- Thread starter
-
- #161
parsifal
Colonel
There is also the issue of where. British carriers are usually decried for having too small airgroups in European operations. The air group capacities of the pacific/temperate navies are often held up as proof of the weaknesses of British carrier design. British carriers favoured increased defences (like armoured decking and closed hangars), and this penalized the air group capacity to the tune of 50 or so a/c, so the argument runs. Partly true, but mostly untrue. The opinion fails to include in its consideration that in the Pacific, there was an almost universal practice of having 50% of aircraft in permanent deckparks. This was not, and mostly, could not be considered in European waters. Once British carriers arrived in the Pacific they too had 50% deck parks, and HMS Indomitable for instance, with a hangar area 85% of that of USS Yorktown, operated 72 aircraft in the Pacific compared to the Yorktown's 80 odd. The Illustrious could operate nearly 60 aircraft in the pacific, to the usual air group of 40 in the ETO. Which means that British carriers could have operated bigger air groups in Europe, if anyone had considered that wise. No one did.
It possibly explains why DKM in its projections for a carrier the size of an Essex class CV, only projected a CAG the same size as the illustrious. Illustrious, however was only 67% GZs final displacement
It possibly explains why DKM in its projections for a carrier the size of an Essex class CV, only projected a CAG the same size as the illustrious. Illustrious, however was only 67% GZs final displacement