Deck Parking on Aircraft Carriers

[Daelyn75]

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.

No, I'm not referring to in the hanger like that. I am referring to deck parking the spares on the fight deck. Yes, the B25s were tied down and it could be considered deck parking, but there was only one mission in all of WW2 that used them off of a carrier and that was the Hornet in April of 1942. They couldn't launch anything else until the bombers were off the flight deck.

So are you sure the aircraft in the first picture beyond the three with unfolded wings are not deck parked? I would think they are because they aren't in a position to fly right away. All their wings are folded.

Additional info that has already been posted on this thread that explains better what deck parking is based upon how the British used their carriers:

"The addition of armor to the hangar forced a reduction in top-weight, so the hangar height was reduced, and this restricted the types of aircraft that these ships could carry, although the Royal Navy's armored carriers did carry spare aircraft in the hangar overheads. The armor also reduced the length of the flight deck, reducing the maximum aircraft capacity of the armored flight deck aircraft carrier. Additionally, Royal Navy aircraft carriers did not use a permanent deck park until approximately 1943; before then the aircraft capacity of RN aircraft carriers was limited to their hangar capacity."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_deck#Armored_decks

I think you don't quite know what deck parking is. Have you gone through the entire thread? I would have thought it would be explained by now.

 

[Alex_brunius]

And how would you know that deck parking did not help the Lexington carry more than your quote?

Because it's written by one of the most well known and trusted historians writing about the Pacific war. Lundstrom, Pearl Harbor to Midway, p. 190
http://www.amazon.com/The-First-Team-Pacific-Combat/dp/159114471X

It's a good read. I recommend you read it.




Aircraft "designed" to carry could vary alot from actual carried into combat. Taiho for example was initially envisioned to carry 126 aircraft, but in practice in combat it could only carry 65!

 

[Daelyn75]

Because it's written by one of the most well known and trusted historians writing about the Pacific war. Lundstrom, Pearl Harbor to Midway, p. 190
http://www.amazon.com/The-First-Team-Pacific-Combat/dp/159114471X

It's a good read. I recommend you read it.

That is probably a really good book, but you haven't linked to anything that I can use. If you want to, you can type in the quotes from the book itself. I have used my West Point Military History Series of World War II several times on the HOI threads. I just type in all the paragraphs. It takes a while, but it can help others see what you are trying to say.

 

[Alex_brunius]

That is probably a really good book, but you haven't linked to anything that I can use.

Why don't you just trust the wikipedia numbers then instead?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Coral_Sea

US Strength: 128 carrier aircraft on two CVs

128 / 2 = 64 on average per Carrier.

 

[Daelyn75]

Why don't you just trust the wikipedia numbers then instead?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Coral_Sea

US Strength: 128 carrier aircraft on two CVs

128 / 2 = 64 on average per Carrier.

The problem with that is that it's completely wrong. The Yorktown class carriers carried 90 aircraft even before deck parking. That is listed on all three carriers - Yorktown, Enterprise, and the Hornet. Then we get to the Lexington class that hold 78 before deck parking. So what you are saying doesn't exactly correspond to reality of how many they carried. I also told you about fighter cover.

The listing doesn't correspond well to reality. Does that mean that only 50 aircraft were on the two Shokaku class carriers and 27 on the light carrier as well? When going into combat operations, the carriers would carry as many aircraft as they could cram onto them.

That number could be the number of aircraft that saw action over the enemy fleets. When Fletcher sent off his attack group towards the Shoho, 93 aircraft were used. That doesn't mean that that is all they had. 66 US aircraft were lost in the entire battle as well. The numbers listed on the Wikipedia are wrong, at least in the sense that you are using. I think those are what they counted as hit the enemy fleet, not the entire number since it would be way too low.

In total, the book lists 132 aircraft used to hit the Japanese fleets in the two US carrier launches towards them. I think if anything, that that being closer to the number it says were in the battle on Wikipedia is probably what was counted. The aircraft sent to the enemy fleet.

Even my West Point book states that the US carriers held approximately the same amount of aircraft that I've told you about without deck parking. I'm not sure what you are trying to prove here.

 

[Alex_brunius]

The problem with that is that it's completely wrong.

