The Shōkaku class did combine the Capacity of Akagi, The armor of Kaga, and the Speed of the Hiryū.

@metalgoby6390

4 жыл бұрын

Akagi and Kaga actually, after the conversion, had the same exact armor.

@toannguyen-dt3sb

4 жыл бұрын

Shoukaku has much better armor than Kaga actually

@n00btub3r2012

3 жыл бұрын

Soryu punching the air

@cadengrace5466

3 жыл бұрын

All of the IJN mainline carriers only operated 66 plane air groups, 22 each fighter, torpedo and dive bomber. They each carried 25 spares. US carriers, packed in 50% more, generally 85 to 95 and carried 30 spares. Compare Langley to Hosho, 55 planes to Hosho's 15 or Shoho's 30. Ranger compared to Ryujo. 82 plus 30 spares versus 48 and 17 spares. Japanese carriers had small air groups and you see this in their flight operations during battles.

@lucashenry6281

3 жыл бұрын

And the sinkability of all three

You know an Austrian historian is making a video about USN/IJN when the rate of anti-aircraft fire is measured in panzerkampfwagons/minute

@MilitaryHistoryVisualized

7 жыл бұрын

;)

@TheHelghast1138

7 жыл бұрын

kataufen your comment wins sir :)

@Hotrodelectric

7 жыл бұрын

I can imagine someone on the Enterprise loading one of those bad boys up into a steam powered slung shot, and yelling "PULL!!"

@it_aint_me9081

6 жыл бұрын

I want a comparison between battleships measured like that

@Beowulf_DW

6 жыл бұрын

...Well, that's it then. From now on, I'm using panzerkampfwagons/minute as my standard RoF measurement.

I am Japanese and write sentences with google translate. There were only six battles between aircraft carriers in world history, and Zuikaku and Enterprise participated in five of them. And the two ships fought directly four times. I pay tribute to the two ships crew members and the pilot.

@juri8723

3 жыл бұрын

Zuikaku brought honor and glory to Japan

@norad_clips

3 жыл бұрын

Sugoi!

@Perichron

3 жыл бұрын

@Anthony Amable Feliciano Thank you for posting

@franklinbarrett4630

3 жыл бұрын

I have seen accounts where Cape Engano is not counted. That could be because the IJN did not have enough naval planes and pilots to participate at that time. The carriers just served as decoys.

@toshiyam2853

3 жыл бұрын

@@franklinbarrett4630 Zuikaku in Engaño should have been equipped with about 70 aircraft. It ’s a decoy, but it ’s a number that is commensurate with the aircraft carrier.

I now have a mental image of a ship catapulting cars and tanks at approaching aircraft. ...Awesome!

@covenantoflegions6825

7 жыл бұрын

a ship with a Mk. I Eyeball

@BobSmith-dk8nw

5 жыл бұрын

static.rcgroups.net/forums/attachments/5/1/7/1/a48781-1-slowday.jpg .

God damn it Enterprise, stop throwing Panzerkampfwagen at me!

@jfangm

8 жыл бұрын

That was probably the best visual ever.

@oiman5733

7 жыл бұрын

Imagine the means to hurl that thing in the first place. An air cannon or a catapult? Bonus points if the cannon sounds like a fart, with the Nazi POW in the Panzerkampwagen screaming for help.

@KrillLiberator

7 жыл бұрын

+Md. Ayeman Hyder; The correct weapon for firing a Pz.1 at the enemy is this: www.scp-wiki.net/scp-2041-j

@ussenterprisecv-6629

6 жыл бұрын

Jason Mimiaga wtf did I do

@Mephistopheles111

4 жыл бұрын

I read you comment before I got to the graphic and firepower explanation and was wondering what the hell you were going on about!

Before I watch the rest of this, I have to point out, that IJN ships didn't actually have prefix like British and American ships (HMS and USS). Whilst most people will refer to an IJN ship as, for example, IJN Hiryu, the Japanese themselves actually call the ships just 'Hiryu', or 'Zuikaku', or 'Yamato'. IJN and HIJMS were not used by the IJN as prefixes.

@aurelian3268

7 жыл бұрын

but it sounds cool

@TheAmir259

7 жыл бұрын

I thought they just used the HIJMS prefix for a limited time and ends somewhere after WW1. And anyway, HIJMS just sounds awful because it's so long and that it doesn't sound awesome at all.

@nightlightabcd

6 жыл бұрын

The Americans did not usually call their ship as USS either, and often with nicknames as well, like The Big E, Mighty Mo and so forth!

@juri8723

5 жыл бұрын

Amen.

@juri8723

5 жыл бұрын

nightlightabcd those were not official designation.

One thing you did not point out was the far superior damage control system of the American carriers. Mainly the use of carbon dioxide gas in the fueling system and fire suppression system. This proved highly effective in restoring flight operation in very short time even after multiple bomb hits and resulting fire. Midway is a prime example of poor fire precuation when 4 fleet carriers burned to utter destruction.

@AmurTiger

8 жыл бұрын

This was as much due to the light construction of the Japanese carriers present at Midway as due to damage control. All the protection that was mentioned in this video wasn't present on the lighter Japanese Carriers present at Midway and the results are telling. By contrast the Shokaku class took a number of hits and managed to carry on and make it home after the Battle of Coral Sea.

@brucec43

8 жыл бұрын

The crew of the Shinano might disagree.

@AmurTiger

8 жыл бұрын

Bruno TaTa Nope. Getting hit by 4 torpedoes sucks really hard, I'm not sure there's a ship in WWII that could have handled that. Certainly the USS Lexington which got hit by two air-dropped torpedoes ( smaller then sub or ship based ones ) and two bombs didn't exactly fare better. USS Wasp was sunk under almost identical circumstances. There just wasn't a lot you could do to sustain torpedo hits.

