THIS IS MY REBUTTAL TO THE COMMENT THAT “THE AMERICAN CARRIERS WERE MORE VULNERABLE TO KAMIKAZE ATTACK THAN THEIR BRITISH COUNTERPARTS,” FROM THE MAN WHO ONCE WAS WHIZZER WHITE BY DENIS J. HUTCHINSON (THE FREE PRESS, NEW YORK:1998), PAGE 190.
By David Anderson
My first reaction to Mr. Hutchinson’s text was, “Why bring this up now? You haven’t written about this before, but you choose to make an issue of it at this point!”
Yes, British carriers had armored (armoured) flight decks. The American (and American-built) carriers had a thin metal deck that supported the wooden flight deck. But this is only one side of the controversy.
The U. S. Navy’s point of view was that their aircraft carriers had more airplanes, which could be refueled more times, before having to meet the service force. Consequently, the USN carrier could stay on station for a longer time, fly more sorties, and do more damage to the enemy before having to replenish aviation fuel, ship’s fuel, aircraft, pilots, and food...