[Video] Shokaku vs Yorktown Class Carriers - USS Enterprise & HIJMS Zuikaku

[gladius2metal]

Video comparing the Shokaku class carrier Zuikaku and the Yorktown class carrier Enterprise.

Notes on accuracy below, not needed, but for those who like that stuff. Further information in the video description.
Special Thx to @Director and @Admiral Piett and several redditors (see video description).

Notes on Accuracy & “Methodology”
----------------
(1) To put it simply, when it comes to data about WW2 ships everything seems to be a bit off. Many sources differ. I have like 3 different crew values for the USS Enterprise, basically every book, website and Wikipedia article has one or several different values.
(2) Furthermore, thanks to various commenters on reddit and the paradox forums I know that this is very common. Just to give an example, take a look at this very well illustrated and sourced forum post: http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/...
(3) The same goes for articles (see sources: Wildenberg and the link).
(4) So, I tried to use only one source for each value in order to keep the data as clean as possible, also I did some cross-referencing, but take everything with a grain of salt.
(5) Mid 1942 is also the general “cut-off date”, thus proximity fuses, Japanese deck parks, etc. are not taken into account.
(6) Values and equipment is from Mid 1942 or before. Zuikakus plane loadout is from the attack on Pearl Harbor, because she and the Shokaku were not present at the Battle of Miday.
(7) Note that especially the AA loadout changed considerable several times, in the end the Zuikaku had 96 25mm AA barrels and the Enterprise was equipped with 40mm bofors.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

Both been really fine ships.
Another thing is however the much superior damage control in the Yorktown class compared to the Japanese.

 

[gladius2metal]

Another thing is however the much superior damage control in the Yorktown class compared to the Japanese.

yeah, but that was mainly a crew training and structure process as far as I know. I mentioned that part in the conclusion once, but I cut it, because it was too board didn't fit.
Do you have an article on damage control? I read it all the time, but usually it is just a one-liner. I tried searching for an article and found one from University of Zagreb (I think), but it was mostly engineering etc. The only thing that was great information on that topic was a topic on askhistorians on reddit.

edit: cut content

 

[Finnish Dragon]

How about "Handbook of Damage Control" from May 1945:

http://www.maritime.org/doc/dc/index.htm#pg1

I will quote the chapter regarding fire fighting:

32-1. Foreword. Whether a battle casualty results from bomb, torpedo or projectile hit, fire is a common result. Unless the fire is quickly extinguished, more serious damage than that caused by the initial explosion may develop. Fire may cause the loss of a ship, even after other battle damage has been repaired or minimized. That happened to the LEXINGTON in the battle of the Coral Sea.

 

[gladius2metal]

How about "Handbook of Damage Control" from May 1945:
http://www.maritime.org/doc/dc/index.htm#pg1

thx, great find, the problem is: what about the Japanese? I know they "centralized" their damage control parties, whereas the US made it a responsibility for basically everyone.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

thx, great find, the problem is: what about the Japanese? I know they "centralized" their damage control parties, whereas the US made it a responsibility for basically everyone.

Worse, they split the responsilities. So the hangar officier was responsible for the hangar damage control and the deck officier for deck damage control.While also everyone there was responsible they had little to no training.
Later in the war this improved of course but never to the level of US damage control.
Fire always was the main problem and the US fire fighting and equipment been simply better.

Another problem been the enclosed hangars of the Japanese. The more open US ones could throw planes outside and allow the gasoline fumes to vent. Japanese hangars been incapable of that due to their enclosement.

The Taiho was the only Japanese carrier with a real redundant damage control system.

 

[Director]

The US examined and improved its procedures after the losses of 'Lexington' and 'Yorktown', including methods to flood gasoline lines with inert gas. So before Midway I'm not sure there were major differences in damage control between the US and Japan; after Midway and Guadalcanal, US practice would be considerably better.

It's possible to draw a correlation between the loss of 'Lexington' and 'Taiho' in that both were essentially blown apart by gas-fume fires. But 'Lexington' was lost in 1942 and 'Taiho' in (I think) 1944...

'Shokaku' and 'Zuikaku' were hit a number of times in their careers and survived several bomb hits, so I'd have to say they were pretty tough. Probably the best carriers Japan produced.

A nice presentation!

 

[gladius2metal]

'Shokaku' and 'Zuikaku' were hit a number of times in their careers and survived several bomb hits, so I'd have to say they were pretty tough. Probably the best carriers Japan produced.

yeah, I read somewhere, it was less a problem with those two, because they had very experienced crews, whereas the Taiho and other hadn't.

Another problem been the enclosed hangars of the Japanese. The more open US ones could throw planes outside and allow the gasoline fumes to vent. Japanese hangars been incapable of that due to their enclosement.

exactly, did you write that answer on askhistorians I was reading a few days ago? (it is an older answer though).

also the Japanese integrated some of their fuel tanks into the hull itself. They did fill up some parts with concrete though after the loss of one ship.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

No, wasnt me.