Aircraft Carriers

[Freebird]

Yes, Victorious for some time had aboard Martlets of FAA squadrons 882, 896 and 898, and most of the Wildcats of VF-6 USN squadron.
Saratoga instead carried about 60 or more Dauntless and Avengers of VB-3, VT-3 and No.832 FAA squadrons, along with the remaining Wildcats of VF-6.

Max

Yes I don't know why the British didn't operate more aircraft, the Illustrious class obviously could operate up to 60 fighters. Imagine what a difference it would have made during "Pedestal" to have 150+ fighters defending the fleet instead of only about 75 total. (Argus 20 aircraft, Spit V/SeaHurri; Indomitable 31 SeaHurri, 24 Albacore; Victorious 12 Hurri, 12 Spit V, 12 Albacore) They could have had 60 Martlet/Hurri/Spit V on the Victorious, probably 75 on the Indomitable. They could still have operated 3 squadrons of Albacores + another 25 Martlet/SeaHurri from the Argus Furious.

Considering that Victorious Indomitable were both put out of action for 6 months by the Axis bombings, it might have prevented this. With that much fighter cover they could have protected the fleet all the way instead of turning back. Yes I know that in the end the tanker "Ohio" DID make into Malta harbour, but just barely!

 

[renrich]

The British carriers did not have the capacity to carry as many AC as the US carriers. It may have been because of the armored flight deck and weight considerations. I believe the steam catapult is being superseded in the new US carrier designs by electro magnetic catapults.

 

[Glider]

No doubt if we had the aircraft we would have done better for Pedestal, but it was worse than you think.
Eagle - 16 Sea Hurricanes plus 4 spares with their wings removed.
Victorious - 6 Sea Hurricanes, 16 Fulmars, 12 Albacores
Argus - 5 Sea Hurricanes (returned before convoy started)
Indomitable - 22 Sea Hurricanes, 10 Martlets, 16 Albacores

You have to feel for the Fulmar crews going up against 109's.

 

[renrich]

I have often wondered what the British were thinking about when the deployed the Fulmar as a carrier fighter. I believe they were fairly effective against unescorted JU87s.

 

[Glider]

I always wondered what we were doing developing the Fulmar in the first place. A cleaned up Battle was never going to get anywhere.

 

[maxs75]

Yes I don't know why the British didn't operate more aircraft, the Illustrious class obviously could operate up to 60 fighters. Imagine what a difference it would have made during "Pedestal" to have 150+ fighters defending the fleet instead of only about 75 total. (Argus 20 aircraft, Spit V/SeaHurri; Indomitable 31 SeaHurri, 24 Albacore; Victorious 12 Hurri, 12 Spit V, 12 Albacore) They could have had 60 Martlet/Hurri/Spit V on the Victorious, probably 75 on the Indomitable. They could still have operated 3 squadrons of Albacores + another 25 Martlet/SeaHurri from the Argus Furious.

Considering that Victorious Indomitable were both put out of action for 6 months by the Axis bombings, it might have prevented this. With that much fighter cover they could have protected the fleet all the way instead of turning back. Yes I know that in the end the tanker "Ohio" DID make into Malta harbour, but just barely!

As I said, numbers depends on the size of planes and much of the size depends on the ability of folding wings. I believe that 60 folding wings Martlets is the absolute maximum. I'm afraid that not so many of them were available in 1942.
At the time, also, the Seafire wasn't operational yet, and it did not have folding wings till later (Mk III version). The same for Sea Hurricane. So they could be embarked only in small numbers in Victorious, and in the other carriers much space was required.
For example in 1943 during Salerno Landings the escort carriers had about 18 Seafires aboard (Mk II), while later the same ships had up to 28 Mk III, maybe more.
The same effect was done by USN F4F-3 (not folding wings) vs F4F-4 and FM (folding), so the usual VF squadron doubled the number of planes (18 vs 36)

So, apart for a fleet use of Furious (but anyway Spitfires were nedded in Malta), the fighter complement was about at the maximum. The Albacores were nedded in case of battle with italian fleet and ASP.

Max

 

[renrich]

Reference "Janes Fighting Ships 1944-45" Colossus and Majestic class-14,000 tons-30-44AC, Reference "British and Dominion Warships of WW2" Illustrious class-23,000 tons-72 AC, Audacious class-36,800 tons-100 AC. The Enterprise was only slightly larger than Majestic, 19,800 tons and had space for more than 100 AC. I believe the British carriers had space for less AC because of the armored hangar decks they were equipped with. It appears, with the Audacious class they attempted to begin to carry more AC.

 

[Glider]

You are correct. The massive amount of armour on the British fleet carriers meant that they only had one deck (later ones one and a half decks) with the inevitable lack of space for aircraft.
In many ways the original Ark Royal was a better bet for a balance of size and capacity.

