Ships decks......Perhaps this is a naive question.

[topdcnut]

Wharf,

 

By the time an I beam fails the wood surrounding it is called hot ash.

[vostoktrading]

Actually what Warf said is true. He must be a Firefighter. It is natural to assume steel is stronger than wood in a fire but actually the opposite is true.

Wood structural beams will maintain their load integrity longer than like steel beams in a fire. It's a scientific fact.

Jon.

[Wharfmaster]

Actually what Warf said is true. He must be a Firefighter. It is natural to assume steel is stronger than wood in a fire but actually the opposite is true.

Wood structural beams will maintain their load integrity longer than like steel beams in a fire. It's a scientific fact.

Jon.

Mahalo Jon, most appreciated. It is very true and yes I am.

 

Best regards,

 

W

[Jack's Son]

I'm learning more about steel hull ships wooden deckings than I thought!! Thanks guys.

[Kaigun Shosa]

FYI…The last US Navy ship that was fitted with a wooden deck was the USS Long Beach CGN-9. I remember pulling in to San Diego back in the late 1980’s and seeing the Long Beach pier side. As I recall, the wooden deck was about mid-ships and was not fitted on the fore and aft decks.

[sgtpete]

I think several things are being confused here. The US carriers had wooden flight decks. There was most certainly a steel deck underneath. There has never been a weather deck made solely of wood on a US man of war since the age of sail.

The question is really one of armor. The British had thicker armored flight decks, while the US carriers had thinner armor. The wood covering was really just a matter of tradition and preference, not for protection.

[Wharfmaster]

Wood is both light and strong. In the 1940s it was cheap and plentiful in the US. Also, there were a lot of people with woodworking skills at that time too.

 

We must also remember that oil based paint on a steel deck, overhead or bulkhead will burn.

 

 

 

W

[topdcnut]

People please, ( I wanted to use the insulting military term "Ladies" but refrained...sort of) GOGGLE this topic and you will find the real answer to the original question.pertaining to US and UK carrier flight decks. Listen to what SGTPETE has said, almost every other statement in this thread has been a bit of gobbldiegoop in relation to the real answer. In another context true but in relation to the original question simply not relevant. Our Navies thought on flight deck construction in WW2 may have been rooted in the policies inacted in the post war 20's and changed later in WW2

 

I am just asking that several people would step off of the Pier called speculation and cross the brow and board the ship named research

[Wharfmaster]

People please, ( I wanted to use the insulting military term "Ladies" but refrained...sort of) GOGGLE this topic and you will find the real answer to the original question.pertaining to US and UK carrier flight decks. Listen to what SGTPETE has said, almost every other statement in this thread has been a bit of gobbldiegoop in relation to the real answer. In another context true but in relation to the original question simply not relevant. Our Navies thought on flight deck construction in WW2 may have been rooted in the policies inacted in the post war 20's and changed later in WW2

 

I am just asking that several people would step off of the Pier called speculation and cross the brow and board the ship named research

..............................................................

 

Rough day at work?

 

W

[hink441]

Wow, actually US carriers did not have armored flight decks until the Midway class. That is not until after WW2. The WW2 hangar decks were armored though. Lower center of gravity, quicker repair, and more aircraft carried on board were all reasons for the wooden flight decks.

 

Modern steel flight decks came about with the advent of heavier jet aircraft and higher landing speeds. With the addition of angled decks, steel was a natural progression in development of US carriers. Jet aircraft engines also don't do well with wood splinters from wooden flight decks.

[sgtpete]

US doctrine pre ww2 did not include aircraft carriers in any major offensive role. Up until Pearl Harbor, and for the Japanese later, the main battle fleet were the battleships as the main battle line with cruisers and destroyers as scouts for the fleet. Plan orange was always based on a surface action to decide any war. Aircraft carriers were only to provide support to the main battle line. All carriers in the US fleet were built to this standard. That's why armor under the flight deck was thin. Attack on a carrier by other carrier aircraft was not thought to be an issue. Armor were for the battleships to survive.

Pearl Harbor caused to US to rethink its doctrine. Since most of the pacific battle line was on the floor of Pearl Harbor, the aircraft carrier had take center stage. Meanwhile new carriers that were ordered by the two ocean act of 1940 were still designed under the older standards, these are the carriers that appeared in 1942-1944. By the time designs were changed after learned war experience, it was very later in the war.

Again while the top covering of the flight decks were wood, there was armor underneath it, abeit thin. Saying carriers had wooden flight decks is like saying the battleships had wooden main decks because there was a teak deck on top. It just ain't so.