Some secondary sources on the endurance of RN WWII Fleet Carriers
This recently came up in another thread, where 6000nm @20kt was mentioned for Glorious, with the source thought to be Browns 1977 Aircraft Carriers or Burt.
ok-stupid-question-i-always-wondered-t50973-s450.html
Notes - naval vessel endurance is really the most ephemeral of statistics. The figures depend obviously on the speed quoted, plus the conditions prevailing, the temperature of the sea, the state of the ships bottom, the mechanical condition of the ship and how much steam is on call for higher speed, or what manoeuvres are recovered to keep station or to fly off aircraft. My understanding is the underlying conditions for the Admiralty’s calculations became increasingly realistic from 1908-1939, but even then proved optimistic when tested in wartime conditions 39-45.
Nomenclature- in my head (and I believe the conventional definition) radius is the distance you can go before turning back and ending up where you started having kept all your requirements along the way. Range being the total distance you have steamed. However, I am not sure that either Brown or Burt were so precise in their use of the term. I try to give the figures in exactly the way they have given them. I am suspicious, however they are using radius and radii as a synonym for “range”. Friedman, is I think on happier ground with his “endurance.”
Many different figures here, which may well be all correct, just from different sources and reflecting different assumptions. Digging up their references where available also for later. Dig around for some more later. Aviation fuel, weapons and stores obviously a whole other kettle of fish.
Burt, “British Battleships 1919-1945” in its “Glorious and Courageous” section, does indeed give, “radius of action”, 6000nm at 20kt on 3160t of oil and 90,000shp for 32kt but this is in the section labeled “on completion as battlecruisers,”, not the “particulars as completed as aircraft carriers,” section, which merely says “machinery unchanged”, 3,800t max oil.
This is identical to the figures given in Burts “British Battleships of WWI” as battlecruisers, but with the additional figure of 1014t of oil for 24 hours at full speed available in the earlier volume.
I believe all these figures given by Burt ( other than the carrier oil fuel) relate to the design endurance of the battlecruisers as planned in 1915.
David Brown, “Aircraft Carriers”, 1977
This is a more useful book than you otherwise might imagine given the date, but here it is just one more set of data points.
He gives under the section entitled “fuel and radius” 3,830t oil for Furious, and 3,700nm at 20kt, 3,450t oil for Glorious and 3,685t for Courageous with 2,920nm at 24.5kt (doesn’t mention which ship). (My interpretation is these differences in fuel loads were real and adopted to compensate for weight additions since 1928, which varied from ship to ship)
In the body, he says “Like Furious, these ships were somewhat short ranged, with a range of just over 2000 miles at full speed,”
He does give the “radius” for Ark Royal with 4,620t “fuel”, 7,620nm at 20kt.
Friedman “British carrier aviation : the evolution of the ships and their aircraft”
(Furious) “ Design endurance was initially 4300nm at 16kt but in 1921 the design was revised, the 500 tons of ballast in the original re design being eliminated in favour of 600 more tons of oil fuel. Beam was increased instead so total increase was 700 tons. Total fuel was then 4035 tons, for 5300nm at 16kt”
“The very similar Courageous and Glorious were later increased to 4000 tons of oil to match, and were considered good for 80 hours at 90,000shp or about 2400nm. In 1939 they carried 3,570 tons of fuel oil, and were rated at 5030nm at 16kt. EinC thought 6000nm at 16kt. In 1939 Furious carried 3,950t of oil and was rated 5,610nm at 16kt.
A later section goes into the 1933 calculations for Ark Royal, based on a battlefleet profile, to explain the final numbers (Endurance 7000nm at 16kt was an early number). Ark Royal, very similar displacement, 1000 more tons of oil than Glorious and more modern machinery.
“200 hours at 16kt with steam for 18 (3200nm)
+8 hours at full speed
+16 hours at 18kt but with steam for full speed (288nm)
+12 hours at 16kt with steam for full speed (192nm)”
Friedman then goes on to discuss these figures as part of manoeuvres aimed at a decisive battle to be fought somewhere between Singapore and Kobe (2600nm). Yes, thats right, Ark Royal (and the Skua) were built to fight Japan as part of main fleet east. Anyway, my thoughts are it would be the most exciting 236hours of the ships life. Friedman mentions <2000nm jumps from home, Gibraltar, Alexandria, Aden, Trincomalee and Singapore also notes the USN was then planning to fight in the Pacific over nearly doubled stages. Also that with the loss of Singapore, the BPF had to deal with 4400nm Sydney to Kobe.
Revised 1933 numbers for carrier operations.
150 hours at 16kt with steam for 30kt (2400nm)
50 hours at 25kt with steam for 30kt
8 hours at full speed.
Admiral Henderson suggested an endurance speed of 5000nm at 24kt (Port Said to Singapore) as a requirement for speedy deployment in a crisis.
Endurance for Glorious in 1940? In wartime, while operating with the fleet, keeping station, zig zagging and flying off aircraft?
The operational history has her sailing on the 23 April for DX, and being said to need refuelling by the 27th, four days later. ( included a period of intense air operations, with Glorious providing SeaGladiators for fleet cover and Skua to fly to give cover over the land, and RAF Gladiators being flown off, flying operations running from the 24th-27th) Then sailed on the 31st May and said to need refuelling by the 7th.
Note for Chris Pat re Singapore, Coast watchers and coastal craft, with planning prior to 1935 being for a fleet battle 1200-1600nm forward of Singapore, coastal defence of the Malayan littorals really wasn’t a priority. Main fleet east, and Singapore get hit over the head by Abyssinia, Hitler and Treasury and there is nether the money or resources for both theatres.
