SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Shoot. I meant scrapping U.S.S. Enterprise.
Rare vids of IJN carrier aircraft ops
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Good stuff!
In the first video, I'm surprised at how far the pilot's head sticks out over the top of the canopy during takeoff. Are the pilots sitting on something, or could they crank their seats up and down rapidly? How can their feet reach the rudder pedals when they're sitting up so high?
Last edited:
Personally, I like HIJMS Shokaku and Zuikaku but that is just me.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I see your point. It is just you. 
No way Japan would have had 4 Taiho class in 1944. The reason? She never planned to have 4. Taiho was to be unique. Future carriers of the type were to be built to modified designs. And even if they could have been laid down, no way they could have been in service by 1944.
The Japanese shipbuilding programmes of the immediate pre war period are more than a little confusing because of the changing circumstances from 1940 and the capacity of Japanese industry to deliver.
Taiho was the product of Maru Yon Keikaku (or Maru 4 or Circle 4 Programme) along with 2 more Yamato class battleships (#110 aka Shinano & #111) and another 145 vessels, which was accepted in March 1939. A supplementary Programme in Oct 1940 added another 49 vessels. But Taiho's design process lasted from 1938 until she was finally laid down in 1941.
Design of the next Programme, Maru 5, wasn't begun until Jan 1940 and was then disrupted by the US "Two Ocean Navy" expansion plan of mid-1940. That led to the Japanese developing the Maru 6 Programme which was never finalised. These Programmes added another 159 and at least 14 more vessels to the building plans. By the time a conference took place in May 1941 it was becoming apparent to the Japanese that the Maru 5 Programme couldn't be started until 1942 and would take until 1950 to complete. That led instead to a a series of wartime programmes between Sept 1941 and the end of the war. So what carriers were included in these Programmes?
Maru 5 included 3 carriers (Hull numbers 800, 801 & 802). 800 was to be what became the Unryu class and the latter pair were to be of the Kai-Taiho type (i.e. a modified Taiho design referred to as Design number G-14).
Following the May 1941 a new "Circle Urgent Programme" was agreed in July but not activated until Sept 1941. That included 1 Unryu class carrier (but with hull number now 302). At that point the Maru 5 Programme still existed in modified form and was still scheduled to begin in 1942.
Then comes war and Midway, which forced a complete Japanese rethink of its carrier programmes. The Maru 5 Programme got cancelled altogether and in its place came the Wartime Warship Construction Replenishment Programme in Sept 1942. That was to include 15 Unryu class carriers (hull numbers 5001-5015) plus 5 Kai-Taiho (or Next-Taiho) class carriers (but now to a design G-15 with hull numbers 5021-5025). These were to be in addition to the Taiho & Unryu already building. But the priority was to build the Unryu class first. The 5 Kai-Taiho class were to have been laid down between Feb 1944 and Nov 1945 and completed between Jan 1947 and Sept 1948, all with build times approaching 3 years, which was comparable with Taiho herself.
Kai-Taiho G-15 design displaced more (30,360 tons v 29,300 tons for Taiho standard), and was dimensionally larger (for example length oa 868 ft v 855 for Taiho overall) and was designed for an airgroup of 51 + 2 reserve fighters. But these were to be the new larger B7A / A7M /C6M generation.
Last edited:
When it comes to carriers the 1920s were a period of experimentation to find out what was best. There were two problems
1. smoke dispersal and
2. providing command and navigation facilities.
Smoke dispersal
A variety of solutions emerged.
Long exhausts to the aft end of the ship as in Argus, Furious, & IJN Kaga (prior to her reconstruction in the 1930s). Disadvantage was the heat that passed into the after part of the ships.
Curved funnels exhausting downwards as in Akagi and fitted as part of later Kaga's reconstruction and to most later IJN carriers until Taiho & Hiyo class in 1941.
Folding funnels as in USS Langley 1922, IJN Hosho 1922 & USS Ranger 1934.
The final solution was of course funnels in the island, a practice begun with Eagle & Hermes completed in 1924.
Command & navigation facilities
Initially Britain was influenced by the experience with Furious in WW1 and the turbulence generated by her superstructure when she had separate take off and landing on decks in 1918. That led to the flush decked Argus. Experiments with her and a wood and canvas island structure in 1919 led to additional wind tunnel work before the designs of Eagle & Hermes were completed with islands. But not everyone was convinced so Furious was completed with a flush deck and the arguments went on into the era of the design of C&G before the island was finally settled on for them..