@gdspathe1130

8 жыл бұрын

I beg to differ the USS hornet was struck by 2 Japanese and 3 American torpedoes 3 bombs a suicide attack and 500 rounds of naval gunfire before finally going down to a volley of Long lance torpedoes

@gdspathe1130

8 жыл бұрын

oh and the Yamato and Musashi went down after 7 torp

Another issue regarding displacement - the US Navy had a very advanced high-pressure steam boiler. The Japanese essentially used the older Admiralty pattern three drum boilers. Apart from being smaller and more fuel efficient for a given power output US Navy boilers allowed for smaller compartments and therefore a lighter hull structure. When the Royal Navy got into the Pacific war in 1944 their three drum boilers forced their ships to operate at half the range and limited speed compared to the US Navy, in engine room conditions described as hellish. The Japanese had to make a lot of compromises to use three drum boilers and maintain the same range/speed as the US Navy. While it would follow that two closed hangars are heavier than one open, this is not always the case. The strongest form for the construction of a ship is a box. A closed hangar can form that box and therefore an integral part of the structure of a ship. An open hangar is effectively a second construction built on top of the ship. Its all dead weight that offers little to the strength of the vessel. This was the case with the RN armoured carriers. To have armoured even the roof an open hangar would have been prohibitive, the only way they could squeeze it in was to make the structure a load bearing part of the ship. When the Formidable was kamakazied the armour on the flight deck stood up very well to the blast. However the force was transmitted to the main structure of the ship. When she was refitted after the war, it was discovered her back had been effectively broken by the impact and she was in the strange state where her main deck was holding up the keel. The repairs were deemed too costly and she was scrapped. The Illustrious met a similar fate. The beauty of the open hangar was that it accommodated more aircraft, was easy to build, easy to repair and cheap. But it came with a weight penalty. The Japanese Navy also used far heavier scantlings than the US Navy, things like the thickness of metal in doors, scuttles, ladders, lockers were all designed to withstand heavier use. l believe this was a hold over from the days of the big guns. Scantlings had to be heavy duty to withstand the pressures of firing the big guns. Most of the original aircraft carriers - Akagi and Saratoga - were built on old battlecruiser hulls so the scantlings were heavy. When they came to build their first purpose built carriers the Japanese didn't scale down the fittings. That said the US Navy had made huge strides in the use of lighter scantlings, and may just have had an advantage there. It doesn't sound like much but shave 2mm off the thickness of every door and bulkhead in a ship this size and it adds up to a lot of metal.

@user-ve2ed8nd7o

5 жыл бұрын

but germans have 0 air craft carrier

@cryhavoc999

5 жыл бұрын

Ahhh Slade and Worth eh? They have a lot to answer for. Fake news basically and poorly researched. See www.armouredcarriers.com/debunking-slade-and-worths-armoured-carrier-essays/2014/5/30/debunking-slade-and-worths-armoured-carrier-essays

@ryohandoko1450

2 жыл бұрын

@@user-ve2ed8nd7o They technically did. But, it's not 1 aircraft carrier, instead it's kind of ¾ of Aircraft Carriers.

4:55 So that's why in World of Warships US Carriers prefer Dive bombers instead of Torp bombers... The mystery of my life has been solved.

@hihi-fi8by

7 жыл бұрын

lol

@Trades46

7 жыл бұрын

The IJN had spent a lot of time, effort and money on torpedo development prior to WWII (look at the infamous Type 93 "Long Lance"), so it is no surprise they want to get the most mileage out of them as possible in every single application. In contrast the US Torpedo development was nowhere near as advanced & the American torpedoes deployed from 1939-1943 were PLAGUED with detonator reliability issues. No wonder the US preferred its dive bombers instead.

@Tirak117

7 жыл бұрын

Not only that, the Devestator Torpedo Bomber was exceptionally slow and required a very predictable flight path at low altitude in order to engage ships. The simply were not terribly effective, and while if they managed to hit a target they could be devestating, they were far more likely to either be shot down short of firing, or missing alltogether. At the battle of midway around 41 Devestators were used, and only 6 survived and inflicted no hits.

@steakholder117

6 жыл бұрын

I guess until they had a better torp bomber-aka the TBM Avenger, they only kept small amounts of TBDs.

@sotabaka

6 жыл бұрын

American torpedos were just awful... not the torpedo bombers but the weapons themselves were utter crap

In 1943 the Enterprise was upgraded with a torpedo bubble. The Yorktown class ships repeatedly fell to Japans excellent torpedoes. The USN would send out two scout bombers on patrol. If they found something they could attack it not just report it. One patrol off the Enterprise found a light Japanese carrier and they put it out of action. It was a great tactic.

@bragup

7 жыл бұрын

To be fair, I'm not sure *anyone* ever built a TDS that could deal with the Type 93 torpedo. Fantastic weapon.

@adamtruong1759

3 жыл бұрын

@@bragup The KGV TDS could, and if you bring up Prince of Wales, to be fair all but one torpedo decided to everything but the TDS.

@jrod1019kw

3 жыл бұрын

@@bragup YES THEY DID! It was called the F6F! ;-)

@Ko_Kasumi

3 жыл бұрын

@@jrod1019kw The Type 93 was the ship based torpedo, F6F can't stop that pure oxygen using beauty

@diegosilang4823

11 ай бұрын

At least the Yorktown took more torpedoes to sink, the British Ark Royal sunk with a single torpedo!

The Enterprise the sole survivor of the class past 42' had an extensive refit in 43'. When she departed Bremerton on 1 November 1943, a new torpedo blister extended three quarters the length of her hull. Her flanks bristled with 50 20mm guns, and 40 40mm Bofors barrels: 36 more anti-aircraft guns than she had in July (the older 1.1in. quad AA guns were removed & replaced by quad 40mm). Her 40mm and 5-inch guns were now coupled to radar-controlled gunfire directors, and her damage control systems were completely overhauled and air detection radar improved. The flight deck had been lengthened eighteen feet and widened by five. Below decks, more berths had been packed in for her growing crew, and her bridge had been modernized. Most importantly the US developed proximity fuses for anti-aircraft shells (40mm & larger..) by the middle of the war. Midway was the last battle that TBD torpedo aircraft were employed & replaced by the much more capable TBF's. By 43' Wildcat fighters were replaced by Hellcats & in 1944 the SBD dive bombers were replaced by SB2C Helldivers.

