Deck Parking on Aircraft Carriers

[Daelyn75]

All assets in this game are the same between countries, besides modifications which are also open to all. To fanboy for your specific country just opens a hornets nest of all countries wanting specific attention that would just spiral out of control.

1. Brits want better armor on their CVs, because unlike the wooden decks of USA CVs, their decks were made of steel.
2. Start of the war, USA torpedoes did not work. Like, they literally had a failure rate of, irrc, betwee 50-80%.
3. Japanese want advantages for their highly disciplined banzai charges.
4. And more more more until infinity.

You'd need to read the entire thread if you want to have any idea where it left off.

 

[Axe99]

It might have been that they didn't need to cram as many airframes aboard each hull because of having more hulls. Right around that time, they were specifying each flattop by airframe type: hence why the aircraft carried by the Taffys were carrying CAS-oriented birds and HE explosives and Big E was carrying night fighters, etc. With more flattops, they don't need the capacity over just straight up having less chance of getting blown up from those Kamikazes.

According to Navypedia, it was 27 F6Fs, 24 SBDs and 18 TBFs on 1/4/1944 (which, my bad, was before it had the flight deck extension). You could well be right that they just had so many CVs they didn't cram them in, and not having them on the deck (as you say) made things a bit safer if kamikaze's swung by.

All assets in this game are the same between countries, besides modifications which are also open to all. To fanboy for your specific country just opens a hornets nest of all countries wanting specific attention that would just spiral out of control.

1. Brits want better armor on their CVs, because unlike the wooden decks of USA CVs, their decks were made of steel.
2. Start of the war, USA torpedoes did not work. Like, they literally had a failure rate of, irrc, betwee 50-80%.
3. Japanese want advantages for their highly disciplined banzai charges.
4. And more more more until infinity.

I don't think anyone's 'fanboying' for their country (Australia didn't have an aircraft carrier until after WW2 - and even then it was just a hand-me-down CVL from the UK - being a CV fanboy for my country does me no good at all ) - it's more about are there ways we can mod the game to add depth and historical plausibility. It's not the craziest thing to discuss in the game, particularly as we already know that Japan will get an NF for its torpedoes, for example. Of course, if you're not interested, you shouldn't feel like you have to wade into the convo, but suggesting other people shouldn't suggest it would be unfairly shutting down conversations, imo.

Also, in terms of the conversation, a lot of it was about modding in a mechanic that would allow any country to do deck parking (but with the US ahead of things, as it was historically) - so it was hardly 'US has deck parking, and everyone else can live without' and more "how can we make this work as a mechanic for everyone, but with it unlocked earlier for the US".

 

[BattleMoose]

Come on, the entire emphasis of the discussion is about, "how to give the country I like an advantage". No one is arguing for stronger RN carrier decks...

 

[Axe99]

Come on, the entire emphasis of the discussion is about, "how to give the country I like an advantage". No one is arguing for stronger RN carrier decks...

Actually, I'm pretty sure one of my posts in this thread talks about the tradeoff between armour/survivability and capacity - although it could be in another thread, and I'm not re-reading the thread to check . Other people in the thread definitely talked about the potential for Japan to have deck parking. It's started from a US perspective (hardly surprising, given the US were the nation that were into it early) but the thread raised other perspectives as well.

 

[jaava]

If I have understood correctly the USN number of carried planes generally includes deck park. So Lexington did not have 78+deck park, it had 78 including the deck parked planes (usually around 30% of the capacity). Since the RN did not have similar practice of always using it, their numbers usually do not include any capability of parking the planes on the deck. I am not sure about the IJN.

British numbers of 1944 when they started using deck parking are 57 for illustrious and 81 for implacable class.

 

[Axe99]

If I have understood correctly the USN number of carried planes generally includes deck park. So Lexington did not have 78+deck park, it had 78 including the deck parked planes (usually around 30% of the capacity). Since the RN did not have similar practice of always using it, their numbers usually do not include any capability of parking the planes on the deck. I am not sure about the IJN.

British numbers of 1944 when they started using deck parking are 57 for illustrious and 81 for implacable class.

Aye, this is the way I understand it as well - I'm just not entirely sure whether the first figures for the Lexington, from 1927, include a deck park or not. They were doing it then (they experimented with deck parking with the Langley in the 20s), but either way I'm confident the WW2 figures include deck parks.

 

[Daelyn75]

Come on, the entire emphasis of the discussion is about, "how to give the country I like an advantage". No one is arguing for stronger RN carrier decks...