The reason for the very large tripod foremasts in Eagle & Hermes was to provide the necessary gunnery direction platforms especially for their low angle main armament (compare them with the C & D class cruisers of the period). But the bridges themselves are much smaller under those tripod masts.
In the US Langley was completed with a flush deck before the Lexingtons adopted a very large funnel & small separate island forward of it, again necessary to provide a base for those all important gunnery directors. Ranger was originally planned as a flush decker, with the island being added late in the design process (hence the retention of the folding funnels).
The IJN intended to complete Hosho as a flush decker but added an island before she was completed. Akagi & Kaga only received islands during their 1930s reconstructions when its benefits were becoming obvious. And that led to another Japanese peculiarity. Akagi & Hiryu became the only carriers to place their islands on the port side. Then the fliers told them that they preferred to turn left in the event of an aborted landing. Those two ships were also notable for having their islands much further aft than other ships of the period, which in practice turned out to be a disadvantage because it placed the front of an aircraft range in a mass launch ahead of the island.
The question really came down as to how aircraft operations were viewed against other priorities. And that developed over time and in different ways in each navy. With the advent of radar, pressure on space within the island structure grew forcing more and more stuff into the gallery deck spaces, if beams were deep enough, as WW2 went on.
Gallery decks
Most of the carriers of the 1920s and 1930s had closed hangars with compartments down the side of the hangars. It was the US that adopted open hangars with Langley, Ranger and subsequent carriers with no such compartments. For gallery decks, the primary requirement is to have beams supporting the flight deck / upper hangar decks that are deep enough to allow creation of a gallery deck. But until you require the strength to support those decks it is just more weight carried high in the ship causing stability issues in times of limited tonnages. In addition to that in the 1920s and 1930s the USN was using the space between those hangar beams to hang spare aircraft, often partially dissassembled, so it was not wasted space. That practice more or less ceased in 1942 with war experience.
But gallery decks are not all good news. If accomodation is fitted in these spaces then sleep deprivation can become an issue in round the clock operations for those expected to live there (the thumping down of aircraft on deck, the screech of arrester cables being pulled out and increasing use of catapults with their associated noise). I think that it was the movie "The Bridges at Toko-Ri set on an Essex class during the Korean War that highlights that issue. Think about it - it is like living inside a tin can with every noise being reflected from steel surfaces. In the 1950s/60s the reconstructed Victorious found that the accomodation in the gallery deck spaces became far too hot for comfort in the Far East under steel decks. So more cost and space required for air conditioning and electrical capacity to run it.
Another problem encountered by the USN with their gallery decks became apparent with the arrival of the kamikaze. A lot of the spaces put into the gallery decks related to aircrew ready rooms and radar and radio compartments. Whenever the flight deck got hit these areas got put of action first with the loss of key personnel. When the SCB-27 rebuilds were carried out on the Essex class from the late 1940s, one of the changes made was to move those aircrew spaces deeper into the ship and under armour plate. To help them get to the flight deck quickly an enclosed escalator was then provided. Note the angled structure under the island between hangar deck and flight deck levels in the photo below.
Until the Forrestal class, US carriers had the hangar deck as their main strength deck. The hangar was a generally much more lightly built superstructure placed on that. With the Forrestals the flight deck became the main strength deck and was much more heavily constructed than in previous carrier generations and required greater support and therefore deeper beams and so creating more space able to be used as a gallery deck.
1. smoke dispersal and
2. providing command and navigation facilities.
Smoke dispersal
A variety of solutions emerged.
Long exhausts to the aft end of the ship as in Argus, Furious, & IJN Kaga (prior to her reconstruction in the 1930s). Disadvantage was the heat that passed into the after part of the ships.
Curved funnels exhausting downwards as in Akagi and fitted as part of later Kaga's reconstruction and to most later IJN carriers until Taiho & Hiyo class in 1941.
Folding funnels as in USS Langley 1922, IJN Hosho 1922 & USS Ranger 1934.
The final solution was of course funnels in the island, a practice begun with Eagle & Hermes completed in 1924.
Command & navigation facilities
Initially Britain was influenced by the experience with Furious in WW1 and the turbulence generated by her superstructure when she had separate take off and landing on decks in 1918. That led to the flush decked Argus. Experiments with her and a wood and canvas island structure in 1919 led to additional wind tunnel work before the designs of Eagle & Hermes were completed with islands. But not everyone was convinced so Furious was completed with a flush deck and the arguments went on into the era of the design of C&G before the island was finally settled on for them..
