British CV's vs USN CV's

[btd64]

Found this on FB....GP

Navy General Board

Armoured carriers and aircraft capacity.
When talking about the British armored carriers, it is often said that the protection was bought at the expense of aircraft capacity.
This is only half true.
The British Illustrious class aircraft carriers entered service in the years between the Yorktown and Essex class aircraft carriers. For this reason, the Illustrious class are often compared to them.
Compared to the Yorktown class, the Illustrious class was slightly larger, having a design displacement of 23,000 tons vs 20,000 tons for the American carrier. However, the Yorktown class carried over 80 aircraft in service while the Illustrious class carried about 40 aircraft.
Even HMS Indomitable, a modification of the Illustrious class with a larger double stacked hangar (designed specifically to carry more aircraft), typically carried 48 aircraft in service.
A very large difference between the British and American carriers.
Typically it is said that this difference In aircraft capacity is due to the armored design of the British carrier. However, while the design of the Illustrious class did limit the size of the hangar, it was not that much of a difference.
Compared to the Yorktown class, the Illustrious class had a hangar that was slightly over 80% the size of the American carrier. The double hangar Indomitable actually had more space for aircraft than the Yorktown class.
So why the huge difference in aircraft capacity?
The difference in capacity comes down to American carriers having a full time deck park. A deck park is the system of storing aircraft on the flightdeck and outside of the hangar.
The United States, in its quest to maximize the offensive capability of its carriers, carried more aircraft by carrying extra planes on the flight deck in addition to the normal complement inside the hangar.
Depending on the aircraft, carrier class, and ratio of aircraft types, the US Carriers carried as much as 25% to 35% of their aircraft on the flightdeck in a deck park.
It is less to do with the hangar capacity and more to do with the fact that the US Navy used its flightdeck for aircraft storage while the Royal Navy did not.
It's also worth pointing out that the Royal Navy did eventually adopt a similar deck park to increase the aircraft complement aboard its carriers (especially once they began to operate in the Pacific).
When utilizing a full time deck park, the Illustrious class saw their aircraft complement increase to 57 aircraft. HMS Indomitable remained at around 55 aircraft (no info on whether she received a deck park) while the Implacable class, based on Indomitable, rose to a capacity of just over 80 aircraft at the end of WW2, matching the Yorktown class.
Factoring in the deck park, the British armored carriers were not that far behind the US Carriers in aircraft capacity.
*Note* The Essex class also used a full time deck park, allowing them to carry up to 110 aircraft. This, coupled with the fact that they were designed to an even larger 30,000 ton design, means that their capacity was vastly higher than the earlier British carriers. Hardly a fair comparison though it is often used when discussing the various carriers.

[joey]

Yes, there were a number of reasons why British and US CVs were different. First, the US had an incredible industrial capacity during WW2, so it could favor offense over survivability. It knew it would not run out of CVs. Just look at the number of CVEs constructed during this period. The British didn't have such luxury. They needed to keep what they had afloat; hence the armored deck.
Second, there were also post war considerations to contend with. Churchill envisioned another period of British colonialism post war as happened after the First World War. There are a number of books on this. The US envisioned decommissioning most of their CVs post war. The Revolt of the Admirals in 1949 is a great example of US post war policy.
Third, the British had Uboats to contend with. This greatly impacted their construction methods. The US did not, for the most part, incorporate this into into their CV construction. Yes, it did a little bit, but not the level of the British.
So, from the very onset of construction the CVs were destined to be different. The British wanted a ship that would last; the US wanted a ship that could hold a lot to planes. We can this in today's British and American fleets.

[dr.hal]

Also keep in mind that UK CVs were designed to operate in European waters thus a heavy land based air threat, therefore the armored deck was seen as essential....another factor in hanger design, but not mentioned, is the height of the overhead, in the RN it was limited thus impacting space available....

[Admiral DadMan]

Also keep in mind that UK CVs were designed to operate in European waters thus a heavy land based air threat, therefore the armored deck was seen as essential....another factor in hanger design, but not mentioned, is the height of the overhead, in the RN it was limited thus impacting space available....

