Deck Parking on Aircraft Carriers

[Wraith11B]

Not to throw a wrench in everything, but I feel like there are plenty of period films showing Japanese carriers with aircraft lashed down on deck, even in heavy seas... so they had it as an option or was it just a limitation of some of the designs' hangar space?

At about 0:58, we see planes on deck, but I can't get an idea of which carrier that is.
link: http://www.criticalpast.com/video/6...ps_planes-takes-off-from-deck_sailors-on-ship

 

[Daelyn75]

Not to throw a wrench in everything, but I feel like there are plenty of period films showing Japanese carriers with aircraft lashed down on deck, even in heavy seas... so they had it as an option or was it just a limitation of some of the designs' hangar space?

At about 0:58, we see planes on deck, but I can't get an idea of which carrier that is.
link: http://www.criticalpast.com/video/6...ps_planes-takes-off-from-deck_sailors-on-ship

It looks like there are some aircraft on there, hard to tell how many though.

I found new information on deck parking from some website. The quote here is interesting:

"Disadvantages? The birds on the roof are getting regular salt showers, which isn't good for their health. They need to be shuffled from one end of the deck to the other when flight ops are happening. This requires more bods to do the shuffling. These bods need to be trained to do the job. They also need to be fed, watered, and have somewhere to sleep. If your ship was not designed to accommodate these bods - as the RN carriers were not - then there is a difficulty. Not surprising it took the RN a few years to get the drill sorted (along with a basic shortage of aircraft to make any deck parks necessary!)"

Here is an example of deck parking. Apparently they all need to be moved about when operations begin. That is a lot of work.

http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/23179/Deck-Park-Question#.VqwK2tBVP9I

 

[Axe99]

True. It's really difficult to gauge how it all worked without actually getting the dimensions of the decks, and how the carrier itself was designed. There were many different kinds. So even if the Japanese did deck park, they just might not have had the room of the initial US carriers that they entered the war with, minus the Ranger of course.

The Japanese tended to store spares that were disassembled in their lowest deck. I have no idea how that could be put into the game. Maybe in that case, just don't even touch on it.

Unless they come out with a very in depth carrier DLC in the future, getting all these things down to something that resembles historical accuracy would be very difficult.

For the sake of discussion, on the flight deck dimensions of the starting CVs for Japan (in feet) at the time of game start:

- Akagi - 624 x 100 (extended to 817.5 x 100 in 1935-38 reconstruction)
- Kaga - 815 x 100
- Ryujo (CVL) - 513 x 75.5

For the US:

- Lexington and Saratoga - 879.9 x 89.9 (actually less square feet than the Kaga, 79,102 compared with 81,500)
- Ranger - 709 x 86
- Langley - 533.8 x 64
- Yorktown and Enterprise (in build queue at game start) - 802.5 x 98

For the UK (just length for some, can look up widths later if people care enough, but lengths tell the story well enough in terms of deck size):

- Furious, Courageous and Glorious - 530 x 91.5
- Eagle - 651.9
- Argus - 547.9
- Hermes - 598.1
- Ark Royal (in build queue) - 720 x 95

Japanese figures from Conways, US from Navypedia, UK from Conways.

While the decks of the UK carriers are clearly smaller, the Kaga and post-modernised Akagi also have pretty impressive flight deck lengths. Given their displacement and aircraft capacity, I wouldn't be surprised if the Japanese did do some deck parking on some occasions, but that's totally supposition on my part, and could be way off.

As an aside, one of the thing that limited British aircraft operations even after they had deck parking was a relatively small amount of aviation fuel - something the US put a lot of into its CVs - so there's no question they were designed to operate larger air wings from the get go (while the early-war British CVs 'bolted on' deck parking once they had the planes to make it worthwhile).

Edit: Did some googling, and it looks like Japan didn't go for a deck park, but did like to get all their planes up on deck prior to launching a strike (to get everyone in the air as close together as possible, presumably). Source just from random googling though, so take with grain of salt.

https://books.google.com.au/books?i...panese aircraft carriers deck parking&f=false

 

[Wraith11B]

That's the whole big thing with "spotting" the aircraft on the flight deck. The US got very good about it, and almost never warmed up or armed aircraft in the hangar (which was something the Japanese did, and that is a major reason for their disaster at Midway). Its a major reason why the elevators started getting moved to the perimeter of the flight deck versus in the middle of it.

 

[Duke Von Hannover]

Best way to handle this is one of the company thingies, so your naval production company gives +% to hanger capacity (with no penalty) and thats just the standard American choice.

 

[Director]

US air complements fluctuated a lot as prewar assumptions changed (needing more fighters, for one thing) and as planes got bigger and heavier. At least some of the planes carried in deck park or lifted up into the ceiling were along as spares, not as fully ready-to-launch craft. And there is such a variety of other factors - whether the hangar is open on the sides to allow easy access and ventilation, for example. Japanese carriers were 'walled in' by workshops on the sides and everything had to come in and out by elevators.

