Talk:HMS Illustrious (87)

British vs. US carriers

The implication that this class of carriers was comparatively poorly armored is misleading.

The armored flight deck of the British carriers was apparently a significant advance over the wooden decks used by (at least some) US carriers. To Arthur Herman in "Rule the Waves: how the British Navy Shaped the Modern World" (p.547) reports that during the Battle of Okinawa the British carriers have proven to be much more resilient to kamikaze attacks than their US counterparts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cdamama (talk • contribs) 07:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

Armoured carriers hit by Kamikaze usually suffered a large dent in the flight deck that, when any fires were put out, would then be filled with quick-drying concrete. When set, the carrier could then operate its aircraft as-normal. Because of this, the Japanese pilots were given orders telling them to ignore any Allied carrier with two deck lifts (elevators) - British carriers had two lifts, American ones, three. To take pressure of the US carriers, the British ones then had the outlines of a third lift painted on the flight deck to draw the Kamikazes onto them. At one point during the Okinawa invasion, most of the air cover was supplied by the UK carriers, as the US ones had retired damaged.

IIRC, the longest any armoured carrier was out of action following a Kamikaze hit was about 5 or 6 hours.

The armoured carrier was considered obsolete with the advent of nuclear weapons, as no amount of armour would be effective against the sort of bombs and missiles that were thought, in the immediate aftermath of World War II, likely to be encountered in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.248.53 (talk) 20:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Rather a late addition to this discussion, but the USN retained armoured decks on post nuclear weapons carriers: "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. 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. Armor is still useful to limit casualties from flight deck explosions and it also would help a carrier's crew survive a nearby nuclear explosion, since even a couple of inches of armour will significantly reduce radiation levels, and of course, it would help the carrier itself survive the overpressure from the blast.Damwiki1 (talk) 04:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks.

BTW, the British armoured carriers were designed before the advent of radar, so early warning of incoming attacking aircraft was confined to the humble lookout. So relying on the carrier's air contingent fighters for air defence was not then viable. Hence the heavy (for the time) AA armament and armoured deck.

With radar you can get your own defending fighters into the air and up to a sufficient height before the attackers arrive. Without radar, you can't. So it is highly likely you will get hit by some of an attacker's bombs.

With the good weather likely in the Pacific a lookout, with binoculars, can see approaching aircraft at altitude while they are still miles away, thus giving adequate warning to get the carriers defending fighters into the air. In the North Atlantic and Mediterranean however, lacking radar, in winter poor weather and cloud can make such early warning impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.7 (talk) 10:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

HMS Illustrious (R87) → HMS Illustrious 87 — The pennant number R87 was held by the W and Z class destroyer HMS Whirlwind, like contemporary British capital ships, Illustrious was not allocated a Flag Superior. She may have been allocated one post war (which I doubt), but her post-war career is a mere sideline compared to her wartime service. Emoscopes ^Talk 15:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this is not a vote; comments must include reasons to carry weight.

• Support, as nominator above. Emoscopes ^Talk 18:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article has been renamed from HMS Illustrious (R87) to HMS Illustrious (87) as the result of a move request. I have assumed the omission of the brackets was an error, in line with the other articles in the same categories. --Stemonitis 07:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well spotted, my bad. Don't know how I missed that, I'm usually so fastidious about these things. Emoscopes ^Talk 23:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Translation

I've noticed the Polish version of this article is much more extensive and better referenced. Perhaps the English version should be a translation of that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.109.178 (talk) 00:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Dumbing down the article?

Why is all the valuable, technical, details being stripped from the article? Information such as range at various speeds, RPM and displacement during full power trials is important for understanding the ship's engineering capabilities, over time. Full power trials information is specific to each individual ship in a given class, and will show considerable variation between ships of the same class so it isn't always something to be saved for the article on the ship class.Damwiki1 (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Read my comments to Thurgate on his draft of the KGV-class article on my talk page. Full-bore technical stuff belongs in the class article, not here. I know that Friedman gives both figures for the ranges at various speeds, but I frankly don't believe them. One or the other has to be wrong based on everything that I know about fuel consumption increases when cruising speeds increase. A 60% increase in speed is going to cost a hell of a lot more fuel than the trivial reduction in range given by Friedman. Some of the exact reduction will depend on what cruising speed the hull shape and propellers were designed for, but it's still going to be a significant decrease in range. For now I've just decided on using the 10 knot range as that seems reasonable given the amount of fuel carried by ships of similar sizes.

