6 ms·

Hard to imagine Top Gun without the carriers... How often would a carrier get shot on the deck? Would the carriers be farther back than other ships?

alextheparrot 6y ago
How often was a ship shot from under the waterline before torpedos or in the middle of the deck before dive bombers? If I were taking lessons from history, advances in naval technology have nullified or neutered entire fleets over less. To your actual question, if you look at the Battle of Midway at least the Akagi was fatally struck on the deck — carriers today are significantly more advanced in both technology as well as doctrine than those, though.
- smogcutter 6y ago
  > at least the Akagi was fatally struck on the deck Along with the Soryu, Hiryu and Kaga! Afaik the “carrier debate” is the argument among navy nerds. I certainly don’t know enough to comment one way or the other. But my take is that if we’re in a real war with someone who can credibly sink a carrier group, a much more important concern is going to be how to restore civilization from the ashes.
  - andrewflnr 6y ago
    Really? Don't you just have to poke some holes in the deck? I mean, getting there is tricky, but you don't need apocalyptic weapons, just ability to dodge missile defense.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- kayodelycaon 6y ago
  None of the carriers in the Battle of Midway had armored flight decks. The Japanese (3 of them) were caught with fuel and bombs being loaded onto planes in the hangar deck on top of already poor damage control. The Yorktown on the other hand, had better construction and excellent damage control.
- laverya 6y ago
  > in the middle of the deck before dive bombers Commonly enough for people to plan for it before dive bombers became a thing. After the gunnery advancements of the early 20th century, engagement ranges could be long enough for plunging fire. Battleship shells coming down at 40° off vertical aren't that different than an AP bomb. That's not to say that these defences were sufficient. Battleships were designed with an "immunity zone" - a range where incoming fire of the designed caliber (generally the same caliber as the main battery) would be at a high enough angle and low enough velocity to fail to penetrate your belt armor, and shallow enough angle to not defeat the relevant deck armor. 2000lb AP bombs at terminal velocity were very much not within the design specifications. > carriers today are significantly more advanced in both technology as well as doctrine than those, though. For that matter, even other carriers in that same battle show that damage control by a carrier against bomb hits was possible - the Yorktown survived several bomb and aerial torpedo hits before eventually being sunk by a submarine. She was able to make sufficient repairs to launch fighters again after the first set of bomb hits, too. Modern carriers are probably better represented by the Yorktown than the Akagi, but no one will really know for sure until the shooting starts.
  - reducesuffering 6y ago
    > Battleships were designed with an "immunity zone" - a range where incoming fire of the designed caliber (generally the same caliber as the main battery) would be at a high enough angle and low enough velocity to fail to penetrate your belt armor, and shallow enough angle to not defeat the relevant deck armor. Did you accidentally switch belt and deck armor? Isn't deck the one protecting from high angle and low velocity, and belt armor protecting from shallow angles?
    - laverya 6y ago
      I didn't switch it, and you're right - belt armor is most likely to be hit at shallow angles, and deck armor at high angles. That being said, a point-blank shot will still treat belt armor like paper - and a max-range shot will go right through the deck. That's because both the deck armor and belt rely heavily on angling - you get a lot more effectiveness for a given thickness of armor if your opponents are courteous enough to hit it at an angle. Which means that the belt armor is most effective at max range (though also the least likely to be hit) - shells coming in at 45° will bounce right off. And deck armor is best up close - 5° down angle is going to come up against quite a few feet of metal before managing to penetrate the handful of inches of thickness you could fit in a deck. The trick to an immunity zone is to find the balance between the two.
jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
The blunt truth is no one knows. The only real naval combat since WW2 was during the Falkland islands conflict. There anti-ship missiles proved to be highly effective. Technology has advanced considerably since then as well. Presumably the major militaries have gamed it out as accurately as possible, but the blunt truth is it's untested thinking.
- robotnikman 6y ago
  The anti ship missiles deployed there were also used against much smaller ships. If modern carriers have the same quality of damage control as previous ones, they should be able to survive some hits; we can see from WWII how carriers were able to survive hits by kamikaze aircraft carrying a lot more explosives than one of the Exocet missiles used in the Falklands war

alextheparrot 6y ago

How often was a ship shot from under the waterline before torpedos or in the middle of the deck before dive bombers? If I were taking lessons from history, advances in naval technology have nullified or neutered entire fleets over less. To your actual question, if you look at the Battle of Midway at least the Akagi was fatally struck on the deck — carriers today are significantly more advanced in both technology as well as doctrine than those, though.

