Board Thread:Questions and Answers/@comment-73.220.89.40-20150318192417/@comment-26574811-20160119075033

CaptainCoxwaggle wrote: Quite incorrect, all carriers in any sensible nation carried replacement aircraft in a disassembled state in storage, for repairs and maintenance. Heck, later on the Enterprise and other US carriers received additional replacement aircraft carried in juryrigged storage bolted unto the sides of the ships (bringing their totals to 82 + 28). As I mentioned the Enterprises advantage in aircraft is due to universal foldable wings and maintaining a deck park of aircraft, IJN carriers stored their aircraft within the ships hangars while US carriers only used the below deck hangars for servicing and maintenance. Of course there are disadvantages to the US system, namely the significant wear and tear on planes exposed constantly to high humidity and saline, and the incapability of assembling massive air waves due to deck clutter, forcing a rotation system of airborne squadrons.

The catapult is a vestigial leftover and was never used as steam catapult launches were significantly slower then deck launches. You will notice catapults were removed from the Essex class carriers for this reason, and was removed from the Enterprise herself in 1942.

The superiority of US aircraft has nothing to do with the carriers themselves, I said Japanese ships were generally superior in design, not their aircraft.

Early war American training was generally inferior to Japanese training. As the war progressed the Japanese couldnt maintain their high training standards while the US effectively used veterans to train recruits while the Japanese were forced to continue utilising their veterans on the frontlines.

American superiority in resources and industry again do not make their ship designs better. It only means they could sustain losses that the Japanese couldnt. When I said "IJN have "replacement aircrafts", USN don't" I meant that the number you see in wikipedia is the actuall aircraft load, while the number you see for IJN carriers include reserves. Even Japanese sources say a Yorktown can carry 83 non-reserve aircrafts, still 40%+ more than Hiryu's 57.

Catapults were rarely used in the early stage because they were unreliable. before 1942 only about 30% sorties were catapult-launched, but by the end of the war the number increased, and after the end of the war, catapult launch became nececcary due to the increased weight of aircrafts.

The removed catapult you mentioned was the catapult on hangar level, not the two on the flight deck. It was used to launch recons without interfering with the operations on the flight deck, but since USN tended to send a whole deckload of recons, this became useless. Flight deck catapults, on the other hand, were NOT removed.

Carriers fight by planes, not the ship itself. Planes actually matters more than the carrier.

You didn't say their designs were worse, you said USN ships are worse as in combat capability, which is absolutely wrong.

You also mentioned that Big E will be dubious, no, not at the very least. Remember that the only other carrier capable of carrying 90+ aircrafts is Kaga? And her capacity was unhistorically boosted? By this rule Big E would carry 100+ or even 120+ aircrafts.