How many carriers?

Discussions on WW2 in the Pacific and the Sino-Japanese War.
Post Reply
User avatar
Windward
Member
Posts: 1810
Joined: 30 Jul 2003, 15:41
Location: Pechinum
Contact:

#106

Post by Windward » 06 Sep 2003, 07:02

maisov wrote:Most of Japanese carriers converted from merchant ships were simply 'mobilized'. Navy promised to return them after the war, re-converting to merchant ships. Only for Junyo class, navy bought them from a ship company and thoroughly modified them to aircraft carriers. It was why Junyo class was superior to other converted carriers.
Japanese government offered 60% to Nippon Yusen Kaisha's Kashihara Maru class luxury ocean liners, so they were designed by the standard of carrier. High height for hangar, large space for lifts, and so on. Nitta Maru, Yawata Maru, Kasuga Maru (N, Y, K, aha! :D) received official offer too, but IJN didn't want them to be used as converted carriers at first, they might be used as auxiliary cruisers or transport ships. That's why they had poor capability of holding airplanes after the conversion.

And maisov I must point out that IJN bought the NYK trio on August 1 1941. Before that date they were called as "tokusetsu kubo"(auxiliary carriers) N Maru, Y Maru and K maru, and after that day they were classified as formal kobu Taiyo, Unyo, Choyo.

Argentine Maru (Kaiyo) was bought on Dec 9 1942, and SS Scharnhorst (Shinyo) was bought from Norddeutsche-Lloyd in Spring 1942.

User avatar
hisashi
Member
Posts: 2039
Joined: 12 Aug 2003, 15:44
Location: Tokyo,Japan
Contact:

#107

Post by hisashi » 07 Sep 2003, 16:14

Windward, thank you for correcting my post.
In 1932, Japanese government offered a subsidization program to ship industry as a remedy in the Great Depression. It was a scrap-and-build program to replace old, uneconomical ships. The fourth act of this sort, 1937 in effect, was a big subsidization program applicable for any ship of 6,000 tons or more and 19 knots or faster. That is, this program intended to keep good large merchant ships for war, and the applicants were expected to be requisitioned at war. The decision to allow subsidy was individually made, and navy requested the constructor of individual ships, for example, that this ship should be one knot faster. For the largest ship type, such as Junyo (Kashihara-Maru) and Chuyo (Nitta-Maru), navy made requests so that navy convert them to aircraft carriers.
In total 28 ships were allowed subsidizations. For example, Hokoku-Maru and Aikoku-Maru which served as raider ships in Indian Sea were included in them.
In 1940, seeing the order of new carriers by U.S. navy (Essex class) Japanese navy decided to reqiusition and convert three unfinished subsidized ships to carriers. Kashihara-Maru (Junyo), Izumo-Maru (Hiyo) and Kasuga-Maru (Taiho). Only the last of NGK ships was unfinished, so it has become the nameship of this type as carriers.
Navy bought the former two in February 1941 before completion (June and July 1942) but Kasuga-Maru was not taken over this time. Kasuga-Maru, almost completed as a merchant ship, was refit as a carrier from May 1 to August 31, 1941.
At first of the pacific war Kasuga-Maru belonged to the 4th air squadron under combined fleet, and had flying group of her own. Navy gave her transport mission continually, and lastly moved her to Kure military district HQ; that is, out of first line order of battle. While Junyo participate in the raid of Dutch Harbor, Taiyo and Unyo (refit from Nov 1941 to May 1942).
Junyo was an auxilliary carrier when she was commissioned in May 1942, but reclassified as a regular carrier in July 1942 with Hiyo, a week before her commission. In August 1, 1942 (not 1941), navy took over (bought) Taiyo (and perhaps her sisters), and reclassified them as regular carrier in August 31 (Chuyo began refit in August 10 and completed as regular carrier in November 25).
What happened in July and August 1942? Of course it came from what happened in June 1942 - Midway. In addition to Chuyo, navy sought large merchant ships left, and found Argentina-Maru, Kaiyo. The conversion of Kaiyo took longer because they must install more powerful engine. Scharnhorst was given (with a promise to pay twice the value of the ship after the war ) to japanese navy in June 30, 1942, but it is not clear whether Japanese navy made this offer after Midway.
Navy spent much more time for Junyo class in earlier stage of construction than in Taiyo class, and bought them just after the conversion began. It was partly true that navy spent more for Junyo class for improvement, but also, navy expected less to Taiyo class.

