraft in 1970s and beyond air groups.
I hate that the armoured/unarmoured debate keeps coming up, even where its irrelevant for most part. Taiho sank from huge mistakes in damage control decisions. No carrier design could save that.
@@AlphaAurora WTF? You mean an armored flight deck doesn't protect you if you fill the entire ship with fuel oil and avgas fumes from a submarine inflicted torpedo hit?
The best Japanese carriers were the Shokaku and Zuikaku. Due to 50/50 luck and weather, the Shokaku took more damage than her sister, but until Phillipene Sea, always survived battle.
The worst carriers were the Hiryu and Soryu. Lightly built shells whose only purpose was to get 60-70 aircraft into a battle area. Almost no armor, and light weight construction, their lives ended quickly. This is similar to the Treaty carrier USS Wasp, which also did not last long in combat.
The Taiho borrowed too much of British philosophy, and was her downfall. Where the hangar deck was the strength deck of a US carrier, the deck could easily be repaired, and the hangar deck fully opened to be vented to jettison weapons and fuel in the event of a fire. Other ships could then get water up into the damaged carrier as well.
The Taiho was a sealed bottle. And like Akagi, sank due to the strike of a single weapon, even in spite of her massive size and heavy construction.
hmmm technically Akagi wasnt sunk by a single weapon. she was a floating wreck due to that single bomb hit but needed some torps from the Japanese to sink her.
Nah, damage control was her downfall
Do you mean Hiryu??
Well I Think The Worst Japan's Aircraft Carrier was Shinano though
She Was Slow like her sisters (Yamato and Mushashi) also to big and to heavy for being escorted by Japan Destroyer at that time or even Heavy Cruiser@@shokaku123
Shinano was also incomplete and caught in transport in open waters, so very little defensive and a relatively easy target.
Solid!
Top KEK!
Peace be with you.
With you too!
You have some of the best WW2 content.
Have you considered doing WW1, The Civil War, or the Revolution?
Being from San Antonio, I wouldn't mind an Alamo narration.
Wouldn't be possible got them to just use stock footage and read Wikipedia entries and pretend they made original content if they did that.
Right mind set but forgot the underwater warfare part
I thought this was going to be about the Shinano when I clicked on it. Very informative. Shinano was another kaiju IJN carrier that got sniped by a USN submarine.
If Taiho’s wreck is ever discovered it would probably look a lot like the Kaga’s the whole flight deck and hanger walls torn off leaving a badly mangled hull
From what I remember the flight deck bowed upwards while parts of the hanger walls blew out.
@@andrewtaylor940you are correct the flight deck was buckled up by several feet in two different places
@Wyomingchief Yeah I seem to remember reading about how crews oh Taiho's flight deck suffered a "Deck Heave". Where during an explosion the deck jumps upward several inches or feet at near supersonic speed. Typically, at a minimum, shattering sailors feet, ankles and lower legs. And often doing much worse. This happened to the USS Franklin's hangar deck.
😮 "destined for a TITANIC clash..."😢 what a foreshadowing and tragic phrase
A marvel that sank
Not really, an average if not slightly below average aircraft carrier, who's designed was about 5 years late. But you are correct she did sink very rapidly
u should do a video about ijn shinano
It's pretty sure they already did
There's a game. Submarine warfare from this era. It's a simulation, as real as it can be
Omfg Subs were so painfully slow back then. They didn't hunt anything. They hoped that something would come by close enough for them to shoot at. Torpedo range, the accuracy, the amount of duds.
I could never be a Submariner, I would literally go insane from absolute frustration.
You can't argue with success
Who's success are you referring to? If you're referring to the United States Essex class aircraft carriers near 100% correct
WWII Japan trying to be the best but not understanding physics, fluid dynamics and humans is a tale as old as time
Japanese 25mm AA guns were about as useful as a peashooter.
The IJN 100 mm DP gun was decent, though its rate of train may have been less than adequate, and it lacked proximity-fused shells. The 25 mm ... you may have insulted peashooters. More seriously, it was getting long in the tooth, and wasn't great when first adopted (though it wasn't until just before or early in the war that the USN dropped the .50 and the 1.1" AA guns).
French design 25mm. Garbage.
The real problem with Japanese aa guns was their gun sights were woefully out of date. They were designed in the early 30s and could not track the much faster aircraft of the 40s.
Stormtroopers of the pacific😂😂
Basically like the US 1.1 quad machine cannons … quickly replaced by mid 1942 by 40mm bofors
How come the Japanese didnt realize earlier that american subs were usually around at most major naval engagements?
The Taiho can do 33,3 knot and the Shokaku-class can do 34,5 knot, so the different isnt very large
It is when you fall behind and become the focus of enemy fire. The fleet concept depends on uniformity and homogeneous maneuvering which demands everybody go at the same speed. So either somebody's got to slow down, or somebody can't keep up
bad fuel ? ☹️
torpedo belt not adequate enuf
Your Marianas Turkey shoot analogy is flawed. The wins were not because numbers, it was because of better US pilot experience & training against Japanese losses that could not be trained and replaced quick enough. Japan also had no chance to train as inly new pilots existed and were all (with very little exception) put into combat.
The imperial Japanese forces, did not have a 40 mm class of weapon. This was thier greatest flaw.
She was a bad ass boat
She was a Bad, ass of a boat...👍
There I fixed it for you
Tis but a scratch...
IJN had some truly horrible experiences with avgas. Smh
信濃？
I wish all the folks overburdened with Nostalgia and sentimentality who think that reactivating battleships would be a good idea could see this. I don't understand why they can't grasp that if Billy Mitchell demonstrated and the Japanese proved a century ago that the day of the battleship was over, why do they think anything's different now when weapons are more destructive more accurate, & longer ranged to the point that the battleship's raison d'être- the Big Bore Naval rifles- is laughable?
