3 ms·

I'm a little lost, what is your differentiation between CVL and CVE? To add to your praise of CVEs, one example of the victories of the CVE (particularly the

I'm a little lost, what is your differentiation between CVL and CVE? To add to your praise of CVEs, one example of the victories of the CVE (particularly the Casablanca-class escort carrier[1][2][3]) is kept in Chicago to this day[4]. 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casablanca-class_escort_carrier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casablanca-class_escort_carrie... 2) one of the more interesting men of WWII https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_J._Kaiser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_J._Kaiser 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiser_Shipyards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiser_Shipyards 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_submarine_U-505 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_submarine_U-505

nostrademons 10y ago
CV = fleet carrier. These are purpose-built as aircraft carriers, designed for sustained flight operations, had speeds of 30 knots or better, and support an air wing of roughly 80-100 aircraft (this has remained constant from WW2 to now, but the aircraft today are bigger). CVL = light carrier. These were usually built on cruiser or ocean-liner hulls, with a (WW2) displacement of ~10-14k tons. Some were also purpose-built as small aircraft carriers. I would also include the Cold-War era VSTOL carriers of the British Invincible & Soviet Kiev classes in this category, as well as the jet-conversions of 1950s-era carriers that ended up in many third-world countries. They were built with fleet-carrier speeds of 30+ knots, so they could accompany the fleet on operations, but had air wings of only 20-30 aircraft and often lacked armor protection. CVE = escort carriers. These were often converted merchant hulls, or purpose-built with a hull similar to merchant ships. They were the same tonnage or slightly smaller than light carriers and were similarly unarmored, but sacrificed speed for simplicity & seakeeping - they were designed to escort merchant convoys or amphibious assaults, which required only about 10kts. Basically, it's a speed vs. simplicity tradeoff. CVLs were intended to accompany the fleet and participate in offensive operations, while CVEs were intended to accompany merchant or landing ships and operate only defensively. But the tradeoffs involved in making CVLs hit their design goals of speed and aircraft capacity tended to give them poor seakeeping characteristics and made them ineffective in their primary mission, while relaxing those constraints and focusing only on defense led to a platform that was very effective at its more constrained mission, and could also be produced in large-enough numbers that it was surprisingly effective against even superior surface forces. (This trade-off should be familiar to anyone following the F-35 project.)
- Nomentatus 10y ago
  CVEs also spent a lot of time shuttling aircraft out to the CVs. Being able to quickly replenish lost aircraft was no small advantage.

nostrademons 10y ago

CV = fleet carrier. These are purpose-built as aircraft carriers, designed for sustained flight operations, had speeds of 30 knots or better, and support an air wing of roughly 80-100 aircraft (this has remained constant from WW2 to now, but the aircraft today are bigger). CVL = light carrier. These were usually built on cruiser or ocean-liner hulls, with a (WW2) displacement of ~10-14k tons. Some were also purpose-built as small aircraft carriers. I would also include the Cold-War era VSTOL carriers of the British Invincible & Soviet Kiev classes in this category, as well as the jet-conversions of 1950s-era carriers that ended up in many third-world countries. They were built with fleet-carrier speeds of 30+ knots, so they could accompany the fleet on operations, but had air wings of only 20-30 aircraft and often lacked armor protection. CVE = escort carriers. These were often converted merchant hulls, or purpose-built with a hull similar to merchant ships. They were the same tonnage or slightly smaller than light carriers and were similarly unarmored, but sacrificed speed for simplicity & seakeeping - they were designed to escort merchant convoys or amphibious assaults, which required only about 10kts. Basically, it's a speed vs. simplicity tradeoff. CVLs were intended to accompany the fleet and participate in offensive operations, while CVEs were intended to accompany merchant or landing ships and operate only defensively. But the tradeoffs involved in making CVLs hit their design goals of speed and aircraft capacity tended to give them poor seakeeping characteristics and made them ineffective in their primary mission, while relaxing those constraints and focusing only on defense led to a platform that was very effective at its more constrained mission, and could also be produced in large-enough numbers that it was surprisingly effective against even superior surface forces. (This trade-off should be familiar to anyone following the F-35 project.)

Nomentatus 10y ago
CVEs also spent a lot of time shuttling aircraft out to the CVs. Being able to quickly replenish lost aircraft was no small advantage.