Hisashi NAMIKAWA


User avatar
Windward
Member
Posts: 1810
Joined: 30 Jul 2003, 15:41
Location: Pechinum
Contact:

#108

Post by Windward » 07 Sep 2003, 19:28

good informations, domo arigato gozaimashita Namikawa sama!

Japanese magazine "Ships of the World" has lots of fine old photos of Japanese warships, liners, emigration ships and cargo ships before WW2, including Argentina Maru and Yawata Maru of San Francisco, Seattle and Buenos Aires line.

Liner's high freeboard caused poor stability in heavy seas after conversion, that's why I think your navy should not convert liners into medium slow fleet carriers. It squandered two admirable large fast luxury liners. I think IJN should better save your liners, convert cargo ships and tanks, and build smaller escort carriers, after all they could not catch the speed of fleet.

Tiornu
Member
Posts: 922
Joined: 20 Aug 2003, 21:16
Location: NAmerica

Habbakuk

#109

Post by Tiornu » 07 Sep 2003, 21:21

I ran into this drawing of Habakkuk. It serves to show the scale of the construction that woul have been involved.
http://www.freeweb.hu/battleshipboy/Ste ... abakuk.jpg

User avatar
hisashi
Member
Posts: 2039
Joined: 12 Aug 2003, 15:44
Location: Tokyo,Japan
Contact:

#110

Post by hisashi » 08 Sep 2003, 01:21

In a Japanese military Q&A site, a question about Japanese catapult was posted, and a famous military researcher replied. In Japan the development of catapult stopped after the war began and they concentrated in developing rocket booster for take-off from aircraft carrier. It succeeded in test by 1944, but the war ended while technical tunings before massproduction.
Without catapult and its equivalences, small CVs are useless even for escort. Perhaps it was why Junyo class (210 meter flight deck) was included in combat troops and Taiyo class (162 meter) was exclusively used for transport mission. The last ship Chuyo had 172m deck, and when Taiyo and Unyo joined escort fleets, navy refit them to have 180m flight deck, as long as Shoho type. Kaiyo (160m) was poorer, and used for transport mission and training. Old CVL Ryujo (156-158m, slightly differ among sources) suffered from the same problem and were usually used where navy expected little resistance.
There are many Japanese fans who miss, especially, beautiful Argentina-Maru.

nebelwerferXXX
Member
Posts: 1256
Joined: 31 Jul 2010, 07:39
Location: Philippines

Re: How many carriers?

#111

Post by nebelwerferXXX » 16 Dec 2010, 06:49

Petter wrote:1) When Pearl Harbor was launched...
2) How many carriers did Japan have?
3) How many battleships did Japan have?
4) How man carriers did USA have?
5) How many battleships did USA have?
6) How long time did it take to produce a normal seize carrier?
7) How much stronger was the US industrial capacity vs Japans industrial capacity?
Here's the answers for your questions. For nos. 6 and 7, I have to research it first.

The US Navy: December 1941
16 battleships
7 aircraft carriers
18 heavy cruisers
19 light cruisers
6 anti-aircraft cruisers
171 destroyers
114 submarines

The Imperial Japanese Navy: December 1941
10 battleships
8 aircraft carriers
18 heavy cruisers
20 light cruisers
108 destroyers

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 20:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: How many carriers?

#112

Post by Takao » 16 Dec 2010, 10:47

Thanks for reviving a long dead thread nebelwerferXXX,

However, you really should be adding to the discussion rather than just posting lists, especially since what you had provided concerning the battleships and carriers was given back on page 1. As usual, your numbers are off, from what I provided way back when...
Takao wrote:AIRCRAFT CARRIERS
USN ( 8 )

Lexington
Saratoga
Ranger
Yorktown
Enterprise
Wasp
Hornet
Long Island
Note - 4 Essex class carriers had their keels laid by 7 December 1941.

