"British CV's and Aircraft Carried" Topic

Hi: Can anyone summarize the planes carried by UK carriers? I have Conways and they list how many the carriers started with, but I understand they changed their parking arrangements and carried far more than listed? Can anyone give dates and numbers for the various classes?
Thanks,
Dave M.

Due to the Washington and London Naval treaty the total tonnage of carrier construction was fixed (5-5-3 British-American-Japanese) at about 63,000 (3/5 of that for Japan) tons with certain CV's under construction or finished not being counted. The British built there CV's with armored decks so the Ark Royal was built with a full armored hangar deck but the Illustrious class having half size hangar decks (36 aircraft storage) as the treaty was scraped the carriers were upgraded with full hanger decks (57 aircraft storage).

Strange thing was that the armored deck did not save the Ark Royal as it was torpedoed and sunk. With the same tonnage the US launched 4 CVs (about 320 aircraft) and the British launched 4 CVs (about 170 aircraft). The Japanese launched 2 CVs and one CVL (about 180 aircraft) under treaty restrictions.

Scott

That is way too big a question to answer with a post here.

As you say, it changed through the war as aircraft types, availability, doctrine and operating theatre changed – an Illustrious class in 1945 in the Pacific, using a deck park and with access to ample US lend-lease supplies carried many more aircraft than, for example, Victorious in 1941 in the Bismark chase.

I'd recommend Nirman Friedman's British Carrier Aviation – put in a request at the library if you don't want to spend the money (but of this is an area of interest, it would be money well spent).

By the way, almost every word of gamershs' post is wrong and the whole is hopelessly confused.

Added in edit: sorry: I meant Norman Friedman, of course.

Dave,

British carriers were designed with armoured flight decks because they more likely to face land-based aircraft while deployed in either the North Sea or Med. This requirement, while operating under the same tonnage restriction did limit the number of aircraft being carried relative to US and Japanese carriers.

However, the benefits of the armoured flight deck were pointed out by the USN liaison officer on Indefatigable, "When a kamikaze hits a US carrier it means 6 months of repair at Pearl [Harbor]. When a kamikaze hits a Limey carrier it's just a case of 'Sweepers, man your brooms.'" Indefatigable was herself hit by a kamikaze on 1 April 1945; she resumed flying operations within the hour.

I haven't had chance to check these numbers myself but the British Pacific Fleet page on Wikipedia lists the following aircraft complements for the six fleet and four light carriers deployed at the end of the war:

Colossus: 24 Corsairs, 18 Barracudas
Formidable: approximate airgroup 36 Corsairs, 15 Avengers
Glory: 21 Corsairs, 18 Barracudas
Illustrious: approximate airgroup 36 Corsairs, 15 Avengers
Implacable: 48 Seafire, 21 Avenger, 12 Firefly
Indefatigable: 40 Seafire, 18 Avenger, 12 Firefly
Indomitable: 39 Hellcats, 21 Avengers
Venerable: 21 Corsairs, 18 Barracudas
Vengeance: 24 Corsairs, 18 Barracudas
Victorious: 36 Corsairs, 15 Avengers, plus Walrus amphibian

It is interesting to note that the Malta class fleet carriers planned at the end of the war but never built were closer to the larger US carriers in design and did not have armoured decks but did have larger complements of aircraft in the 80 to 108 range.

Cheers,

Interesting that the UK used the Corsair from their carriers and not the Hellcat. I thought that the USN did not like to operate the Corsair from carriers. The Corsair's long nose cause visibility issues on landing.

Mark

The RN did use the Hellcat and Indomitable had 39 in the British Pacific Fleet – at least according to the list I found earlier.

As to Corsairs, beggars can't be choosers and the Royal Navy cleared the Corsair for carrier usage before the USN or USMC. British units apparently solved the landing visibility problem by approaching the carrier in a medium left-hand turn, which allowed the pilot to keep the carrier's deck in view over the dip in the port wing. (I'm sure, whatever the issues with the Corsair, this paled into insignificance against those suffered by the Seafire which had both a long nose and a narrow undercarriage.)

I have both Peter Smith's and John Winton's books on the British Pacific Fleet and I will check this evening to see if they discuss this at all.

My understanding as well is that British carriers also carried less aircraft fuel, and fuel was stored in smaller drums and tanks due to an inherent fear of fuel fires. I believe a fire destroyed one of the earliest carriers in service. Storage and handling included the fire screens which disrupted the hanger deck and reducing carrying capacity. This also reduced size within the enclosed hanger area, and unlike US carriers, they could not easily clear fuel fumes. Finally the two deck system, meant that higher profile aircraft couldn't be carried in the lower hanger. This may have been the reason for some aircraft choices.

WRT to books, the Friedman book is OOP. A recent in-print book on the same subject is "British Aircraft Carriers", by David Hobbs.

link

MH

paled into insignificance against those suffered by the Seafire which had both a long nose and a narrow undercarriage.)

My uncle Joe was a rigger on Seafires at Scapa Flow. He said he was never bored, as they "needed a lot of rigging."

For books, being out of print isn't such an obstacle if you are patient and shop around – that said, the current prices on Abe Books UK for the Friedman book are a bit high.

There have been some interesting and generally well informed discussions on RN carriers here link on both the RN and the Aircraft Carriers boards. Well worth a look through.

The thing that stands out for me above all else is the limitations created by the hanger height of the wartime armoured carriers – particularly later in the war and immediately post-war.

Midlander is quite correct about hanger height – in RN service the Corsair had 8" cut of its wings so that it would fit in the armoured hangers folded.

I presume, by the responses, that you are only interested in the late war time frame. If you are interested in 1939-42, let it be known – I have spent years answering this question for that time frame.

Mark

I'm interested in how many aircraft these carriers carried and when they changed. I took the list and compared the numbers given by 22nd Foot to Conways and here's the same list with Conway's number first and the sum of the above post second.
Colossus: 37/42
Formidable: 33/51
Furious: 36/
Glory: 37/ 39
Illustrious: 33/51
Implacable: 60/81
Indefatigable: 60/70
Indomitable: 45/60
Unicorn: 35
Venerable: 37/39
Vengeance: 37/39
Victorious: 33/52
Furious was out of active service by '44 and Unicorn apparently never served as a carrier?

The main reason for the above differences are that most British carriers were designed to a philosophy which required that all aircraft fit in the hanger. Those are the numbers quoted by Conways. Once the US entered the war (and coincidentally the RN was finally able to obtain sufficient Lend-Lease aircraft to do so), the RN began to use deck parks per USN practice. This allowed a greater number of aircraft to be operated.

Unicorn mostly served as a maintenance carrier, as designed.

Mark H.

I find Navypedia has a reasonably complete listing of air wings for individual ships and when they changed through the years.
link

Also there was a fleet air arm site that used to have good information but its eluding me at the moment…I'll see if I can find it later….

Nice site, myrm11. :)

MH

Sorry this took so long but finding the site bugged me..the Fleet Air Arm site I was talking about is the Fleet Air Arm Archive and here they list all the aircraft capable ships and have details of their airwing to varying to varying degrees.
link