The Emergance of the Aircraft Carrier

[Minardiau]

I was thinking about this the other day.

In WW2 in which military historians argue that the Battleship was finally replaced as the major force projection asset a nation could have. Is this a true and accurate reflection of events in WW2?

My stance is. Although the carrier played a major role. To contribute it to as being the only force projection asset is quite misleading.

Apart from Midway and Coral Sea. (excluding attacks on harbours) Battleships did give a fair account to themselves against carriers. The Germans sank Glorious, Bismark although attacked still needed to be finished off by battleships and despite British having carriers the Italian fleet did set sail to engage quite often and was still decent sized force by the time of their surrender.

Likewise, The US never lost a BB in direct action against a carrier and the Japanese only lost Yamato but one must acknowledge that Yamato's task force was not at full strength.

England lost Prince of Whales and Barham.

During the Battle of Leyte Gulf, yes carriers were involved, however it was the might battleships that proved decisive.

In today's use. The Marines still prefer the firepower of BB's over smaller vessels and in alot of cases airpower.

So the question is. Yes Carriers are important. However are they as important as historians make out?

[onefast93z28]

I'm too tired to discuss CVs vs BBs in World War 2. However, I have always believed that the US should have at least two of the Iowa class today in order to support USMC operations.

[Makita]

Given the expense of retrofitting a BB and the strike limitations involved, I don't see that arguement being a sound one. My understanding, though dated and certainly word of mouth, is that we can not even make the barrels for a BB anymore. A destroyer with Tomahawks gives you much more range and strike capability. Another point, the whole nostalgic beauty of the BB was destroyed by that Cher video a decade ago. Still gives me cold shudders when I think about it.

[TheBelgian]

Sounds like the problem is solved wel enough witha Carrier Battle Group. Aircraft, cruise missiles and everything nice

[Nightstalker_pl]

"Japanese only lost Yamato"

What about Mushashi Battleship??? It was destroyed by US planes from carriers (19 torpedos and 17 bombs!!!).

The battle near the Samar Island - the powerful Japanese Battleship Task Force was stopped by small aircraft carriers.

German Tirpitz also was destroyed by British RAF.

So, there were much more battleships destroyed by planes... Aircraft carriers are the most powerful combat ships now and nothing is gonna to change it.

But, on the other hand, battleships like Iowa are still dangerous - with their main artillery and Tomahawk missiles.

Furthermore, there are so beautiful.... p-)

[onefast93z28]

I would never make an arguement that an Iowa was more powerful than a Nimitz, but two of the Iowas (New Jersey and Wisconson) would not cost to much to get up to spec. Remember all four were retofitted in the 1980's. There is nothing better for pounding a beachhead than nine 16 inch guns.

[ElHombre]

I would never make an arguement that an Iowa was more powerful than a Nimitz, but two of the Iowas (New Jersey and Wisconson) would not cost to much to get up to spec. Remember all four were retofitted in the 1980's. There is nothing better for pounding a beachhead than nine 16 inch guns.

the operating costs of an iowa are enormous. and they really only have the 16" guns going for them as most ships can carry tomahawks these days.

the cost-effectiveness question of carriers vs. BBs are already settled. carriers can perform multiple kinds of missions, BBs only have one.

[chuckster]

I think one of the reasons the Japanese lost relatively few battleships to US carriers during WWII is they did not engage carrier task forces with their battleships. During the Battle of Midway their battleships were kept in the rear of the action. During the Solomon Islands campaign, most of their battleships were again held out of the action. A couple of battlecruisers did participate, but they only sortied at night when carrier planes were largely ineffective. They did employ their battleships at the Battle of the Phillippine Sea, but this was out of necessity since most of their carriers and carrier combat pilots had been lost by this time.

One more thing, during WWII it seems the commander of a purely surface fleet could avoid enemy aircraft by sortieing at night. Today, that is not so since modern aircraft can detect ships at night nearly as well as in daytime.

[onefast93z28]

the operating costs of an iowa are enormous. and they really only have the 16" guns going for them as most ships can carry tomahawks these days.

the cost-effectiveness question of carriers vs. BBs are already settled. carriers can perform multiple kinds of missions, BBs only have one.

yeah for the most part they are a one mission ship, the Navy has settled the cost issue, but it is important to note the Navy must keep two of the Iowas at the highest reserve readiness (90 days to active duty if I recall).

[Mastermind]

I think the battle of Lete Gulf demonstrated the issue well. A huge armored surface fleet was turned back by a few small "jeep" carriers launching AC only armed with fragmentation bombs. The event may have been affected by the Japanese commander's state of mind...which most certainly was badly shaken by the constant assaults from the American aircraft and the bold actions of the little destroyers. Sure, the American escort carriers were badly mauled...but, in the end, they won the day over the non-carrier force. I think that was the last time any carrier force was brought under direct fire by surface forces.
MM

[vryhpyammoadded]

I was thinking about this the other day.

In WW2 in which military historians argue that the Battleship was finally replaced as the major force projection asset a nation could have. Is this a true and accurate reflection of events in WW2?
My stance is. Although the carrier played a major role. To contribute it to as being the only force projection asset is quite misleading.