Zuikaku: I look so much better than you, Grey Ghost. Enterprise: funny. Didn’t seem to help you in Leyte.

@miguelcuaresma8881

4 жыл бұрын

Rinter 227 Enterprise: I got a lot of nice records and have the most battle stars. The US: That’s cool. Didn’t seem to help you in the scrapyard.

@dominikvalkai5698

4 жыл бұрын

Sad... but its true...

@andreiandrei8402

3 жыл бұрын

Is that an azur lane referrence ?

@notaveragecr6041

3 жыл бұрын

@@andreiandrei8402 somewhat.

@notaveragecr6041

3 жыл бұрын

@@miguelcuaresma8881 Scrapyard: I have the remains of all ships CVN-65 Enterprise: Too bad I took the metal from CV-6 Enterprise.

Mark 1 eyeball, love it! Great Video!

@MilitaryHistoryVisualized

8 жыл бұрын

+Jeff Grimes thx, I "stole" that from Jingles, but I guess he didn't invent the term neither.

@metalgoby6390

4 жыл бұрын

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Hey. You said that both were equipped with radar after Midway? Why do you compare them saying that Shokaku had none and Yorktown had one? The radar was a little bit inferior, but they had one. Your comparison here put the Shokaku on the lower end.

In June 1942, the most modern US carrier was the USS Hornet. She was of the Yorktown class but with some design changes as a result of experience with Yorktown and Enterprise. Otherwise, nice video.

very informative and well done - more like this please.

@MilitaryHistoryVisualized

8 жыл бұрын

+Daniel Hall thank you!

@huskythedinosaur1592

8 жыл бұрын

+Military History Visualized The Enterprise had 90

Thank you for this presentation. I've always found that the Shokaku class carriers to be interesting, formidable and beautiful ships.

It is rather mind blowing how many planes they managed to fit on these things. It really shows what a critical asset the carrier is in a time of war.

The mk 1 eyeball.... BLOODY BRILLIANT!

I know have this mental image of Aircraft carriers literally shooting armored cars and tanks at their enemies. I LIKE IT.

This series is a complete joy. Astonishing scope, yet each offering is concise and easy to follow. Bravo!!!!

Caught a grammatical error: You said 48 when you meant 84 at 4:21 Great video as usual. These are all absolutely fantastic.

@MilitaryHistoryVisualized

8 жыл бұрын

+Tilter thx, so much for rehearsing 3 times :D funny thing, right before that part I actually had 82 instead of 81, I caught that part.

@jhroenigk

6 жыл бұрын

It's called a transcoding error and is notably more frequent among German and Dutch speakers.

@metalgoby6390

5 жыл бұрын

He is german afterall. In german, 84 is pronounced Vierundachtzig, vier meaning 4 and acht 8, which puts in the word itself the 4 ahead of the 8. Thats why he probably said 48. A mistake to be sure, but a small one.

Major flaws in IJN air defenses was not only the shitty Type 96 25mm and lack of good fire control, but also the lack of an intermediate AA gun (for example, the 40mm Bofors).

@MilitaryHistoryVisualized

8 жыл бұрын

+Hellfire Goliath I agree, yet in 1942 the Enterprise didn't have any 40mm. Also the Japanese were using barrage fire, whereas the US trained to hit the plane. The situation significantly worsened after 1942 for IJNs air defense. After all the USN ditched the 1.1 in and added the 40mm Bofors.

@hellfire6237

8 жыл бұрын

+Military History A bit of out context but she was equipped with Bofors 40mm after her repair and refit in September to November of 1942 after being damaged in the Eastern Solomons, in August. (I know that she didn't have the 40mm until after September, but its just to prove that she did have them in 1942) Also I forgot to mention: Great video! Very informative and I like the format. Are you planning on doing other comparisons between other USN and IJN ships?

@MilitaryHistoryVisualized

8 жыл бұрын

+Hellfire Goliath ohh, well that was earlier as I remember, thx, yeah, since I set the cut-off date (see description) for June 1942, I wasn't to concerned with the rest. thank you! Maybe, but I guess I will do the Battle of Midway or something similar first. This video also took way too long, but well I had to learn some basics.

@CatWithBagOnHead

8 жыл бұрын

+Military History pretty good info on the comparisons. The displacement difference between the classes can be attributed to Shokaku being roughly 15% larger in size (wl, beam, draft) than the Yorktown class, and more heavily armored (which you noted). Both of these things would contribute to the difference. Shokaku was more comparable to an Essex class carrier in size and displacement. Enterprise herself was one of 14 ships to receive the CXAM air search radar in 1941, along with Lexington, Yorktown, and Hornet. The CXAM is listed (in U.S. Radar, Operational Characteristics of Radar Classified by Tactical Application) as being able to detect single aircraft at 50 nautical miles and to detect large ships at 14 miles.