Enterprise wound up too small for the newer AC and wound up carrying night-fighters for the last year-and-a-half or so. I think it might be best to just take an average figure and use that. You'll drive yourself mad trying to figure out if you have to drop the air complement by one or five if you re-equip with Corsairs or such. This is a big-scale game; stay out of the weeds is my advice.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Italy wasn't a major combatant in my book, I'm more thinking of the following.

Italy always was considered a Major combatant by Paradox games though, which is kind of what the basis here is. And that economic comparison also considered them a Major.

Their fleet, while strong amongst the Axis would have only surpassed the USSR's fleet amongst the allies.

The Japanese fleet also was way stronger then the French fleet.

Which happen to make it the 3:ed strongest fleet in the world by numbers

If you count which fleet had the most efficient Carrier force ( which is what mattered ) when the war broke out, then Japan had the strongest fleet in the world. USA struggled to coordinate even 2-3 Carriers well in the first battles in 1942, while Japan showed at Pearl Harbor that they had mastered coordinating 6 Carriers working together. Japans carrier based fighters and torpedo bombers also outclassed American ones when the war broke out both in training, doctrine and what their equipment could do. Their divebombers while lacking the robustness and ability to carry heavy bombs the US ones had, made up for it with deadly pinpoint accuracy.

Enterprise wound up too small for the newer AC and wound up carrying night-fighters for the last year-and-a-half or so. I think it might be best to just take an average figure and use that. You'll drive yourself mad trying to figure out if you have to drop the air complement by one or five if you re-equip with Corsairs or such. This is a big-scale game; stay out of the weeds is my advice.

Yes I fully agree. The capacity of planes on carriers changed alot depending on the details, models, doctrines and such, so as long as it's within +-10% of the average they used I think that's mostly fine.

 

[Daelyn75]

Italy always was considered a Major combatant by Paradox games though, which is kind of what the basis here is. And that economic comparison also considered them a Major.


The Japanese fleet also was way stronger then the French fleet.

Which happen to make it the 3:ed strongest fleet in the world by numbers

If you count which fleet had the most efficient Carrier force ( which is what mattered ) when the war broke out, then Japan had the strongest fleet in the world. USA struggled to coordinate even 2-3 Carriers well in the first battles in 1942, while Japan showed at Pearl Harbor that they had mastered coordinating 6 Carriers working together. Japans carrier based fighters and torpedo bombers also outclassed American ones when the war broke out both in training, doctrine and what their equipment could do. Their divebombers while lacking the robustness and ability to carry heavy bombs the US ones had, made up for it with deadly pinpoint accuracy.



Yes I fully agree. The capacity of planes on carriers changed alot depending on the details, models, doctrines and such, so as long as it's within +-10% of the average they used I think that's mostly fine.

Good info here. If we were to get how many planes down, then we'd need to have a size for each model. This could also work with airfields as well since a level one airfield should be pretty inefficient to host strategic bombers. I had forgotten that Corsairs were larger than the Hellcats. The Avenger was larger than the Devastator, I know for sure. Not sure about the Helldivers vrs the Dauntless. The British were using Corsairs as their carrier fighters in 1944, while it took till 1945 for the Americans to begin abandoning their Hellcats for Corsairs.

With the numbers and size of the 1942 planes however, I would still go with a 30% deck parking increase. The Lexington went from 78 to 109 with deck parking. "This amounted to 79 aircraft, plus 30 spares."

Which is actually greater than 30%

 

[Wraith11B]

Well, at first, the landing gear on the Corsairs was too hardened, leaving them bouncing down the flight deck instead of landing on it. Took us awhile to figure it out.

 

[Alex_brunius]

The Lexington went from 78 to 109 with deck parking.

Are you sure that's the actual aircraft the ship practically used to fight with? She only had two elevators for example, which I doubt is enough.

According to wikipedia you can read the following for example:
"For this operation, Lexington embarked 21 Buffalos, 32 Douglas SBD Dauntless dive bombers, and 15 Douglas TBD Devastator torpedo bombers, although not all aircraft were operational"
( less then 68 airplanes embarked on the first mission after outbreak of war ).

And according to Lundstrom for Coral Sea:
"U.S. carrier aircraft numbers by ship the morning of 7 May: Lexington- 35 SBDdive bombers, 12 TBDtorpedo bombers, 19 F4F-3fighters;"
( total 66 airplanes embarked )

 

[Daelyn75]

Are you sure that's the actual aircraft the ship practically used to fight with? She only had two elevators for example, which I doubt is enough.

According to wikipedia you can read the following for example:
"For this operation, Lexington embarked 21 Buffalos, 32 Douglas SBD Dauntless dive bombers, and 15 Douglas TBD Devastator torpedo bombers, although not all aircraft were operational"
( less then 68 airplanes embarked on the first mission after outbreak of war ).

And according to Lundstrom for Coral Sea:
"U.S. carrier aircraft numbers by ship the morning of 7 May: Lexington- 35 SBDdive bombers, 12 TBDtorpedo bombers, 19 F4F-3fighters;"
( total 66 airplanes embarked )

It's the quote from Wikipedia, from my OP. Also, not 100% of all aircraft are sent off per mission. Some might need repairs, or they just didn't bother scraping the bottom of the barrel for them.

