Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers

[gothicform]

Yeah, and we landed on the wrong fucking beaches, and did all that other stuff, and still we managed to get it done. God forbid we ever do it right. The fucking earth might just implode or something.

quite. what he didn't mention and what you haven't mentioned is that despite the d-day landings being a bit fucked up by the americans they had less casualties than expected. weren't airbourne expected to lose 50% of their men for example?

the other thing you should mention that you didn't is that the americans only committed 10% of their military ground strength to the pacific rim. it was literally 10% of american forces against 10% of japanese forces. most american soldiers were in europe due to the 'germany first' policy, and most of the fighting on the ground in the pacific rim was done by the marine corp as they were desperate to do anything at the time simply to prove their worth and not be abolished due to inter-service rivalries (i watched 'the world at war'!)

the americans did a fine job against the japanese with limited resources although i agree the british and chinese engagements of the japanese are unfairly forgotten - that's more the fault of john bloody wayne than anyone else.

[SO143]

Originally Posted by Matthieu

You can buy a couple of Mistral class ship from us, they are battle proven and already a success .

lol sounds great and i am sure the uk government will purchase a couple of them from france if you guys give a special discount

[WatcherZero]

Originally Posted by gothicform

quite. what he didn't mention and what you haven't mentioned is that despite the d-day landings being a bit fucked up by the americans they had less casualties than expected. weren't airbourne expected to lose 50% of their men for example?

They were about to evacuate the beach and concentrate on the other ones it was going so bad. Utah beach which was the correct one they suffered 200 casualties, Omaha beach, the wrong one, they suffered 2000! The British suffered 1000 on Gold and Sword facing the tougher Panzer divisions rather than the US beaches chosen to give the less experiences US an easier time against reserve and regular forces, The Canadian beach Juno also suffered just under 1000 casualties. German casualties are unknown but thought to be between 4,000 and 9,000. The British lost 600 paratroopers with a further 600 missing or out of place, the US paratroopers suffered 2,500 casualties. The troops deployed were almost equal, roughly 75,000 US and 75,000 British/Canadian though there were about 15,000 US paratroopers and 7,500 British.

[gothicform]

but they didn't evacuate the beach, they stayed, and it became a successful landing. literally half of US casualties were caused because they landed in the field of fire of one single machine gun bunker - you see it in saving private ryan where they disembark and immediately get gunned down by bunker. all you can say about omaha ultimately is it was a hard fought battle, and a couple of thousand americans paid the price. they won and that was all that ultimately mattered. the american advance there was delayed ultimately by only 12 hours.

you are right the british engaged the panzers but that was always the plan. the british army was considered more battle hardened so they wanted them meeting the panzers and grinding them down in attritional warfare whilst the americans would break out and wheel around.

D day was always planned so that even if one beach landing failed there would be redundancy and they could continue the landings on the other three. contingencies had been made for a failed american landing, just as they had for a failed british landing. in the end all succeeded.

i do agree that the americans would sometimes rush in whereas the british would do meticulous build ups. this was a strength for the british and for the americans. monty was unable to exploit tactical gaps like patton was, but sometimes patton (and bradley) experienced unnecessary casualties due to lack of planning and their love of quick action. had the war been fought the british way it would have been more cautious, cost less lost men, but taken longer.

whether it was worth losing more men to finish the war six months earlier is a question for the philosophers, not the generals.

[WatcherZero]

I agree, same thing can be seen from the US African experience, rushing in and getting so chewed up they had to be saved.

[desertswo]

Like I said; rose to the bait like a hungry marlin. Well done.

[gothicform]

Originally Posted by WatcherZero

I agree, same thing can be seen from the US African experience, rushing in and getting so chewed up they had to be saved.

their european experience meant they ended up in austria though.

[Pompey77]

Another 6,000 tonnes of HMS QE;

[madjackmcmad]

Piece is larger than a Frigate!

[Walsh]

omg!

[LondonFox]

This thing will make CdG look like a tugboat.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by LondonFox

This thing will make CdG look like a tugboat.

not any more than the gerald r. ford will make the queen elizabeth look like a tugboat, meaning not really at all. they're all pretty damn big ships that resemble nothing the size of a tug boat, even relative to each other.






aircraft carriers are very large ships, and even the smallest aircraft carrier still looks somewhat "big" next to the largest aircraft carrier.

[LondonFox]

That picture is distorted by perspective. The ship in the background dwarfs the one in front. Also, CdG's overhang of the flight deck makes it look bigger than it really is.

[SO143]

2x 65,500 tons new carriers with 5th generation stealth fighter jets

apart from the uk, who else in europe is getting this sort of capability and power projection???

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by LondonFox

That picture is distorted by perspective. The ship in the background dwarfs the one in front.

we must have different understandings of the word "dwarf" then. the idea that a nimitz class ship makes the gairbaldi look like a tug boat is a very silly one in my opinion. an even sillier notion is that the QE class will do likewise to the marginally smaller CdG.

Originally Posted by LondonFox

Also, CdG's overhang of the flight deck makes it look bigger than it really is.

the same can be said of any aircraft carrier, the QE class included. when it's all said and done, the QE class ships won't be THAT much larger than the CdG. they will be larger ships, yes, but making the latter look like a tugboat?

[LondonFox]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

we must have different understandings of the word "dwarf" then.

QE Class will displace an additional 25,500 tonnes of ship more than CdG... thats the equivalent roughly of an Invincible Class aircraft carrier and a Type 23 Frigate strapped to the side of CdG... that in my opinion... makes the CdG small in comparison.

Same goes for the General Ford Class and the QE... there's an extra 30,000 tonnes of ship between them.

Plus, QE sits in the 'Super' category.. CdG is a medium sized carrier.

[WatcherZero]

QE will only sit in the super category after mid life refurbs increase her displacement to the intended 80,000 tonnes limit.

[LondonFox]

QE/PoW will be super carriers . At 65,500 they are considered so.

The Forrestal class were considered super carriers.. and they displaced 60 thousand tonnes standard and up to 79 depending on their load.

[Core Rising]

I believe “technically” QE will not be “Super Carriers”. However the very idea of what constitutes a super carrier appears to be entirely arbitrary, and in reality means bugger all. We will have two large carriers, and that is all that matters.

[LondonFox]

Originally Posted by Core Rising

I believe “technically” QE will not be “Super Carriers”. However the very idea of what constitutes a super carrier appears to be entirely arbitrary, and in reality means bugger all. We will have two large carriers, and that is all that matters.

No, they'll be super through deck things like swo said before. But super they are.