The reason for the very large tripod foremasts in Eagle & Hermes was to provide the necessary gunnery direction platforms especially for their low angle main armament (compare them with the C & D class cruisers of the period). But the bridges themselves are much smaller under those tripod masts.
In the US Langley was completed with a flush deck before the Lexingtons adopted a very large funnel & small separate island forward of it, again necessary to provide a base for those all important gunnery directors. Ranger was originally planned as a flush decker, with the island being added late in the design process (hence the retention of the folding funnels).
The IJN intended to complete Hosho as a flush decker but added an island before she was completed. Akagi & Kaga only received islands during their 1930s reconstructions when its benefits were becoming obvious. And that led to another Japanese peculiarity. Akagi & Hiryu became the only carriers to place their islands on the port side. Then the fliers told them that they preferred to turn left in the event of an aborted landing. Those two ships were also notable for having their islands much further aft than other ships of the period, which in practice turned out to be a disadvantage because it placed the front of an aircraft range in a mass launch ahead of the island.
The question really came down as to how aircraft operations were viewed against other priorities. And that developed over time and in different ways in each navy. With the advent of radar, pressure on space within the island structure grew forcing more and more stuff into the gallery deck spaces, if beams were deep enough, as WW2 went on.
Gallery decks
Most of the carriers of the 1920s and 1930s had closed hangars with compartments down the side of the hangars. It was the US that adopted open hangars with Langley, Ranger and subsequent carriers with no such compartments. For gallery decks, the primary requirement is to have beams supporting the flight deck / upper hangar decks that are deep enough to allow creation of a gallery deck. But until you require the strength to support those decks it is just more weight carried high in the ship causing stability issues in times of limited tonnages. In addition to that in the 1920s and 1930s the USN was using the space between those hangar beams to hang spare aircraft, often partially dissassembled, so it was not wasted space. That practice more or less ceased in 1942 with war experience.
But gallery decks are not all good news. If accomodation is fitted in these spaces then sleep deprivation can become an issue in round the clock operations for those expected to live there (the thumping down of aircraft on deck, the screech of arrester cables being pulled out and increasing use of catapults with their associated noise). I think that it was the movie "The Bridges at Toko-Ri set on an Essex class during the Korean War that highlights that issue. Think about it - it is like living inside a tin can with every noise being reflected from steel surfaces. In the 1950s/60s the reconstructed Victorious found that the accomodation in the gallery deck spaces became far too hot for comfort in the Far East under steel decks. So more cost and space required for air conditioning and electrical capacity to run it.
Another problem encountered by the USN with their gallery decks became apparent with the arrival of the kamikaze. A lot of the spaces put into the gallery decks related to aircrew ready rooms and radar and radio compartments. Whenever the flight deck got hit these areas got put of action first with the loss of key personnel. When the SCB-27 rebuilds were carried out on the Essex class from the late 1940s, one of the changes made was to move those aircrew spaces deeper into the ship and under armour plate. To help them get to the flight deck quickly an enclosed escalator was then provided. Note the angled structure under the island between hangar deck and flight deck levels in the photo below.
Until the Forrestal class, US carriers had the hangar deck as their main strength deck. The hangar was a generally much more lightly built superstructure placed on that. With the Forrestals the flight deck became the main strength deck and was much more heavily constructed than in previous carrier generations and required greater support and therefore deeper beams and so creating more space able to be used as a gallery deck.
Good resume, though i'd like to add a few things.
In the initial planning of Maru 4, Taiho was not supposed to be alone, in fact the IJN asked for 3 carriers, but due to various considerations, money and slipway space etc, it was reduced to just one. Japanese wiki is a treasure trove of such details, see here the Maru 4 table:
④計画 - Wikipedia
Secondly, the G14 was actually a supercarrier (for the time), a sort of japanese Midway of 45-50,000 tons, 3 of which were initially planned for Maru 5. I guess they reasoned if they were building superbattleships, might as well build supercarriers too.
But as the war approached it was changed to the already designed Taiho-kai type, to save design time, resources, slipway space etc. The Unryu design (originally the 3rd of the 3 planned Maru 5 carriers - afterwards moved to the 1941 emergency program to be ready in 1944) was chosen for the exact same reason, they wanted to build carriers as fast as possible to an existing design, the Unryu was a reasonable CV, much cheaper especially in steel than even a Taiho, hence it was chosen to standardize on.
See Maru 5 here:
