|
Post by dorn on Jun 15, 2018 3:15:50 GMT -6
I did some comparison which I find quite interesting so you can do your conclusion. The dimensions are not fully verified however I think there are good enough for gross comparison. I decrease the size of hangars by lifts as those could not be used as storage area. This is not done on all British carries except of Ark Royal as lifts are outside area of hangar. If you have any information to consider different numbers you are welcome. I used information from internet and general plans of US carriers free available. I am not taking the issue of hangar height as we know that British ships (last three large carriers) have that issue unable to fit Corsairs.
Hangar size (feets) of different US and UK carriers: I use percentage comparison and use Essexes as 100 % to compare to them.
US carriers: Essex: (100%) Lifts: 3 lifts 60x34, one on portside, one outside hangar space 654*70 = 45780 TOTAL: 43740
Yorktown (Hornet): (64%) 546*63 = 34398 Lifts: 3 lifts 48*44 (all part of dimensions of hangar) TOTAL: 28062
Lexington: (78%) 424*(68-74) = 33528 (constrained by funnel and lifts) + additional repair shops 108 ft of about half width of hangar long bringing additional space of around 3672 Lifts: 30x60, 30*36 - (both lifts part of dimensions of hangar) TOTAL: 34320
UK carriers: Illustrious: (65%) 456*62 = 28272
Indomitable: (83 %) 1st: 416*62 = 25792 2nd: 168*62 = 10416 TOTAL = 36208
Implacable: (94%) 1st: 456*62 = 28272 2nd: 208*62 = 12896 TOTAL = 41168
Ark Royal: (126%) 1st: 568*60 = 34080 2nd: 452*60 = 27120 3 lifts: 2 lifts 45x22, 1 lift 45x25, decreasing hangar area by 6210 TOTAL: 54990
note: in Hobs British Aircraft Carriers is total deck area of two hangars 58,280 with dimensions mentioned above
It is quite interesting to see that US ships are quite comparable to UK ships in size of hangars. Most interesting is Ark Royal as she surpassed all other US and UK carriers by her double hangar arrangement. If she is not sunk early in the war she would be perfect asset for Pacific war.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 15, 2018 8:25:39 GMT -6
I did some comparison which I find quite interesting so you can do your conclusion. The dimensions are not fully verified however I think there are good enough for gross comparison. I decrease the size of hangars by lifts as those could not be used as storage area. This is not done on all British carries except of Ark Royal as lifts are outside area of hangar. If you have any information to consider different numbers you are welcome. I used information from internet and general plans of US carriers free available. I am not taking the issue of hangar height as we know that British ships (last three large carriers) have that issue unable to fit Corsairs. Hangar size (feets) of different US and UK carriers: I use percentage comparison and use Essexes as 100 % to compare to them. US carriers: Essex: (100%)Lifts: 3 lifts 60x34, one on portside, one outside hangar space 654*70 = 45780 TOTAL: 43740Yorktown (Hornet): (64%)546*63 = 34398 Lifts: 3 lifts 48*44 (all part of dimensions of hangar) TOTAL: 28062Lexington: (78%)424*(68-74) = 33528 (constrained by funnel and lifts) + additional repair shops 108 ft of about half width of hangar long bringing additional space of around 3672 Lifts: 30x60, 30*36 - (both lifts part of dimensions of hangar) TOTAL: 34320UK carriers:Illustrious: (65%) 456*62 = 28272Indomitable: (83 %)1st: 416*62 = 25792 2nd: 168*62 = 10416 TOTAL = 36208Implacable: (94%)1st: 456*62 = 28272 2nd: 208*62 = 12896 TOTAL = 41168 Ark Royal: (126%)1st: 568*60 = 34080 2nd: 452*60 = 27120 3 lifts: 2 lifts 45x22, 1 lift 45x25, decreasing hangar area by 6210 TOTAL: 54990It is quite interesting to see that US ships are quite comparable to UK ships in size of hangars. Most interesting is Ark Royal as she surpassed all other US and UK carriers by her double hangar arrangement. If she is not sunk early in the war she would be perfect asset for Pacific war. Nice information, takes a little research and work to generate this but nice job. Just remember that we used a deck park, so hangars were used for maintenance and repair only. The British eventually went to the deck park and were able to put about 50-60 aircraft on a carrier.
