Can you relate?

Most definitely

Yeah. Especially the four to seven year part... :(

I know someone (Polly Scale?) produces this color, but I'm too lazy to go to the hobby shop for one bottle of paint. Does anyone have a ballpark FS number for WW2 US Deck Blue? TIA Pip Moss

There isn't a close FS and the Polly Scale is incorrect as well. For enamels try WEM or for acrylics MM makes a marine line, both have the correct 20-B deck blue.

Do you know the number of this Model Master acrilic ?? TIA Slider

in article dq6k9b$qjm$ snipped-for-privacy@ss405.t-com.hr, Slider at snipped-for-privacy@vz.htnet.hr wrote on 1/12/06 5:13 PM:

Deck Blue 20B is 4243. Flight Deck Stain is 4242.

I'm thinking the Flight Deck Stain is what I want for a wooden carrier deck? Pip Moss

What carrier and what year? Through 1942 and into early 1943 you want the 250-N deck stain, then Type 21 stain gets phased in with the Essex class and previous classes get it as they go in for refit. Sometine in

1944 a revised Type 21 stain came into use and it was very close to 20-B deck blue, best way to replicate the revised Type 21 is to add 10-15 drops of Type 21 to a bottle of 20-B deck blue, it gives just enough difference to notice.

Both 250-N and the original type 21 are straight from the bottle MM colors, WEM has all three carrier deck stains available right from the tin.

OK Ron, riddle me this: Why did they keep teak or whatever wood as a flight deck surface instead of steel with an anti-skid? (That's what's used now, isn't it?) When did they change?

KL

especially since the brits had armored decks and lost a lot few carriers to bomb attack. though torpedos seemed to work just fine.

Teak was only used as plank laid decking on battleships and cruisers by the US Navy. I'm not sure what CV-1 Langley had but CV-2 Lexington and later were either Douglas Fir or Southern Yelow Pine, the latter on some Essex class carriers due to availability. The wood decking was used because over a thin steel structure it provided sufficient strength for the aircraft of the time without the weight penalty an all steel deck presented. The Brits used armored steel decks with non-skid and the design had several drawbacks, lower hangar capacity due to the substructure required, more costly and time consuming to repair when damaged. True the Brit carrier decks were harder to damage but those that were damaged were out of commission much longer than US carriers that suffered the same or worse damage.

IIRC, the US changed to steel decks beginning with the Midway class which launched at the end of WWII but did not see combat service until Korea. The Essex class ships eventually got steel decks as part of their modernization but I think they stayed wood until they got the hurricane enclosed bows. Most photos of Essexes during Korea show wood decks. Once you get past WWII I pretty much lose interest in ships because they revert to boring neutral sameness.

"Ron Smith" wrote

So how was this averted in the US designs, or at least rationalized such that the steel deck became viable?

KL

If you mean the repairs to damage most US yards could replace the thin steel substructure and wood planking, if the damage wasn't too severe it could be done at the ABSD's at Manus or Ulithi. The Brit decks took heavy construction yards to repair and those were limited in number and capacity. Like all things ship related from the first ironclads until the end of the large fleet action the designs all had tradeoffs. We opted for high capacity hangars, less topweight, faster/easier repair and accepted the ease of damage penalty.

When the Midways were built deisgners knew planes were getting heavy enough to begin requiring steel decks and they also knew jets were not too far in the future. Lessons learned in carrier use and design allowed non-armored but structurally strong steel decks, they probably could have been applied to the later Essexes as built but would have introduced a production delay we didn't think we could afford. At least some of the modernized Essexes has steel laid over the old wooden decks (part of why it's taken so long to certify Oriskany for sinking as a reef).

The criticism about lack of armoured decks has bothered me for some time. The US lost FAR more carriers to torpedoes than bombs.

US philosophy was carrier was an offensive weapon. Adding heavy armour would have reduced deck load, reducing offensive effectiveness. Considering how we made out in general on carrier vs carrier battles, it looks like the admirals made a good choice. US carriers could carry more planes per ton of displacement than either British or Japanese. And, more CAP planes to get at those dive bombers.

Once we were geared up to produce carriers in mass production, then we could overwhelm them with numbers of carriers and could afford a few less planes per ton, and did go to steel decks. But for those pre-war carriers, it looks like they did the right thing.

when did the armor start? i can understand early and prewar but after 43, it seems silly. and i am aware of the franklin, was it? looked like the flight deck was swiss.

Franklin was an early Essex and like the entire class she had wood over a thin steel support structure. She was repaired and went back into service. We never did adopt truly armored decks like the Brits but from the Midway class on the all steel decks got beefier as jets got heavier.

Don't follow ya - after '43 is precisely when it would have been desirable to have armored FDs against the kamikazes that started showing up. Not arguing against the wisdom of using unprotected decks, seems to have worked out fine - unless I guess you happen to be the one of the sailors and airmen that got caught up in the meat grinder. Just saying that in the kamikaze era the Brits were reportedly quite thankful to have the armored decks.

In broader terms, what a US fleet carrier should be has always been debated. WWII forced the Navy Department's hand into standardizing the design and fixing an offensive doctrine around the CVs - but as soon as that conflict was no longer in doubt the polictical and doctrinal struggle began anew with the USS United States design. The debate continued thru the nuclear development era on in to today with the myriad of CV-lite and conventional fuel proposals that abound the defense circles.

Plank decked. It should be noted that the US lost a total of 4 fleet carriers to enemy engagement in WWII. All were pre-Essex class, all lost in

1942, - 1 to air strikes, 1 to torpedo (sub), and 2 to a mixed bag of air, torpedo and scuttling. The often cited slight against the Franklin is that she was so badly damaged that she was scrapped. I tend to think that had she made her way home in that same condition during the dark days of 1942, the she would have been repaired and returned to duty. As it was, there was no reason economically or militarily to do either in late 1944-45.

WmB

Note: Franklin was under repair when the war ended. The impetus to do so was not as great as it might have been earlier in the war. Franklin was placed in the reserve fleet, never returning to active service. When the wercking ball came she was listed as an auxlilary type.

WmB

Wasn't the Bunker Hill in the same category after she was Kamakazied?? And I don't believe it was intended to put the Saratoga back into fleet service after her bout with the Kamakazes either.

Bill Shuey

WmB wrote:

seems silly NOT to have armor after 43.... agree on the franklin. in 42 they would have panic fixed her in 10 months working 24/7.