Deck Parking on Aircraft Carriers

[Daelyn75]

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.

The source specifically lists and calls the deck parked "spares," and it is the pre war Lexington, not the Essex class named Lexington that came out later on.

"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."

There was no mention of any source so far that I have encountered stating that the US had disassembled aircraft in the hanger like the Japanese practiced.

 

[Alex_brunius]

'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.

So 66 operational and 14 spares? Seems to be the same here.

"In early December 1941, Lexington was ferrying 18 U.S. Marine CorpsVought SB2U Vindicator dive bombers to Midway Atoll and at that time she embarked 65 of her own aircraft,

Ferrying aircraft doesn't mean they have to be assembled or that the Carrier could conduct effective air operations while doing so.

This is a picture of an escort Carrier ferrying airplanes:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/03/0308205.jpg

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

Spares are not deck parked. Spares specifically means disassembled airplanes, you would never store spares on the deck.

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.

This source has very likely made a confusion with the Essex class Lexington (CV-16) since their airgroup was exactly 90. But it would be interesting to look further into it.
( Or as Axe99 points out below it includes some spares also ).

 

[Axe99]

The source specifically lists and calls the deck parked "spares," and it is the pre war Lexington, not the Essex class named Lexington that came out later on.

"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."

There was no mention of any source so far that I have encountered stating that the US had disassembled aircraft in the hanger like the Japanese practiced.

That reference to 'tied up at the top of the hangar' is aircraft disassembled and hanging from the ceiling, not parked on the deck .

Edit: See the pic Wraith posted here: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...aircraft-carriers.904927/page-3#post-20578099

 

[Alex_brunius]

That reference to 'tied up at the top of the hangar' is aircraft disassembled and hanging from the ceiling, not parked on the deck .

Edit: See the pic Wraith posted here: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...aircraft-carriers.904927/page-3#post-20578099

Aaaaah now I realized where the misunderstanding with Daelyn was and that he thought those 30 extra "tied up at the top of the hangar" was actually the Deck park.
Thanks for finding it and pointing it out before we tear each other apart in frustration!

 

[Axe99]

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

Aye, but I suspect some of those numbers include spares - for example, the 90 aircraft on Saratoga at the Eastern Solomons. Also, I'm not suggesting Lundstrum or Friedman have it wrong, more that there may be some issues with people interpreting what's in the source (as we can see from this thread, it's very easy to get confused between spares, deck parks and operational aircraft, and where the overlap stops and starts). Sorry for the delayed reply on this, missed this post earlier.

Edit: I could also very well be wrong, and if I had a bit of spare money floating around I'd grab the sources and read it for myself to be sure, but can't justify the expense right now.

 

[Daelyn75]

My god, I'm dealing with two screaming kids all day and this thread. Right now I feel like murdering someone. Yes, in the hanger tied up as spares. I was crossing my eyes with the armored deck part on carriers with the Lexington.

The point I had about the Lexington still stands, operationally the aircraft that were deck parked are counted as a whole, not just as spares. However, that still doesn't discount the total number of aircraft it held, since it held about 30 spares at the top of the hanger.

This is a source itself. It lists just how many deck parked aircraft an Essex class held, which is a hell of a lot here.

"USS Bennington. Action Report, Operations in Support Of The Occupation Of Okinawa Including Strike Against Kanoya Airfield, Kyushu. 28 May to 10 June 1945. p. 18. On June 5, 1945, USS Bennington reported that her maximum hangar capacity was 51 aircraft, 15 SB2Cs and 36 F4Us, and that 52 were carried as a deck park. At that time she carried 15 TBMs, 15 SB2Cs and the rest were a mix of F6Fs and F4Us. She was prompted to utilize, and report on, her maximum hangar storage due to a Typhoon"

Anyhow, I need to take a break till tomorrow. My 1 year old is screaming his lungs off, and my 4 year old is sick with the flu.

 

[Alex_brunius]

This is a source itself. It lists just how many deck parked aircraft an Essex class held, which is a hell of a lot here.

Yes. So it's reasonable to assume that the smaller Lexington had a similar ratio of planes in deck park and in hangars.

With 66-79 total operational in various sources given earlier this gives us between 33-39 each on deck & hangar if we go by Essex 50-50 ratio.

It did have a pretty big deck though, so who knows. Maybe could have fit almost 50 airplanes there too as the Essex did? From what I read also the length of the spot ( or deck park ) could wary a bit depending on how gutsy the guy running the flight deck was, and the needed load of bombs and fuel on the planes. Heavy loaded bombers needed almost the entire deck length for a safe takeoff or at least 2/3:eds, while light loaded fighters could do with less then half. Also would be very risky when landing to have too much of the deck full of planes and too short distance to make the plane come to a stop.