I have stated my sources multiple times.
It's time you state your source for claiming something is completely wrong. And no "my west point book" does not count as a valid source.

The listing doesn't correspond well to reality. Does that mean that only 50 aircraft were on the two Shokaku class carriers and 27 on the light carrier as well?

Pretty much (more or less). They are even summarized per ship and type.
Shokaku: 58
Zuikaku: 63
Shoho: 13-18 depending on source.


To put it into context when going into battle at Midway for example one of Japans largest carriers Akagi ( larger then the Shokakus even ) carried 54 airplanes exactly. 18 fighters, 18 dive bombers and 18 of torpedo attack type.
Source: table at page 90, Shatterd Sword.
http://www.amazon.com/Shattered-Sword-Untold-Battle-Midway/dp/1574889249/

Akagi had two 620x75 ft hangars (upper+middle) and a 3:ed lower 170x50 ft hangar, a total of 93,000+8500 square feet ( page 463 same source as above )

That can be compared with the single 424x68 ft hangar ( 33,500 square feet ) that Lexington (CV-2) had. US did have more folding wings and deck parking, but as you can see airplanes take alot of space, and it's not hard to realize how silly those high numbers you claim are (90+), and that they must include disassembled spare airplanes stored in other areas then the hangar ( or suspended in the hangar roof as shown ). I can guarantee you that Lexington did not operate more then the 78 design airplanes in combat, much more likely less then it then the other way around. An Essex carrier with a larger Hangar could carry only 51 operational airplanes in their hangar (F4Us and F6Fs), and the rest of the Capacity was from Deck parking.


Shatterd Sword lists (for Midway) a total 225 operational airplanes among the 4 Japanese Carriers (an average 56 each), which is even lower then the 248 wikipedia lists!

Basically if you want US Carrier to gain an advantage from deck parking why shouldn't Japanese Carriers have an advantage thanks to having 2-3 hangar levels when US carriers only had a single?

Deckparking historically roughly represented the same added capacity that extra hangar levels on non US carriers did.

So what you are saying doesn't exactly correspond to reality of how many they carried

In war not everything goes according to plan or theory, and it's not always practical or even possible to bring the optimistic pre-war estimated numbers of (much smaller sized) airplanes on board the carriers.

I think it's you that needs to check what corresponds to the realities of war and what doesn't.

 

[Axe99]

On this whole capacity thing, I was under the impression both the Yorktown and Lexington figures included deck parking. The US pioneered deck parking well early, and by WW2 it was standard practice. However, the US CVs were optimised to carry a lot of planes, and those high capacity figures are, as far as I know, fairly accurate.

In Conways, it points out the difference between how many aircraft a Japanese CV could carry, as opposed to sensibly operate (for example, the Shokaku's could carry 84, but only operate 72). Similarly, for the British CVs, it points out that while, with a deck park, the Illustrious class could operate 54 (I think - around that, going from memory), the amount of fuel carried by the CV meant it wouldn't be able to do it for as long as a US CV.

However, I think the numbers given for the US CVs are operational figures, at the very least for when they were built. The US CVs carried lots of aviation fuel, and had been refining their deck parking procedures since the 1920s.

So, for example, I have (from Conways All the World's Fighting Ships, 1922-46):
- the Lexington at 63 aircraft (which seems reasonable for a ship of its size, noting it's a converted BC, with a deck park)
- Ranger at 76 (Ranger, while small, was optimised for aircraft carrying capacity - so probably a good job it never saw much in the way of action) - but that's 76 aircraft in 1934, when carrier aircraft were a good deal smaller.
- Yorktown at 96 - Conways lists the 1938 air group as 18 fighters, 36 torpedo bombers, 37 dive bombers and 5 utility aircraft, with 177,000 or so gallons of aviation fuel (compared with 137,000 in the Lexington class, and 100-120,000 in the Ark Royal). In 1941, I'd have expected a smaller air group because the aircraft were bigger, so I'm not suggesting they could match the Essex class in capacity (even though the figure Conways gives for Essex is 91 - because those would have been 91 larger aircraft), but it's a lot of planes.
- Wasp at 76, with a 1942 air group of 27 fighters, 37 bombers and 12 torpedo bombers (and 162,000 gallons of aviation fuel).

