carrier air group size (discussion, recommendations)

[el cid again]

I decided to see how my "brilliant" settings worked in a test vs myself
I don't trust AI to be wise

And I was struck by the fact the Allied carriers had so many airplanes
Looking at squadron equipment, something said "you better look at ship capacity"

And there it is: the carrier classes, particularly the big ones, are rated rather too high.

I last reviewed this subject with Joe Wilkerson. Long story short, what started as a project to review CHS aircraft values in the WITP database ended up with doing an independent mod: and the question then arose - is carrier capacity "right?"

Now of course, in a game for pure fun, "right" is whatever you wish it to be. We could do a The Final Countdown scenario and put USS Nimitz at Pearl Harbor on Dec 7, 1941 like in the movie too. [Indeed, I thought I was on a ship teleported to that date, when, in 1968, they filmed Tora! Tora! Tora! on location. We had arrived the night before, and not been advised of the filming. So imagine my surprise at the sight of propeller driven aircraft making "attack runs" the following morning! Being trained to be Petty Officer of the Watch, I knew how to sound General Quarters. Being at the quarterdeck where the alarm switches and 1MC were located, I decided to do so. My ship, en route to actual air combat in Viet Nam, turned to - to the considerable consternation of everyone else on the base. Every sort of signal was used to try to tell us not to shoot down the planes! And, no, I did not get in trouble: the captain said "any time you see the ship under attack by aircraft with foreign markings, do exactly the same thing!"]

And then too, right is different at different times. Time was that USS Lexington or IJN Akagi ran air groups North of 80 aircraft - in the 1920s when much smaller planes were the order of the day. So a "historically correct" air group "that really was operated" on the order of 90 may, at the very same time, be completely inappropriate by 1942 - or worse - by 1945. This effect means that "capacity" is based on different standards at different times: the Capacity of a CVE is in terms of planes the size of an F4F - not an F6F . In game terms, one might operate a F4U or even a gigantic F7F off a CVE - but not in real life. The numbers used are not created equal: IF we were to rate a USS Midway in terms of F4Fs we would indeed use a larger number than if we rate her for F8Fs and F4Us.

There is also the matter of using a 'deck park.' In theory, a ship can have "two deck loads" of aircraft on board (consider the Doolittle raid with a deckload of B-25s IN ADDITION TO the entire compliment struck below on the hanger deck). So a deck park can add as many as 100% more aircraft to the capacity of the hanger. Practice was not to do that at all in many navies - such aircraft were vulnerable in bad weather - and only USN could afford to lose them. The modder must decide if he is to use different standards for different navies - or a consistent one? I prefer to be consistent, and rate the capacity of a ship's hanger - but other choices are rational.

Another consideration, which I consider baseline, is what is the ship designed to operate? This can be modified for cause - but it is the starting point. US fleet carriers in the 1930s were intended to operate four squadrons of 18 machines - or 72. Essex was supposed to add a "half squadron" of 9 more fighters to that mix. [See Essex Aircraft Carriers, USNI if you have the slightest doubt I know whereof I speak] That is to say, Yorktown class carriers were intended to have a practical air group of 72, and Essex 81. Never mind that Lex and Sara had, at one time, larger capacity - it was found that there were operational limitations to what could be operated - and by WWII they too were expected to operate 72 of the admittedly larger planes. Similarly, while USS Midway is sometimes rated at 108, 120 or even 135 machines - these values were greater than was practical to cycle even with smaller aircraft - and anyway the planes operated kept growing in size - so these are not realistic values. Here is a quote

The resulting carriers were very large, with the ability to accommodate more planes than any other carrier in the U.S. fleet (30–40 more aircraft than the Essex class). In their original configuration, the Midway class ships had an airwing of almost 130 aircraft. Unfortunately, it was soon realized that so many planes was beyond the effective command and control ability of one ship.

Returning to the design criteria, apparently the original Midway design called for increasing the size of the air group by a full squadron (of 18) over the standard (of four squadrons) of Yorktown = 96. Granted that in that iteration the ship was given 8 inch guns, and its very large new model 5 inch 54s were to be in dual mountings (neither made the final cut) - it turned out that in operational terms - this design was more realistic. The ship could manage that many planes, and it could get them aloft in a reasonable time frame (in that era of pre angled flight decks). And, in fact, over time, USN has never found it efficient to control an air group over 100 planes, even with the most gigantic of carriers. Our ships keep growing - now exceeding 100,000 tons - but the air group contemplated is shrinking.