I already gave shp data for her initial sea trials, although I don't really see any need to do it again as the subsequent trials are all in the same ballpark. The reduction in her speed to 29-odd knots, though, is significant and will be mentioned. RPM data is useless as there is no standard of comparison, so I see no need to mention it at all. As for displacement figures, that's a real can of worms as I'd have to give a range of figures at various loads to provide a standard of comparison. So I simplify things down to standard or deep load, and occasionally both, and don't worry about light, extra deep, or trials displacement, depending on the navy and era. Just like I don't worry about the different effects of the various measured miles used by the RN at various times. D.K. Brown's books give a little background on the issues, but it's nothing that I care to delve into as I pay much more attention to sustained speed in service conditions rather than trials speeds. I've rewritten Formidable and the three Implacable-class articles to GA or A-class standards and will bring these ships to the same standard. So look those over, if you haven't already done so, and we can discuss whatever you think that I shouldn't've left out. I think that you need to remember that the vast majority of readers aren't warship geeks and will lack the background to understand everything in the technical descriptions if we go your preferred way and include practically every piece of info available. And I'll remind you that this is an encyclopedia, not a detailed history of the ships and their design where readers can be expected to want and understand that level of detail.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Ships use a set amount of fuel even when they are not moving just to run on-board generators and other life support systems such as sea water to fresh water distillation systems. Consequently ships will show similar ranges at 10 and 16 knots because at 10 knots a considerable proportion of fuel is being expended for non-propulsion systems (typically 1.5-3 tons hr). 10700nm at 10 knots = 1070 hrs (44.6 days) of running time where 10400nm at 16 knots = 650 hrs (27 days) of running time and 6300nm at 25 knots = only 10.5 days. Quoting ranges at 10 knots is actually misleading as ranges at higher speeds are more typical of actual ship operations. SHP data without displacement and RPM is of little use when evaluating a ship's performance as expressed in knots; all four numbers are critical to understanding the trial. I don't think we need to quote every speed trial known but when we do, it is important to include all three numbers, if these are known. The post war trials speeds were included in the article because there are some incorrect sources that state wrongly that Illustrious never regained her centre shaft and/or was not able to achieve her full power in the post war period and thus the 1948 trial is the more interesting of the two post war trial speeds. The reduction in speed to 29 knots is almost certainly a function of increased displacement during the trials (probably because the full load displacement increased over time) because shaft RPM and SHP will fall as displacement increases. Warships are complex representations of a nation's technology so the article must provide a concise summary of warship performance to satisfy the needs of a range of potential readers. Just because one reader might not understand the significance of certain types of data doesn't mean we should deprive others who can understand it. Damwiki1 (talk) 02:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

For all that we're not paper, there are still limits to what information we can fit in the article to keep it encyclopedic. I don't mention every man lost overboard or fatal aircraft crashes, forex. I quote the range at 10 knots because that seems to be an informal standard and is pretty widely available for warships. All of the range data is a bit misleading because ships don't maintain constant speeds very often; the BPF and American carriers off Okinawa and Japan had to refuel about every four days, although some of that was driven by avgas availability and destroyer endurance limitations. The most important data, in order of priority, for trials is speed, shp, displacement, and rpm. The first two can be readily understood, but the other two need more context to be understood by the uninitiated. And I don't feel that that that additional information is best suited for an encyclopedia. While you make a good point for the equivalent of "hotel load" for the fuel consumption I will take issue with your contention that shp falls with increasing displacement. That's not bourne out by the figures given by Lyon. As I understand things increased displacement reduces speeds because it's an effective increase in wetted area and thus drag.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Giving the specifics of a full power trial or range at different speeds is hardly the same as mentioning every incident that happened to a warship. Giving the range at 16 and 25 knots provides a much better look at actual fuel consumption by the propulsion systems, but I see no reason not to give all three; for example, we can give the 10 knot figure in the info box and the other two in the text. SHP and RPM does fall with increasing displacement and this is best illustrated by looking at full power trials of ships at light and deep displacement; the trials at light displacement will invariably show higher SHP and RPM. The 1948 and 1950 trials of Illustrious are interesting and probably reflect some other variables such as different props. In any event SHP is a relationship between RPM and displacement and under certain circumstances the SHP can be slightly higher at lower RPM as displacement increases but generally speaking this will not be the case. The ability of the engines to produce power is related to how fast the prop can turn. At lighter displacement with less drag the ship can move faster, and the engines can operate more efficiently and thus produce higher RPM. A way to visualize this is to imagine a car that is fully loaded being run at its maximum speed. If we take the same car and run it again, but this time nearly empty, the car will achieve higher speeds and therefore the engine will achieve higher RPM and thus more HP. A real life example is HMS Vanguard during light and full load trials: 45720 tons at 256.7 rpm = 31.56 knots and 136000shp while at 51070 tons at 250.6rpm = 30.38 knots and 132950shp.Damwiki1 (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there's a real causal relationship between displacement and rpm/shp instead of one being the simple coincidental result because powerplants of all types have fixed maximum outputs, be it tons of steam per hour or grams of fuel per second. Nothing I've ever read in the automotive press or experienced has ever led me to believe that engine hp/revs will vary with the weight of the vehicle. Speed absolutely will, but mainly because it's moving more or less mass. For ships, I think that it's much the same, although the increase in the wetted area also factors into the speed reduction, although probably much less than the additional mass. I will confess though that I'm a bit puzzled by the reduction in shp, though. I looked at the figures for Hood, as one of the few battlecruisers with figures for deep displacement trials, and she lost about 1000 shp with 2000 tons increased displacement. I'm not going to fuss if you want to add the other range figures at higher speeds, although I remain deeply suspicious regarding the validity of the 16 knot range figure, even considering hotel load. I really do think that the displacement and rpm figures are too much detail, especially the latter, and will oppose their inclusion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't understand how adding a dozen characters or so (displacement and RPM) is providing too much detail but if you want to put it into a footnote, that's OK by me. Auto Engine RPM will, of course, vary with weight because if the vehicle is moving more slowly at full throttle due to added weight, it must also be running the engine at lower RPM (assuming a fixed gear ratio). Generally speaking individual warship trials at light and deep loads, will show higher SHP at light loads. HMS Howe range: 12 knots at 7.2t/hr= 6111nm, 13 at 7.5 t/hr = 6356nm, 14 at 8.2 t/hr = 6260nm, 16 at 9.4 t/hr = 6241nm and 18 at 11.9 t.hr = 5546nm. Maximum range is essentially identical at 12 to 16 knots (10 knots would show the same effect) because hotel loads cancel out lower propulsion fuel consumption. Giving range at unrealistically low speeds is misleading to the reader. HMS Belfast had a range of 7720nm at 13 knots (3.8t/hr) and 6050nm at 22 knots (8.2t/hr) so we see the same effect.Damwiki1 (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC) Ark Royal and Indomitable also show only a small variation between 10 and 16 knots.Damwiki1 (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, standard practice is to limit the amount of technical detail in ship articles and concentrate on service histories, leaving the technical stuff for the class articles. That being said, I don't know that this level of detail on trials performance is warranted there either - as Sturmvogel said, we're writing an encyclopedia article, not a comprehensive accounting of every fact that relates to the ship. For the handful of readers who will understand the intricacies of this issue, they can use more specialist sources like Friedman.