@Alex_brunius, one thing to keep in mind with operations like the Coral Sea and other places is that the peak carrying capacity of a carrier is rarely likely to be its operational complement at any point in time. There'll be accidents, mechanical wear and tear and war damage, and for the RN not having enough carrier aircraft until they started getting aircraft lend-leased from the US.

 

[Wraith11B]

Another thing to point out is that the US planes got far better about where and how their wings folded...

Devastators

Wildcats

Avengers

Compared to the Japanese:

Zero:

Etc...

 

[Alex_brunius]

@Alex_brunius, one thing to keep in mind with operations like the Coral Sea and other places is that the peak carrying capacity of a carrier is rarely likely to be its operational complement at any point in time. There'll be accidents, mechanical wear and tear and war damage, and for the RN not having enough carrier aircraft until they started getting aircraft lend-leased from the US.

That was exactly my point.

Japan also had some production issues with getting out replacement aircraft of carrier bomber models. Especially the attack aircraft, only 56 B5N torpedo bombers were produced during all of 1942 since Nakajima had shut down production of it all together trying to switch to B6N before they were ready.

Another thing to point out is that the US planes got far better about where and how their wings folded...

Yes, but that also is because Japan had designed their hangars with very low roofs, so they couldn't fold the wings up as drastically.

Instead they had up to 3 hangar levels and up to 3 times as much floor space as US designs in their hangars!


But I certainly agree that the USNavy was better at standardizing and optimizing airplanes with folding wings.

 

[Axe99]

That was exactly my point.

Japan also had some production issues with getting out replacement aircraft of carrier bomber models. Especially the attack aircraft, only 56 B5N torpedo bombers were produced during all of 1942 since Nakajima had shut down production of it all together trying to switch to B6N before they were ready.

Sorry for the confusion, a bit out of it at the mo. Very cool how we'll be able to do the same thing as Nakajima did in-game. Am hoping that some kind of delay on aircraft transfer time to aircraft carrier will mean that a CV that's doing anything more aggressive than light patrolling is (at least) always not quite at full capacity.

 

[Wraith11B]

Yes, but that also is because Japan had designed their hangars with very low roofs, so they couldn't fold the wings up as drastically.

Instead they had up to 3 hangar levels and up to 3 times as much floor space as US designs in their hangars!

But I certainly agree that the USNavy was better at standardizing and optimizing airplanes with folding wings.

It's also a restriction on spotting the planes on the deck during air ops. Elevators can only move so many planes at a time, and the US airframes, with their smaller folded foot-prints, means quicker change overs and ease of getting the planes off the deck. It also means that with the elevators being in the middle of the deck, that you have to spend more time not kicking off aircraft.

 

[Daelyn75]

I have stated my sources multiple times.
It's time you state your source for claiming something is completely wrong. And no "my west point book" does not count as a valid source.

It's time you re-read everything presented. In every single case I have stated, or linked my source, every single time. I do not understand how you could come back and state that I haven't. It tells me that you are not reading what is being written.,

West Point Military History Series The Second World War Asia and the Pacific pages 95-108. The lead up to the Battle of the Coral Sea, and the listing of all the capacity of the fleet, and light carriers minus the Wasp and Ranger are listed on those pages.

http://www.amazon.com/Military-History-Campaign-Mediterranean-Pacific/dp/0895294273

This is exactly the set I have from back in 1989. This is a classic set, and many maps that are in it's military campaign atlas have been used over and over again all over the internet. As I am sure you have seen them.

Pretty much (more or less). They are even summarized per ship and type.
Shokaku: 58
Zuikaku: 63
Shoho: 13-18 depending on source.