No it is not. It's about deck parking - not giving an advantage to any country.

 

[Daelyn75]

Aye, this is the way I understand it as well - I'm just not entirely sure whether the first figures for the Lexington, from 1927, include a deck park or not. They were doing it then (they experimented with deck parking with the Langley in the 20s), but either way I'm confident the WW2 figures include deck parks.

Don't forget about hanging the extra aircraft on ceiling of the hanger which added a lot more than that 78 number.

 

[steve213]

the thing about deck parking is that it seems to be an american thing especially early war (or at least early war for america) so maybe the way to do it would be for it to be a result of the carrier focus national focus and give it as a flag, either way I'm sure that if this stays on the front page long enough someone might acknowledge it.

 

[Daelyn75]

the thing about deck parking is that it seems to be an american thing especially early war (or at least early war for america) so maybe the way to do it would be for it to be a result of the carrier focus national focus and give it as a flag, either way I'm sure that if this stays on the front page long enough someone might acknowledge it.

The war started with only the US using deck parking but after Midway, the Japanese began using it. At some point in 1943 the British began using it too. It seems to be more akin to a doctrinal choice than anything else.

 

[steve213]

The war started with only the US using deck parking but after Midway, the Japanese began using it. At some point in 1943 the British began using it too. It seems to be more akin to a doctrinal choice than anything else.

I can see that point just putting out alternative ideas, though your right it looks as though doctrans is the right place for it.

 

[Axe99]

Don't forget about hanging the extra aircraft on ceiling of the hanger which added a lot more than that 78 number.

Aye, but those were spares - they weren't part of the number of planes that would be available for any one operation - it would be overstating the US' strength in carrier aviation (which isn't really necessary ) to give the US those aircraft as something that could be used in-game.

 

[Director]

The relatively low aircraft figures for US carriers in the last two years of the war come from 3 things, I think:
1) Experience in determining the number of aircraft the ship can actually, reasonably, operate. Cramming on more aircraft made it less efficient.
2) Larger aircraft.
3) As has been said, much larger numbers of flight decks.

 

[Daelyn75]

Aye, but those were spares - they weren't part of the number of planes that would be available for any one operation - it would be overstating the US' strength in carrier aviation (which isn't really necessary ) to give the US those aircraft as something that could be used in-game.

It would be nice to know just how fast they could be brought down and made combat ready. For all we know it could be done in a few hours to a day. That could go a long way to helping a carrier group after a battle the day before in which many losses were taken.

 

[Axe99]

The relatively low aircraft figures for US carriers in the last two years of the war come from 3 things, I think:
1) Experience in determining the number of aircraft the ship can actually, reasonably, operate. Cramming on more aircraft made it less efficient.
2) Larger aircraft.
3) As has been said, much larger numbers of flight decks.

Cheers Director, your thoughts on things naval are always very much appreciated .

 

[Director]

It would be nice to know just how fast they could be brought down and made combat ready. For all we know it could be done in a few hours to a day. That could go a long way to helping a carrier group after a battle the day before in which many losses were taken.

This is an opinion and not backed up by fact... I doubt they would do much of that during intensive combat ops, though they might keep a plane or two ready to go. The air crews would be busy with refueling, re-arming and making minor repairs to in-service aircraft. AC with major damage might be dumped overside or struck down for later use as spare parts. But my impression is that you are usually going to have more AC operational than pilots ready and able to fly.

Again, just opinion based on 'feeling' and not fact.

 

[jaava]

It would be nice to know just how fast they could be brought down and made combat ready. For all we know it could be done in a few hours to a day. That could go a long way to helping a carrier group after a battle the day before in which many losses were taken.

Assembling the spare planes for operation would take a lot of time and resources in the ship. I highly doubt it would be possible to do so during a battle when everyone has better things to do. The point of spare planes is that when you suffer losses you can replace some of them without returning to home base, not to increase number of operational aircraft. Replacing losses would be important in the pacific where distance to closest airbase is generally long.

 

[Daelyn75]

Assembling the spare planes for operation would take a lot of time and resources in the ship. I highly doubt it would be possible to do so during a battle when everyone has better things to do. The point of spare planes is that when you suffer losses you can replace some of them without returning to home base, not to increase number of operational aircraft. Replacing losses would be important in the pacific where distance to closest airbase is generally long.

Yeah, but these are hanging from the top of the hanger. They aren't packed into crates like the Japanese had on their carriers. I assume some parts are not all on the planes, but they are relatively intact.