Talk:Armoured flight deck

message: How about some explanation of this term?  It's used, but not defined or linked. 68.83.72.162 (talk) 08:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strength Deck? 

message: I'm a bit skeptical of this - it seems to be confusing full repairs with damage control; in almost every case the immediate damage control was finished within hours. The difference seems to be that in most cases, American carriers finished the day's operations if they were able to, then pulled back for repairs. Most documentation seems to indicate that kamikaze damage that completely ruined a carrier's ability to operate aircraft was rare (cases like Enterprise where a kamikaze hit the ship's elevator, something that a British carrier would not have quickly recovered from either), most of them say that normal flight operations were restored within hours. Iceberg3k (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That said, Formidable's survival of her 4 May 1945 kamikaze hit is a tribute to the toughness of her construction, I doubt there are many ships of any type that could have survived damage like that and still continued their mission. Iceberg3k (talk) 15:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "American damage control took days or even months" 

message: This article has been a subject of brief discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#Carrier_armor.2Farmour.  Project members and participants there have been invited to continue the discussion here.  As stated there by TomTheHand, these essays may be useful in improving the article.  (They likely are the uncited sources for parts of it).  Kablammo 15:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to other discussion 

message: It would appear that there is a concerted attempt to vandalize this article. This has been reported and hopefully the page will be protected from further attacks. Damwiki1 (talk) 08:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done :) EyeSerenetalk 08:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  current attempts at Vandalism 

message: I see that some explanations for my recent edits is needed:
:1) Dubious 'quotations' by Damwiki1 from Friedman's 'U.S. Aircraft Carriers': 
::a) p.259-261 - Refers to Forrestal class projects, as existed prior to the adoption of an angled flight deck. No mention if Forrestal class, as realized, possessed flight deck armor. As I've mentioned earlier.
::b) p.271 - refers to "CVA 3/53, a "project of an carrier of about Midway class size" and "CVA 10/53, a modified variant of CVA 3/53 project".
::c) p.280 ("The USN DCNO (Air) in discussing follow on designs to the Forrestal class: "The only saving available was armor: "a couple of inches of armor plating is hardly more than splinter protection against modern weapons, yet it imposes a tremendous penalty in topside weight plus the necessity for massive support structure. If not eliminated, this armor could at least be dropped to hangar deck levels..." ") directly refers to elimination or removal of armor from the flight deck of the project, while not directly dealing with the details of previous classes. (However - this is perhaps the most relevant quotation, as for the CVA 66, which is dealt with here, was based upon modified CVA 64.)
:2) Added online references - mostly non descript webs, hardly any concerned with the construction of the ships in any depth; and IMHO mostly not in compliance with respective Wikipedia guidelines. I don't see any rationale for removing maintenance templates under unconvincing pretences of 'vandalism', as these webs need checking, in each respective case.
:3) Own research by Damwiki1 - if the ' ref' given by him refers to 3in armor, treating it as "at least 1.5 in" is way beyond wp:NOR#Synthesis. 
:I hope someone will deal with these issues, as that's not for the first time Damwiki1 came with such dubiuos refs.
:Thank you.  --195.113.8.138 (talk) 14:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue at hand is whether or not the Forrestal Class and some later classes have armoured flight decks. The answer is clearly yes. The data in Friedman points to flight deck armour of about 1.5in (60lb) and this is consistent with the numerous web references, the statement by the USN DCNO (Air) and the various design studies that resulted in the Forrestal class which saw repeated demands by BuShips for flight deck armour of at least 1.5in. Not surprisingly there are a number of credible sources some written by persons with intimate knowledge of the ship, which state that these ships have flight deck armour, especially since a horrific flight deck accident resulted in that armour being breached along with similar accidents on later designs. Yet, to further your own case, that these ships do not have any flight deck armour, you removed each and every reference that states that they do!!! This creates the distinct impression that no amount of data would satisfy you, especially since your last edit contained a personal attack against me specifically, however, here is another quote:"The main armor carried on Enterprise is the heavy armored flight deck. This was to prove a significant factor in the catastrophic fire and explosions that occurred on En~etprise's flight deck in 1969. The US Navy learned its lesson the hard way during World War II when all its carriers had only armored hangar decks. All attack carriers built since the Midway class have had armored flight decks." Cracknell, W.H, Cmdr USN, Warship Profile 15, USS Enterprise (CVAN 65) Nuclear Attack Carrier, p56. You also seem very conversant with wikipedia yet you haven't bothered to create a user name despite the fact that you appear to being using multiple IP addresses.Damwiki1 (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits by Damwiki1 