If you want to calculate the air group size estimate, multiply the length by the beam and if using metric, divide by 70. If you are using English, divide by 750. However, for British carriers, you have to adjust the result by 2/3. Based on this, the Illustrious theoretically could have carried about 62 aircraft. If you are using Springsharp to design the hull then you can use another method based on the miscellaneous weight and take the square root. Your answer would be the lesser of the two calculations. Always use the waterline length and beam, to be consistent.
Based upon my basic design of Yorktown in Springsharp, with a miscellaneous weight of 10,000 tons, the air wing size would be 100 aircraft. If we use her waterline length, the figure is 101.92. We use the lower figure. In the real world, she could carry about 94 and 4 utility aircraft.
Now, as to the two or three deck hangars, those caused the Japanese and the British many problems because it took a while to get the birds from the second hangar to the flight deck. Deck launch time is absolutely critical in carrier warfare and it is one of the factors for our success in the first four carrier battles. It was the side that discovered the enemy first and launched the quickest that would win. In three out of four, we did that. The fourth was the fault of the Task Force commander. He waited too long.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 15, 2018 23:58:54 GMT -6
I did some comparison which I find quite interesting so you can do your conclusion. The dimensions are not fully verified however I think there are good enough for gross comparison. I decrease the size of hangars by lifts as those could not be used as storage area. This is not done on all British carries except of Ark Royal as lifts are outside area of hangar. If you have any information to consider different numbers you are welcome. I used information from internet and general plans of US carriers free available. I am not taking the issue of hangar height as we know that British ships (last three large carriers) have that issue unable to fit Corsairs. Hangar size (feets) of different US and UK carriers: I use percentage comparison and use Essexes as 100 % to compare to them. US carriers: Essex: (100%)Lifts: 3 lifts 60x34, one on portside, one outside hangar space 654*70 = 45780 TOTAL: 43740Yorktown (Hornet): (64%)546*63 = 34398 Lifts: 3 lifts 48*44 (all part of dimensions of hangar) TOTAL: 28062Lexington: (78%)424*(68-74) = 33528 (constrained by funnel and lifts) + additional repair shops 108 ft of about half width of hangar long bringing additional space of around 3672 Lifts: 30x60, 30*36 - (both lifts part of dimensions of hangar) TOTAL: 34320UK carriers:Illustrious: (65%) 456*62 = 28272Indomitable: (83 %)1st: 416*62 = 25792 2nd: 168*62 = 10416 TOTAL = 36208Implacable: (94%)1st: 456*62 = 28272 2nd: 208*62 = 12896 TOTAL = 41168 Ark Royal: (126%)1st: 568*60 = 34080 2nd: 452*60 = 27120 3 lifts: 2 lifts 45x22, 1 lift 45x25, decreasing hangar area by 6210 TOTAL: 54990It is quite interesting to see that US ships are quite comparable to UK ships in size of hangars. Most interesting is Ark Royal as she surpassed all other US and UK carriers by her double hangar arrangement. If she is not sunk early in the war she would be perfect asset for Pacific war. Nice information, takes a little research and work to generate this but nice job. Just remember that we used a deck park, so hangars were used for maintenance and repair only. The British eventually went to the deck park and were able to put about 50-60 aircraft on a carrier.
If you want to calculate the air group size estimate, multiply the length by the beam and if using metric, divide by 70. If you are using English, divide by 750. However, for British carriers, you have to adjust the result by 2/3. Based on this, the Illustrious theoretically could have carried about 62 aircraft. If you are using Springsharp to design the hull then you can use another method based on the miscellaneous weight and take the square root. Your answer would be the lesser of the two calculations. Always use the waterline length and beam, to be consistent.
Based upon my basic design of Yorktown in Springsharp, with a miscellaneous weight of 10,000 tons, the air wing size would be 100 aircraft. If we use her waterline length, the figure is 101.92. We use the lower figure. In the real world, she could carry about 94 and 4 utility aircraft.
