Challenge: Make World War II Naval Battles Gunnery Duels

Yeah, but with 4 Carriers, Vice Admiral Nagumo still couldn't run an effective reconnaissance patrol.
That was a failure of Japanese military doctrine, not of the weapons systems themselves.
The fact is, battleships carry dedicated spotters, carriers have to pull spotters from their normal operations.
That's not a reasonable criticism of carriers. They carry enough planes to allow for recon to be part of "normal operations."
 
That was a failure of Japanese military doctrine, not of the weapons systems themselves.
True.

That's not a reasonable criticism of carriers. They carry enough planes to allow for recon to be part of "normal operations."
Nor is it a reasonable criticism of battleships to suggest that they can't run effective air-patrols with just a handful of aircraft.
 
True.

Nor is it a reasonable criticism of battleships to suggest that they can't run effective air-patrols with just a handful of aircraft.

Yes, actually it is, especially outside of the Pacific.

Sea conditions were such that once a plane was launched, it was often unable to be recovered and had to fly to land. The RN constructors were very critical, viewing them as 'toys'.

There is also the other very important thing a carrier can do for the battleship, which is to slow the enemy down so the battleships can catch it - a very important part of RN operations (who were mainly looking at stopping commerce raiders). A battleship-launched plane cant carry the heavy torpedo needed for this.
 
Yes, actually it is, especially outside of the Pacific.

Sea conditions were such that once a plane was launched, it was often unable to be recovered and had to fly to land. The RN constructors were very critical, viewing them as 'toys'.

There is also the other very important thing a carrier can do for the battleship, which is to slow the enemy down so the battleships can catch it - a very important part of RN operations (who were mainly looking at stopping commerce raiders). A battleship-launched plane cant carry the heavy torpedo needed for this.

That was more a design flaw in the seaplanes and poor vision than anything else

If you put pontoons on an FW-190 it would still have the surplus power to carry a standard torpedo (at a cost in range since it wont have a drop tank)
 
Have some circumstance come about where the Lexingtons, Kaga, Akagi, Furious, Glorious, and Courageous are either not started at all, or finished as surface combatants. No navy therefore gets experience with large aviation ships, and naval aviation's influence during the interwar years is greatly dimished. The USN ends up operating ships no larger than Ranger, and a lot of the tactics and technology never get developed as in our timeline. Roosevelt never moves the fleet to Hawaii, there is no major loss of surface combatants right at the start of the war, and carriers play a support, rather than primary role during the conflict. There are larger carriers built during the war, but without the experience of the Yorktowns, these vessels are not the equal of OTL Essex class, and are nowhere near as numerous.

At the end of the war, the surface ship institution is still firmly emplaced; first generation cruise missiles such as the Loon give the at least nominal capability to hit targets far beyond the range of guns, and thoughts are already turning to using intercontinental ballistic weapons and later SLCMS such as the Regulus. All six Iowas have been built, all the Alaskas, and production continues with the Des Moines class and Worchester class cruisers; emphasis for future construction is aimed at ships of no larger than CB/ Des Moines size to save on manning costs. The USN's carrier force principally consists of CVEs suitable for trade protection and not capable of operating jets. Even in OTL, the Navy was hard pressed in the early postwar years to operate any meaningful CV force, and things don't go any better here. There is no powerful naval aviation lobby to press for large and expensive attack carriers and the development of aircraft for them. There are no large numbers of Essex class ships sitting in mothballs ready for rebuilding.

The Soviets embark on a major surface warship program to match the US, and introduce large numbers of Sverdlov cruisers for service as raiders. Even in OTL, these were a headache for the Royal Navy, which did not have a large carrier force postwar. Vanguard was recommissioned in OTL as an countermeasure to these ships, being considered more effective in that role than aircraft of that time.
 
Have some circumstance come about where the Lexingtons, Kaga, Akagi, Furious, Glorious, and Courageous are either not started at all, or finished as surface combatants. No navy therefore gets experience with large aviation ships, and naval aviation's influence during the interwar years is greatly dimished. The USN ends up operating ships no larger than Ranger, and a lot of the tactics and technology never get developed as in our timeline.

The mental exercises one jumps thru to justify a forced outcome for a POD is truely remarkable. Don't you think anyone would say that 'We can do some much with a small carrier - can you image what we can do with a larger one?'

There were questions once they were completed that the Lexingtons were probably too large for what the US Navy wanted, but those changed after awhile.
 
My point was that without the big ships, naval aviation wouldn't have accomplished as much in the 1920-30s, and might never have been in a position to realistically propose what larger carriers could do, stifling development. Without Lexington and Saratoga, you're not going to have a large fleet carrier available until Ranger comes around in 1934, barring Congress appropriating money for new hulls. The USN had wanted a fast carrier in 1919, but there was no funding for entirely new ships, only the availibility of the Lexington hulls permitted the acquisition of such vessels.

The Lexingtons showed that big carriers would work, and had potential as main fleet units. Langley and whatever proto-Rangers might be fielded instead aren't going to do as well. It will be too easy for the surface ship establishment to pigeonhole the carrier as a support ship, and push for development of cheaper flight deck cruisers and oilers for scouting and escort work.
 
Last edited:

BlondieBC

Banned
The mental exercises one jumps thru to justify a forced outcome for a POD is truely remarkable. Don't you think anyone would say that 'We can do some much with a small carrier - can you image what we can do with a larger one?'

There were questions once they were completed that the Lexingtons were probably too large for what the US Navy wanted, but those changed after awhile.

I can imagine the accounting trolls in the Department of Navy refusing to fund them, and yes, with the right Naval limitation treaty, I could see carriers even banned. One excellent way to save money is for all Navies not to develop a new class of ships, and just use the existing Dreadnoughts. Now yes, Carriers do have their day in the sun, but it could be after the 1940's.
 
I can imagine the accounting trolls in the Department of Navy refusing to fund them, and yes, with the right Naval limitation treaty, I could see carriers even banned. One excellent way to save money is for all Navies not to develop a new class of ships, and just use the existing Dreadnoughts. Now yes, Carriers do have their day in the sun, but it could be after the 1940's.

That wouldn't happen for the same reason submarines couldn't be outlawed. The carrier and the submarine are a means for the naval powers, like France, to remain relevant powers in regards to the likes of the British.
 
Top