message: Deleted the line claiming Yorktown and Hornet were succumb by bombs. Get the fact straight, both ships were bombed and suffered heavy casualties, but it did not lead to the sinking. Yorktown's boiler were extinguished by a bomb and flight deck holed, but damage control crew fixed her up into combat worthy state. The second wave of Kates crippled the Yorktown and the submarine finished her off. 
This is found from Hornet's wikipedia article:
 the torpedo planes planted two torpedoes in Hornet between 09:13 and 09:17, knocking out her engines
Hornet was struck by bombs, but the torpedoes crippled her first and another wave of torpedo bombers damaged her further. The Japanese surface forces were getting closer and Hornet was too badly damage, so they have to abandoned and scuttle her. Therefore, the lack of armored flight deck was not a direct contribution to the loss of Hornet and Yorktown, not even close. 
The Yorktown's were more vulnerable to torpedoes than bombs. Yorktown classes have enough deck armor (of course not on the flight deck level) to resist bombs planting into ship's vitals. 70.79.115.121 (talk) 18:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In Midway, Yorktown was incapacitated, but not crippled. The Yorktown, despite of slower speed) was able to dodge few torpedoes before running out of luck (the Japanese are motivated and extremely well trained compared to the Americans). I am not dismissing the advantage of armored flight deck, I am pointing it out a misleading statement about Hornet and Yorktown's demise. Had the Yorktown fitted with an armored flight deck, the crew spend more time refueling and rearming the aircraft than repairing and bought them more time to prepare for second wave of attackers. In Coral Sea, Yorktown was able to retreat, and lucky enough not to encounter more torpedo bombers.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.115.121 (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yorktown and Hornet 

message: The Photos were added to this article before the casualty information was added to the caption. The casualty information provides the reader with a context with which to judge the relative amounts of damage received by each carrier, especially as the copious amounts of smoke from Victorious make it appear to have suffered heavy damage, when this was not the case. However, the fact remains that Franklin was gutted by one or two bomb hits that could not have have penetrated the armoured deck of an RN carrier.Damwiki1 (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A 'relevant' context if the article is an advocacy piece, which according to Wikipedia:NPOV it should not be.  The captions read like something from an infomercial, comparing Superproduct to Brand X.  If a true context were to be provided, it would also include the numerous US carriers which suffered kamikaze hits and were conducting flight ops agin within hours; the fact that the Brits suffered no damage equivalent to Bunker Hill and Franklin is as much a function of the nugatory British presence in the Pacific as anything else. Context would also point out that Bunker Hill suffered such terrible damage because she was hit in the midst of fueled and armed aircraft on deck; the presence or absence of flight deck armor was not a factor. Solicitr (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unbalanced opinion regarding photos 

message: :Comparison is often made between some of designs of the Royal Navy (RN) and the United States Navy (USN). The two navies followed differing philosophies in the use of armour on carrier flight decks starting with the design of the RN's Illustrious class and ending with the design of the Midway class, when the USN also adopted armoured flight decks. The two classes most easily compared, are the RN's Illustrious class and Implacable class and their nearest USN contemporaries, the Yorktown and Essex classes. The Illustrious class followed the Yorktown but preceded the Essex, while the Implacable class design predated the Essex but these ships were completed after the lead ships of the Essex class. The development of armoured flight deck carriers proceeded during World War Two and before the end of World War Two, both the USN, with USS Midway and the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) with Taiho and Shinano would also commission armoured flight deck carriers, while all USN fleet aircraft carriers built since 1945 feature armoured flight decks. The remainder of the IJN carrier force during World War II had unarmored flight decks just like the Yorktown and Essex classes of the USN.
This part of the introduction seems to be rather complicated and a bit hard to read (for those not familiar with all the types of carriers). Perhaps this should be in another part of the article? --Fintelia (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: How about this :
The Royal navy developed armoured flight deck aircraft carriers, with HMS Illustrious being the first such ship to see service. The RN then commissioned two modified variants of the Illustrious design, with HMS Indomitable in 1941 and the two  ships of the Implacable sub-class in 1944. The RN's experience with armoured carriers then influenced the USN which introduced their first armoured carrier, the USS Midway in 1945, and all subsequent USN fleet carriers featured flight decks. The IJN introduced their first armoured flight carrier, the IJNS Taiho in 1944, and commissioned their next armoured flight deck carrier, Shinano in 1945. Damwiki1 (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complicated introduction 

message: Near the end the article quotes "The main armor carried on Enterprise is the heavy armored flight deck. This was to prove a significant factor in the catastrophic fire and explosions that occurred on Enterprise's flight deck in 1969." which confused me until the nth reading. Presumably the flight deck armour was significant by [minimising damage from] the fire and explosions ? - Why use an unclear quote ? Why use a quote at all ? - Rod57 (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote is there to show that CVN Enterprise had an armoured flight deck.Damwiki1 (talk) 04:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear quote on Enterprise armoured flight deck 

message: * What is protective deck column in the table in Design section ?
* The hangar deck column is presumably specifying the floor of the hangar deck, excluding its walls ? - Rod57 (talk) 21:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The Protective deck is an armoured deck located below the hangar deck level. A deck is a nautical term equivalent to floor. Damwiki1 (talk) 04:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is protective deck in the table in Design section