IJN (10 / 11)
Hosho
Akagi
Kaga
Ryujo
Soryu
Hiryu
Zuiho
Shokaku
Zuikaku
Taiyo
???Shoho (recommissioned as a carrier 26 Jan, 1942). 2 carriers had been launched, but not commissioned, and 2 other had their keels laid by 7 December, 1941.

BATTLESHIPS

USN (17)
Arkansas
New York
Texas
Nevada
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Arizona
New Mexico
Mississippi
Idaho
Tennessee
California
Colorado
Maryland
West Virginia
North Carolina
Washington

Note - USS Wyoming had been re-rated as an AA Training Ship in November, 1941. All 4 ships of the South Dakota class had been launched, but not yet commissioned and the keels of the 4 Iowa class that were completed had been laid. Of the 9 battleships in the Pacific Fleet, only the Colorado was not present at Pearl because she was being overhauled on the West Coast.
#7 has also been answered
Takao wrote:To give you an idea of the wartime industrial capacity of the two nations.
From 1942-1945 major surface combatant tonnage built: USN 3,250,000 tons vs Japan's 500,000 tons. Surface combatants are considered carriers, battleships, cruisers, destroyers, and subs.
#6 is somewhat hard to clarify, since wartime production would be faster than peacetime construction. The Japanese always took longer to complete their ships, IIRC, the Japanese took at least a year longer to complete their carriers.

nebelwerferXXX
Member
Posts: 1256
Joined: 31 Jul 2010, 07:39
Location: Philippines

Re: How many carriers?

#113

Post by nebelwerferXXX » 16 Dec 2010, 11:01

Takao, My numbers were taken from the book, Encyclopedia of World War II, General Editor John Keegan. I just copied it number by number. Thanks!

User avatar
mescal
Member
Posts: 1415
Joined: 30 Mar 2008, 15:46
Location: France, EUR

Re: How many carriers?

#114

Post by mescal » 16 Dec 2010, 12:05

Hello,

Even if Keegan is the editor, there may remain mistakes or approximations.


Takao dealt with the battleships & carriers
(Although, IIRC, there may have been one more CVE at the disposal of the USN : USS Charger, which reverted from control of RN to USN sometime during the fall 1941 IIRC - but I do not know her exact/official status by that time.)

- Cruisers :
I'm OK with the numbers you give for CA & CL for both navies (even though I'm always uneasy with putting Omaha and Brooklyn under the same CL label)
But the six CLAA are completely off. Only Atlanta commissioned before the end of 1941 (and it was after Pearl Harbor). Even if one takes into account the ships launched before PH, there are only four of them (Atlanta, Juneau, San Diego, San Juan).

-Destroyers :
A little precision : I have 216 US Destroyers (or former destroyers) in the tables I posted there. The discrepancy comes from the 40 hulls which had been reclassified as AVD, APD, DM, DMS. Note that the DM & DMS were fully capable of assuming ASW destroyer role.
And I have only 103 Japanese destroyers (data here).
Olivier

User avatar
Ironmachine
Member
Posts: 5821
Joined: 07 Jul 2005, 11:50
Location: Spain

Re: How many carriers?

#115

Post by Ironmachine » 16 Dec 2010, 13:23

For the U.S. Navy, an interesting reading is the First Report to the Secretary of the Navy Covering our Peacetime Navy and our Wartime Navy and including combat operations up to 1 March 1944 by Admiral Ernest J. King Commander in Chief, United States Fleet, and Chief of Naval Operations (Issued 23 April 1944).
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/USN ... ing-1.html
For example, for question
6) How long time did it take to produce a normal seize carrier?
it has the following information:
untitled.JPG
untitled.JPG (83.94 KiB) Viewed 9364 times
With a construction program well under way, it was most important to keep alterations in design at a minimum in order to avoid delays. Nevertheless, changes which would increase military effectiveness or give greater protection to crews were not sacrificed for the sake of speeding up construction. Another consideration which industry had to take in its stride was the evolution of strategic plans and changes in the type of operations which made it necessary, from time to time, to shift the emphasis in construction from one type of ship to another. For example, when the war began our carrier strength was such that we could not stand much attrition. When, therefore, we suffered the loss of four of our largest aircraft carriers in the Coral Sea engagement, at Midway, and in the South Pacific, it was imperative that the construction of vessels of this category be pushed ahead at all possible speed. Shortly after we suffered the heavy loss in battleship strength at Pearl Harbor our battleships under construction at the time were given top priority. At another stage of the war, when the submarine situation in the Atlantic was a matter of great concern, emphasis was placed upon escort carriers and destroyer escort vessels. At the moment, major emphasis rests with the construction of landing craft, because we intend to use them in large numbers in future operations.
Regards.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 20:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: How many carriers?

