WW2 top ten planes

The biggest single problem with the FAA at the outset of the war CurzonDax was the leadership, only very few commanders had much concept of the potential for carrier based planes or had indeed come from an aviation background (which was fairly normal in the USN)
The battleship was still viewed as the capital vessel and as such the carrier was badly used at first.
For example one commander when asked what he would do if confronted by an enemy fleet replied "steer straight for it", the concept of using the aircraft's long reach while staying out of range of the enemy's guns didn't even cross his mind.
As for aircraft capacity this is a cut and paste from the HMS Illustrious history and explains in fewer and clearer words than I could.

The small number of aircraft carried was due to extensive armouring, including the flight deck. This was considered more important than aircraft capacity when operating close to shore based enemy aircraft. Indomitable's capacity was increased to 48 by completing her with a two-level hangar for half the length of the ship. All went through various war-time reconstructions including a slight increase in deck space, provisions for deck parking of aircraft which increased capacity to 54 and a large increase in AA guns.

Click to expand...

This is a list of the aircraft carried by Illustrious during the war

1940: 33 aircraft: Fulmars and Swordfish
September 1942: 21 Martlet, 6 Fulmars, and 18 Swordfish
July 1943: 28 Martlets and 18 Avengers
January 1944: 24 Corsais and 21 Barracudas
May 1944: 24 Corsairs and 18 Avengers
June 1944: 42 Corsairs and 15 Barracudas
November 1944: 36 Corsairs, 15 Avengers

Click to expand...

Another factor was that until lessons had been learned regarding launch and recovery of aircraft (mainly from USN advisors ) the slow times that it took the RN too fly off and recover their Squadrons (several minutes greater than that of the USN) meant spending far too long steaming into wind which with a large group of aircraft would place the carrier miles from the battle group.

You are right in your supposition that the Avenger is a larger aircraft than the Swordfish even with the wings folded the Avenger is I believe approximately 29ft wide as opposed the the Stringbags 17ft 3 and nearly a full 4 ft longer.
Although I still believe the Swordfish was the most successful anti shipping plane of WW2 in terms of tonnage sunk there is no doubt that the USN had by far the best carrier based aircraft of the war the few attempts made by the RN to obtain home grown decent fighters, dive bombers etc was not very successful. With a new concept of what carriers could do thanks to Taranto etc and having already adopted ideas from the USN the FAA became a different beast all together and later with planes like the Corsair at their disposal a match for any carrier force.
At the time of the Bismark (May 1941) six months after Taranto it was still however the admirals in charge of the Grand Fleet that ruled the roost besides I do not personally believe the Ark Royal had the fire power to sink the Bismark.

Hope that makes some sense CurzonDax and helps answer your questions

I shall now wait to have my post pulled to bits by all and sundry

Trackend,
All of this does answer my questions, thanx. Still its amazing to me that the Captain of the Illustrious still did not send a wieghted Alpha Strike. I guess they were not thinking in those terms in the RN yet (I am sure Halsey and Yamamoto would have).

Still, actually, and I have to research, I think it was the Dauntless that sunk the most tonnage from a carrier borne bomber. Will check it out.

:{)

Good luck Curzon finding out which aircraft was the most successful carrier based the Dauntless and the Swordfish are the front runners but getting the tonnage is bloody hard I have been in touch with the FAA records department and even they are having trouble. The problem is that a plane like the Swordfish laid mines as well and a ship sunk by a mine is still being destroyed by an aircraft carried weapon yet it is very hard kill to verify. I know during the Middle East campaign figures for the Swordfish floated around the 300,000 tonnes per month mark for direct kills, and in total I believe 13 subs with 11 assisted kills so with the Artic convoys, Atlantic, naval surface vessel kills ETO and some PTO work the figure must be pretty high.

CurzonDax said:

:

1. I have never got a satisfactory why the RN carriers had such a small air group on them. I know the RN carriers were smaller than USN ones but they were not that small.


:{)

Click to expand...

