A new WWII question for the New Year

[dcunning30]

There is one very specific thing captains of Royal Navy and Imperial Japanese Navy aircraft carriers have in common.  And in this one specific thing, US Navy carrier captains don't have in common with the others mentioned.  What is this?

Here's a big hint:

It has to do with qualification.

[Woodlouse2002]

I'm guessing that RN and IJN carriers carried an officer of flag rank while the USN just needed a Captain.

[Hagar]

I believe that RN aircraft carrier captains needed no previous experience of flying or even serving aboard a carrier. I don't know if this applies to the others.

[dcunning30]

Hagar is correct.

The RN didn't require an officer to have his "wings" in order to skipper a carrier.

[Hagar]

[quote]Hagar is correct.

The RN didn't require an officer to have his "wings" in order to skipper a carrier.

[Woodlouse2002]

Wonders never cease. Not often I beat Woody on nautical matters.

I like to give others a chance occasionally.

[Woodlouse2002]

[quote]Hagar is correct.

The RN didn't require an officer to have his "wings" in order to skipper a carrier.

[Felix/FFDS]

And what better navy to be mentored by bearing in mind it's only opponent in a century refused to come out for round two.

Did the IJN leave them any decent capital ships after 1905?

[Felix/FFDS]

I believe that RN aircraft carrier captains needed no previous experience of flying or even serving aboard a carrier. I don't know if this applies to the others.

Technically, until 1938 ('39?) wasn't RN aviation under the "command" and purse strings of the RAF?

We can't have flyboys commanding capital ships of the senior service, can we?

[Woodlouse2002]

Did the IJN leave them any decent capital ships after 1905?

After 1905 there was only one decent Capital ship. That is of course intill HMS Dreadnought was developed into a class.

[dcunning30]

Speaking of RN, USN, and IJN, here's an example of "egregious treaty violation":

IJN Mikuma, more than 3,000 tons over treaty tonnage.

[Woodlouse2002]

And here's an example of obscene treaty adherence.



I know which I'd go for. A good looking ship or keeping the yanks happy. No contest.

[dcunning30]

I know which I'd go for. A good looking ship or keeping the yanks happy. No contest.

The 5-5-3 ratio was designed to keep the Brits happy too, with their "Impregnable Bastion" of Singapore to look out for!  

Just as impregnable as our bastion on Corregidor Island.  

[Woodlouse2002]

[quote]

The 5-5-3 ratio was designed to keep the Brits happy too, with their "Impregnable Bastion" of Singapore to look out for!

[dcunning30]

The 5-5-3 treaty only served to offend and infuriate the Japanese, which in itself aided in the escalation toward war in the Pacific.