United States designers typically did not allow much to intrude into the flight deck area. The closed hangar implied risk relative to petrol fumes, which the British addressed with a number of systems including special ‘fire curtains’ to divide the hangar, along with salt-water sprays.
The plus side was good citadel protection against small projectiles and some bombs, but it came at a cost of aircraft carrying capacity, usually less than half that of a US carrier of equivalent displacement. The hangar and flight deck were integral with the hull, and the hangar and part (but not all) of the flight deck were protected by an armoured ‘box’. Forbes, head of the aircraft carrier design department, and were very different from both US and earlier British designs. The resulting ships were developed in just three months by W. The Admiralty’s 1936 programme – intended for laying down in 1937 – included two aircraft carriers, and the Third Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Reginald Henderson, pushed for a design featuring armour protection, and was able to get them accepted while the Director of Naval Construction, Sir Arthur Johns, was absent and the department very busy. The inter-war idea that a carrier might have to face shell-fire also entered the calculation. This concerned the British, who expected their own carriers to operate within range of land-based aircraft, likely in conditions of enemy air superiority. The down side was that the aircraft and flight deck had no protection from bombs or projectiles. There was also room and ventilation to warm aircraft engines up below decks. This ‘open’ construction had advantages, notably in terms of aircraft stowage. United States carriers were built with the Pacific in mind and called for the hangar and flight deck to be built as a superstructure over the hull, with deck parking to store some of the aircraft. The biggest debate, however, was over basic principles.
Some were odd by later standards, such as the notion that a carrier might recover aircraft over the bow, demanding high astern speed and a stern shaped to permit that speed. Public domain, via Australian War Memorial.Īt the time there were a number of competing ideas relative to what constituted an effective carrier design.
The need for enclosed bows was clear to the British from this kind of experience.
0 kommentar(er)