 

[Axe99]

My god, I'm dealing with two screaming kids all day and this thread. Right now I feel like murdering someone.

Sorry, just trying to help get to the bottom of things, not invoke homicide! Deffo only come back to the thread when you've got the energy, it's not going anywhere, and there's no urgency (or need) to clear these things up. Good luck with your kids, hope they settle down/get well soon .

 

[Wraith11B]

Yeah, definitely don't take it out on either us or the kids!

I've been trying to push the spares bit for the entire thread; as mentioned, some carriers were basically floating plane parks when ferrying them. However, during active flight ops, if it's lashed down on the deck, you can guarantee that they're using it

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.

It was, because of a combination of the size of their planes taking up elevator space, which means that depending on the load, you can only use one of those elevators (generally the aftermost one for launching and foremost one for recovery) during high-tempo flight ops. The size of an American flight deck means that we can spot more planes aft during launching without sacrificing time to use the elevators. The whole idea that elevators shouldn't impact flight ops is a big reason why they're on the edge of a modern carrier's flight deck. Even on our baby flattops, we put the elevator on the side of the boat.

 

[Alex_brunius]

It was, because of a combination of the size of their planes taking up elevator space, which means that depending on the load, you can only use one of those elevators (generally the aftermost one for launching and foremost one for recovery) during high-tempo flight ops. The size of an American flight deck means that we can spot more planes aft during launching without sacrificing time to use the elevators. The whole idea that elevators shouldn't impact flight ops is a big reason why they're on the edge of a modern carrier's flight deck. Even on our baby flattops, we put the elevator on the side of the boat.

Yeah. The Lexington did as I wrote have a big flight deck, it being 50 ft longer then Akagi, 60 ft longer then Shokaku and 150 ft longer then Hiryu. So that should mean about 1-2 extra rows of planes on deck compared to the big Japanese and 4-5 rows compared to Hiryu.

 

[Daelyn75]

Yeah. The Lexington did as I wrote have a big flight deck, it being 50 ft longer then Akagi, 60 ft longer then Shokaku and 150 ft longer then Hiryu. So that should mean about 1-2 extra rows of planes on deck compared to the big Japanese and 4-5 rows compared to Hiryu.

This thread has been very educational for me since none of the information I have come across lays out the operations of carriers, it just glosses over them for their parts in the battles/war. Some info on the ships themselves, but nothing in depth.

Deck parking it would seem, is an integral part of American carriers, then and now. All the parked airplanes are considered part of the operational air units that the carrier can project. Playing Pacific War, I had always thought that the Japanese just had smaller carriers, but it turns out that they just used different practices. The Japanese at least before Midway, refueled and rearmed inside the carrier, and didn't practice deck parking. It seems to me that if they had, they could have had more aircraft per carrier than the US. It also makes me think that the Shokaku class carriers were one of the best in the war, besides lack of armor plating and later AA compared to the US carriers. At least for Japan, they were probably their greatest naval asset. It's just too bad that for certain airplanes, the Val was it? They produced so few of them.

It also makes me wonder why the shut down the aircraft factory. 1942 was when they really needed those airplanes.

 

[Daelyn75]

Yeah, definitely don't take it out on either us or the kids!

I've been trying to push the spares bit for the entire thread; as mentioned, some carriers were basically floating plane parks when ferrying them. However, during active flight ops, if it's lashed down on the deck, you can guarantee that they're using it




It was, because of a combination of the size of their planes taking up elevator space, which means that depending on the load, you can only use one of those elevators (generally the aftermost one for launching and foremost one for recovery) during high-tempo flight ops. The size of an American flight deck means that we can spot more planes aft during launching without sacrificing time to use the elevators. The whole idea that elevators shouldn't impact flight ops is a big reason why they're on the edge of a modern carrier's flight deck. Even on our baby flattops, we put the elevator on the side of the boat.

The kids were taking it out on me! Yeah, they were using all the deck parked airplanes as part of their normal operation aircraft. Also, if the US didn't use that practice, then they wouldn't be able to carry that many, what was it half were deck parked? It's very interesting. It also explains why they focused on large flight decks.

 

[Daelyn75]

Aye, but I suspect some of those numbers include spares - for example, the 90 aircraft on Saratoga at the Eastern Solomons. Also, I'm not suggesting Lundstrum or Friedman have it wrong, more that there may be some issues with people interpreting what's in the source (as we can see from this thread, it's very easy to get confused between spares, deck parks and operational aircraft, and where the overlap stops and starts). Sorry for the delayed reply on this, missed this post earlier.

Edit: I could also very well be wrong, and if I had a bit of spare money floating around I'd grab the sources and read it for myself to be sure, but can't justify the expense right now.