@RandolphCthulhu

7 жыл бұрын

I'd love to see you do a Battle of Midway breakdown.

wunderbar! As an amateur historian and devotee of the Pacific War in particular, I'm pretty sure I had heard all of these before, but in different places at different times; to have all these facts presented together is fantastic. Also, I think one thing you missed was each carrier's susceptibility to damage and their respective damage control abilities. The USN and the Yorktown class carriers in particular were infamous for their survivability. The Yorktown was badly damaged at Coral Sea, repaired and then further damaged at Midway (where the Japanese did not realize they'd attacked the Yorktown, thinking she'd been sunk at Coral Sea a month earlier). The Yorktown was repaired and restored to fighting shape within a few hours; she was attacked again and Japanese aviators thought they had attacked a different carrier because they could not see any damage on the Yorktown; even though Yorktown was crippled in this attack, she still would not sink until she was torpedoed by a Japanese sub a day after the battle. The Enterprise was also "sunk" by the Japanese several times (three times, the Japanese announced they had sunk the Enterprise, and they were wrong each time). Enterprise was badly damaged in the Solomons campaign and at Santa Cruz but carried on fighting despite extensive damage for several weeks, being the only US carrier operational in the Pacific during this time, until she was able to retire to Pearl Harbor in early '43 for repairs. By contrast, the Japanese carriers were something akin to glass cannons; I'm not aware of any Japanese carrier being badly damaged and surviving other than Shokaku (a sister ship of Zuikaku). However, it seems that more important than the ships are the crews. In general, the Japanese were better at handling/launching/recovering aircraft than their American counterparts (certainly at Midway) but the Americans were far better at reconnaissance and damage control. In addition to the Japanese attacking the Yorktown twice at Midway (and thinking she was two different carriers and at no point did they identify her as Yorktown), at Coral Sea the Japanese attacked an oil tanker because they thought it was an aircraft carrier!

@MilitaryHistoryVisualized

8 жыл бұрын

+PaperbackWriter thx! As mentioned before I intentionally didn't cover the damage control aspects, due to a lack of sources/time and also because it is mostly a doctrine issue. I may cover damage control in an video itself.

love the detail in your vids! You actually lay things out

So what you're saying is that the Enterprise had mad DPM and bigger alpha?

@Rubashow

7 жыл бұрын

AquaNomad22 Ohh look, a typical misanthrope ...

@kunkker77

7 жыл бұрын

Goddamn cruisers don't know how to activate defensive aa fire!

@wolfhunter98

7 жыл бұрын

Lol. Prepare my Panzerkampfwagen I for launch.

@alfredconqueror4422

7 жыл бұрын

Lachlan Allen I see you are a man of culture as well

Out of fairness, the 1.1" guns on the _Enterprise_ were little if any better than the 25mm guns on the _Shōkaku_ (poor traverse and a tendency to jam), and thus ought to be discounted. Also, for the Americans to not keep too many torpedo bombers around was unintentionally wise, the Mark 13 torpedo in the early war being a rather poor weapon in that it could make only 33 knots, and requiring a low-and-slow final run.

@MakeMeThinkAgain

8 жыл бұрын

Plus the USN torpedo bombers were pathetic in 1942 compared to IJN aircraft. The USN replaced their original (useless) AAA with 20mm and 40mm weapons as soon as they could, and the Essex class carriers had twin 5" turrets that would eventually benefit from the use of proximity fused shells. Even by 1943 a USN carrier task force was qualitatively completely superior to what the USN had been able to field in 1942. But it was in 1942 that they were able to stop the IJN advance.

@GoranXII

8 жыл бұрын

Even at their worst though, the US ships were generally more survivable than the Japanese ones, mostly because their crews were trained on the basis they might get pasted. For one thing, they had a policy of purging aviation fuel lines (wasted fuel, but heavily reduced fire risk) when the enemy got close, plus every crewman had at least _some_ DC training, so even if the DC teams were mostly killed there'd still be plenty of people around who could be of at least some help. Add into that that every aircraft was equipped with radio (so the ships could vector the CAP better than the aircraft themselves), and most ships with radar.

@MakeMeThinkAgain

8 жыл бұрын

That was certainly true for carriers but some IJN ships -- Mogami being the best example -- seemed to be almost unsinkable. If the IJN was anything like the USN (and it might have been since they were both largely based on the Royal Navy) it could have been that some ships just had better non-commissioned officers who stayed with the ship and made sure the crew knew what to do.

@alganhar1

8 жыл бұрын

US DC was very, very good, and got better, they had some good practice, especially with Kamikaze attacks later on in the war! Good damage control is often overlooked as an aid to ship survivability. I think one real weakness of most, if not all the war time US Carriers was the weak deck armour. I remember reading some years ago a message sent by a US Liason Officer on board one of the British Carriers that had been hit by a Kamikaze. He said that while the US Carrier would have almost certainly needed dockside repairs to its flight deck, the British crew simply pushed the wreck over the side, swept up the debris and the flight deck was back in action within 10 minutes..... On the flip side British carriers had a smaller air wing than the US carriers did... so there were comprimises made in the designs, as there always are.

@MakeMeThinkAgain

8 жыл бұрын

I've heard that too, but there is another side to it. If a bomb did penetrate an armoured UK deck it would need repair in a shipyard, but a US deck could be quickly planked over and put back in operation. Unless the devastation on the hanger deck prevented that.

Years later this is still one of my favorite videos you have done

This channel is without question the most comprehensive and unbiased look at so many areas of warfare. Thank you so much for what you do. My only request is that you do more videos on the pacific theater.

Always enjoy your videos, the graphics / images. And the jokes (Mk. I Eyeball). As well as the way of stating things. "Every minute the Enterprise could throw a Panzerkampfwagen I at you".

I slept onboard the USS Yorktown with my boy scout unit. It's anchored in Charleston harbor.

@manilajohn0182

7 жыл бұрын

Different Yorktown. Yours was an Essex Class designated CV-10. The one referred to here is CV-5 and lead ship of her class.

@jshepard152

6 жыл бұрын

Well that's awesome.

@paolagarcia3009

4 жыл бұрын

@@manilajohn0182 CV(N)-6 USS Enterprise de hecho es el que se habla.

@manilajohn0182

4 жыл бұрын

@@paolagarcia3009 U.S.S. Enterprise CV-6, or U.S.S. Enterprise CVN-65.

@paolagarcia3009

4 жыл бұрын

@@manilajohn0182 ambas, el original y luego la actualizacion.

What a great summary. Thank you!

Nice Video. Short and to the point.