West Point: Asia and the Pacific page 99

Shokaku - 72
Zuikaku - 72
Shoho - 27

Wikipedia

Shokaku - 72 + 12 spares = 84 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shōkaku-class_aircraft_carrier
Zuikaku - 72 + 12 spares = 84 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Zuikaku
Shoho - 30 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Shōhō

Jane's Naval History of World War II

Shokaku - 72 page 173
Zuikaku - sister ship in the same class as Shokaku so the numbers should be the same.
Shoho - no listing

To put it into context when going into battle at Midway for example one of Japans largest carriers Akagi ( larger then the Shokakus even ) carried 54 airplanes exactly. 18 fighters, 18 dive bombers and 18 of torpedo attack type.
Source: table at page 90, Shatterd Sword.
http://www.amazon.com/Shattered-Sword-Untold-Battle-Midway/dp/1574889249/

Akagi had two 620x75 ft hangars (upper+middle) and a 3:ed lower 170x50 ft hangar, a total of 93,000+8500 square feet ( page 463 same source as above )

That can be compared with the single 424x68 ft hangar ( 33,500 square feet ) that Lexington (CV-2) had. US did have more folding wings and deck parking, but as you can see airplanes take alot of space, and it's not hard to realize how silly those high numbers you claim are (90+), and that they must include disassembled spare airplanes stored in other areas then the hangar ( or suspended in the hangar roof as shown ). I can guarantee you that Lexington did not operate more then the 78 design airplanes in combat, much more likely less then it then the other way around. An Essex carrier with a larger Hangar could carry only 51 operational airplanes in their hangar (F4Us and F6Fs), and the rest of the Capacity was from Deck parking.

It doesn't matter about the tonnage of the ship, or even the square footage if different practices are being carried out, such as deck parking, and the Japanese planes wing folding issue is a big one as well.

West Point: Asia and the Pacific page 99

Akagi - 66

Wikipedia:

Akagi - 66 + 25 reserve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Akagi

Shatterd Sword lists (for Midway) a total 225 operational airplanes among the 4 Japanese Carriers (an average 56 each), which is even lower then the 248 wikipedia lists!

Basically if you want US Carrier to gain an advantage from deck parking why shouldn't Japanese Carriers have an advantage thanks to having 2-3 hangar levels when US carriers only had a single?

Deckparking historically roughly represented the same added capacity that extra hangar levels on non US carriers did.

West Point: Asia and the Pacific page 115

Losses of the Japanese in the Battle of Midway- "Over 250 aircraft and crews"

I would dispute everything you said here about deck parking being the same thing as hanger levels. Yes, they both add to the overall planes, but they are stored in different ways. Deck parking + lower decks with more aircraft than are readily operational add even more. They are different ways of storing aircraft, and what you have said here that they equal the same just makes little sense. It's like saying there is storage in the trunk of my car so it should be the same as what's in the back seat. It just doesn't make any sense to argue that since they are different dimensions, and I would be storing differing sized things in both. Both sides stored aircraft differently so you cannot accurately compare the two.

Akagi with the US folded wing aircraft + deck parking + lower deck disassembled storage would probably give the carrier over a 120 planes in total. How many operational? Probably more than historical because of the folded wings. It could be 90 operational, compared to the historical 66.

In war not everything goes according to plan or theory, and it's not always practical or even possible to bring the optimistic pre-war estimated numbers of (much smaller sized) airplanes on board the carriers.

I think it's you that needs to check what corresponds to the realities of war and what doesn't.

I never once wrote that they should be going into battle with the exact amount of aircraft that the specs say they should. I did say your numbers were too low, and I have shown my own numbers with sources and links. It would be understandable if some of the planes were not operational, or damaged somehow. Carriers also tend to have a higher rate of accidents due to landings than airfields as well. So yeah, some might not have been functional, which would lower the total amount, but I would dispute the low numbers you have stated. If it's from a book or two, then fine, you go ahead and believe those numbers. I cannot control what you think, and even if I did, I would still give you the freedom to think however you want.

The last sentence here was unnecessary, and rude. Please refrain from getting personal.

 

[Daelyn75]

On this whole capacity thing, I was under the impression both the Yorktown and Lexington figures included deck parking. The US pioneered deck parking well early, and by WW2 it was standard practice. However, the US CVs were optimised to carry a lot of planes, and those high capacity figures are, as far as I know, fairly accurate.

In Conways, it points out the difference between how many aircraft a Japanese CV could carry, as opposed to sensibly operate (for example, the Shokaku's could carry 84, but only operate 72). Similarly, for the British CVs, it points out that while, with a deck park, the Illustrious class could operate 54 (I think - around that, going from memory), the amount of fuel carried by the CV meant it wouldn't be able to do it for as long as a US CV.