^^^THIS Also, which I came here to say, and Doc beat me to it.

[dr.hal]

[/quote]

^^^THIS Also, which I came here to say, and Doc beat me to it.
[/quote]

Sorry about that!

[BBfanboy]

No one has mentioned the British FAA aircraft. The RAF got control of all aircraft design and production work, so naturally they concentrated on land-based fighters and heavy bombers. Design of aircraft suitable for a CV was relegated to miniscule efforts pre-war and minor efforts during the war. Consequently, features like folding large sections of wings (as opposed to a foot or two at the wingtip) was not made available until the British started using US aircraft. Lack of folding wings alone would account for a lot of space. It is also possible that lack of a really powerful engine meant they could not design stubby aircraft that made up for short wings by cruising a higher speeds. E.G., the Barracuda seems to have a large wing area and low speed compared to US and Japanese aircraft.

[warspite1]

No one has mentioned the British FAA aircraft. The RAF got control of all aircraft design and production work, so naturally they concentrated on land-based fighters and heavy bombers. Design of aircraft suitable for a CV was relegated to miniscule efforts pre-war and minor efforts during the war. Consequently, features like folding large sections of wings (as opposed to a foot or two at the wingtip) was not made available until the British started using US aircraft. Lack of folding wings alone would account for a lot of space. It is also possible that lack of a really powerful engine meant they could not design stubby aircraft that made up for short wings by cruising a higher speeds. E.G., the Barracuda seems to have a large wing area and low speed compared to US and Japanese aircraft.

warspite1

True - although the RN were not blameless as they went the wrong way on the need for a separate navigator function - and that of course meant aircraft design was compromised... a problem when dealing with land-based fighters.

[btd64]

No one has mentioned the British FAA aircraft. The RAF got control of all aircraft design and production work, so naturally they concentrated on land-based fighters and heavy bombers. Design of aircraft suitable for a CV was relegated to miniscule efforts pre-war and minor efforts during the war. Consequently, features like folding large sections of wings (as opposed to a foot or two at the wingtip) was not made available until the British started using US aircraft. Lack of folding wings alone would account for a lot of space. It is also possible that lack of a really powerful engine meant they could not design stubby aircraft that made up for short wings by cruising a higher speeds. E.G., the Barracuda seems to have a large wing area and low speed compared to US and Japanese aircraft.

warspite1

True - although the RN were not blameless as they went the wrong way on the need for a separate navigator function - and that of course meant aircraft design was compromised... a problem when dealing with land-based fighters.

Hey warspite1, good to see you. I always thought the British CV aircraft didn't have folding wings and that was the reason for the lower aircraft numbers....GP

[anarchyintheuk]

Deck parks tend to be hard on aircraft as well.

[warspite1]

No one has mentioned the British FAA aircraft. The RAF got control of all aircraft design and production work, so naturally they concentrated on land-based fighters and heavy bombers. Design of aircraft suitable for a CV was relegated to miniscule efforts pre-war and minor efforts during the war. Consequently, features like folding large sections of wings (as opposed to a foot or two at the wingtip) was not made available until the British started using US aircraft. Lack of folding wings alone would account for a lot of space. It is also possible that lack of a really powerful engine meant they could not design stubby aircraft that made up for short wings by cruising a higher speeds. E.G., the Barracuda seems to have a large wing area and low speed compared to US and Japanese aircraft.

warspite1

True - although the RN were not blameless as they went the wrong way on the need for a separate navigator function - and that of course meant aircraft design was compromised... a problem when dealing with land-based fighters.

Hey warspite1, good to see you. I always thought the British CV aircraft didn't have folding wings and that was the reason for the lower aircraft numbers....GP

warspite1

Hi btd64. I think the reasons for the lower number of aircraft can’t be down to any one reason - there were a number of factors. For example Ark Royal was envisaged as a ship that could carry over 70 aircraft (although the powers that be thought that too many to operate effectively)! But she still operated greater numbers than the initial Illustrious class of armoured carriers.