New unit of AA power measurement, Panzerkampfwagen.

@Joannes808

3 жыл бұрын

Next thing you know, Cruisers will be in Kübelwagens, and Destroyers in Kar 98s by the stack. "Where did everything go?" - Random Heer Quartermaster.

another thought about the high dive bomber ratio....the dauntless although not equal to a fighter could still give a good account of it self in a combat air patrol situation and the fact that the majority of US torpedoes did not function properly ( did not detonate or run true ) could have been a factor also thanks for all of your work

Informative, interesting, and well done. Also, short and to the point. Thank you.

excellent video as always

I'm a little surprised you didn't mention another difference between the Yorktown and Shokaku designs - the location of the primary load bearing deck. The Shokaku class (as with all of the Japanese and British carrier designs) used the top, flight deck as the primary structural and rigidity member for the ship. This meant that severe damage to the flight deck could compromise the structural integrity of the ship. Yorktown class ships, and most of the US designs of the period, placed the primary structural member as the second or hanger deck, which meant that flight deck damage (the most common structural damage taken, at least from the air) could simply be patched or even replaced as necessary and never threatened the structure of the ship.

@adamtruong1759

3 жыл бұрын

I mean, there are multiple cases of bombs going through deck as if it wasn't there, and penetrated many decks below.

@torpedospurs

3 жыл бұрын

This is not correct. None of the Japanese carriers had the flight deck as the strength deck, not even the armoured flight deck Taiho or Shinano.

@sundoga4961

3 жыл бұрын

@@torpedospurs Truly? I'm recalling several articles I've read that say quite differently. They could be wrong, of course, but where do you get your information from?

@amg557

3 жыл бұрын

@@sundoga4961 Agreed - Marshall and Tully's Shattered Sword (an outstanding full accounting of the Battle of Midway) specifically describes the armored decks of the japanese carriers as the strength deck, and goes over the advantages and disadvantages of both approaches in detail. So in essence they agree with the points you make above. Interestingly, they also make the argument that having the flight deck as the strength deck also meant they had to limit the number of elevators; combined with the fact that the japanese did not use deck spotting, it increase cycle time and thus the time needed to launch a strike. All of this (and other points) served to limit the number of planes the carrier was capable of handling, which meant the air groups were more limited in size in armored deck carriers. They don't choose sides though - they point out the strengths in the armored deck as well. It's worth a read - an outstanding book!

@sundoga4961

3 жыл бұрын

@@amg557 Sounds like it. I'll have to track down a copy.

Can't wait for the year 2050 when he'll be able to finally talk about the mark 2 eyeball

@brucetucker4847

4 жыл бұрын

It's 2019, Hannibal Chew should be working on that right now in his shop in Los Angeles.

Flawless research as usual!!

Why doesn't this channel have more subs. Nice stuff man. Only have seen 4 so far but I'm instant fan, bro.

You forgot to mention damage control. The U.S.N. was in fact better at damage control than the I.J.N. As well as that, the D3A Val, could only drop a 250kg(551 lb) bomb from her fuselage rack. The SBD could drop 454kg(908 lb) bomb from her fuselage rack. Much more effective.

@MilitaryHistoryVisualized

7 жыл бұрын

no, I didn't. Damage control is doctrine not part of the ship design.

@sasjajappie5141

7 жыл бұрын

Sorry I misunderstood I was pointing out that that had a lot to do with outcomes. Bad doctrines can overcome good designs Military History Visualized

@MilitaryHistoryVisualized

7 жыл бұрын

no worries. I get a damage control comment on this video like every month, so it is a bit tiresome.

@FawfulDied

7 жыл бұрын

Damage control is important and starts from the design. For example, compare Soviet Project 7 and Project 7U destroyers--from a linear machinery layout to an alternating one. Or the design of Kongo-class hulls--large compartments and poor internal splinter protection, leading to the very rapid capsizing of Kirishima. Or the design of Japanese hangar decks--which could not be opened to the air to vent fumes, preventing gasoline vapors from escaping, and reducing the speed of aircraft operations (since planes must be moved up to the flight deck and warmed up one by one, instead of in the hangar deck). Or the common complaints of CVE commanders, whose ships were unable to take the punishment that the fleet destroyers could (even though they had the same armor), due to their merchant hull design.

@calvinlee1813

6 жыл бұрын

Military History Visualized Actually the damage control party on Shokaku had much experience. Their ship had been strike by several bombs in both Coral Sea as well as the Eastern Solomon Islands and Santa Cruz.

When he said that Enterprise threw a Panzer 1 at you, did anyone else laugh a little bit?

I loved the toss a small tank vs a scout car at you!!

Excellent work!

good video, i just wish you would have talked about the damage control a little bit. although the enterprise and her sister ships had less armour. their crews were trained to repair the ships in combat and the ships had systems to help with this. while the japanese never expected to get hit and were therefore unable to save damaged ships. an example is the battle of midway. 2 of the japanese carriers. the Akagi and the Kaga were both hit by 3 american bombs while the Soryuu was believed to only have been hit by 1. all 3 sank. the same day the yorktown (sister of enterprise) was also hit by 3 bombs. a few hours later the entire ship was repaired and was operating normally (although max speed was slower) then it got hit by 2 torpedoes....although badly damaged it was assumed she would stil survive. only when a japanese sub finished her off that evening was she truly lost.

@MilitaryHistoryVisualized

8 жыл бұрын

+luke smulders yeah, me too, I think it is still the video I spent the most time on, I had some stuff about damage control but it was too vague for my standards. Also it was more of a doctrine issue and hard to put a cut off date on, after all the Japanese pre-war crews did very well as far as I remember.

