# WW2- Armored flight deck, YEA or NAY? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [October 7, 2025, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ww2-armored-flight-deck-yea-or-nay/1023764 "2025-10-07T22:27:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2025, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ww2-armored-flight-deck-yea-or-nay/1023764/21 "2025-10-09T02:13:49Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > IMO the balance favors pentrators much more than defenders now vs 1945ish Of course, in 1945 the balance favored Allied penetrators over Japanese defenders as well. Earlier in the war, in 1942 when the more balanced carrier on carrier battles took place, the penetrators had the advantage. Both sides had the right idea of trying to overwhelm the defense by simultaneously attacking by torpedo planes and dive bombers. > [@LSLGuy](#): > > The older I get the more war sux. Yup. ---
**Author:** ![Elmer\_J.Fudd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/elmer_j.fudd/32/1211_2.png) [@Elmer\_J.Fudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elmer_J.Fudd)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2025, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ww2-armored-flight-deck-yea-or-nay/1023764/22 "2025-10-09T18:56:18Z")
> [@bump](#): > > I kind of think the British and American doctrines were pretty different, with the US taking and running with the idea that the carriers and aircraft were the new capital ships after Pearl Harbor, while without such an abrupt trauma, the British never really went all-in on that concept until sometime after the war, if even then. But the Royal Navy did suffer a similar trauma when two of their most powerful warships were sunk by Japanese aircraft two days after the attack on Pearl Harbor. > **[Sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse | The Japanese air attack](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_Prince_of_Wales_and_Repulse?wprov=sfti1#The_Japanese_air_attack)** > > At 00:50 that same morning, 10 December, Phillips had received a report from Palliser of Japanese landings at Kuantan, on the east coast of Malaya, halfway between Singapore and Kota Bharu; Phillips headed in that general direction, without however signalling Palliser his intentions (which would have revealed his position). Palliser failed to anticipate this and request air cover over Kuantan from Sembawang's Buffalo fighters. As it turned out, not until a radio message was sent by Repuls Express... ---
**Author:** ![Hypno-Toad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b2d939/32.png) [@Hypno-Toad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hypno-Toad)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2025, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ww2-armored-flight-deck-yea-or-nay/1023764/23 "2025-10-09T19:35:55Z")
Here’s link to an article about that very question in the OP: T[he author comes down on the side of a bigger combat air patrol was better than tougher ships.](http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-030.php) ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2025, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ww2-armored-flight-deck-yea-or-nay/1023764/24 "2025-10-09T19:36:56Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > Of course, in 1945 the balance favored Allied penetrators over Japanese defenders as well. > > Earlier in the war, in 1942 when the more balanced carrier on carrier battles took place, the penetrators had the advantage. Both sides had the right idea of trying to overwhelm the defense by simultaneously attacking by torpedo planes and dive bombers. Good point. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2025, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ww2-armored-flight-deck-yea-or-nay/1023764/25 "2025-10-09T20:20:02Z")
> [@Asuka](#): > > The best answer to this question i heard was “Armored flight decks wouldn’t have saved the day during the Battle of Midway The Japanese though would probably take the opposite view. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2025, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ww2-armored-flight-deck-yea-or-nay/1023764/26 "2025-10-10T23:44:51Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > The Japanese though would probably take the opposite view. Sure. If nothing had changed and Midway where fought just like it was historically, the armored deck would likely have prevented the general purpose American bombs from penetrating down to the hangers, which were filled with However, had the Japanese had armored flight decks, the tragetory of the war may have been different. On first glance, the answer seems obvious. The armor would have stopped the GP bombs, hence they would not have lost the four carriers. Alt-hist fans then like to run it with and find ways that Japan would have won the war. However, it’s not that easy. First, they couldn’t have suddenly had armored decks that morning. They would have started the war with them, and the US would have been aware of that. Even assuming that nothing else would have changed, it’s likely that the US would have been dropping AP bombs instead. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2025, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ww2-armored-flight-deck-yea-or-nay/1023764/27 "2025-10-10T23:49:49Z")
Had the Japanese carriers been deck-armored, what would that have done to their aircraft complement? And what in turn would that have done to the Pearl Harbor attack? Or the Japanese offense at Midway? Or the effectiveness of the Japanese CAP fighters at Midway trying to stop the USN bombing attack on those stouter carriers? As you quite rightly say, the ramifications of a single counterfactual get deep quickly. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2025, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ww2-armored-flight-deck-yea-or-nay/1023764/28 "2025-10-11T00:33:14Z")