[Sardaukar]

Shattered Sword gives quite interesting insight about US, UK and IJN carrier design.

US went to unarmoured and non-enclosed hangars.

UK went to armoured and enclosed hangars.

IJN got it worst, unarmoured and enclosed hangars. If there was fire on hangar deck, US carriers could open sliding side doors to sea and dump dangerous ordnance into sea. Similarly (like seen in some pictures) other ships could help and assist firefighting via those openings by their own hoses.

IJN didn't have that possibility by design, which had lethal consequences in firefighting during Midway. E.g. there were several torpedoes (and bombs) temporarily stored on hangar deck and no way to get rid of them.

[btd64]

Shattered Sword gives quite interesting insight about US, UK and IJN carrier design.

US went to unarmoured and non-enclosed hangars.

UK went to armoured and enclosed hangars.

IJN got it worst, unarmoured and enclosed hangars. If there was fire on hangar deck, US carriers could open sliding side doors to sea and dump dangerous ordnance into sea. Similarly (like seen in some pictures) other ships could help and assist firefighting via those openings by their own hoses.

IJN didn't have that possibility by design, which had lethal consequences in firefighting during Midway. E.g. there were several torpedoes (and bombs) temporarily stored on hangar deck and no way to get rid of them.

I need to get that book. It's quoted here all the time....GP

[warspite1]

I need to get that book. It's quoted here all the time....GP

warspite1

You do!! Shattered Sword is easily one of my favourite books - and imho essential reading for anyone interested in the Pacific War.

[btd64]

I need to get that book. It's quoted here all the time....GP

warspite1

You do!! Shattered Sword is easily one of my favourite books - and imho essential reading for anyone interested in the Pacific War.

I think I'm getting a gift card for Fathers Day so I'll use that to buy the book....GP

[Sardaukar]

IMHO, Shattered Sword is definitive book about Battle of Midway and reasons & events that did lead to that battle.

It gives very good insight about events and clears lot of misconceptions about the battle.

[sstevens06]

IMHO, Shattered Sword is definitive book about Battle of Midway and reasons & events that did lead to that battle.

It gives very good insight about events and clears lot of misconceptions about the battle.

+100

[RangerJoe]

Shattered Sword gives quite interesting insight about US, UK and IJN carrier design.

US went to unarmoured and non-enclosed hangars.

UK went to armoured and enclosed hangars.

IJN got it worst, unarmoured and enclosed hangars. If there was fire on hangar deck, US carriers could open sliding side doors to sea and dump dangerous ordnance into sea. Similarly (like seen in some pictures) other ships could help and assist firefighting via those openings by their own hoses.

IJN didn't have that possibility by design, which had lethal consequences in firefighting during Midway. E.g. there were several torpedoes (and bombs) temporarily stored on hangar deck and no way to get rid of them.

I need to get that book. It's quoted here all the time....GP

I am not sure how to get it from here:

https://archive.org/details/shatteredsw ... s/mode/2up

[Sardaukar]

It's quite affordable on Amazon, about $21:

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=shattered+sw ... OK4SEAI9QD

[btd64]

It's quite affordable on Amazon, about $21:

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=shattered+sw ... OK4SEAI9QD

Thanks for the link....GP

[Moltrey]

Another book on Midway I highly recommend is Craig Symonds The Battle of Midway
https://www.amazon.com/Battle-Pivotal-M ... g&qid=&sr=

It was the very first book I have read that tells the true story of what happened to the USS Hornet's Air Group on the morning of June 4, 1942. The chapter is titled "The Flight to Nowhere".
I am certain that the real story was buried by the USN until the men involved were long dead and for good reason as it doesn't reflect favorably on the admittedly green Hornet squadrons under the command of CDR Stanhope Ring.
Having read this account suddenly everything clicked into place with the battle and all those previous books where no reasons were given for only Waldron's torpedo bombers to find the IJN fleet.
A great read.