 

[AIRYFAIRY]

During her Pacific fleet operations, HMS Victorious was renamed in 1943 for a short period to USS Robin. On her passage through the Panama Canel she had part of the width her flight deck cut off (sponsons) to accommodate her 29,000 tons. They were welded back on once in the Pacific Ocean. She was the first British carrier to embark Corsairs.

HMS Victorious built by Vickers Armstrong on the Tyne laid down 4th of May 1937 Launched 14 Sept 1939 and completed 15th May 1941 Served in the Home Fleet 1941 - 43 moved to the South Pacific in 1943 and in 1944 to Home and Eastern Fleets and rejoined the Pacific fleet in 1945. While in the Pacific was twice hit by KAMIKAZES. Finally scraped in June 1969 at Faslane on the Clyde.

 

[Freebird]

I have often wondered what the British were thinking about when the deployed the Fulmar as a carrier fighter. I believe they were fairly effective against unescorted JU87s.

I think when the Fulmar was designed (in 1938) the Navy wanted a fighter/recon plane, it was not really expected to fight against land based aircraft. It was actually a good aircraft as recon or ASW patrol, (with longer range second crewmember) and was effective when used out at sea against Condors. It never should have been used as a fighter in the Med.

As I said, numbers depends on the size of planes and much of the size depends on the ability of folding wings. I believe that 60 folding wings Martlets is the absolute maximum. I'm afraid that not so many of them were available in 1942.
At the time, also, the Seafire wasn't operational yet, and it did not have folding wings till later (Mk III version). The same for Sea Hurricane. So they could be embarked only in small numbers in Victorious, and in the other carriers much space was required.
For example in 1943 during Salerno Landings the escort carriers had about 18 Seafires aboard (Mk II), while later the same ships had up to 28 Mk III, maybe more.
The same effect was done by USN F4F-3 (not folding wings) vs F4F-4 and FM (folding), so the usual VF squadron doubled the number of planes (18 vs 36)

So, apart for a fleet use of Furious (but anyway Spitfires were nedded in Malta), the fighter complement was about at the maximum. The Albacores were nedded in case of battle with italian fleet and ASP.

Max

Was it possible to retro-fit folding wings, or did they have to be built that way from the start? Also could land-based fighters be adapted for carrier use or was the fuselage not strong enough? (for catapult arrestor hook).

 

[maxs75]

To make two examples, Spitfire and Wildcats initially hadn't folding wings, but later they got. Wildcat was a success, but it was designed as a carrier plane, Seafire instead was a poor carrier plane with or without f.w.
In my opinion everything is feasible, but to navalize a plane adds weight (foldign mechanism, and in general structure strenghthening, hook, cat gear...) that dereases performances.
I believe that in general the strenghteining is required.

Max

 

[renrich]

Saratoga had a max capacity of 90 AC. Of course she was originally designed as a Battle cruiser. Yorktown class although much smaller could carry 100 AC. WW2 US carriers recovered AC with the bow portion of the ship covered with parked AC. Also Korean War same. Recall "The Bridges of Toko Ri" and Tilly the Crane parked to protect deck loaded AC from landing AC. During Santa Cruz Battle with Hornet out of action Enterprise took on so many AC running out of fuel she only had 2 or 3 cables left for the arresting gear. In those days they had a lot more deck cables than today. I can't think of any successful conversion of a landbased AC to carrier borne during or since WW2. Too much weight to be added to make a successful carrier plane.

 

[Freebird]

To make two examples, Spitfire and Wildcats initially hadn't folding wings, but later they got. Wildcat was a success, but it was designed as a carrier plane, Seafire instead was a poor carrier plane with or without f.w.
In my opinion everything is feasible, but to navalize a plane adds weight (foldign mechanism, and in general structure strenghthening, hook, cat gear...) that dereases performances.
I believe that in general the strenghteining is required.

Max

A couple of questions if anyone knows, several carriers were used as "aircraft transports", I believe I read that "Ranger" launched aircraft. (P-40's to Freeport I think) How much deck was needed for a Hurricane or P-40 for a non-catapult take off?

Also how difficult was it to remove the wings of a Hurricane or P-40 for transport? Not disassembled or crated, just with wings removed.

 

[Glider]

A couple of questions if anyone knows, several carriers were used as "aircraft transports", I believe I read that "Ranger" launched aircraft. (P-40's to Freeport I think) How much deck was needed for a Hurricane or P-40 for a non-catapult take off?

Also how difficult was it to remove the wings of a Hurricane or P-40 for transport? Not disassembled or crated, just with wings removed.

I don't know the exact detail but I can advise that the RN sometimes kept some Hurricanes as spares, struck down with their wings removed to save space. From that I would take it that it wasn't that difficult.