@lukie275

8 жыл бұрын

not really. it was actually not a problem with their doctrine (although that was a problem) but their problem with damage control was a problem within their culture. the japanese way of Bushido was still quite influential. it pretty much meant that you win the battle by killing your enemy. and instead of looking to your defence you focussed on killing him. a dead enemy couldnt injure you. that is why samurai preffered a two-handed sword instead of a sword and shield like in europe. they wanted to kill the enemy before damage was done. this influenced their doctrine in that the japanese were always trying to get a decisive battle instead of a few small ones and that their carriers focussed on attacking and their crews weren't trained to repair damage.

@MakeMeThinkAgain

8 жыл бұрын

The IJN problem at Midway was that the decks were crowded with fueled and armed planes plus high explosive bombs removed so that the planes could be re-armed to attack ships. Regardless of damage control expertise, those ships were doomed the moment a US bomb exploded.

@lukie275

8 жыл бұрын

true, however in the entire war it became apparent that the japanese just weren't capable of taking a punch. take the light carrier zuiho as an example. at the battle of santa cruz it got hit early on with 2 lighter bombs dropped by 2 american scouts. that kept the zuiho out of the action for the rest of the day. while the yorktown at midway got hit by 3 bombs and was back in action an hour later.

@bragup

7 жыл бұрын

I hate to be Johnny-come-lately on this response, but it turns out to be a myth that there were planes parked wingtip-to-wingtip on the deck when the American attack arrived. In Shattered Sword they have some of the photos that the attacking American planes took and the Japanese decks are almost completely clear of aircraft.

at 4.22 you made a mistake and said 48 when you should have said 84. I really like your videos :-)

Another fantastic video. Could you do a video on major strategic and tactical concepts as they relate to the use of carriers in warfare? A video about carrier tactics employed by a specific navy, or the illustration of these topics through an overview of a major carrier-involved battle like Midway would be great. Fantastic channel, and keep the great videos coming!

Love your channel. Thank you!

Japanese followed the British in building carrier who stored all their planes inside the armoured hangar and not storing them on the deck hence the low number of aircraft. The British believe that the ship should defend itself and put lots of firepower on the deck. Their fighters are designed for long range flight hence the sturdy built and double seat. All British carriers have their deck strenght on the flight deck which is made of metal instead of wood like the American Carrier.

@Magicannon_

7 жыл бұрын

However it wasn't until the Taiho where the IJN would have an armored flight deck. Preparations for launching were also slower as mounting torps and reloading guns/cannons were done in the hangars while bombs were dealt with on the deck. Further, planes could not be warmed up in the hangar as there wasn't enough ventilation.

@christopherhalim2801

7 жыл бұрын

Final Spark Also all British carriers have Hurricane Bow which did not become a feature on Japanese carriers until Taiho Poor old Taiho...

@christopherhalim2801

7 жыл бұрын

気味不完全燃焼 Ja I said until Taiho...

@Ocrilat

7 жыл бұрын

Not all British CVs...just the ones after Ark Royal (basically the Illustrious and Implacable class). Armored deck CVs were a failure...the Japanese and Americans were right to go with unarmored decks (more aircraft, faster rearming, easier to repair, less subject to hull distortion when struck by ordinance).

@Ensign_Cthulhu

7 жыл бұрын

Interesting - I've seen it said that the British response to a Kamikaze strike on a carrier was to sweep the wreckage over the side and continue flight operations.

you let your german through at around 4 23.

I love this stuff, and your conclusions are spot on.

@MilitaryHistoryVisualized

8 жыл бұрын

thank you!

Great post. Please do more like this.

Hey, mate. You're probably bored by flattery by now, but great video as always! I'm curious, how do you make the art for your work? The icons, the ship drawings, the like, I mean.

@MilitaryHistoryVisualized

8 жыл бұрын

+MaxRavenclaw thank you! Everything in PowerPoint mostly with the "freeform" shape, so I basically redraw everything in broad strokes. Just straight lines, very few of them are set to "smooth" point afterwards. The tool isn't too accurate, but you can scale everything and turn the outline on/off. Also some shapes are just basic PowerPoint shapes stuck together.

@MaxRavenclaw

8 жыл бұрын

Military History Do you have a tutorial on your powerpoint channel?

@MilitaryHistoryVisualized

8 жыл бұрын

+MaxRavenclaw not on that stuff, I just looked around, I think this one covers that part: kzread.info/dash/bejne/g6thq8p6mZetpMo.html it is basically just drawing and knowing what parts to leave out.

@MaxRavenclaw

8 жыл бұрын

Military History This should prove interesting. Thanks.

@MaxRavenclaw

8 жыл бұрын

Military History OK, I checked that out. So you use the same technique to draw the tanks and ships? What about the icons, like the the one for the anti-air gun?

pls make more of these perhaps iowa vs yamato or fletcher vs shimakaze

@bragup

7 жыл бұрын

Iowa vs. Yamato wouldn't have been all that interesting. The American battleships by that point were using rather effective radar-guided gunnery and the Iowa's 16-inch battery has a greater effective range than the 18-inch battery of the Yamato. In other words, that hypothetical battle consists of the Iowa pummeling the Yamato to pieces with radar-directed fire while carefully remaining out of range.

@ariltherandomguyonyoutube5220

7 жыл бұрын

Boydewitz *cough H-39 to H-44 cough*

Comparing combat vessels was a moving target. Someone from Mars would have emphasized how alike major weapon systems were during WWII. What is tougher to illustrate is the quality of crew and airmen. We'll never know, for instance, whether Lexington might have been saved had someone been a little quicker at the switch in May 1942. We know the Enterprise was likely saved by some genuine heroics by a small number of her crew during Santa Cruz. Ditto with flight groups. The US had more men and planes and rotated more rapidly. But having a better leadership in the cockpit and the bridge was of huge importance. I interviewed a lot of USN sailors in the late 90s and there was something special about the morale of those who had served on Enterprise. Hard to describe, but there - and they certainly thought so. And there are always might have beens. Arguably one of the best trained air group in the USN flew off Saratoga in late 43. They had not been in battle but were extensively and imaginatively exercised for months. The Rabaul raid made "on the fly" in November with Princeton was a an extremely impressive performance. On the other hand, when an unsuccessful follow up raid was made days later by Sara plus three Essex Class CVs the Japanese were unable to score a single hit despite having 120 aircraft to counterattack with. In 1942, 120 IJNAF planes would have gotten something. The US was going up while the Japanese were in a classic downward spiral. The Turkey Shoot in June underscored the point that by 1944 PTO naval battles were over and muggings had begun.

