Ryûjô aircraft carrying capacity

[Jorge_Stanbury]

Was Ryûjô really capable of carrying 48 WW2 era planes?

It was according to Wikipedia, and of course it is in the game,
but I can't find anywhere a reference of it carrying more than 30 something planes in combat in any campaign..

and it was 10K tons; smaller than Hermes, Taiyo, Long Island, Bogue, Independence etc... and all of these carrier classes carried around 30 planes max
so I it is hard to imagine Ryûjô carrying 48 planes

[boxof9]

Both my reference books list the aircraft compliment at 48.

[Anachro]

HIJMS Ryujo
Displacement: 10,600 tons
Dimensions: Length 590ft; Beam 68ft; Draft 23ft
Maximum Speed: 29kts
Aircraft Capacity: 48 (36 operational)
Radius: 10,000nm
Crew: 924

However, during her engagement in the Eastern Solomons, her air group consisted of 24 fighters and 9 bombers, or 33 planes in total. Doubtful that she ever actually saw a full complement of 48, which according to specifications above would not have all been operational anyways.

Source: USN Carriers vs IJN Carriers by Mark Stille, Osprey Publishing

[btd64]

World War Two database shows 38....GP

[Jorge_Stanbury]

Yes around 30+ is what I have seen consistently as the maximum number of planes operated for real, in actual war operations. This is also what Parshall describes in "Kaigun"

http://www.combinedfleet.com/ships/ryujo

And storage in game is normally deals differently, as planes "in reserve".

[Dili]

I have researched the air complemnt of every japanese carrier so if anyone want info just ask.

For Ryujo i have this 4 different aircraft complements along her career that i have found:

-The ship's air group then consisted of 18 Nakajima B5N torpedo bombers and 16 A5M4 fighters.
4 of each type of aircraft were spares. initial airstrike consisted of 13 B5Ns escorted by nine A5Ms

-Ryujo air group now consisted of 12 A6M2 Zeros and 18 B5Ns,[20] plus two spares of each type.

-Her air group consisted of 24 Zeros and nine B5N2s

-27 - A6M5, 6 - B6N (Air Group 652)

[FeurerKrieg]

For whatever it is worth, my Jane's book says "24 aircraft carried (unofficial)"

[stretch]

Conway's lists 48, operational max 37. Just to add one more different number from another reference, heh.

[PaxMondo]

This was discussed years ago in detail. IIRC, one of the devs said something to the effect: the Ryujo could carry 48 in her hangars, but only 36 were mission capable due to flight deck/elevator issues. Rather than write code to all for this unusual limitation (a very high spare capacity), they decide to "gift" the JFB's and label her 48 ac.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

This was discussed years ago in detail. IIRC, one of the devs said something to the effect: the Ryujo could carry 48 in her hangars, but only 36 were mission capable due to flight deck/elevator issues. Rather than write code to all for this unusual limitation (a very high spare capacity), they decide to "gift" the JFB's and label her 48 ac.

Further to PaxMondo's comments.

Making a big issue of the embarked aircraft is rather irrelevant. What really matters for every carrier is the number of sorties and torpedo sorties allocated. Ryujo has much fewer sorties than some other smaller carriers.

The more aircraft carried the sooner the available (fixed) sorties are exhausted and that is the real limiting element of a carrier as a strike weapon platform.

Alfred

[Dili]

In my opinion concentration of force is more important in a carrier battle than persistence. So i would always choose aircraft quantity over missions sorties.
Unless we are talking about land support and other secondary missions.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

I would have argued that around 36 planes allowed plus 6 in "reserve" (3 per squadron) is a closer representation to reality than a strike capability greater than all other CVLs and even close or equivalent to some fleet carriers (British armored decks or Japanese liner conversions for example). But I agree it doesn't make a difference when looking at the big picture.

I also agree with Dili strike capability is a lot more important than number of sorties. Carriers, Japanese in particular, are better for hit and run. It is very difficult to run out of sorties,

[John 3rd]

My Modding crew has her at 36 for our Mods. Seemed much more correct.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

My Modding crew has her at 36 for our Mods. Seemed much more correct.

Which is why the game is moddable. [;)]

[fcooke]

I think she had two decks worth of hangers which accounts for the larger capacity. IIRC this made her pretty unstable. She was an effort by Japan to squeeze in more aircraft capacity under the idea of a 10,000 ton carrier - not subject to Washington Naval tonnage limits.

[Dili]

Yeah, i like the almost panoramic bridge.

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: fcooke

I think she had two decks worth of hangers which accounts for the larger capacity. IIRC this made her pretty unstable. She was an effort by Japan to squeeze in more aircraft capacity under the idea of a 10,000 ton carrier - not subject to Washington Naval tonnage limits.

This is what the US did with CV-4 Ranger, also for treaty limits. She carried 76 planes on 14,500 tons.

[John 3rd]

...and had about the same set of problems. TOO crowded and not very useful. She was only really used for Torch and that was about it.

[Dili]

I think was also employed in Atlantic but yes it was a problematic carrier. I think she didn't even had torpedo bunkers.

[wdolson]

Ranger rarely carried 76 aircraft. Though VT-4 was assigned to her, so I'm sure she carried torpedoes. The Ranger usually had a small VT complement ranging from 7-10 planes. In the first year of the war the typical air group was around 20 F4F, about 30 SBD in two squadrons, and 7 TBDs. By January 1944 she carried 30 SBD-5, 10 TBF, and 27 Wildcats (mix of FF4F-4 and FM-1). This is from the USN aircraft strength reports which were generated about once a fortnight during the war. The PDFs of these reports have been available on the Navy's history website for several years.

By late 44 she had become a training carrier with no air group assigned.

Bill