 

[maxs75]

The ferrying of assembled single engine fighters was best done with aircraft carriers. No need of unload facilities and aircrafts ready very soon after ground landing. It was one of the duty of CVEs as soon as they became available.
During the invasion of Marianas, two CVEs (loaded with 37 P-47D each) launched the Army fighters for their own defence, and they later landed on their intended destination (Saipan).

AFAIK the fitting of wings was a lenghty and hard process, but was sometimes done during the battle for Malta, because the transporting carrier had to keep some naval fighters for fleet defence along with the air force planes.

freebird, it was Freetown, not Freeport.

Max

 

[davparlr]

I can't think of any successful conversion of a landbased AC to carrier borne during or since WW2. Too much weight to be added to make a successful carrier plane.

Probably the closest is the YF-17 to F-18 but it took a major redesign to do, most of which was detrimental to the aircraft performance.

 

[Puyallup Lee]

Here is a picture of the USS Saratoga from the 1930's that I have on my web site.

The bi-wing airplanes could not fold their wings so they were limited as to the number of aircraft they could have on deck. This is the USS Saratoga with aircraft on deck. I posted a really large dpi picture so if someone wants to count the aircraft in the picture, it will be a little easier. Also if anyone wants to download the picture it should make a nice size print.

Puyallup Lee
Exciting discovery of a collection of over 350 original photographs, many unseen before, of Naval aircraft, plane crash sites, ships of the fleet, Admiral Byrd Antarctic Expidition II and many other subjects, all taken in the 1930's

 

[renrich]

CV1, the Langley was sunk while ferrying P40s to Java. The Allies launched Spitfires off of a carrier to reinforce Malta. It might have been Wasp or a RN carrier I can't remember which. These were regular Spits not Seafires. The Glorious a Brit carrier landed a few Hurricanes evacuating from Norway. These were landplanes with no arresting gear. Must have been hair raising. A carrier doing almost 30 knots into a 15 or 20 mph wind would mean a Hurricane might only have a speed over the deck of 45 mph when it touched down. Those aviators must have been relieved to get aboard. Short term relief though. The carrier was sunk by Scharnhorst very shortly. Obviously with a good wind over the deck, WOD, landplanes could get off with 400 or 500 ft of deck. Remember the Doolittle raid. Those were B25s with a full load of fuel and some bombs. A fighter, especially the early model European fighters being light would have no trouble doing a non catapult takeoff. The trouble with converting landplanes to carrier AC was that the whole structure of the carrier plane was stressed for the carrier landing which was much more crash like than a regular landing. Taking a land plane and trying to add the beef necessary to make it robust enough for carrier landing really was seldom practical. It wasn't just the landing gear either as the after fuselage needed to be strong enough for the tail hook to be used. Another issue was that all the parts needed to be "marinised" made proof against the elements present aboard a carrier, mainly salt water.

 

[Freebird]

CV1, the Langley was sunk while ferrying P40s to Java. The Allies launched Spitfires off of a carrier to reinforce Malta. It might have been Wasp or a RN carrier I can't remember which. These were regular Spits not Seafires. The Glorious a Brit carrier landed a few Hurricanes evacuating from Norway. These were landplanes with no arresting gear. Must have been hair raising. A carrier doing almost 30 knots into a 15 or 20 mph wind would mean a Hurricane might only have a speed over the deck of 45 mph when it touched down.

I know Furious ferried tp Malta, and Ranger did ferrying too. How would the the carrier have launched the Spit's then? I remember reading that one group that landed in Malta was 47 Spits. Could the Spits fit in the hanger? or would the carrier have it's (naval) aircraft in the hangar, and the 47 Spits parked on half the deck, and taking off using the other half? (Ranger 770 feet Furious 786 feet long)

Those aviators must have been relieved to get aboard. Short term relief though. The carrier was sunk by Scharnhorst very shortly. Obviously with a good wind over the deck, WOD, landplanes could get off with 400 or 500 ft of deck. Remember the Doolittle raid. Those were B25s with a full load of fuel and some bombs. A fighter, especially the early model European fighters being light would have no trouble doing a non catapult takeoff. .

How much deck did the lead B-25 have to take off from?

 

[Freebird]

The ferrying of assembled single engine fighters was best done with aircraft carriers. No need of unload facilities and aircrafts ready very soon after ground landing. It was one of the duty of CVEs as soon as they became available.
During the invasion of Marianas, two CVEs (loaded with 37 P-47D each) launched the Army fighters for their own defence, and they later landed on their intended destination (Saipan).

AFAIK the fitting of wings was a lenghty and hard process, but was sometimes done during the battle for Malta, because the transporting carrier had to keep some naval fighters for fleet defence along with the air force planes.

freebird, it was Freetown, not Freeport.

Max

Oops! Typo.

Where did you read about this mission? Would they have had about 20 of the P-40's in the hanger, and 17 or so on deck? If the CVE is 500 feet long (Bouge) that only leaves 350 feet or so for take off?