However, I think the numbers given for the US CVs are operational figures, at the very least for when they were built. The US CVs carried lots of aviation fuel, and had been refining their deck parking procedures since the 1920s.

So, for example, I have (from Conways All the World's Fighting Ships, 1922-46):
- the Lexington at 63 aircraft (which seems reasonable for a ship of its size, noting it's a converted BC, with a deck park)
- Ranger at 76 (Ranger, while small, was optimised for aircraft carrying capacity - so probably a good job it never saw much in the way of action) - but that's 76 aircraft in 1934, when carrier aircraft were a good deal smaller.
- Yorktown at 96 - Conways lists the 1938 air group as 18 fighters, 36 torpedo bombers, 37 dive bombers and 5 utility aircraft, with 177,000 or so gallons of aviation fuel (compared with 137,000 in the Lexington class, and 100-120,000 in the Ark Royal). In 1941, I'd have expected a smaller air group because the aircraft were bigger, so I'm not suggesting they could match the Essex class in capacity (even though the figure Conways gives for Essex is 91 - because those would have been 91 larger aircraft), but it's a lot of planes.
- Wasp at 76, with a 1942 air group of 27 fighters, 37 bombers and 12 torpedo bombers (and 162,000 gallons of aviation fuel).

@Alex_brunius, one thing to keep in mind with operations like the Coral Sea and other places is that the peak carrying capacity of a carrier is rarely likely to be its operational complement at any point in time. There'll be accidents, mechanical wear and tear and war damage, and for the RN not having enough carrier aircraft until they started getting aircraft lend-leased from the US.

Operational aircraft are generally listed, while spares are often left out. Like the first post I made here, it lists the Lexington as having 78 operational, with 30 spares due to deck parking. I've read the Lexington having anywhere from 72-90 operational aircraft, but I've never read that they had about 110 before.

The Shokaku numbers are dead on, and I have seen the same thing everywhere I go to find the numbers it could carry + spares. I tend to think that that would cover only disassembled spares though, and the number being pre war or up to the battle of the Coral Sea. With deck parking which took place after Midway for the Japanese on a permanent basis, I am sure the number would increase, as it stated in the e-book that Amur_Tiger linked.

I'd tend to think that the Lexington listed in your book was short by a dozen aircraft or more. I've read it could operate between 72-90 before, and the Wikipedia lists it as 78. I'm not sure why there is such a disparity on the numbers the Lexington carried. Could it be aircraft size? When did folding wings come into play? Maybe we are getting different numbers based on different times? I'm not sure.

It does seem like the lighter Yorktown class was pretty good for it's size and the aircraft it could hold. I'm glad the Enterprise went on to survive the war. It's too bad that they had to scrap it in the 60s for some reason.

 

[Alex_brunius]

I never once wrote that they should be going into battle with the exact amount of aircraft that the specs say they should.

Don't you think that in the game you will be able to use the full aircraft capacity in combat?
Why should it corresponds to theoretical or peacetime values rather then the actual values from how many airplanes of average size that the Carrier could handle in combat?

Both sides stored aircraft differently so you cannot accurately compare the two.

...

I would dispute everything you said here about deck parking being the same thing as hanger levels. Yes, they both add to the overall planes, but they are stored in different ways. Deck parking + lower decks with more aircraft than are readily operational add even more. They are different ways of storing aircraft, and what you have said here that they equal the same just makes little sense.

The game will still very probably have a single value so we are forced to compare them...
Are Deck parking more or less worth then extra hangar space?

The peak operational number on the Carriers should tell us how many airplanes could in practice be used, and this is also what we should be basing our mods on or what the values in the game should be based on (IMO).

West Point: Asia and the Pacific page 99

Shokaku - 72
Zuikaku - 72
Shoho - 27

Your listing the capacity now, but asked me before how many they brought to combat at Coral Sea. These are two very different things...

You also claimed confidently that nations would always bring the maximum capacity to combat, and were proven wrong.

