"Unsinkable aircraft carriers"?
It's a synonym for islands that are suitable to use as an aircraft base.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Which is why all the RAF / FAA aircraft operating in the Pacific had the red parts of their markings painted out.
My Hair Provides Affordable Healthcare
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
The IJN’s maritime defense strategy came in two halves: one was its mobile and powerful carrier and surface fleets, while the other consisted of basing air units across whatever Pacific atolls and island chains that the IJN wanted to hold- henceforth, using these islands with airfields on them as “unsinkable aircraft carriers” (i.e Iwo Jima, Pelilue, Rabaul, and pretty much any Japanese-held island counted). The theoretical plan was to weaken the US Navy by luring it into these prepared defense corridors with air attacks based from the islands, while the IJN’s surface fleets would be able to swoop in and secure a Tsushima-style decisive victory that would eventually force the U.S to the negotiating table.
Needless to say, the Allies found an easy way around this by simply leaving many of these islands to starve and “rot on the vine” as Mac Arthur put it. 
edited 23rd Nov '14 3:36:41 AM by FluffyMcChicken
Don't mock the "Unsinkable Aircraft Carriers", the US forces used the exact same strategy, only as an offensive strategy instead of a defensive one. That was the main drive of the Island Hopping strategy, to provide bases for the Army and Marines to base their airpower from rather than relying purely on the US Navy or bases in mainland Asia. They just saw no particular reason that these bases must exist on the exact same islands that the Japanese had chosen to reinforce. In fact, one of the most famous US bases in the war, Henderson Airfield, was mostly built by the Japanese (the Marines used the abandoned Japanese equipment and materials to finish construction of the airfield, because the Japanese engineers neglected to destroy what they couldn't carry into the jungle).
re: The Brits losing the red dot in their roundel to avoid confusion, the USAAF did the same thing, removing the red dot from our own roundel, and eventually adding a couple of stripes outside the circle for some reason. Pre-war USAAC/USAAF aircraft had a circular roundel consisting of a blue dot in a white star in a blue circle, a derivative of our WWI roundel with a red dot in a white circle in a blue circle (shamelessly cribbed form the Imperial Russian Air Service, which being defunct by the US entry into the war, wasn't making use of the roundel or tail flashes anyways.)
edited 23rd Nov '14 5:36:46 AM by AFP
HGW XX/7
Something I find amusing is that both Germany and Japan have all this WWII baggage that makes them timid about building aircraft carriers, whilst Italy was all like: "STRONKISSIMA CARRIERA DELLI AEROCRAFTS! CAVOUR! GARIBALDI! and nobody gives a shit.
Schild und Schwert der Partei
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
Italy has aircraft carriers?
Oh really when?
HGW XX/7
See what I mean?
Yes, they have two - the Portaerei Cavour and the Giuseppe Garibaldi.
Schild und Schwert der Partei
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
Well good for Italy I suppose. Never realized they were powerful and important enough to have aircraft carriers. Let alone two of them.
Always figured they were still somewhat useless but in that special lovable Italian way.
Oh really when?
Does Italy really have a need for them though? I mean, they're not normally doing power projection outside of the Med.
"Yup. That tasted purple."
There are countries which have aircraft carriers for ego massaging purposes. I think Thailand is/was one.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
HGW XX/7
Eh, Italy did fairly well in WWII considering the shit they had to put up with from their political leadership and their German "allies".
Schild und Schwert der Partei
V
Isn't Japan not allowed to officially build aircraft carriers?
Keep Rolling On
^^ Only at sea though. On land they were a liability.
^ Nobody told the Hyuga that. Nor is anybody apparently caring anymore.
edited 23rd Nov '14 6:19:29 AM by MajorTom
Except that the Hyūga isn't an aircraft carrier. It's a helicopter destroyer.
"Yup. That tasted purple."
V
Just like the Invincibles were Through-Deck Cruisersnote ...
edited 23rd Nov '14 6:35:30 AM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling On
Yeah and the Admiral Kudnetsov is a cruiser...
It walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it must be an aircraft carrier.
V
Of course, the Japanese and Russian examples were due to Laws & Treaties...and the Royal Navy example was due to the Treasury (and for the Soviets, the same was for the was the designation of the Tu-22M).
Keep Rolling On
HGW XX/7
Fairly debatable actually. If you've got JSTOR, check out some of James Sadkovich's writing on Italian performance in the desert and Greece.
Schild und Schwert der Partei
rollin' on dubs
Rosvo1 asked:
All depends on the fighter;
- The A-10 can be pretty accurate considering that the GAU-8 is a bullet hose.
- The "Teen Series" can be really accurate, but that's because they were built more for air-to-air. All those computers and nimble designs gave them an edge.
- The Russians had more luck with their later fighters. On paper, the Mig-21's cannon could have been accurate, but only in the hands of skilled pilots. North Vietnam had a good record, but vs Israel, the Fishbed was the Butt-Monkey.
During the Cold War, the West focused on precision over More Dakka. The Warsaw Pact was more into volume. Things changed afterward and on balance, newer designs go for accuracy.
edited 23rd Nov '14 7:53:28 AM by TairaMai
All night at the computer, cuz people ain't that great. I keep to myself so I won't be on The First 48
^ I've heard some stuff saying that like for example the M61 Vulcan has a dispersion radius of like about 4 mils at 1000 meters. (About 15 MOA if I remember the math right.)
The gun on the RAH-66 Comanche had a radius of 2.2 mils (about 9.5 MOA) at 1000 meters.
When they were testing the Mi G-29, back in the day, with its pilot-helmet-integrated system thingy, they decided to see how accurate the gun was when used in conjunction with the new system by going to pop off at some drones. There was a bug on the fire control software which meant the gun only fired 5 rounds at a time at the target, however.
Didn't matter. Scratch one drone. Cue massive "OH SHIT" moment among NATO when this became known about thanks to those wonderful people at Langley, and errybody and their mammies started their own programs or counters to the Russian systems.
This is the kit they use:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmet-mounted_display#ZSh-5_.2F_Shchel-3UM
Speaking of F-35s, apparently they are no louder than the Super Bug.
That's not a positive! That means it has a noisy as Hell SINGLE ENGINE. If they wanted that to be a positive, it would be quieter than an F-16 which is actually quite quiet compared to other craft like A-10s or F-15s.
I should point out that approximately half of the Japanese air units involved in that last campaign actually were deployed from bases in Taiwan (Formosa), arguably one of the most successful of the IJN’s “unsinkable aircraft carriers”.
In fact, the British Pacific Fleet had the objective of covering the Okinawa invasion fleet’s southwestern flank from the Taiwan-based IJN air units. The Japanese were genuinely shocked by the appearance of British naval forces in the region, since the Royal Navy’s Eastern Fleet had been effectively dislodged by the IJN early on in the war what with the latter’s Indian Ocean Raid; Japanese airmen initially mistook the Fleet Air Arm’s Seafires for friendly Aichi “Val” dive-bombers due to the two’s similar elliptical wings, not to mention the circular British roundel vaguely resembled the Japanese hinomaru at long distances and certain angles.