Talk:HMS Shah (D21)

Requested move

The discussion for this move will take place on Category talk:Bogue class aircraft carriers because it affects many Bogue-class aircraft carriers which were transferred to the Royal Navy upon completion and never saw USN service. TomTheHand 18:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Big Bloody Article and Pic

[1]--Mongreilf (talk) 11:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Not The Atlantic

HMS Shah served in the indian ocean. see link in section above--Mongreilf (talk) 08:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Cocker inaccuracies

Some of the references given to Cocker are clearly untrue or misrepresented wrt HMS Shah. I will therefore remove this text: "They had a maximum aircraft capacity of twenty-four aircraft which could be a mixture of Grumman Martlet, Vought F4U Corsair or Hawker Sea Hurricane fighter aircraft and Fairey Swordfish or Grumman Avenger anti-submarine aircraft." The photo shows her carrying far, far more aircraft when she ferried the Kityhawks etc across the Pacific to Cochin - although of course nothing could fly off. But in operation after unloading Cochin her complement was never more than 15 Wildcats and Avengers combined - and this was soon reduced due to fatal accidents and operations. Also, the ship's hull was designed as a merchant ship, although she was built as a MAC ship and no conversion was necessary, other than to get her modified to RN specification. Evidence the post-conversion back to a merchant. Ephebi (talk) 10:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Changed text to reflect this was the operational capacity These ships were the first class of escort carriers built as such and not converted merchantmen. The Merchant Aircraft Carrier (MAC ship) was a different thing all together.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Firstly, you are right about the 'MAC' terminology, I used that expression too loosely in my comment above. Nonetheless, it was a US civilian hull design that she started with. 2) She was never fitted out for British-built aircraft, thus she could never have carried those '24 aircraft' as you claim without being refitted. Her operational complement was 15 aircraft (or possibly 16). 3) She carried a dozen Avengers. They were collected in the NE USA, and flown by their crews to Almeda to get to the carrier with no serious mishaps, other than one upset American Admiral - a fair achievement in those days. Several of them crashed or ditched in the Indian Ocean with some loss of life - just normal patrol operations were hazardous. 4) She also took on board a single flight of Wildcats - I think it was three, though its just possible it was 4. One of those crashed on landing and was u/s - the boat sailed around the Indian Ocean for several months with the Wildcat's undercarriage leg wedged firmly between the barrels in one of the gun pits. 5) Any Wildcats you can see on deck would have been part of the main complement - they were not destined for the Air Force at Cochin. However, there might have been other types - its hard to tell from the photographs I have of that journey here without getting out the magnifier. Ephebi (talk) 09:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Without digging out the books. There was no conversion required to use British aircraft all escort carriers could use them. I do not claim she could carry 24 Cocker and others do this web link [2] and this one [3] (20) for a quick on line source. Being employed as an escort carrier she had a composite aircraft squadron with both anti-submarine and fighter aircraft which was normal RN practice at the time. To provide more on deck space they also employed what they called out riggers basically a length of wood the supported the rear wheel that stuck out from the flight deck. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• My point is that the numbers & types attributed to Cocker are wrong, so requoting him doesn't solve the problem. My original source is my father's own notes and photos from when he flew from Shah, which I tend to believe over someone who wasn't there. They are confirmed by other sources, which refer to an original complement of one sqdn of Avengers and one flight of Wildcats. It strikes me that theoretical class numbers are conflated with actual information about specific carriers. (On that basis one could just as well say that the Shah could carry, say 18 Walruses and Sharks - which is no more accurate than claiming 24 Swordfish & Sea Hurricanes. Of course, neither circumstance ever existed on Shah.) Cocker appears to be quoted using some hypothetical generic figures which didn't apply specifically to the Shah, Begum, etc. but would be fine if written on the page about the class. The other source you referenced omits some of the losses but even so it is clear that the original complement was down to about half strength when a number of Hellcats were embarked. (Note Hellcats were not mentioned on the front as part of the ship's capacity) If they could have flown more aircraft from those carriers then they would have done - but it was already a tight fit and deck operations were challenging enough. I don't recall seeing any photos of out-riggers on the Shah's decks - Avengers' tailwheels could be problematic which might have deterred them from using them. Ephebi (talk) 00:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source that contradicts Cocker then that can be added. But he is not the only one that makes the claim. Maximum capacity does not take into account any losses and just because they did not have a complete complement of aircraft does not mean that they could not accomodate them.Jim Sweeney (talk) 03:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• OK, I have left the vague 18-24 untouched in the info box. But I have gone through the text extensively and carefully used the 'typical' complement rather than Cocker's vague reference. I have expanded its breakdown according to engagement. As a 'verifiable' source I have used this: [4] which covers a slightly broader timespan than my notes. It overlaps on the whole with my records, except for one statement that makes no sense (e.g. one reference to 851 Sqdn having 19 Avengers - which I suspect is a typo) which I have left out. Ephebi (talk) 14:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)