West Point: Asia and the Pacific page 115
Losses of the Japanese in the Battle of Midway- "Over 250 aircraft and crews"

Well it's wrong in that case. Shattered Sword focuses only on Midway, and lists each Japanese pilot, observer and radioman at Midway by their full name. 98 lost according to the crew roster and 110 lost if you include those that did not have the aircrew title but flew on planes anyways.
Exactly 225 operational aircraft and 2 spare airplanes lost, since that's how many they brought, no more and no less.

The last sentence here was unnecessary, and rude. Please refrain from getting personal.

Huh? My last sentence was a copy of what you wrote to me, I just added "I think it's you that need to" in front of it...

You wrote: "what you are saying doesn't exactly correspond to reality of how many they carried"
I responded: "I think it's you that needs to check what corresponds to the realities of war and what doesn't."

It's also a restriction on spotting the planes on the deck during air ops. levators can only move so many planes at a time, and the US airframes, with their smaller folded foot-prints, means quicker change overs and ease of getting the planes off the deck. It also means that with the elevators being in the middle of the deck, that you have to spend more time notkicking off aircraft.

In the example US Carrier though (CV-2) it only had 2 elevators both in the middle, while all Japanese models had 3 elevators. So I'm not sure Lexington would be faster then Japanese Carriers in spotting or launching all it's planes.

 

[Daelyn75]

Don't you think that in the game you will be able to use the full aircraft capacity in combat?
Why should it corresponds to theoretical or peacetime values rather then the actual values from how many airplanes of average size that the Carrier could handle in combat?

We weren't talking about what's going to happen in game though are we? The links to all the sources were outside of what we can expect in the game. To properly simulate carriers, their aircraft and carrier warfare, we'd need a hard core specific DLC devoted to it. Hey, I'm all game for that. There may be a naval DLC that will better focus on naval warfare in the future, or just a series of DLC that add to it. I can only hope that any of that will be the case.

The game will still very probably have a single value so we are forced to compare them...
Are Deck parking more or less worth then extra hangar space?

The peak operational number on the Carriers should tell us how many airplanes could in practice be used, and this is also what we should be basing our mods on or what the values in the game should be based on (IMO).

The problem with just ignoring deck parking is that the speed of bringing out those aircraft, even since they are being constantly shuffled around makes it a murky concept as to just how they were used. To just expect that they weren't ever used often I think would be misinterpreting the data. I think they were used often, especially when losses or damaged aircraft affected the number of planes the carriers could operate. It just makes it difficult to nail down how many airplanes those carriers used, especially when sources state specs at different times with different aircraft (folded wing especially), and with different practices put into place.

Your listing the capacity, but asked me how many they brought to combat at Coral Sea. These are two very different things...

You've stated yours, and I've stated mine on the subject. I also think that fighter cover, and keeping a number in reserve will tend to keep the numbers lower than many sources will state that took part in the fighting.

Well it's wrong in that case. Shattered Sword focuses only on Midway, and lists each Japanese pilot, observer and radioman at Midway by their full name. 98 lost according to the crew roster and 110 lost if you include those that did not have the aircrew title but flew on planes anyways.
Exactly 225 operational aircraft and 2 spare airplanes lost, since that's how many they brought, no more and no less.

I'd have to read it myself. Sometimes things are left out that people tend to use, not realizing it. However 25 aircraft are not a huge deal, regardless of the source. What you've listed shows under strength carriers, with no spares setting forth to engage in the most important battle (both sides knew it would be before hand) of the Pacific war.

Huh? My last sentence was a copy of what you wrote to me, I just added "I think it's you that need to" in front of it...

You wrote: "what you are saying doesn't exactly correspond to reality of how many they carried"I responded: "I think it's you that needs to check what corresponds to the realities of war and what doesn't."

Yes, and it wasn't a personal attack. You took it personally. It wasn't meant to mean Alex_brunius is out of touch with reality.

 

[Alex_brunius]

As we concluded before in the thread deck parking does have downsides as well, like that it can't be used in severe storms and increases wear and tear on planes. It could also create issues having to move the parked planes around for conducting launches or landings.

