Complaint of Brit Carriers? CHS

[ETF]

Playing a CHS game and my opponent is stating that the Brit Carriers have too much space for planes. He states the ILLUSTRIOUS Class should only carry 33 A/C rather than its 45. My sources show that CHS is accurate. What is your opinion?

[wdolson]

For much of the war, British carrier air groups did not max out the capacity of the carriers.  I just checked a book on carriers I have that was published in England and had a heavy focus on British carriers.  It says the Illustrious had an aircraft capacity of 36, so it looks like CHS might be a bit too large.

Bill

[Ian R]

Later in the war (?1944)  The RN introduced "deck parks" to get more aircaft on board. The capacities increased when they did so.
The Illustrious class started at 33 aircraft but by 1945 carried a mixture of 50 plus Corsair's and Avengers. The Indomitable was built with an extra 1/2 length hanger space and started at about 48 aircraft, increasing to about 60 Hellcats and Avengers in 1945. The Implacable and Indefatigeable had full length second hanger decks, but the ceilings were only 14' and couldn't accommodate the Corsair, so they carried Seafires, Fireflies, and Avengers in 1945. Max load was initially planned to be 54 aircraft, but 81 aircraft could be spotted with deck parks.
 

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: ETF

Playing a CHS game and my opponent is stating that the Brit Carriers have too much space for planes. He states the ILLUSTRIOUS Class should only carry 33 A/C rather than its 45. My sources show that CHS is accurate. What is your opinion?

33 was the early-war hanger capacity when carrier pilots and planes were the limiting resource; 45 was the late-war carrier capacity during the period that the RN used a deck park. The deck was large enough for a deck park (allowing continuous CAP and search operations) with three 9-plane fighter squadrons with folding wings (FM2s, F6Fs, F4Us) or two 9-plane squadrons of anything else. The hanger was double the size of the deck park--4 strike squadrons or 6 fighter squadrons. It had a nice long deck and could launch a strike with two strike squadrons and two fighter squadrons or three unescorted strike squadrons. Full capacity when operating F4Us and TBMs was 27 F4Us and 36 TBMs, but that was packing them in.

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: ETF

Playing a CHS game and my opponent is stating that the Brit Carriers have too much space for planes. He states the ILLUSTRIOUS Class should only carry 33 A/C rather than its 45. My sources show that CHS is accurate. What is your opinion?

Hmm, complains a lot, does he? It's not like Japanese capabilities or lack thereof is always modelled with exactitude in WitP

[DuckofTindalos]

Why, whatever do you mean?[;)][:D]

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: herwin

..... Full capacity when operating F4Us and TBMs was 27 F4Us and 36 TBMs, but that was packing them in.

Did they actually add some deck area (ie extended the beam of the flight deck near the island) to achieve a 63 load (I infer you are referring to the Illustrious class)?

I am getting a notion that this sort of activity may have fed the creative thinking that produced the concept of the angled flight deck...

[Dixie]

The RN CVs don't seem to have a set capacity, the numbers of a/c embarked varied quite a bit during the war.  These figures are taken from the FAA Archive website for 2 of the RN CVs.
 
HMS Illustrious
1940: 33 aircraft: Fulmars and Swordfish
[size=-1]September 1942: 21 Martlet, 6 Fulmars, and 18 Swordfish[/size]
[size=-1]July 1943: 28 Martlets and 18 Avengers[/size]
[size=-1]January 1944: 24 Corsais and 21 Barracudas[/size]
[size=-1]May 1944: 24 Corsairs and 18 Avengers[/size]
[size=-1]June 1944: 42 Corsairs and 15 Barracudas[/size]
[size=-1]November 1944: 36 Corsairs, 15 Avengers[/size]

HMS Indomitable
November 1941:  45 aircraft - 9 Sea Hurricanes, 12 Fulmars, 24 Albacores
[size=-1]August 1942: 55 aircraft - 31 Sea Hurricanes, 24 Albacores[/size]
[size=-1]February 1943:  55 aircraft - 40 Seafires, 15 Albacores[/size]
[size=-1]June 1944:  48 aircraft - 24 Hellcats, 24 Barracudas[/size]
[size=-1]December 1944:  50 aircraft - 29 Hellcats, 21 Avengers[/size]

The numbers involved would probably be dictated more by the actual squadrons on board at the time, rather than the carrier's actual capacity.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: ETF

Playing a CHS game and my opponent is stating that the Brit Carriers have too much space for planes. He states the ILLUSTRIOUS Class should only carry 33 A/C rather than its 45. My sources show that CHS is accurate. What is your opinion?

me thinks your opponent is complaining a LOT! [:D]

[spence]

Playing a CHS game and my opponent is stating that the Brit Carriers have too much space for planes. He states the ILLUSTRIOUS Class should only carry 33 A/C rather than its 45. My sources show that CHS is accurate. What is your opinion?

Yep; between this thread and the one about USN AAA it sorta sounds like the IJN took an unexpected beating at the meeting (of CVs).

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

ORIGINAL: herwin

..... Full capacity when operating F4Us and TBMs was 27 F4Us and 36 TBMs, but that was packing them in.

Did they actually add some deck area (ie extended the beam of the flight deck near the island) to achieve a 63 load (I infer you are referring to the Illustrious class)?

I am getting a notion that this sort of activity may have fed the creative thinking that produced the concept of the angled flight deck...

Deck edge pylons were installed on RN carriers later in the war to allow aircraft to be parked with their tails extending out over the water.

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: spence

Yep; between this thread and the one about USN AAA it sorta sounds like the IJN took an unexpected beating at the meeting (of CVs).

Ah, SCLS (Sudden Carrier Loss Syndrome)!

[DuckofTindalos]

Aka Sinking Kido Butai Disease...[:D]

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: ETF

Playing a CHS game and my opponent is stating that the Brit Carriers have too much space for planes. He states the ILLUSTRIOUS Class should only carry 33 A/C rather than its 45. My sources show that CHS is accurate. What is your opinion?

me thinks your opponent is complaining a LOT! [:D]

He is likely LOSING a LOT![:D]

[ETF]

haha thanks allot guys.
He lost a few CV's for one of my CVE's in a Carrier versus Carrier engagement.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

ORIGINAL: herwin

..... Full capacity when operating F4Us and TBMs was 27 F4Us and 36 TBMs, but that was packing them in.

Did they actually add some deck area (ie extended the beam of the flight deck near the island) to achieve a 63 load (I infer you are referring to the Illustrious class)?

I am getting a notion that this sort of activity may have fed the creative thinking that produced the concept of the angled flight deck...

No. But it was really packed with 63. For active operations, it was good to open up the area a bit by parking aircraft with their tails over the water.

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: ETF
When this happens he rants and raves and blames the game every time.

Just like Nagumo...anyway, Midway is just AFB spin - never happened and anyway the IJN won

[DuckofTindalos]

And Bismark was scuttled...[:D]

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

And Bismark was scuttled...[:D]

Ahhh...Ya' just had to do it, didn't ya'..?

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

For much of the war, British carrier air groups did not max out the capacity of the carriers.  I just checked a book on carriers I have that was published in England and had a heavy focus on British carriers.  It says the Illustrious had an aircraft capacity of 36, so it looks like CHS might be a bit too large.

Bill

Note you can run 36 on a ship of 33 capacity.