Well done. Succinct and informative.

Great Vid, I dont onow who is Better, Grey Ghost Enterprise or Zuikaku (P.S.: OWARI DA!!!!!)

My response to japanese carriers having less anti aircraft weaponry - American planes weren't prone to suicide bomb them.

@MilitaryHistoryVisualized

7 жыл бұрын

1942

@Crims0ny

7 жыл бұрын

Military History Visualized Hmm yeah I suppose.

@gdspathe1130

7 жыл бұрын

well let's be honest IJN AA sucked

@braxon

7 жыл бұрын

I agree with you that the Americans adopted a carrier based meta much faster than the Japanese. The only reason Pearl Harbor happened at all was that Yamamoto was personally convinced that Carriers were the future. The rest of the military apparatus fought him tooth and nail. Even before Pearl Harbor, US was in a transition to a carrier based navy, the success of pearl harbor had more to do with the US not expecting Japan to be able to get their ships to Pearl then it did a lack of understanding of air power. But also important is that I feel that the axis powers simply undervalued technology that didn't directly kill opponents. They focused on better torpedoes and guns, but then greatly neglected damage control, radars, cryptogrophy, airframes, training, and integrated air defense. In the end, it was their deficiency in those technologies that gave them a disadvantage.

@WalkaCrookedLine

7 жыл бұрын

I don't think it was really appreciated until after the war, but the U.S. superiority in adding aircraft numbers was less about building the planes than training crews for them. The Japanese training establishment was always far from adequate, especially after the submarine campaign drastically reduced fuel supplies. The late war kamikaze tactics resulted from having far more aircraft than trained crews for them, they found it easier to send out sketchily trained boys on one way suicide missions than to train proper aircrews.

Wow, I wish I would have found these videos sooner... Great work!

@MilitaryHistoryVisualized

8 жыл бұрын

+Michael Gaskin thank you! spread the word and help others (and also the channel) :)

@reinhardalexander567

3 жыл бұрын

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized find it 2021

@MilitaryHistoryVisualized

3 жыл бұрын

@@reinhardalexander567 :)

@reinhardalexander567

3 жыл бұрын

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized thx

More of the these. Ship comparisons? Yes please. More of these. :)

Okay, but you forget one very important aspect here: the Shokaku looks waaaay better than the Yorktown.

@MilitaryHistoryVisualized

6 жыл бұрын

yeah

@brian101010390139040

6 жыл бұрын

Really? I think the Shokaku looks like those old converted cruisers that navies messed around with before they made purpose built carriers

@katsuragikaini8983

6 жыл бұрын

The opposite is true, Enterprise was built on a cruiser-based hull, Zuikaku was built on a hull design (called the Taylor Pear) that Yamato would later use.

@jamesjacocks6221

6 жыл бұрын

Yea. The US Navy prided itself on functionality and technology and ended up with warships that had a container ship aspect. It was a good tradeoff.

@ussenterprisecv-6629

6 жыл бұрын

Moorbote you wanna fight

Grey ghosto

Amazing info!

Another great video

USS Enterprise be like : I gonna end this ship’s whole career.

Found you again. My dad was on the Lexington. CV 16. I am likely alive only because of the atomic bombs.

@winkerdude

8 жыл бұрын

An odd side note. One of my earliest memories is playing with a twisted burned piece of aluminum. A piece of one of the kamakazis that hit his ship.

@tomdumb6937

3 жыл бұрын

Me too!

I had a watch partner that was on the Yorktown at Midway. He's probably passed away by now.

The USS Enterprise was equipped with CXAM-1 radar well before the Battle of Midway. She had CXAM-1 radar for her Marshalls raid early February, Wake in late February and Marcus raids in early March 1942. Given the fact that the Enterprise spent very little time in harbor after December 7th, we can assume she received her radar in the second batch of 14 CXAM-1 units received by the US Navy in the fall of 1940.

GUREI GHOSTTO

Owari da!!!

Excellent channel, subscribed. Danke

very nice job!

"mark 1 eyeball" hahahahaha

The Shokaku-class were arguably Japan's best carriers; they were amazingly fast and unlike earlier (and later) IJN carriers had pretty good durability. In the early war period of 1941~1942 a Shokaku could easily have taken on a Yorktown and with all else held equal the IJN carrier would be victorious. However, the Essex was more in line with what the Shokaku should be compared to (minus its earlier build date & commissioning) and when USS Essex was in service by early 1943 the doctrine, skill & experience now greatly favors the US.

@nexu6517

7 жыл бұрын

Trades46 it was succeeded by the Taiho class carrier

Another reason for the limitation of the Zuikaku aircraft numbers vs the Enterprise was that IJN planes had practically no folding wing ability.

well done, complete info.....

Was anyone else hoping for a Star Trek joke?

How many azur lane players

Two things are evident from the illustrations of the two ships. The plan view shows how the YORKTOWN class had more flight deck area than the SHOKAKU class, in line with the operating procedures of U.S. carriers which made much more use of deck parks. The Japanese tended to keep their aircraft in the hangars, even during most fueling and arming operations. Also the freeboard of the YORKTOWN class was higher than that of the SHOKAKU class. Given that the Japanese built their fleet carriers with two hangar levels, that put the lower hangar floor very close to sea level. When the Japanese modified the SHOKAKU design for TAIHO the lower hangar floor and the elevator wells sat even deeper thanks to the weight of the armored flight deck. The result of this is well known. The torpedo hit by the submarine ALBACORE caused the forward elevator well to fill with aviation gasoline from the ruptured storage tanks and the fumes proved beyond the ability of the ship's damage control teams to remedy the situation. This led to the TAIHO blowing up.