The problem with just ignoring deck parking is that the speed of bringing out those aircraft, even since they are being constantly shuffled around makes it a murky concept as to just how they were used. To just expect that they weren't ever used often I think would be misinterpreting the data. I think they were used often, especially when losses or damaged aircraft affected the number of planes the carriers could operate. It just makes it difficult to nail down how many airplanes those carriers used, especially when sources state specs at different times with different aircraft (folded wing especially), and with different practices put into place.

No one claimed the deck parks shouldn't be used at all. If we did then Lexington would probably have a Capacity of more like 40-50 airplanes! ( based on the fact that Essex with larger hangar had room for just 51 operational airplanes in it ).

Or if we would just compare hangar floor area directly with the Japanese Carriers then Lexington gets 20-30 airplane capacity, which I fully agree with you would be totally unreasonable.

However 25 aircraft are not a huge deal, regardless of the source. What you've listed shows under strength carriers, with no spares setting forth to engage in the most important battle (both sides knew it would be before hand) of the Pacific war.

Correct, that's one of the good points the book makes. The Japanese Carriers airgroups at midway were 16% under-strength compared to optimal capacity.

Yes, and it wasn't a personal attack. You took it personally.

I didn't take it personally nor meant any personal attack to you. But I'm not a native English speaker so some points might be lost to me. If you took offense I apologize.

 

[Daelyn75]

As we concluded before in the thread deck parking does have downsides as well, like that it can't be used in severe storms and increases wear and tear on planes. It could also create issues having to move the parked planes around for conducting launches or landings.



No one claimed the deck parks shouldn't be used at all. If we did then Lexington would probably have a Capacity of more like 40-50 airplanes! ( based on the fact that Essex with larger hangar had room for just 51 operational airplanes in it ).

Or if we would just compare hangar floor area directly with the Japanese Carriers then Lexington gets 20-30 airplane capacity, which I fully agree with you would be totally unreasonable.




Correct, that's one of the good points the book makes. The Japanese Carriers airgroups at midway were 16% under-strength compared to optimal capacity.

Please go over this and tell me how many operational vrs deck parking the Lexington had? The Lexington had many more aircraft than the low numbers you are attributing to it before deck parking.

"The Lexington-class ships were designed to carry 78 aircraft of various types, including 36 bombers, but these numbers increased once the Navy adopted the practice of tying up spare aircraft in the unused spaces at the top of the hangar. In 1936, her air group consisted of 18 Grumman F2F-1 and 18 Boeing F4B-4 fighters, plus an additional nine F2Fs in reserve. Offensive punch was provided by 20 Vought SBU Corsair dive bombers with 10 spare aircraft and 18 Great Lakes BG torpedo bombers with nine spares. Miscellaneous aircraft included two Grumman JF Duck amphibians, plus one in reserve, and three active and one spare Vought O2U Corsair observation aircraft. This amounted to 79 aircraft, plus 30 spares."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexington-class_aircraft_carrier#Flight_deck_arrangements

 

[Alex_brunius]

Please go over this and tell me how many operational vrs deck parking the Lexington had? The Lexington had many more aircraft than the low numbers you are attributing to it before deck parking.

Id say a good guess based on all the facts I read + how Essex operated, is that Lexington had a maximum capacity of a bit over 40 operational aircraft in the hangar, and a bit under 40 operational parked on the deck, and up to 30 spares suspended in the hangar roof or otherwise stored disassembled.

This gives it an initial operation capacity of 78 as stated ( & 108 total including spares ).

Once you take into account that longer length and bigger size of the more modern airplanes embarked in 1942 we can assume fighter capacity was reduced by 25%, torpedo bomber capacity by 20% and divebomber capacity by 15% (based on their length/size). If we take into account better folding wings of monoplanes we can estimate that maybe only 15% capacity was lost when upgrading to more modern planes. (78 * 0.85 = 66.3)

This corresponds pretty well with the number given by Lundstrom for the Battle of Coral Sea:
7 May: Lexington- 35 SBDdive bombers, 12 TBDtorpedo bombers, 19 F4F-3fighters

Lexington: 66 operational

A bit more then half of these were probably in the hangar. Maybe 36 in hangars and 30 on deckpark?

Given a hangar area of 33,500 square ft total this means about 930 square feet per plane or 30x31 feet. Sounds reasonable?