It's also difficult to know just how many can be deck parked. When stretched to maximum, it could be that a few more with folded wings could be squeezed on there. The F4U was a large fighter/bomber, so I assume that it took more space than normal - same with the Avenger.

 

[Axe99]

This thread has been very educational for me since none of the information I have come across lays out the operations of carriers, it just glosses over them for their parts in the battles/war. Some info on the ships themselves, but nothing in depth.

Aye, it's a great thread - the catalyst for me to find out what the Japanese did (and then scratch my head over how to mod it in, which I'm still doing, latest is putting the tech late on the tech tree, and the US starting with it, and everyone else having to research it, as the US developed and had gone a fair way to refining deck parking before 1936, but thoughts still murky), has been an interesting and informative discussion, cheers to all posters .

 

[3ishop]

How to represent it in game? Option with the ship design or fleet or naval doctrine?

Deck Parking:
+20% hangar.
+10% bad weather attrition
+10% plane loss if hit.

 

[Axe99]

How to represent it in game? Option with the ship design or fleet or naval doctrine?

Deck Parking:
+20% hangar.
+10% bad weather attrition
+10% plane loss if hit.

Aye, that kind of thing looks good - I'd probably up the hangar and plane loss if hit though, and perhaps add a greater chance of critical hit if hit (as exploding planes on the deck didn't help when carriers were in action), but just thinking off the cuff here....

 

[ConjurerDragon]

...

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/

On the same page, above the table:

When the war had opened, Kido Butai´s air groups had been full strength, although without as many spare aircraft as would have been optimal. But by June 1942, the situation had detoriated. At the time of Pearl Harbour, Akagi had carried sixty-six aircraft; now she had just fifty-four."

So the table on that page does not mention the maximum capacity of that ship but only what it carried to Midway.

 

[Alex_brunius]

It also makes me wonder why the shut down the aircraft factory. 1942 was when they really needed those airplanes.

The factories / industry in Japan were too optimistic on how quickly the new bomber model production lines (B6N and D4Y) could be up and running at good efficiency. Basically they focused on the new models totally, but there was some issues. And then they stood there with neither old nor new planes to deliver.

These would have given Japan a big advantage, for example the D4Y (new divebomber) could outrun the F4F wildcats in service by the USNavy, and the torpedo bomber was almost as fast (being some 30% faster then their previous model ). They were not far away, 2 early production models were actually taking part in the battle of Midway, but in a recon role.


If Japan had sailed all 6 CVs together instead of sending them piecemeal, had working production lines for these fast bombers and employed deck parking they would have been very hard for USA to do anything about until their Essex classes start coming into service in large numbers mid 1943.

So the table on that page does not mention the maximum capacity of that ship but only what it carried to Midway.

Yes that's what I wrote in the other posts. That was not about their max capacity but about proving that Carriers didn't always sailed into combat with max capacity of planes loaded.

I even repeated the -16% lower airplane strength in the other post

Aye, that kind of thing looks good - I'd probably up the hangar and plane loss if hit though, and perhaps add a greater chance of critical hit if hit (as exploding planes on the deck didn't help when carriers were in action), but just thinking off the cuff here....

Actually exploding planes on the decks helped greatly in combat when you consider the alternative! The Japanese instead had their planes at Midway exploding in an enclosed hangar where the fires of their fuel and ammunition quickly spiraled out of control.

The aircraft on the deck though could more easily be pushed over the side or moved away, then those stuck in a smoke filled hangar.

 

[Daelyn75]

The factories / industry in Japan were too optimistic on how quickly the replacement bomber model production lines (B6N and D4Y) could be up and running at good efficiency. Basically they focused on the new models totally, but there was some issues. And then they stood there with neither old nor new planes to deliver.

These would have given Japan a big advantage, for example the D4Y (new divebomber) could outrun the F4F wildcats in service by the USNavy, and the torpedo bomber was almost as fast (being some 30% faster then their previous model ). They were not far away, 2 early production models were actually taking part in the battle of Midway, but in a recon role.


If Japan had sailed all 6 CVs together instead of sending them piecemeal, had working production lines for these fast bombers and employed deck parking they would have been very hard for USA to do anything about until their Essex classes start coming into service in large numbers mid 1943.

Sort of like changing one factory each over to the new CAS, and Naval bomber, and all you get is less than one per month due to low efficiency and just one factory in HOI IV. That is the closest thing I can think of in the game.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Sort of like changing one factory each over to the new CAS, and Naval bomber, and all you get is less than one per month due to low efficiency and just one factory in HOI IV. That is the closest thing I can think of in the game.

Yes in HoI4 terms I think they would probably have switched too many (or all) factories over too quickly to the new models and lost to much efficiency, and missjudged how many planes would be lost from combat and how slowly efficiency for new ones are regained. I love how HoI4 might be able to model these stuff.