美軍航母兩問

1.點解係艾賽克斯級拳師號(CV-21 Boxer)
同艾賽克斯級理查號(CV-31 Bonhomme Richard)之間,
夾集左10隻獨立級航空母艦?

2.小鷹級美利堅號(CVA-66 America),
與其他小鷹級航空母艦有乜分別?
做乜柤比同級其他航母,舷號多左個A?

[ref=281844]DW8306[/ref]  在 2005-6-26 11:37 PM 發表:
1.點解係艾賽克斯級拳師號(CV-21 Boxer)
同艾賽克斯級理查號(CV-31 Bonhomme Richard)之間,
夾集左10隻獨立級航空母艦?

2.小鷹級美利堅號(CVA-66 America),
與其他小鷹級航空母艦有乜分別?
做乜柤比同級其他航母,舷號多左個A?

2. 以前的編制有CVA和CVS之分
CVA是攻擊型
CVS是反潛型
現在統一稱為CV

[ref=281937]akboy[/ref]  在 2005-6-27 12:39 AM 發表:




2. 以前的編制有CVA和CVS之分
CVA是攻擊型
CVS是反潛型
現在統一稱為CV

另問,CVB係點解?戰列航母?#

[ref=283359]DW8306[/ref]  在 2005-6-28 10:32 AM 發表:



另問,CVB係點解?戰列航母?#

CVB (Aircraft Carriers, Large)

大型航母


copied from here: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/ships/carriers/cv-hist2b.html

[ref=281844]DW8306[/ref]  在 2005-6-26 11:37 PM 發表:

1.點解係艾賽克斯級拳師號(CV-21 Boxer)
同艾賽克斯級理查號(CV-31 Bonhomme Richard)之間,
夾集左10隻獨立級航空母艦?

10隻獨立級航空母艦的服役日期係在1943年間,會唔會係為左填補番在42年損失的幾艘CV同埋配合反攻計劃而建造?
1943年1月1日前美國海軍只有5隻CV:USS Saratoga,USS Ranger,USS Enterprise,USS Essex,USS Lexington
43年間造了14隻,包括10隻獨立級同4隻艾賽克斯級

如果只計太平洋戰場, 在42年年尾43年年頭, 美軍可以調度的
大型航母只剩返CV-3 Saratoga同CV-6Enterprise兩艘, 因為..

CV-1(計埋佢),2,5,7,8都被擊沈
CV-4 Ranger無參與太平洋戰役
CV-9 Essex在一日前先正式服役, 要駛往
太平洋的主戰場, 都要一頭半個月

而CV-2 Lexington早在42年5月的珊瑚海海戰中被擊沈
如果係計CV-16 Lexington, 要到43年3月先服役

[ Last edited by da87 on 2005-6-30 at 01:29 ]

[ref=281844]DW8306[/ref]  在 2005-6-26 15:37 發表:

1.點解係艾賽克斯級拳師號(CV-21 Boxer)
同艾賽克斯級理查號(CV-31 Bonhomme Richard)之間,
夾集左10隻獨立級航空母艦?

2.小鷹級美利堅號(CVA-66 America),
與其他小鷹級航空母艦有乜分別?
做乜柤比同級其 ...

1. The US Navy vassels hull numbers are ordered in accordance to the sequence when
they were ordered. CV9-21 were ordered between Mar 1939 to Dec 1941. When the
decision came to convert nine Cleveland-class light cruisers to the Independence-class
light carriers, the order was placed between 2 Jan 42 (CVL22) and 4 Jun 42 (CVL28-30).
CV31 and on were ordered in and after Aug that year, two months after the Independences.

2. CVA was used to in 1950/60s to destinate the Forrestal and  Kitty Hawk class carrier.
There was no difference on the USS America in terms of design, but it was relatively
lightly constructed. That became the reason that it was chosen and sank as target a
couple of months ago.

[ Last edited by NV58 on 2005-6-29 at 18:25 ]

[ref=285349]da87[/ref]  在 2005-6-29 17:10 發表:

CV-9 Essex在一日前先正式 ...

CV-9 was commissioned just before the end of 1942, but it was still fitting out,
not to mention its crew was untrained. By the time it completed its shakedown
cruise, combat ready, it was 5 months later, reaching Pearl Habour on 31 May
1943.

[ Last edited by NV58 on 2005-6-29 at 18:22 ]

ot:論戰鬥力, ww2時美國嘅航母係唔係比日本嘅強?

[ref=286266]煙神[/ref]  在 2005-6-30 14:08 發表:

ot:論戰鬥力, ww2時美國嘅航母係唔係比日本嘅強?

The short answer is no.

The long answer is, before the end of 1942, Japan's carrier force is generally
more capable than the US. Their ships are even match to the US:

Hosho vs Langley
Akagi/Kaga vs Lexington-class
Ryujo vs Ranger
Soryu/Hiryu vs Yorktown-class
Shokaku-class vs Essex-class

Out of the 7 carriers in the US fleet when the war was declared, the Ranger
was declared unsuitable for combat operation in the Pacific, and the Langley
had been converted to seaplane tender for a few years. In effect, there were
only six carriers for the USN to counter the Japanese, who had 6 large carriers
and 4 light carriers at that time.

The deficit of the number of ships was partly compensated by the fact that
the US vassels generally carry a larger airgroup than the Japanese. At the
time of Pearl Harbour, the US carriers (exc the smaller Ranger and Wasp)
carry an airgroup of 69 aircraft (18 F2A-3/F4F-3, 36 SBD-2, 15 TBD-1) vs
63 aircraft on the Japanese counterpart (18 A6M2, 30 D3A1, 15 B5N1). By
the time of Aug 1942, when the Guadalcanal champaign began, the size of
the US carrier airgroup (CAG) had grown to 90 (36 F4F-4, 36 SBD-3 and 18
TBF-1) on the Saratoga, Enterprise and Hornet, but the Japanese CAG remain
unchanged in terms of size on their fleet carriers. In fact, the Japanese CAG
size stayed more or less the same up their last major carrier action, the Battle
of Phillipine Sea in Jun 1944.

Even the US managed to make up the difference of number of aircraft to fight,
their bigger problem was both their planes and their pilots were nowhere as
good as the Japanese. In a one to one fight, the Zero would eat a Wildcat like
breakfast. The Japanese pilot had lots of combat experience under their belt,
unlike the Americans. Before the end of 1942, the US was struggling to contain
the Japanese. However, by the end of the year, combat attrition has taken its
toll to the Japanese so much that the experience pilots became few and far.
When better fighters like the F6F-3 and F4U-1 started to come on line in the
US inventory, the Japanese had nothing of that quality and quantity to respond.

On top of that, the Essex, Independence and the Carsablanca class carriers
started to came on line in 1943, and continued to grow in the next two years.
Japan never had that industrial capacity to reply. In 1943-5, they only have 7
carriers completed (Chiyoda, Chitose, Taiho, Unryu, Amagi, Katsuragi and
Shinano). On top of that, the US CAG continued to grow when the Essexes
came on line. By the time the Pacific war ended, an Essex would carry a CAG
of up to 108 aircraft (72 F6F-5/F4U-1D, 18 SB2C-5, 18 TBM-3).

Therefore, the US only effectively gained advantage on their carrier fleet in
1944, with better aircraft, pilots and more ships. Before the middle of 1942,
they were nowhere near where the Japanese were.