Too much focus on Midway is misplaced, however: she will only arrive in 1946, and only the first two might have seen wartime service. It is the lesser carriers that we need to worry about. The standard I advocate is the design air group, modified for operational considerations (in particular larger later aircraft, e.g. Hermes, Lexington, Akagi, etc or, in the case of CVEs which sometimes turned out not to be up to their design capacity for various reasons). I attach a recommended house rule against putting gigantic late war bombers on light carriers that never could operate them.

Using this standard, we get:

Illustrious 36 slot 134

Indomitable 45 slot 136

Implacable 60 slot 138

Indefatigable 60 slot 139

Unicorn 35 slot 140 (but no assigned air group)

Hermes 14 slot 141 (formerly 20 smaller machines)

Colossus 37 slot 142

Vindex 18 slot 144

Attacker 20 slot 145

Ameer 25 slot 146

Midway 96 slot 296

Lexington 72 slot 674

Yorktown 72 slot 680

Wasp 60 slot 685

Essex 81 slot 689

Independence 30 slot 694

Long Island 16 slot 696

Bogue 33 slot 698

Sangamon 36 slot 700

Casablanca 32 slot 702

Commencement Bay 28 slot 704

Hosho 19 slot 1802

Akagi 72 slot 1806

Kaga 72 slot 1811

Hiryu 64 slot 1816

Soryu 63 slot 1821

Shokaku 72 slot 1826

Zuiho 30 slot 1831

Junyo 51 slot 1835

Ryujo 40 slot 1840

Taiho 75 slot 1845

Ryuho 30 slot 1948

Unryu 57 slot 1852

Shinano 42 slot 1855 (historical actual operational; capacity sans workshops is about 96 practical)

Ibuki 27 slot 1857

Shinyo 30 slot 1859

Kaiyo 24 slot 1862

Taiyo 27 slot 1862

Chitose 24 as CVS slot 1872 30 as CVL slot 1873

Mizuho 24 as CVS slot 1876 30 as CVL slot 1879

would be 12 as CVS as modified to carry midgets - not in game

Nisshin 24 as CVS slot 1981 30 as CVL slot 1884

Akitsushima - apparently a game invention with a capacity of 4 - it might carry that many seaplanes. It is correctly rated as an AV, but then what is the point of the capacity of 4? If meant to carry seaplanes, probably rate it as a CVS. If one is strictly historical, she is can carry one - but one giant flying boat! This might work in game terms - never tried it.

[herwin]

Carrier capacity in the real world depends on aircraft size, flight deck area, hangar area, and (mostly) operational considerations. Your numbers are too broad brush. Look at the historical figures for what was possible.

[Wally Wilson]

I'm comfortable with the carrier capacity numbers used in the game. They are more or less traditional with what have been used for 40 years in wargames. I will admit, however, that I've been aboard the CV-16 Lexington "2" (ex-Cabot) museum ship. Its rating is 110 and I'm not quite sure how they fit so many a/c on board, but seemingly they were able to do so.

[WLockard]

I can't cite a reference at this time, but mostly USN CVs went out with 36 DBs, 18 TBs and as many Fighters as they could find and make room for. In 43 most USN CVs were leaving port with 100+ aircraft on board.

[Sardaukar]

Also, US CVs used deck parking, which allowed more planes, plus spare planes were often hanging from the ceiling of hangar deck. 

[inqistor]

Well, it could be nice to get it implemented, but I think, that first there should be some way to show the difference between sizes of different carrier planes.

IIRC quite a lots of Japanese CVEs were too short to launch bigger planes with full bombload.

[el cid again]

So were ours. Can you imagine even trying to take off from a USN or RN CVE with the larger fighters, never mind bombers,
operated from fleet carriers by the late war period? It was never attempted, for cause.

I think it is pretty easily implemented. Assign air groups (as indeed is mostly the case already) with appropriate planes -
and size the carriers for those planes. Thus Hermes - once able to operate 20 planes of sorts not even in the game -
should be rated for 14 - of the size she carries. She should not be assigned F7Fs, or F4Us, or late war carrier bombers -
because they could not operate in any numbers from her.

[oldman45]

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but I am pretty sure the US and UK CVE's carried TBF's. I can't think of a bigger carrier plane off the top of my head.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: oldman45

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but I am pretty sure the US and UK CVE's carried TBF's. I can't think of a bigger carrier plane off the top of my head.

Big wings and powerful engine. Note they used catapults, too.