Basically it depends on the space the aircraft can be put in. The aircraft have to have a place to park and be worked on. Ie. flight deck or hanger space under the deck. The carrier is not just a floating run way. It has to have crew space, engine compartments, etc. The US carriers were considerably bigger anyhow if you look at this. Now naturally this is not all the carriers by either country but just the major large Fleet Carriers.
Royal Navy

Implacable Class (2 built)
Length: 766ft 2in.
Beam: 95ft 5in.
Draught: 29ft 4in
Displacement: 32,000 tons
Crew: 2000
Aircraft: Over 60

Indomitable Class (1 built)
Lenght: 753ft 11in.
Beam: 95ft 9in
Draught: 22ft. 4in.
Displacement: 29,730 tons
Crew: 1600
Aircraft: Over 60

Illustrious Class (3 built)
Length: 753ft
Beam: 95ft
Draught: 24ft.
Displacement: 23,000 tons
Crew: 1600
Aircraft: Over 60

Colossus Class (6 built)
Length: 630ft
Beam: 112ft (across flight deck)
Draught: 21ft. 4in.
Displacement: 13,350 tons
Crew: 854 (excluding air crews)
Aircraft: 39 to 44

US Navy

Midway Class (3 built)
Lenght: 968ft.
Beam: 136ft.
Draught: 32ft 9in.
Displacement: 55,000 tons
Crew: 4085
Aircraft: 137

Essex Class (24 built)
Length: 888ft
Beam: 93ft
Draught: 29ft.
Displacement: 33,000 tons
Crew: 2900
Aircraft: 82 (103 can be carried)

Compare just the Beam of the ships. Midway calass 136ft to the Indomitable class 95ft.

True Adler If you have a smaller box you cant fit more in I know the spare engines and large items on the RN carriers where stored hanging from the deck heads but never the less with the steel fire curtains, fuel supply sprinkle systems plumbing, plus the need to keep the access ways clear, it was not the largest of areas to work on aircraft.

If the Illustrious could hold 60 aircraft, that is in addition to beans, bullets, and engines, but in a previous post she only had 30 aircraft in 1940, was the RN going through that much of a lack of qualified carrier pilots? I guess in 1940 they did not have in place the USN's reserve system. Also from what I have been researching it seems that throughtout the war the carrier arm seemed to be the RN's poor relation.

I guess if the Bismark had been facing Halsey in the Enterprise the Bismark episode would have been more of a side note in WWII history. With no aircover to speak of even the Devastators would probably have been successful. DOH! damned USN torps and thier stoopid magnetic exploders.

:{)

The British used Duplex triggers CD on many of their torpedos which worked really well enabelling the weapon to explode on contact or if set too deep, underneath the vessels keel these worked very effectivley at Taranto even though the inner habour was shallow.
That said nothing in the torpedo field was as effective as the Japanese Long Lance.

True, true. Even the Germans were having the same problems as the Americans with thier torps.

:{)

Now y'all probably are probably wondering why we, or at least I am anyways, are talking about carriers (or maybe not since you probably have a life and have more important things to do). When we talk about what are our top ten planes many of us talk about the seexy ones and forget the the BUFF (Big Ugly Flying F#*@kers) were the ones responsible for sometimes taking the fight to the badguys. Here is my top ten BUFF list, again in no particular order.

1. Henschel 129
2. Dauntless
3. Avenger
4. Swordfish
5. Blackburn Skua
6. P-61
7. Sunderland
8. Kawanishi H8K
9. PBY
10.Storch

Good idea for a list I will have to think one up also.

A BUFF list...sounds good but I can only think of a few at this time, not in order:

Ummm... There isnt many planes I think are ugly

I can think of some that I personally think are hideous.

My top ten unsung heroes:
1. Bristol Beaufighter
2. Handley-Page Halifax
3. Armstrong-Whitworth Whitley
4. Short Sunderland
5. Short Stirling
6. Consolidated Catalina
7. Avro Anson
8. Bristol Blenheim
9. Hawker Hurricane
10.Douglas Dakota

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

I can think of some that I personally think are hideous.

Click to expand...

Oh yea. Some Pre-war french designs need to have the fashion police arrest thier designers.

:{)

Why you you think the Italians got it on it?

To make just as hideous designs!

Pre-War Italian bomber... (Fiat BR.20)


Pre-War French bomber... (Bloch MB-200)


Yeah, the Fiat is really ugly All Italian planes look good, however there are a couple that are offensively ugly, im not biased. However All French bomber are offensively ugly...(Pre-War anyway)


The joke I was making was that the Italians are known as the fashion police, which is why they launced attacks on France to kick-start their war campaign...Oh you know what I mean.

i think pre war french bombers look great!

You are in a small minority, they are some of the most hideous planes I have ever seen.

they're beautiful! i'll admit they aint no lanc but i wouldn't kick 'em outta bed..........