Now, as to the two or three deck hangars, those caused the Japanese and the British many problems because it took a while to get the birds from the second hangar to the flight deck. Deck launch time is absolutely critical in carrier warfare and it is one of the factors for our success in the first four carrier battles. It was the side that discovered the enemy first and launched the quickest that would win. In three out of four, we did that. The fourth was the fault of the Task Force commander. He waited too long.
Thanks. I read your discussion here and as I read about British carriers a lot and everywhere find that they were restricted by number of aircraft I wanto to do some research where the difference comes from.
I take number of planes on carriers as: TOTAL - all aircraft available (not so important) Hangar - aircraft storage space - this was important on several theatres (North Sea and Atlantic where using deck parks was almost ouf of question and Meditterranean where using large deckparks was risky because of overhelming Axis forces. In reality reason was somewhere else as RN had not enough planes and pilots and sometimes carriers went on mission without fully complement for their hangars. Sometimes if there was enough aircrafts small deckparks were used). Spares - dismantlet - needs to several hours - not available for strikes or CAP
I found in lot of discussion that people compares oranges with apples using USN numbers which includes all of it (hangar, deckpark, spares) on US carriers and compare with British carriers using UK numbers which includes only hangar. And than it seems that USN carriers has more than 2 times aircraft compared to RN carriers. Which is not true at all. USN carries if they were operated in Meditterranean in early war would use full complement of aircrafts however their defence will be restricted and if any aircraft would go through the cap (which excercises before war and war too show it always happen) any hit could be devasteting.
In reality I think I can look at hangar space and compare and I was quite suprised as the differences were minimal. I am a little shocked for Ark Royal as I wonder how many aircraft she can have operating in Pacific with deckpark. I know she is worse designed than Essex as she has some design flaws for damage control, strange lifts that do not allow take aircrafts from lower hangar directly on flight deck etc., just wonder how can be effective operating in area for what she was designed.
Second thought is how different is flight deck and deck parks on flight deck as Implacable has 15 % less aircraft operating around Japan than Essex however her hangar is only 5 % smaller. This means that this 10 % comes from smaller flight deck and spares on Essex.
I just compare design as carrier warfare is not only design but doctrines and aircraft itself.
I find several points about differences in carrier warfare between RN and USN:
1. USN has 2 years to prepare to war which has effect on: - type of aircrafts (eg. get rid of absolute buffalos, later introducing supreme type of aircrafts) 1. USN has 2 years to prepare to war which has effect on: - type of aircrafts (eg. get rid of absolute buffalos, later introducing supreme type of aircrafts) - get experience from RN and implement it (eg. you mentioned % of fighters on board) 2. RN focused on defence, USN on offence (sunday punch) - I think both navies were right for their wars as RN had not available industrial potential as USN had - RN foces on defence which consisted that her carriers were much better designed to withstand hits (not only armored box, but much safer fuel storage even if it took more space, sectionized hangars etc.) which even superb american DC parties could not compansate. Together with fighter direction which was still more effective at the end of war than on USN carriers their carriers was quite more difficuilt to not only sunk but disabled - USN focuse on offence and together with their industrial capacity create carrier force which was stronger to all other navies together 3. RN - FAA was under RAF - this has several effect on available aircrafts which is the main reason dependency on USA production - effectiveness of carrier operations was lower as FAA has not enough aicraft to fill all hangars all time 4. doctrines - RN doctrine for carriers support main force was absolute however as RN was overstreched everywhere and unable to concentrete large carrier force this was probably only possible strategy for them. This involves some very effective operations as Taranto
- USN doctrine was superior with so many carriers there can rule everywhere
5. night attacks - RN was ahead and was available to do night attacks which was never used against Japanase. USN was able to cope later in the war
My conclusion is that both navies did best with their available resources with RN was somewhat backward with their doctrines and procedures of mass strikes however USN was backward on defensive tactics and design. With industrial might of USA and available resources USN was able much quicker to adapt and close the gap which was not case for the RN which adapt slowly and even in later war struggle to close USN efficency in mass strikes and force projection. However the feat to opearate in all theatres in the first half of war is remarkable and it was not possible without developing design of armored carriers and defensive tactics which no other navies had at that time. Both navies were prepared for their war and thinking of RN carriers operating instead of USN carriers and opposite is not giving sence as there was not designed for that so it is natural that there are opinions that RN carriers could not withstand several battles USN fought however I think that USN could not withstand RN campaign in the first half of the war either as their carriers was not build to survive and RN carriers operated in theatres where land airforce was too much overhelming for any Navy in the world.
Feel free to comment what you think about this conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 16, 2018 9:27:06 GMT -6
I have mentioned many times on this forum that geography, economics and societal issues control how a nation prepares and conducts combat operations. They have to prioritize on the geographical areas that are the most important. For Britain it was the Mediterranean, North Sea and the North Atlantic. I would say that your assessment is essentially correct and I don’t have any comments unless you wish to drill down into the factors such as geography, economics and societal. The British had a specific set of geostrategic areas to defend, and the US had the entire Pacific which is why War Plan Orange was developed. But on the whole, the problem with assessing the carrier development and use by both navies centers around the aircraft developed for them and truth be told, the British Royal Navy was way behind the US Navy. So much so, that we had to supply them with the F4F Martlet. However, they did catch up with the Seafire but still in the early years their aircraft were not fully capable. Yes, they did do a great job at Taranto, but that was a surprise attack. During the Malta operations, their performance was adequate. This is my personal belief; that carriers have to be judged by the aircraft they carry, because the carrier is just a floating landing strip, nothing more.
The US Essex class carrier was essentially an upgraded Yorktown class. The next class, the Midway class had armored decks. Interestingly, the weight of armor on British carriers was the same as on US carriers just in different locations.
I need some time to review some books and documents on Naval Operations in enclosed seas and narrow seas, British Naval Mastery and some books I have from my friend Vince O'Hara on the Mediterranean. I currently reading a very detailed account of the rise of the Persian Empire, so my old brain is getting overloaded. Please continue to submit your excellent ideas and thoughts because we seem to be on the same track. I do not study military science in a vacuum. Economics, Societies, geography and politics must be taken into account. I am also not a fan of reduction-ism, the causes of events in the historic world are many, not one.
Great discussion, BTW.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 21, 2018 1:50:45 GMT -6
Thanks, for me its great discussion too. However it takes time to write something valuable. Right now I am just giving myself this question which I have no full answer yet. How can we compare level of technology linked to naval warfare and generally military technology in all areas at start of war (9/1939) between main powers (UK, USA, Japan, Germany, Italy, Soviets, France)?I have not fully studied but it seems to me that by technology UK was still on top however as war started and stressed their resources there were unable to use this advantage and hence technology was freely transferred to USA to take advantage of it and at the end of war USA was advanced in several areas, in some areas Germany was on top and UK mostly felt down. However this point it not easy to objectively studied it is quite complex.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 21, 2018 8:45:16 GMT -6
Thanks, for me its great discussion too. However it takes time to write something valuable. Right now I am just giving myself this question which I have no full answer yet. How can we compare level of technology linked to naval warfare and generally military technology in all areas at start of war (9/1939) between main powers (UK, USA, Japan, Germany, Italy, Soviets, France)?I have not fully studied but it seems to me that by technology UK was still on top however as war started and stressed their resources there were unable to use this advantage and hence technology was freely transferred to USA to take advantage of it and at the end of war USA was advanced in several areas, in some areas Germany was on top and UK mostly felt down. However this point it not easy to objectively studied it is quite complex. It is a difficult job to compare levels of technology without adding the success of the weapons system in combat. That is the key to studying and comparing technology. Which level contributed to the success of missions, and how much did it contribute. I don't really know of any other way. The problem with that approach is that there are so many human factors and natural factors such as geography, weather, economics that have to be figured into the equation. You cannot study levels of technology in a vacuum. Do losses figure into the equation? Were the British carrier losses at the start of the War in Europe due to operational failures or technological failures? Were the losses by the IJN due to doctrinal failures and poor signal intelligence or technological failures? How about our carrier losses? We lost only one carrier to submarines, one to poor damage control but two others to air attack? Was this a technological failure or a procedural and doctrinal failure? This is where you start and remember that all three nations that developed fleet carriers failed to perceive their uses and value, the Japanese were the best in that area, the British the worst and we were somewhere in the middle but we adjusted much faster due to many reasons. The Yorktown's were treaty built carriers as were many of the British and Japanese carriers, the Essex class were not. There it is.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jul 3, 2018 2:50:56 GMT -6
I will include one picture of Essex class carrier. As you can see on picture bellow there are around 50 aircrafts on deck. If you compare it to Implacable which was built for 48 aircrafts in hangar and around 80-84 total (Indomitable 45 in hangar) you find out that the difference to 100 aircraft in Essex is minimal. Main difference with total aircraft is coming from deck park which Essex has large than British carriers as has much large deck space. You can even compare Illustrious with 33 aircrafts in hangar, total around 50-54 with deck park and Yorktown in 1942 around 80-90 total but included usually around 15 spares. Later as aircraft was larger Enterprise has just a little more than 60 operational aircrafts.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 3, 2018 8:40:19 GMT -6
I will include one picture of Essex class carrier. As you can see on picture bellow there are around 50 aircrafts on deck. If you compare it to Implacable which was built for 48 aircrafts in hangar and around 80-84 total (Indomitable 45 in hangar) you find out that the difference to 100 aircraft in Essex is minimal. Main difference with total aircraft is coming from deck park which Essex has large than British carriers as has much large deck space. You can even compare Illustrious with 33 aircrafts in hangar, total around 50-54 with deck park and Yorktown in 1942 around 80-90 total but included usually around 15 spares. Later as aircraft was larger Enterprise has just a little more than 60 operational aircrafts. The Essex class, both the short and long hulled, were about sixty feet longer than the Implacable’ s, but two feet narrower. With the development of the deck park on the later Illustrious class carriers, air wing size was increased. The picture you have, is the short-hulled version. The extension of the hull was in the clipper bow with two added AA guns added. According to British specs, the Implacable’ s carried about sixty aircraft but with a deck park, and the extensions are edge of the flight deck for the tail wheels she could deploy about one hundred aircraft.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Aug 21, 2018 2:14:54 GMT -6
This I find quite interesting. It is part of the report of commanding officer of HMS Victorious after actions with USS Saratoga in 1943.
Generally speaking I consider U.S. Aircraft Carriers are much better equipped and more highly trained in operating aircraft than our present ships. Their dive bombing technique and accuracy is most impressive and has proved most effective against Japanese Carriers. From experience of their dummy attacks I consider they would be most difficult to counter with A.A. fire. Their new pilots have considerably more training than ours before going to a first line Squadron. The Wildcat fighter1 is superior to the Martlet in speed, high ceiling, and reliability of engine, and the Wildcats are shortly being replaced by Hellcats which are infinitely superior. On the other hand I think our torpedo attack training and our torpedo is superior and that their Fighter Direction methods are not as up to date as ours, because of our 4 channel R/ T set, better organisation of internal and intership R.D.F. reporting and control and the main filter plot and interception plot exercises.
What I do not understand (may be I am not aware) the comments of Wildcat being superior to Martlet.
Another part of report.
‘Victorious’ has now completed just over 2 years at sea, having left Rosyth to join the Home Fleet on 15th. May, 1941, and the following figures for this period may be of interest:–
Total distance steamed between 15th. May, 1941 and 15th. May 1943 – 117,718 miles. an average of 4,905 miles a month. The ship has operated in the North Sea, Arctic, Atlantic, Mediterranean, Pacific and Coral Sea.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 21, 2018 10:41:49 GMT -6
This I find quite interesting. It is part of the report of commanding officer of HMS Victorious after actions with USS Saratoga in 1943. Generally speaking I consider U.S. Aircraft Carriers are much better equipped and more highly trained in operating aircraft than our present ships. Their dive bombing technique and accuracy is most impressive and has proved most effective against Japanese Carriers. From experience of their dummy attacks I consider they would be most difficult to counter with A.A. fire. Their new pilots have considerably more training than ours before going to a first line Squadron. The Wildcat fighter1 is superior to the Martlet in speed, high ceiling, and reliability of engine, and the Wildcats are shortly being replaced by Hellcats which are infinitely superior. On the other hand I think our torpedo attack training and our torpedo is superior and that their Fighter Direction methods are not as up to date as ours, because of our 4 channel R/ T set, better organisation of internal and intership R.D.F. reporting and control and the main filter plot and interception plot exercises.
What I do not understand (may be I am not aware) the comments of Wildcat being superior to Martlet.
Another part of report. ‘Victorious’ has now completed just over 2 years at sea, having left Rosyth to join the Home Fleet on 15th. May, 1941, and the following figures for this period may be of interest:–
Total distance steamed between 15th. May, 1941 and 15th. May 1943 – 117,718 miles. an average of 4,905 miles a month. The ship has operated in the North Sea, Arctic, Atlantic, Mediterranean, Pacific and Coral Sea.
I think you must understand where the Grumman Martlet I and II came from. The Martlet I came from the early export model of the F4F-3. They were ordered by the French and after the fall of France, diverted to the UK. The first version was delivered on July 27, 1940. This was before the F4F-3 was delivered to the US Navy. Both are the same aircraft. Most pilots did claim that the performance of the Martlet I was not was advertised. The early Wright engines tended to overheat because they were designed for commercial aviation. Here is a good article to help you understand with two links to Martlet I and II performance data sheets. These latter sheets are official performance data sheets. The last link is to the Final Report on the production inspection trials at Anacostia in January of 1941. These documents, the last three can be used to compare performance. I hope this helps. www.armouredcarriers.com/grumman-f4f-martlet-variants/www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/martlet-I-ads.jpgwww.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/martlet-II-ads.jpgwww.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f.htmlAs to the piece about HMS Victorious, she was damaged on her voyage with POW and Repulse so she was diverted to the US for repairs. After that I would have to research her combat record.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 24, 2018 18:56:06 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oaktree on Aug 30, 2018 1:40:43 GMT -6
One thing to also keep in mind when comparing WW2-era carrier designs is the height of the hangers. This was a limitation in terms of what aircraft they could fit below decks, and became more of a handicap as the aircraft got larger during the war. I think that was one of Ark Royal's weaknesses - multiple hanger decks, but they were limited in height.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Aug 30, 2018 2:55:59 GMT -6
One thing to also keep in mind when comparing WW2-era carrier designs is the height of the hangers. This was a limitation in terms of what aircraft they could fit below decks, and became more of a handicap as the aircraft got larger during the war. I think that was one of Ark Royal's weaknesses - multiple hanger decks, but they were limited in height. If somebody can confirm from Hobbs, but it should be 4.9m thus 16 ft. So it seems there were not limited by height. Problem of HMS Ark Royal was different (RN lack of seniors designers and this was the effects): Offensively: - arrangement of the lifts - procedures of RN which could not used her main advantage of large number of aircraft Defensively: - no reserve electric power - fumes circulation out of ship I think than in hands of USN she would be quite an asset for Pacific war. Just compare of hangar space to Yorktown class, almost double.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 30, 2018 9:07:08 GMT -6
One thing to also keep in mind when comparing WW2-era carrier designs is the height of the hangers. This was a limitation in terms of what aircraft they could fit below decks, and became more of a handicap as the aircraft got larger during the war. I think that was one of Ark Royal's weaknesses - multiple hanger decks, but they were limited in height. If somebody can confirm from Hobbs, but it should be 4.9m thus 16 ft. So it seems there were not limited by height. Problem of HMS Ark Royal was different (RN lack of seniors designers and this was the effects): Offensively: - arrangement of the lifts - procedures of RN which could not used her main advantage of large number of aircraft Defensively: - no reserve electric power - fumes circulation out of ship I think than in hands of USN she would be quite an asset for Pacific war. Just compare of hangar space to Yorktown class, almost double. IMAG0002.PDF (933.59 KB) The PDF on this post is a scan of the cross-sections of the HMS Ark Royal. The hangars were 568 feet long, 60 feet wide and 16 feet in ceiling height. The scale of the drawing is 1.8 inch equals 1 foot.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 9, 2018 8:12:54 GMT -6
|
|