 

[Alex_brunius]

It's the quote from Wikipedia, from my OP.

Yes, and it say it's the amount the ship was designed to use, not the amount it practically used.

Spares basically means these planes were disassembled, and could be scavenged for spare parts to repair other damaged planes, or could be assembled to replace lost planes when not in combat.


I think it would be most fair to compare how many planes that could be used in actual combat, rather then theoretical design numbers. Japanese Carriers were also designed to carry 100-130 planes, but never could do this in practice.

 

[Daelyn75]

Yes, and it say it's the amount the ship was designed to use, not the amount it practically used.

Spares basically means these planes were disassembled, and could be scavenged for spare parts to repair other damaged planes, or could be assembled to replace lost planes when not in combat.

No, those were deck parked maybe not every one of them, but deck parked means they are ready to go, but are sitting on the deck and are tied down. For operations they need to be moved around. It was the Japanese that had disassembled plains in the bottom deck of their carriers.

 

[Alex_brunius]

No, those were deck parked maybe not every one of them, but deck parked means they are ready to go, but are sitting on the deck and are tied down. For operations they need to be moved around. It was the Japanese that had disassembled plains in the bottom deck of their carriers.

So? All Japanese fleet Carriers also used deck parks ( both on their way to Midway and to Pearl harbor )...

And the deckpark still didn't help the Lexington carry even as much as the 78 "designed" airplanes into actual combat...

 

[Daelyn75]

So? All Japanese Carriers also used deck parks ( both on their way to Midway and to Pearl harbor )...

And the deckpark still didn't help the Lexington carry even as much as the 78 "designed" airplanes into actual combat...

Have you read the entire thread? The Japanese did not use deck parking until after Midway. Even then, it was a matter of how much space they had to fit the planes on. It also required more men to serve on the carrier since the planes needed to be shuffled all over the deck when operations began.

And how would you know that deck parking did not help the Lexington carry more than your quote? How do you not know that they kept the others remaining for fighter defense? Saving half of your fighters was a common practice, especially when the war was still heavily contested.

 

[Daelyn75]

So? All Japanese fleet Carriers also used deck parks ( both on their way to Midway and to Pearl harbor )...

And the deckpark still didn't help the Lexington carry even as much as the 78 "designed" airplanes into actual combat...

Deck parking is also not considered an active amount, it is considered spare aircraft that if really needed can all be used, or can just be used a few at a time to replace losses. If the Lexington has 109 in total planes, with 30 of them being deck parked, I would not normally consider that 109 planes that it can used at once. I would consider it 78 airplanes with about 30 spares.

 

[Wraith11B]

Wow, go tell the US Navy that all those aircraft on her decks are just spares and not active aircraft...

 

[Daelyn75]

Wow, go tell the US Navy that all those aircraft on her decks are just spares and not active aircraft...

Hey man, I cannot help it if they refer to the deck parked aircraft as spares. I never named them that! It's just what all the information shows they are considered as. Also, the B25s were not deck parked, or a normal US carrier compliment.

 

[Wraith11B]

I should, I think, revisit "Deck Parking" versus "Spotting" of aircraft. Deck parking means that I've got aircraft tied down on deck and I'm moving or otherwise not at flight ops. Spotting means I'm about to be or am at flight ops and am moving aircraft around on my deck. In the above images, those aircraft are all "deck parked."

In the image below, the aircraft are spotted because they're launching aircraft.

Yes, this means the air wing needed to provide bodies to move those planes; yes, that's a lot of manpower in the days before the flight deck tractors. That does not mean that is beyond the capability of the ship to provide. Japan regularly preferred to fuel, arm and otherwise run their aircraft in the hangars and it bit them in the butt at Midway.

@Daelyn75 you're confusing "spares" with airframes ready to fly. See this:

Is what we're all referring to.

 

[Amur_Tiger]

If you count which fleet had the most efficient Carrier force ( which is what mattered ) when the war broke out, then Japan had the strongest fleet in the world. USA struggled to coordinate even 2-3 Carriers well in the first battles in 1942, while Japan showed at Pearl Harbor that they had mastered coordinating 6 Carriers working together. Japans carrier based fighters and torpedo bombers also outclassed American ones when the war broke out both in training, doctrine and what their equipment could do. Their divebombers while lacking the robustness and ability to carry heavy bombs the US ones had, made up for it with deadly pinpoint accuracy.

The UK would have had at least as effective a carrier force in the early to mid war period as evidenced by their successful use of them in Taranto and against the Bismarck. While they were let down by the less powerful designs used in their air wing they remained leading thinkers in how to incorporate technology to enhance carrier operations and enable new capabilities. The reason why we don't hear much about them is that they were primarily tasked with holding the two European Axis navies down, neither of which was large or had any aircraft carriers of their own which meant there could be no extra decisive battles like Midway.