|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Apr 4, 2019 18:00:44 GMT -6
I was idly reading up on the Essex class, and was quite surprised to read this (courtesy of Wikipedia);
"Not only were the supporting structures to the flight deck required to carry the increased weight of landing and parked aircraft, but they were to have sufficient strength to support the storing of spare fuselages and parts (50% of each operational plane type aboard, hence 33% of carried aircraft) under the flight deck and still provide adequate working space for the men using the area below."
So that means, if the engine made it back on deck in one piece, they could virtually rebuild most of the ship's written-off planes. I hadn't ever had cause to consider this before. I know Akagi and Kaga (at least) carried spare partially-assembled aircraft (I think 6 is what I recall?), but call me naive I'd had no idea the crew of an Essex would have the ability (and know-how) to do so much on board. Interesting!
|
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Apr 4, 2019 18:32:17 GMT -6
According to Norman Friedman, most US and Japanese carriers were built to carry around a 25% reserve of aircraft broken down into major parts. The Americans stored most of theirs in the spaces between the support beams that held up the flight deck. Once the war started the Japanese were too hard pressed to maintain the practice. After about 1943 the Americans had so many planes in the pipeline and being delivered to the front via escort carriers that it was not much of an issue.
I'm not sure about British carriers, but they were pretty pressed for space so I doubt they carried anything like 25% spares. The plan for the British was to build maintenance carriers (the Unicorn class, only one built) to handle major aircraft repairs. The carrier served in this role but was also used operationally as a light carrier to support landings.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 4, 2019 20:14:28 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Apr 4, 2019 22:29:05 GMT -6
British practice was different. They designed HMS Unicorn, maintanence and repair ship.
They have not just enough time to rearm before the war started, so they used her in BPF.
They hard pressed first several years that they often operated bellow aircraft capacity.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 4, 2019 22:56:35 GMT -6
Spare aircraft for Japanese carriers would vary. A squadron of eighteen bombers would have three spares. This would be the same for the dive bombers. The same for the fighters.
For US carriers, if the location of US aircraft document states that there were 21 SBD’s on board the Saratoga, that would mean 18 operational and 3 spares. Enterprise on the same report states that she was carrying 19 SBD, and again 1 spare. She also had 19 F4F-3’s, with one spare. It did vary, from report to report. I have those reports from 1935 to 1945.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 5, 2019 9:18:09 GMT -6
Just to illustrate the topic.
I put a link to that picture in an earlier post to save server space, just my way of doing it. |
|
|
|
Post by akosjaccik on Apr 5, 2019 9:21:01 GMT -6
I put a link to that picture in an earlier post(...) My bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Apr 5, 2019 12:37:22 GMT -6
Just to illustrate the topic.
I put a link to that picture in an earlier post to save server space, just my way of doing it. oldpop, using a picture's URL to display it in the forum does "cost" the same server space as just putting in an URL link... The picture is hosted on its original server and not "copied" into this forum's server(s). |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 5, 2019 13:23:42 GMT -6
I put a link to that picture in an earlier post to save server space, just my way of doing it. oldpop, using a picture's URL to display it in the forum does "cost" the same server space as just putting in an URL link... The picture is hosted on its original server and not "copied" into this forum's server(s). Well, when I was a certified system administrator for the US government that was not the case, pictures that were download and stored took space. A link should only ( provided the software is written correctly) provide an access point and the image is download to the desktop or notebook. |
|
|
|
Post by charliezulu on Apr 5, 2019 13:47:40 GMT -6
oldpop, using a picture's URL to display it in the forum does "cost" the same server space as just putting in an URL link... The picture is hosted on its original server and not "copied" into this forum's server(s). Well, when I was a certified system administrator for the US government that was not the case, pictures that were download and stored took space. A link should only ( provided the software is written correctly) provide an access point and the image is download to the desktop or notebook. In the case of an embedded image from an external source it isn't "downloaded" to the proboards servers either, it's hosted elsewhere. Edit: as a matter of courtesy though, people don't embed unspoilered large images though because they take time to load and eat screen space. |
|
_(edited)_Screenshot_(739).png?width=180&height=180&fit=bounds)
