How many aircraft could the Shinano hold?

[hamilcar]

One of my pet peaves has been what air capacity Japanese carriers have been given in games.It seems that U S carriers have been given air compliments based on their offical printed capacity while Japanese carriers at many times are rated as having a capity lower than their printed rating. This rating is based on the air compliment they actually had not as in the case of the Americians their theoretical capacity. The Shinano the largest carrier built in WW2 is many times given a air compliment of 47 I know the Jappanese were supposed to use this carrier as a fleet replenishment vessel replacing aircraft for other carrier but this rating still seems low. Ok my long winded question is in terms of gameplay how many aircraft should the Shinano be rated as holding?

[Murat]

IJN Shinano Aircraft Carrier

[align=center]



Specifications

Standard Displacement
62,000 tons

Dimension

Length:266m
Width: 36.3m
Depth: 10.3m


Main Engine
4-shaft geared turbines
12 boilers

Oil
8,900 tons

Horsepower
150,000 shp

Maximum Speed
27kts

Crew
2400

Armor
Belt 1.8in
flight deck 3.1in
hangar deck 7.5in

Armament
16 5in/40 DP (8x2)
145 25mm AA
12 28 barrelled rocket launchers

Aircraft

47 Aircraft[/align]

She could store around 120 aircraft but only had 1 hangar thus the reduced operational aircraft capacity. Don't forget she started as a Yamato class, was hastily converted and lasted less than 1 month (November 1944). 

[fabforrest]

i believe the intent was for her to be a transport carrier to ferry replacement planes/pilots to fleet carriers.  of course, by the time she would have been finished, they would not have had any fleet carriers left.

[Murat]

She was finished and sailed, and then was quickly sunk.

[fabforrest]

she could sail, but she was far from finished. she was not yet ready for service. in fact, i believe her watertight doors had not yet been fitted (ref Warships of the Imperial Japanese Nave, 1869-1945, Jentschura, Jung & Mickel) leading to her rapid flooding when torpedoed.

[kverdon]

Well she was not even really finished, she sailed with much of her watertight integrity yet to be finished.  That’s how Joe Enright and the Archerfish put her down with one spread of torpedoes.
 
In reality, by that time in the war, it was irrelevant how many planes the Shinano could carry because after the Battle of the Philippine Sea, the Japanese had no pilots let to fly off of a carrier. A month or so later at Leyte Gulf the remaining Japanese carriers could muster only about 100 pilots for all the carriers combined.  That’s why they got relegated to a decoy force.
 
For all intents and purposes, the war was over for the Japanese Carrier fleet after 1943.  By then they had bled their carrier air groups white in the Solomons and thus the pilots flying off the carriers in 1944 where mere shadows of the pilots of 1941/1942.   Any historical scenario set after 1943 is basically suicide for the Japanese. The combination of USN numerical superiority in ships and planes, combined with the qualitative advantage in pilots and aircraft and the advantage of radar assisted CAP make outcomes like the Battle of the Philippine sea, (Marianas Turkey Shoot) more of a expected result than a one-time victory.   It would be interesting however to use the scenario editor to speculate what would have happened if there had been carrier engagements in 1943 or if the Japanese had husbanded their pilots better, established a better training system and come out fighting in 1944 with a better trained force. 
 

[sullafelix]

I believe i understand your question Hamilcar and I've been just as confused over the issue. Many books give the Akagi an air complement of 91 aircraft but in any game i've played it is in the 70s or 80s. The same goed for the sister ships Shokaku and Zuikaku. Iv'e seen anywhere from 64 to 84.
 
it's much like the speed of japanese aircraft. many books I have state the frank as capable of 425mph yet almost all sims give it a top speed of lower than 400mph.

[diesel7013]

Sulla,
 
If you dig deep, and research where the listed complements for Japanese carriers comes from - the 'official' IJN compliment lists the number of aircraft the carrier could 'ferry' from point a to point b.  This includes planes w/ folded wings, planes parked at difficult angles, ect...
 
The actual combat complement is obviously less as there needs to be room in the hanger decks for movement of aircraft as well as ability to move from the hanger to the flight deck and back.  So - while the Akagi and Kaga 'could' hold upwards of 90 aircraft - in combat situations - they could only operate 70+ aircraft effeciently. 
 
( sorry for any spelling errors )[:D]

[sullafelix]

Thanks. But,I think what Hamilcar and I are asking is why aren't there two numbers for US carriers also. How do we know that what we see isn't the inflated ferry number on them also? I have numerous sources ( non Japanese ) that state that the fighting compliment of the Akagi was 91 airplanes.

[hamilcar]

Sulla5

You got my meaning why 2 values for Japanese carriers and onluy one for american

[spence]

The Japanese CVs both could and did sometimes carry a number of disassembled a/c which could be assembled in a day or two to replace battle losses; but we are talking about an airframe hanging from the overhead while the wings are lashed to the bulkhead somewhere else. The space available for servicing aircraft in the hangars limited the operational capacity to the lower number. In "Shattered Sword" there is a diagram of the hangar deck of one of the KB carriers (Hiryu I think) which was carrying some extra but non-operational spares. There is just plain no room left in the hangar deck for anything more than the 63 a/c it operated.

The Japanese did all their servicing (fuelling/rearming) in the hangar deck except for arming the Vals which could be/was done on the flight deck. The enclosed hangars (surrounded by various tool shops etc) made their hangars much smaller (long and skinny) by comparision with similar sized US CVs so movement within the hangar was much more constrained (even though they had similar total areas the two hangars stacked atop one another was less efficient in useage than the single wider hangar of the US carriers).

[sullafelix]

I understand completely and the Hiryu was built at another time. The early carriers( Lex and Akagi ) were built on battlecruser hulls. The Hiryu and others built at the end of the 30's were the first attempts to build carriers from the ground up and were smaller than there early cousins. If the Lex is listed as 90 aircraft than judging by the numerous rebuilds and similar size of the Akagi why couldn't it? That is another point that I forgot to bring up earlier is what year the #'s are taken from. An early Akagi or Lex could operate nowhere near what they could by WW2. have you seen an early pic of the Yamato? The ones we are used to seeing look just like a Iowa class in secondary armament and AA guns. It looked more like the bismark on the side when first launched.Although I hate to mention a WW1 rehashed BB in the same breath as the Iowas and Yamatos
 
If CAW is anywhere near to what I came to love years ago, this is all a moot point. We will be able to edit anything we want in the game.

[NimitsTexan]

In actual wartime combat operations, the most any IJN heavy flattop ever carried was 81 (Kaga for the Pearl Harbor Operation), and standard loads were 54-63 aircraft. I do not believe the Shokaku class ever carried more than 70, while the Hiryu/Soryu airgroups never exceeded 63 (again at Pearl Harbor). Compare that to the Yorktown class, which were operating about 70 at the start of the war (the limiting factors being that most new aircraft production was being sent to the Atlantic Fleet and that of the 3 carrier aircraft types, only the TBD had folding wings), and by late 1942 (when F4F-4s with folding wings had replaced the F4F-3s), the Enterprise was carrying 91 planes. Later, some of the Essex class aircraft carriers, which were technically rated to carry about 95, would in fact ship airgroups of 100+ (mostly fighters) to combat the Kamikazes.
 
However, to caveat what I just said, I do believe a 90 aircraft capacity for the Lexintong class is a bit "optimistic," and based on 1930s style airgroups with smaller, lighter biplane fighters and bombers. Alot of sources list 81 as the capacity that class, which coincidentally would have been the authorized strength of a August-September 1942 era carrier airgroup, though off hand, I can think of now time where she carried more than 75 aircraft in 1942.