 

[Axe99]

Operational aircraft are generally listed, while spares are often left out. Like the first post I made here, it lists the Lexington as having 78 operational, with 30 spares due to deck parking. I've read the Lexington having anywhere from 72-90 operational aircraft, but I've never read that they had about 110 before.

I'd tend to think that the Lexington listed in your book was short by a dozen aircraft or more. I've read it could operate between 72-90 before, and the Wikipedia lists it as 78. I'm not sure why there is such a disparity on the numbers the Lexington carried. Could it be aircraft size? When did folding wings come into play? Maybe we are getting different numbers based on different times? I'm not sure.

It does seem like the lighter Yorktown class was pretty good for it's size and the aircraft it could hold. I'm glad the Enterprise went on to survive the war. It's too bad that they had to scrap it in the 60s for some reason.

Some thoughts:

- Deck parked planes weren't spares - the spares were normally the aircraft kept partially disassembled (like the ones seen hanging from hangar the ceiling in pictures posted in this thread.

- Lexington's capacity is often confused because there were two Lexington's that were operational during WW2, the Lexington-class Lexington (CV-2) and the Essex-class Lexington (which has a capacity of 110 listed on Wikipedia, Conways has 91, but I'm inclined to go with Conways' numbers, at least for WW2, as I suspect the 110 includes spares). I don't have another source I'm comfortable with regarding CV-2's 63, but it may well be this figure doesn't include a deck park (while later US CV's do), but I'm not entirely comfortable with the Wikipedia page as well. Most of the CVs converted from BCs (of which the first Lexington class were) tended to have less capacity for a given displacement than dedicated CVs, but then the Lexington and Saratoga were huge for their time.

Don't you think that in the game you will be able to use the full aircraft capacity in combat?
Why should it corresponds to theoretical or peacetime values rather then the actual values from how many airplanes of average size that the Carrier could handle in combat?

I'd hope that the game will track combat losses, so that it's possible to sail from home with a full, maximum complement if the aircraft are available (not always the case for the RN carriers), but then in the course of operations the number will diminish gradually. I'd be disappointed if we had to keep our CV stats below historical because the game can't deal with operational losses. It'd be like changing the number of tanks need for a tank battalion in the division designer because a tank division was rarely at its full operational tank capacity.

The game will still very probably have a single value so we are forced to compare them...
Are Deck parking more or less worth then extra hangar space?

The thing about deck parks is that CVs, even those not designed for them, could have both. From the casual reading I've done in relation to this thread, it's likely that Japanese launching practices made deck parking impractical without changing their launch procedures, but whether it's something that they could have developed in time, given enough aircraft and time, is another thing - my guess would be yes, as the RN CVs, with hangar lifts going to the centre of the deck, were able to do it effectively. If we leave deck parking out, then the only way to deal with the RN's CVs suddenly getting a 30-40 per cent increase in aircraft capacity through a 1943/44 event or something like that, but something through gameplay would be far preferable imo than a railroaded event.

 

[Daelyn75]

You do know that several sources come from Lundstrum in that article? One from him confirmed that the Saratoga (sister ship to and part of the Lexington class) as having 90 aircraft?

"In early December 1941, Lexington was ferrying 18 U.S. Marine Corps Vought SB2U Vindicator dive bombers to Midway Atoll and at that time she embarked 65 of her own aircraft, including 17 Brewster F2A Buffalo fighters. During the Wake Island relief expedition later that month, Saratoga's air group consisted of 13 Grumman F4F Wildcat fighters, 42 Douglas SBD Dauntless dive bombers, and 11 Douglas TBD Devastator torpedo bombers. The ship also carried 14 Marine Corps Buffalos for delivery at Wake. Before the Battle of the Eastern Solomons in mid-1942, Saratoga's air group consisted of 90 aircraft, comprising 37 Wildcats, 37 Dauntlesses and 16 Grumman TBF Avenger torpedo bombers. In early 1945, the ship carried 53 Grumman F6F Hellcat fighters and 17 Avengers."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexington-class_aircraft_carrier#Flight_deck_arrangements

The number of aircraft states specfically 79 + 30 spares. The spares are deck parked. The source for that is Friedman, p. 390