#116

Post by Takao » 16 Dec 2010, 23:26

Mescal,

My sources indicate that, while the USS Charger was returned to US control in early October, 1941, she was not placed commissioned by the USN until March 3, 1942. Hence, I had left her off my list of USN carriers on December 7, 1941. She was used, for some time after her return, as a training carrier(usually for British airmen).

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: How many carriers?

#117

Post by LWD » 17 Dec 2010, 15:46

nebelwerferXXX wrote:Takao, My numbers were taken from the book, Encyclopedia of World War II, General Editor John Keegan. I just copied it number by number. Thanks!
If that's the case you should have been crediting the source as well.

User avatar
mescal
Member
Posts: 1415
Joined: 30 Mar 2008, 15:46
Location: France, EUR

Re: How many carriers?

#118

Post by mescal » 19 Dec 2010, 15:45

Takao wrote:Mescal,

My sources indicate that, while the USS Charger was returned to US control in early October, 1941, she was not placed commissioned by the USN until March 3, 1942. Hence, I had left her off my list of USN carriers on December 7, 1941. She was used, for some time after her return, as a training carrier(usually for British airmen).
Thank you Takao.
Olivier

nebelwerferXXX
Member
Posts: 1256
Joined: 31 Jul 2010, 07:39
Location: Philippines

How many carriers?

#119

Post by nebelwerferXXX » 03 Sep 2017, 10:56

Japan have 22 carriers (of large & small category) of which, 19 were sunk. Mostly at the battles of Coral Sea, Midway, Philippine Sea & Cape Engano...

alecsandros
Member
Posts: 298
Joined: 23 Jun 2010, 09:37

Re: How many carriers?

#120

Post by alecsandros » 12 Mar 2018, 08:13

Hello,
skimming-through the AHF, I re-read this ancient thread,
and thought it would be interesting to post the following:

- an analysis of carrier types and capacity at various moments would be nice to see. For instance, Japan had more carriers in Dec 1941 then USN did, but in terms of embarkable contemporary aircraft, the 2 navies were almost identical. What needs to be added though is, IMHO, the strength of the seaplane carrier arm, and the actual numbers of land-based carrier-qualified and carrier-equipped squadrons (i.e. it makes litte importance if Japan had 1000 planes carrier capacity in Dec 1941, when it only had 800 planes with crews to equip them (the numbers are for example only))

From what I see, Japan started with the fast carriers Kaga (72)/Akagi(63)/Soryu(57)/Hiryu(59)/Zuikaku(72)/Shokaku(72)/Ryujo(36)/Zuiho(36) and slow carriers Hosho(20)/Taiyo(20), for a rough total of ~467 machines on the fast carriers and 40 more on the slow ones.

The United States started with the fast carriers Lexington(72)/Saratoga(72)/Yorktown(72)/Enterprise(72)/Hornet(72)/Ranger(61)/Wasp(70), and the slow Long Island(27), for a total of 491 machines on the fast carriers and 27 more on the slow one.

With capacity numbers actualy fluctuating according to actual machines on board (some occupied more space then others, some had foldable wings, some did not), the impression is that the 2 navies were very well balanced in terms of contemporary aircraft carriying capacities.

The important (essential ?) mention is that the USN was required to split her forces between 2 oceans (Pacific and Atlantic), while the IJN could concentrate her force in a single ocean (Pacific).

Hope this is of interest,

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in the Pacific & Asia”