smogcutter 6y ago
> at least the Akagi was fatally struck on the deck Along with the Soryu, Hiryu and Kaga! Afaik the “carrier debate” is the argument among navy nerds. I certainly don’t know enough to comment one way or the other. But my take is that if we’re in a real war with someone who can credibly sink a carrier group, a much more important concern is going to be how to restore civilization from the ashes.
- andrewflnr 6y ago
  Really? Don't you just have to poke some holes in the deck? I mean, getting there is tricky, but you don't need apocalyptic weapons, just ability to dodge missile defense.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
kayodelycaon 6y ago
None of the carriers in the Battle of Midway had armored flight decks. The Japanese (3 of them) were caught with fuel and bombs being loaded onto planes in the hangar deck on top of already poor damage control. The Yorktown on the other hand, had better construction and excellent damage control.
laverya 6y ago
> in the middle of the deck before dive bombers Commonly enough for people to plan for it before dive bombers became a thing. After the gunnery advancements of the early 20th century, engagement ranges could be long enough for plunging fire. Battleship shells coming down at 40° off vertical aren't that different than an AP bomb. That's not to say that these defences were sufficient. Battleships were designed with an "immunity zone" - a range where incoming fire of the designed caliber (generally the same caliber as the main battery) would be at a high enough angle and low enough velocity to fail to penetrate your belt armor, and shallow enough angle to not defeat the relevant deck armor. 2000lb AP bombs at terminal velocity were very much not within the design specifications. > carriers today are significantly more advanced in both technology as well as doctrine than those, though. For that matter, even other carriers in that same battle show that damage control by a carrier against bomb hits was possible - the Yorktown survived several bomb and aerial torpedo hits before eventually being sunk by a submarine. She was able to make sufficient repairs to launch fighters again after the first set of bomb hits, too. Modern carriers are probably better represented by the Yorktown than the Akagi, but no one will really know for sure until the shooting starts.
- reducesuffering 6y ago
  > Battleships were designed with an "immunity zone" - a range where incoming fire of the designed caliber (generally the same caliber as the main battery) would be at a high enough angle and low enough velocity to fail to penetrate your belt armor, and shallow enough angle to not defeat the relevant deck armor. Did you accidentally switch belt and deck armor? Isn't deck the one protecting from high angle and low velocity, and belt armor protecting from shallow angles?
  - laverya 6y ago
    I didn't switch it, and you're right - belt armor is most likely to be hit at shallow angles, and deck armor at high angles. That being said, a point-blank shot will still treat belt armor like paper - and a max-range shot will go right through the deck. That's because both the deck armor and belt rely heavily on angling - you get a lot more effectiveness for a given thickness of armor if your opponents are courteous enough to hit it at an angle. Which means that the belt armor is most effective at max range (though also the least likely to be hit) - shells coming in at 45° will bounce right off. And deck armor is best up close - 5° down angle is going to come up against quite a few feet of metal before managing to penetrate the handful of inches of thickness you could fit in a deck. The trick to an immunity zone is to find the balance between the two.

jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago

The blunt truth is no one knows. The only real naval combat since WW2 was during the Falkland islands conflict. There anti-ship missiles proved to be highly effective. Technology has advanced considerably since then as well. Presumably the major militaries have gamed it out as accurately as possible, but the blunt truth is it's untested thinking.

robotnikman 6y ago
The anti ship missiles deployed there were also used against much smaller ships. If modern carriers have the same quality of damage control as previous ones, they should be able to survive some hits; we can see from WWII how carriers were able to survive hits by kamikaze aircraft carrying a lot more explosives than one of the Exocet missiles used in the Falklands war