This recently came up in another thread, where 6000nm @20kt was mentioned for Glorious, with the source thought to be Browns 1977 Aircraft Carriers or Burt.
ok-stupid-question-i-always-wondered-t50973-s450.html
Notes - naval vessel endurance is really the most ephemeral of statistics. The figures depend obviously on the speed quoted, plus the conditions prevailing, the temperature of the sea, the state of the ships bottom, the mechanical condition of the ship and how much steam is on call for higher speed, or what manoeuvres are recovered to keep station or to fly off aircraft. My understanding is the underlying conditions for the Admiralty’s calculations became increasingly realistic from 1908-1939, but even then proved optimistic when tested in wartime conditions 39-45.
Nomenclature- in my head (and I believe the conventional definition) radius is the distance you can go before turning back and ending up where you started having kept all your requirements along the way. Range being the total distance you have steamed. However, I am not sure that either Brown or Burt were so precise in their use of the term. I try to give the figures in exactly the way they have given them. I am suspicious, however they are using radius and radii as a synonym for “range”. Friedman, is I think on happier ground with his “endurance.”
Many different figures here, which may well be all correct, just from different sources and reflecting different assumptions. Digging up their references where available also for later. Dig around for some more later. Aviation fuel, weapons and stores obviously a whole other kettle of fish.
Burt, “British Battleships 1919-1945” in its “Glorious and Courageous” section, does indeed give, “radius of action”, 6000nm at 20kt on 3160t of oil and 90,000shp for 32kt but this is in the section labeled “on completion as battlecruisers,”, not the “particulars as completed as aircraft carriers,” section, which merely says “machinery unchanged”, 3,800t max oil.
This is identical to the figures given in Burts “British Battleships of WWI” as battlecruisers, but with the additional figure of 1014t of oil for 24 hours at full speed available in the earlier volume.
I believe all these figures given by Burt ( other than the carrier oil fuel) relate to the design endurance of the battlecruisers as planned in 1915.
David Brown, “Aircraft Carriers”, 1977
This is a more useful book than you otherwise might imagine given the date, but here it is just one more set of data points.
He gives under the section entitled “fuel and radius” 3,830t oil for Furious, and 3,700nm at 20kt, 3,450t oil for Glorious and 3,685t for Courageous with 2,920nm at 24.5kt (doesn’t mention which ship). (My interpretation is these differences in fuel loads were real and adopted to compensate for weight additions since 1928, which varied from ship to ship)
In the body, he says “Like Furious, these ships were somewhat short ranged, with a range of just over 2000 miles at full speed,”
He does give the “radius” for Ark Royal with 4,620t “fuel”, 7,620nm at 20kt.
Friedman “British carrier aviation : the evolution of the ships and their aircraft”
(Furious) “ Design endurance was initially 4300nm at 16kt but in 1921 the design was revised, the 500 tons of ballast in the original re design being eliminated in favour of 600 more tons of oil fuel. Beam was increased instead so total increase was 700 tons. Total fuel was then 4035 tons, for 5300nm at 16kt”
“The very similar Courageous and Glorious were later increased to 4000 tons of oil to match, and were considered good for 80 hours at 90,000shp or about 2400nm. In 1939 they carried 3,570 tons of fuel oil, and were rated at 5030nm at 16kt. EinC thought 6000nm at 16kt. In 1939 Furious carried 3,950t of oil and was rated 5,610nm at 16kt.
A later section goes into the 1933 calculations for Ark Royal, based on a battlefleet profile, to explain the final numbers (Endurance 7000nm at 16kt was an early number). Ark Royal, very similar displacement, 1000 more tons of oil than Glorious and more modern machinery.
“200 hours at 16kt with steam for 18 (3200nm)
+8 hours at full speed
+16 hours at 18kt but with steam for full speed (288nm)
+12 hours at 16kt with steam for full speed (192nm)”
Friedman then goes on to discuss these figures as part of manoeuvres aimed at a decisive battle to be fought somewhere between Singapore and Kobe (2600nm). Yes, thats right, Ark Royal (and the Skua) were built to fight Japan as part of main fleet east. Anyway, my thoughts are it would be the most exciting 236hours of the ships life. Friedman mentions <2000nm jumps from home, Gibraltar, Alexandria, Aden, Trincomalee and Singapore also notes the USN was then planning to fight in the Pacific over nearly doubled stages. Also that with the loss of Singapore, the BPF had to deal with 4400nm Sydney to Kobe.
Revised 1933 numbers for carrier operations.
150 hours at 16kt with steam for 30kt (2400nm)
50 hours at 25kt with steam for 30kt
8 hours at full speed.
Admiral Henderson suggested an endurance speed of 5000nm at 24kt (Port Said to Singapore) as a requirement for speedy deployment in a crisis.
Endurance for Glorious in 1940? In wartime, while operating with the fleet, keeping station, zig zagging and flying off aircraft?
The operational history has her sailing on the 23 April for DX, and being said to need refuelling by the 27th, four days later. ( included a period of intense air operations, with Glorious providing SeaGladiators for fleet cover and Skua to fly to give cover over the land, and RAF Gladiators being flown off, flying operations running from the 24th-27th) Then sailed on the 31st May and said to need refuelling by the 7th.
Note for Chris Pat re Singapore, Coast watchers and coastal craft, with planning prior to 1935 being for a fleet battle 1200-1600nm forward of Singapore, coastal defence of the Malayan littorals really wasn’t a priority. Main fleet east, and Singapore get hit over the head by Abyssinia, Hitler and Treasury and there is nether the money or resources for both theatres.
statistics: Posted by NewGolconda — 55 minutes ago — Replies 0 — Views 22