Brilliant comparison, you should teach at the war college as your presentation carry "lessons learned" which still apply in today's military doctrine and operations. Thank you for all the research, work and time you invest in creating these excellent presentations for the YT community. Ciao, L

Azur lane I'll just leave this here and see where everyone is at..

Another difference, The IJN Shokaku was sunk, the Enterprise wasn't.

@metaknight115

2 жыл бұрын

Yorktown, Hornet, and Wasp were all sunk by a submarine, Shokaku and Zuikaku and a destroyer, and a submarine respectively

@whidbeyhiker4364

2 жыл бұрын

@@metaknight115 Point? The Wasp wasn't a Yorktown class, by the way, greatly reduced size, displacement and propulsion.

@metaknight115

2 жыл бұрын

@@whidbeyhiker4364 A: I added it because it was basically just the Yorktown.......but smaller B) I was just showing the fact that saying that enterprise didn’t sink was not a fair comparison, as all of her sisterships and her half sistership all sunk

@whidbeyhiker4364

2 жыл бұрын

@@metaknight115 What wasn't fair was Pearl Harbor, the asskicking that ensued was entirely fair. FWIW, the Japanese Navy looked good on paper but fell apart relatively quickly. They lost the war at Midway.

The Torpedo problem of the US Navy at Battle of Tassafaranga onward through Vella Gulf, Blackett strait, battle of Vella Lavella. No one has tallied up the Torpedoes fired in each of the surface engagements or the number salvoed off by the Japanese. The battle for the Solomons came to an end with the introduction of functional USNavy torpedoes. A video quantifying the torpedo hits versus misses, duds, and harmlessly washing up on the beach unexploded would be a sobering reminder of what we can expect of a lack of civilian-military oversight on weapons programs. Fletcher Destroyers became the most potent surface weapon at the point when they could finally develop tactics that were missing due to ineffective torpedoes. TBDs, Submarines, and PT boats all benefitted but there is no timetable of introduction and conversion. This is THE story of the Solomons.

I am from Colombia but my favorite boat for everything I achieve, its history and design is the CV-6 USS Enterprise and its update to night missions.

Owari da.

@kono_ryu

5 жыл бұрын

nvalid werdz *ONEE-CHAN SAE IREBA!!*

Great job!

@MilitaryHistoryVisualized

8 жыл бұрын

thank you!

Nice video

Very interesting. Thank you. Peace.

The USS Enterprise is my favorite carrier of the war Have you ever seen battle 360 it tells how amazing the enterprise is and thanks for this great video

@cardiv5zuikaku944

5 жыл бұрын

yee, the 1st Documentary video that i watched till ends, it also introduce me to Japanese Battleship Ise which i really like now because it's design that combine Battleship and Aircraft carrier capability, even though my fav ww2 warhips is Zuikaku, Enterprise is s sure a beauty, my fav US Warships in ww2

Great video. I did notice no comparison concerning the damage control capabilities, which the Japanese were slow to improve upon. Also the operational philosophies such as strike preparations and coordination with other carriers. Shattered Sword goes into some detail on these matters as well as the others you covered. Highly recommended reading.

Liked and Subscribed becoz of the panzer and scout car comparison :DDDDDDD

This video was awesome my uncle was in the same fleet as the USS Enterprise

@MilitaryHistoryVisualized

8 жыл бұрын

+Derek Lee thank you!

@fuzer909

3 жыл бұрын

Bet he had tons of stories Owen.

The difference in hangars and flight deck affected aircraft operations too. Shattered Sword has a great description of Japanese aircraft handling. Their biggest drawback was that engines could not be started and warmed up in the hangar bays, but that was standard practice on US carriers. During Midway, the Japanese could not launch their strike against the US carriers until they had all been spotted and warmed up on the flight deck, and spotting was impossible until the Americans stopped attacking and the Japanese CAP stopped coming back for fuel and ammo, which requires an empty flight deck. If they could have warmed up engines in the hangar bay, they could have lifted them to the flight deck for launch, although that was entirely against doctrine and never would have been tried. Shattered Sword has tremendous graphic timelines in the back, showing when each carrier was recovering and launching the CAP, showing how busy they were and how they had no time to spot planes for warmup and launch.

cool video would love to hear your thoughts on the Royal Naval carries in comparison especially the Illustrious class

@MilitaryHistoryVisualized

8 жыл бұрын

+Jon south thank you! May take a while though.

I think some of the other thing that need to explored was that the Enterprise kept having its fire control upgrade through out the war, the quality of Japanese pilots declining, the technological advancement of US air craft, damage control (mentioned bellow), and US production out put. Also worth noting, Japanese early successes led to a stagnation of Japanese tactics.

i have never seen the pound per minute comparison before. i like your videos. mark 1 eyeball! hahaha

@MilitaryHistoryVisualized

8 жыл бұрын

got it from here: www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm which to a certain degree inspired that video. Thank you!

Nice video! Keep it up.

@MilitaryHistoryVisualized

8 жыл бұрын

+Thanawat Reancharean thank you.

Excellent topic and informative comparison. I would be interested to know how the ships compared in aviation fuel and aircraft ordinance. Also damage control. Although that would probably be subjective. Always worthwhile to check out these vids and learn. Thank you.

Sir, I Love that formula for the AA comparison, Just as I heard once "On WWII there were not accurate tracking or guidance systems... we just tried to put as much junk on the sky as we could."

Good vid :) Only thing I'd suggest would be a mention of Coral Sea (after all, it was an occasion when the name ships of both classes faced each other, quite close to Midway) and the dangers of the enclosed Japanese hangars, particularly given their lack of armour or damage-reduction measures that the British employed.