That being said, I don't think it's too much to add the other cruising ranges, since as Damwiki states it gives a fuller picture of actual service speeds. And I don't think the 16kn figure is unrealistic, for a couple of reasons. Speed vs. fuel consumption is not directly linear - for example, in most cars, the most efficient speeds are between 30 and 55 miles per hour - you'd use more gas to go the same distance at 10mph than you would at 40mph. Parsecboy (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I did add the varying ranges although I'm still surprised by the trivial difference between the two speeds. I suppose the housekeeping drain on the fuel supply is simply much more significant than I'm aware. I guess that I was thinking more at the higher end where a ship can use half of its available hp for 25 knots and all of the rest for 30. As for cars, I've gotten my record mileage when not heavily loaded at 75-85 mph in my '03 Ford Focus SVT (409 miles from 13.3 gallons), but I don't really think that that's typical. And it's not like I've conducted comparative tests at speeds below 65.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I really can't believe that adding RPM, speed and displacement figures along with speed trials data is too much detail; we're talking about dozen or so characters that help to characterize the ship's performance! If we want to reduce unneeded detail, let's remove the maximum ranges of each weapon, as these are all available on each weapon's own article pages and repeating them for every ship is a pointless waste of space. OTOH, each ship's speed trials are highly specific and provides data that is unique to that ship.Damwiki1 (talk) 05:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Even specialist books only sometimes mention displacement and even fewer provide rpm data for trials so many published authors don't feel that info is particularly important.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

lack of consistency

Your own edit of HMS Implacable (R86) shows the info box containing info on the ship well after her commissioning date, as does the info boxes on most other RN carriers, including Ark Royal and Indefatigable. Why suddenly freeze Illustrious in Sept 1940? Damwiki1 (talk) 02:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

As GAN reviewer, I queried this issue in respect of this ship, and am happy with the response of the principal editor. It seems to me that including info from throughout a ship's life would make an infobox unwieldy. For example, the number of changes to ships armament on this ship would make this infobox a hodgepodge. What configuation would you list? Surely not them all? That is what the body of the article is for, IMO. I can't speak for the other articles you mention, but it would seem to me logical that all ships should list the "at commissioning" set-up in the infobox, with changes explained in the text. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Operation Avalanche.

Currently the article says that the cover force came under no attack - the cover force comprising Illustrious, Formidable, Warspite and Valiant.

However the Inperial War Museum has a picture dated 8/9th September at Selerno, describing a 2 hour long air attack by torpedoes bombers, naming Warspite, Valiant and a carrier - which could only be Illustrious or Formidable - while they covered the landings. You can see the carrier putting up a significant amout of anti-aircraft fire.

Separately I've also read, several times that Warspite dodged atleast 2 torpedoes that night.

So I think this section is in error. VSTAMPv (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

© IWM A 19251

Is the picture in question. It clearly says a 2 hour air attack on the night of 8/9th September at Selerno. That a Destroyer got 1 plane and Warspite dodged 2 torpedoes.

So the articles for all of the ships in that cover force will need checking too. VSTAMPv (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)