elswick1542 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

agree about the ark,the armoured illustrious could only carried 36 due to the great weight of armour,but the far smaller colossus class carried about the same without the armour if iir.

warshipworshiper (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Variations in aircraft capacity of carriers is largely doctrinal, not physical. Had the RN chosen the doctrine of "decking" their aircraft as the USN did, their aircraft capacities would have been easily comparable.Ark Royal held 72 aircraft within her double hangar decks. Had she been given the aircraft to do so, there is no reason she could not have accomodated another 25 or so on her flight deck. Paper stats were extremely subjective due to doctrinal differences between navies.

6771944 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Why is there a Falklands war clip of a type 21 sinking in the middle of this !!!!

krazytom177 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

well thx

elswick1542 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

this is in a post from some time ago on the navweaps dis boards,as i said it and i could be wrong but no contributor could find a war ship that got back to port with 3 or more torp hits,the 2 ships that did were japanese tankers in ballast.

elswick1542 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

mostley agree but could any other ship of this age uss texas? be any less dead in the water.

elswick1542 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

i would also say that the rn carriers were far more resistant to fire,usn ijn carriers could carry more aircraft than rn armoured carriers,you pay your money and take your chance.

elswick1542 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

yes agree,iir the sverdiov secondery guns are very similar to the german tri/stabalised 105mm guns.

temperatechimp (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

The Sovs learnt a lot from the RN ships on loan to them, and applied these to the Sverdlov class...

temperatechimp (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Absolutely - obsolescent before WW2. And torp damage is far more devastating anyway...