Exactly! It also touches really deep questions concerning the mindset of the Japanese. The Japanese were overwhelmingly oriented towards the offensive, and generally rejected defensive measures which would have negatively impacted offensive performance. For example, Japanese rejected using self-sealing gas tanks because they had negative impact on weight and speed. Once the US was able to find tactics to combat the Zero, the Japanese lost many planes. I can’t see the Japanese sacrificing the number of planes for the defensive measure of armored decks. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2025, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ww2-armored-flight-deck-yea-or-nay/1023764/29 "2025-10-11T00:40:12Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > I can’t see the Japanese sacrificing the number of planes for the defensive measure of armored decks. Agreed. Within their military culture it was culturally unthinkable. Just as DoD has avoided (deliberately) fielding second-rate cheap gear that is expected to kill lots more of our combatants, but could happily be bought in greater quantity. ---
**Author:** ![OttoDaFe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ottodafe/32/356_2.png) [@OttoDaFe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OttoDaFe)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2025, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ww2-armored-flight-deck-yea-or-nay/1023764/30 "2025-10-11T01:07:47Z")
Plus, IJN carriers tended to be top-heavy as it was, in part because they had two (and in the case of _Akagi_ and _Kaga_, three) hangar decks. Adding an armored deck that high in the structure would have made for horrendous seakeeping. ---
**Author:** ![Elmer\_J.Fudd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/elmer_j.fudd/32/1211_2.png) [@Elmer\_J.Fudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elmer_J.Fudd)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2025, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ww2-armored-flight-deck-yea-or-nay/1023764/31 "2025-10-11T06:44:27Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > I can’t see the Japanese sacrificing the number of planes for the defensive measure of armored decks. Not to mention that planes are a much better defensive measure than armor for a carrier, anyway. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2025, 9:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ww2-armored-flight-deck-yea-or-nay/1023764/32 "2025-10-11T09:10:06Z")
> [@Elmer\_J.Fudd](#): > > Not to mention that planes are a much better defensive measure than armor for a carrier, anyway. When carriers were being developed in the 30s, that wasn’t really clear. The biggest change was the development of effective radar, which allowed ships time enough to direct their CAP to attack the incoming planes. Advanced radar allowed the ship to see the altitude of the attackers, something clearly necessary for an effective defense. The development of IFF also helped. Japanese CAP sucked, to use the techical term for it. The Zero radios sucked and the pilots lacked coverage discipline, and they didn’t have really good zone coverage planned out. ---
**Author:** ![Capn\_Carl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/838e76/32.png) [@Capn\_Carl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capn_Carl)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2025, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ww2-armored-flight-deck-yea-or-nay/1023764/33 "2025-10-11T15:25:16Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > can’t see the Japanese sacrificing the number of planes for the defensive measure of armored decks The IJN didn’t sacrifice aircraft complement but they increased defensive capability by making their carriers larger. Compare _Soryu, Hiryu, Shokaku_ class, _Taiho._ Each design had more armor, heavier AA, and a wider torpedo defense system than the one before, while aircraft complement was pretty steady. _Taiho_ had an armored flight deck. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2025, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ww2-armored-flight-deck-yea-or-nay/1023764/34 "2025-10-11T19:37:44Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > However, it’s not that easy. First, they couldn’t have suddenly had armored decks that morning. They would have started the war with them, and the US would have been aware of that. Even assuming that nothing else would have changed, it’s likely that the US would have been dropping AP bombs instead. And the IJN would have half the number of aircraft, meaning Pearl, Battle of the Coral sea and yes, Midway, would have come out different. > [@LSLGuy](#): > > Had the Japanese carriers been deck-armored, what would that have done to their aircraft complement? More or less halved, maybe 60%. ---
**Author:** ![Capn\_Carl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/838e76/32.png) [@Capn\_Carl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capn_Carl)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2025, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ww2-armored-flight-deck-yea-or-nay/1023764/35 "2025-10-12T01:02:33Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > Had the Japanese carriers been deck-armored, what would that have done to their aircraft complement? _Taiho_ was sort of a _Shokaku_ with an armored flight deck. IIRC, her hangar space was about 3/4 of _Shokaku._ She carried a few _more_ planes though; I think that’s because the IJN had started keeping some of the planes on the flight deck, as had been USN practice all along. That deck park was part of the reason USN carriers carried more planes than the IJN and RN carriers. The RN started using deck parks late war, which brought their a/c complement closer to that of USN carriers. ---
**Author:** ![Mk\_VII](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Mk\_VII](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mk_VII)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2025, 10:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ww2-armored-flight-deck-yea-or-nay/1023764/36 "2025-10-12T10:20:29Z")
The kamikazes were, rightly, seen as a passing phase in warfare that was unlikely to reoccur. The armoured hangar deck made modernising the carriers after the war difficult and expensive, and only one, _Victorious_, was so modernised (and it was poorly project-managed and cost a lot more than it was supposed to, as a result no others were done). Compare with the _Essex/Ticonderoga_-class hulls which remained useful into the 1970s. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ww2-armored-flight-deck-yea-or-nay/1023764.md?page=1)