Because a Battleship has a presence that no Aircraft Carrier couldn't replicate.
@@merafirewing6591 🙄 tactically and strategically irrelevant. They're monstrously expensive to operate, their ability to project force is pitiful my modern standards. There's nothing that can't be done better by modern Cruise missiles, frigates, destroyers, & attack aircraft at a fraction of the cost.
@@HM2SGT doesn't change anyone's opinion about the battleship, you can't achieve a morale boost with an Aircraft Carrier, or even a Destroyer.
@@merafirewing6591 That's because they are opinions based on ignorance and emotionalism... you want your taxes to go up 3% for morale? I'll tell you from experience I would rather hear that there is a guided missile or an Apache or a warthog on station than a battleship... the difference between precision-guided danger close ground support and "to whom it may concern on the block" battleship 'accuracy'.
Not that this old Tin Can Bosun is interested in bringing back the BB, but I will say that the use of re-activated Battleships in the 1st Gulf War in 92 not only brought the aforementioned guided missiles, but their presence with the MEU in the Northern Arabian Gulf meant that the Republican Guard assumed we would be conducting an amphibious assault rather than the end around the ground forces used through the open desert. So despite the highly technical environment and in the modern age, there was still plenty of use for a Battleship. Just saying.
Fair winds and following seas…
How come Shinano wasn't used as bait on Leyte Gulf since the Japanese were gonna lose her anyway?
Well Shinank was actually Secret Project and as i know this far like mostly Shinano was come to repair again after Her First Launch that damaged the Propelrr and Hull takes 3 month and i remembered if its was at January 44 so When Leyte Gulf is begin Japanese Biggest Carrier was under repair
@@velesquad4253 she was going repairs for that long? It takes no more than a few weeks for repellor to be fixed.
The Taiho was not that scary and not that impressive. She didn't carry half the number of aircraft of a US fleet carrier. The Essex class carried 90+ aircraft. The submarine USS Albacore fired 6 torpedoes and only (1) hit, but it was enough to doom the Taiho. The problem by this time of the war for Japan was that their sailors were not that experienced. The result the Taiho was doomed with in-experienced crew and heavily outgunned by the US Navy. Shalom
and a stupid captain not realising the problem, and a crew that dared not go against tradition and not call out that stupidity !
My fav carrier in world of warships...ijn cv hakuryu
so anything not made by you is a monster?
Cadre, pronounced Cahd-Ray.
Not in French, it’s not…and as it a French word…hmmmm. I’ve heard of Grammar Nazis, but Pronunciation Nazis?? 😂
@@doogleticker5183 That is the way it is pronounced in the U.S. military, in which you clearly have not served.
@@captaincurt3180 - No, I did not serve in the US military.
I served in the Royal Canadian Navy from the dark days of the Cold War until after the end of the First Gulf War, finishing my career as the CO of a patrol ship on the Atlantic coast.
I speak French because I was born in Québec, but my language skills and accent have been transformed into "French from France." I retired here in the 1990s simply because North America was being transformed into a frustrating place to live: political correctness is not new, and I was sick of the quotas and the lowered standards being implemented from what is now referred to as DEI.
"Cadre" is a word borrowed by anglophones from French; its etiology is well known. There is more than one way to pronounce it. "Cahd ray" is apparently the one you are familiar with, and you associate it with the US military. Yet, I have heard it pronounced as "cahd rr" by Americans as well. It is "cahdr" in French, with the "r" barely audible, very close to "cahd."
I have a suggestion for you, which I recognize is tough to be careful with online: don't assume anything about others. You can never know.
I worked closely with USN personnel on many occasions. They are great people. But not once did they give the impression of holding an "air of superiority" over others just because they didn't serve in the US military.
You did in a few words. That's impressive.
I really don't know if you were going for that, but if you were, you have a lot of growing up to do.
Negat Bravo Zulu.
Tis but a scratch!... your fuels leaking everywhere!..... no it isn't. Yes it is! I've had worse. BOOM! All right Well call it a draw.
Oh no, clicked on this before realizing it was from dark seas…the worst RUclips military channel. Well, leaving now.
Why on earth would an armored deck have anything to do with how many planes it carried? The ship remains the same length and width with armor or wood!
Because the supporting structure and such to support that heavy armored Flight Deck takes up space below decks, impeding upon the area where you can store aircraft
@@Wyomingchief Thanks Wyoming! That makes a lot of sense now that you mentioned it! Lived in Park City, Utah for 11 years. Many many trips to Evanston, Wyoming on booze runs-so much cheaper and bigger selection than in Utah.
and speed depends on tonnage, top heavy deck needs to be compensated at the keel, 1 less deck helps but has less planes
2:30 How is a ship a "fortress of the skies?" Scripts have gotten sloppy lately.
Talk about over exaggerating!
5:12 Does anyone know what that 'spoiler' looking wing on the back of Zuikaku is. Thanks.
I did a bit of digging. That was Kaga instead of Zuikaku (who is in the background). There was nothing mentioned about the spoiler-looking thing.
It is an overhead crane assembled when needed. Not all aircraft could be stowed below deck. So it was used for repairs. Mostly engine work.
@@josephburke7224 Thank you. I've often wondered that myself.
At the later stage of world war 2. Japan has very poor quality control due to the political pressure to build faster and more warships to meet US naval supremacy. The internal leaking of aviation fuel has caused many of her crews died of inhaling the toxic vapour of fuels just before the huge explosions.