HMS Ark Royal 1955

Well since we are on the topic of historic carrier designs, Would it be possible to fit a modern day version of the original HMS Corageous/Glorious flying off decks that were joined to the forward sections of the hanger back in the early 30’s?

It’s a practice that has always facinated me and I see the ultimate version being the IJN’s Akagi pre modernisation when she had an upper and lower flying off deck as well as a full landing deck on top.

Of course the ultimate british carrier modification was HMS Victorious after her 1950-55 reconstruction, the result was what I would regard as the best looking RN warship of the post war era.

When designed, Eagle and Ark Royal were able to carry about 100 aircraft (1945 types) in their two hangers. Both hangers had their heights raised to approximately 17.5 feet during the design phaseto enable them to carry the latest US aircraft. By the time Ark Royal entered the service here airgroup had dropped to about 55 (allegedly 80 in wartime). Then post 1961 this went down to 48 and finally following her 1967-70 ‘Phantomisation’ refit, 39 made up of 12 Phantoms (892sqn), 14 Buccaneer S2s(809sqn), 5 (later 4) Gannets -Including one cargo type(849sqn B flight), 6 Sea Kings (later 7 following the COD Gannet’s withdrawl) (824sqn) and 2 Wessex (ship’s flight).

The malta desighn was not a copy of the US practice, but rather a continuation of a trend of reducing the amount of armour on british carriers, from the first Illustrious claas ships with decks intended to resist six inch shell fire, through to the Audacious class with less and the Malta with even less, but they were still to carry more armour than their american counterparts.
Its alright having 50 aircraft on deck, but if you get hit by a kamikaze and your entire deck crew gets incinerated you havnt achieved much.

Demanding that all aircraft fit in the hangar simply limits the total number carried – the hangars are no larger than those of the US carriers, there are simply fewer planes! I would rather have 100 planes, with 50 on deck and 50 in the hangar, than have just 50, but with all of them in the hangar!

It is a bit like the arguments about British carriers in the Pacific at the end of WW2, where Brit carriers could withstand kamikazes. This was interpreted by the Brits as meaning armoured flight decks were better – but as some noted, it actually simply meant that Brit carriers had tiny aircraft complements. The RN did actually recognise that, and as such, the cancelled Malta Class copied the American method, using a simple armoured box hangar, giving about twice the aircraft capacity.

Well the RN doesn’t forget any of it’s hard learned lessons… Planes on deck equates to nice targets for enemies to aim at (Kamakazies of WW2, Exocets of the Falklands). At least if their planes are below decks, then they are afforded some protection and flamables aren’t as exposed either.

The Brits really liked their upper and lower hangars. That was the only way they could get a decent number of aircraft on-board with their smaller hulls (than the US CVs designed at the same time), and their practice of wanting to keep all their aircraft in the hangars, not with some in a permanent deck park.

I am sure that they were also divided with fire doors into smaller sections, but their individual size was not all that big.

Almost all of the fleet carriers had the two hangars, starting with the 1937 Ark Royal. Only two of their large WW 2 CVs had one hangar deck, but all of the “light fleet carriers” also had only one.

2 hangers, one above the other

You sure Steve? That’s rather unusual usually they are next to each other with a fire door linking the two.

It had 2 hangers, one above the other, both with heights of 17ft 6in. Info from ”Warbirds of the Sea” by Walter A. Musciano.