I say yes, the CV’s were very important especially during the later war period when proper radar technology, new aircraft and picket tactics allowed them to leverage there long range offensive abilities over huge portions of ocean.
During the early years there zones of control were sketchy at best and it’s amazing more close encounters between big gun armored ships and CV’s didn’t happen like with Taffy 3 off Samar which, by the way, is one incredible naval battle.
Also, I agree with you on the CV not being the only asset to have back then. When at war with the coffers wide open, a nation can afford to specialize ships to missions. BB’s did a fantastic job as massive AA battery’s and not even a carrier could match there sustained shore bombardment abilities.
Then there were the American Submarines that were wildly successful sinking Japanese merchantmen.
If I remember right, the British and Americans at one point were going to build a dedicated shore bombardment ship that would resemble something like an old monitor with big 16in guns using a fraction of the BB manpower. I don’t know how far it got.

Today, with three meter CEP weapons, modern sensors, aircraft and the ability to land Marines about anywhere, I don’t see much need for the BB anymore, although, a GPS guided 16in broadside sure would be fun to see in action… for our side and only after we had sea and air dominance established using the CBG.

So the question is. Yes Carriers are important. However are they as important as historians make out?

I’d say yes, carrier battle groups are important but then again my father, a thirty year sub vet, would call it target. He has quite a collection of photos of various friendly and not so friendly ships in embarrassing positions.

[Coop]

Already the Coral Sea has proven the superiority of carriers: once their fleet was detected by the US, and then two of their carriers put out of commission (one of them sunk), the Japanese were unable to continue their attack on Pt. Moresby.

The problem was less so the firepower or its precision precision, as much as the ability to bring this firepower to bear over extended range, flexibility of manoeuvre, and what can be described as "stealth".

One has to manoeuvre a battleship very close to the target - to within the artillery range, which at the time was around 25.000-30.000 yards, and this requires not only lots of time and skill, but also brings the battleship well within the range of enemy's ability to hit back. Once the battleship went into action, her appearance was very obvious to the opponent too, and the ship was easy to track (which means the enemy could hit back by other means too).

On the contrary, the carrier could move at high speed, approach undetected to within the range of several hundred miles and strike - with help of aircraft. Even more so: the aircraft could approach from a completely different direction, so that even a rough bearing to the carrier remained unknown. This provided flexibility and this capability of "stealth" operations: without carrier being detected (and these ships were easy to hide, because they were operating out of enemy's sight), one could move them around and hit back at will.

The situation from the Coral Sea repeated itself during the campaign in the Solomons: the USN has lost two carriers there (Hornet and Wasp), and has had its third ship almost sunk (Saratoga) in the course of battles that were raging for months, but its ability to support USS Enterprise - despite all the damage this ship sustained - and Enterprise's ability to operate aircraft over Guadalcanal even when Henderson Field was heavily hit by the Japanese naval artillery by night, meant that the Japanese could not deploy reinforcements for their ground forces on large scale, nor properly supply these.

Besides, if I recall everything right, aircraft from USS Enterprise also sunk one and finished off another of two Jap battlecruisers (Hiei and Kirishima), that were previously true terror of USN sailors and Marines on Guadalcanal for months... thus turning the "Battle of the Solomon Islands" (the culminating phase of this campaign) into a US victory.

To obtain such a result, even the engagment of two USN battleships - USS Washington and USS South Dakota - was insufficient.

[Mastermind]

Good pints there Coop. Appreciate the insight. MM

[Mastermind]

Originally Posted by onefast93z28
I would never make an arguement that an Iowa was more powerful than a Nimitz, but two of the Iowas (New Jersey and Wisconson) would not cost to much to get up to spec. Remember all four were retofitted in the 1980's. There is nothing better for pounding a beachhead than nine 16 inch guns.

I think there is...it's called JDAM dropped from B-1, B-2 or B-52 overflights. The point being accuracy vs carpet shelling. Massive artillery shelling was proven inefffective at just about every opposed assault (both Naval and on land) since the first engagements of the 1st WW. Artillery is great when it is properly directed against targets properly exposed. Yet, mass tonnage of indirect artillery explosives used against deeply dug-in enemy forces is almost categorically useless.


However, precision guided deep penetration weapons are highly effective when used in concert with top grade intel.


That is not to say anyone would feel "safe" under the BB 16 inchers. But, in the grand scheme of things...they have just never proven to be the end-all answer to pre-invasion bombardment.

[siberian tiger]

Originally Posted by onefast93z28
I would never make an arguement that an Iowa was more powerful than a Nimitz, but two of the Iowas (New Jersey and Wisconson) would not cost to much to get up to spec. Remember all four were retofitted in the 1980's. There is nothing better for pounding a beachhead than nine 16 inch guns.

I think there is...it's called JDAM dropped from B-1, B-2 or B-52 overflights. The point being accuracy vs carpet shelling. Massive artillery shelling was proven inefffective at just about every opposed assault (both Naval and on land) since the first engagements of the 1st WW. Artillery is great when it is properly directed against targets properly exposed. Yet, mass tonnage of indirect artillery explosives used against deeply dug-in enemy forces is almost categorically useless.


However, precision guided deep penetration weapons are highly effective when used in concert with top grade intel.


That is not to say anyone would feel "safe" under the BB 16 inchers. But, in the grand scheme of things...they have just never proven to be the end-all answer to pre-invasion bombardment.

Even with the mighty of all those american and allied ships firing to the Normandy beachs there were a lot of german defences and bunkers that didn`t had a scratch and were hable to fight on full strengh.