Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

realization carriers were dominant

Discussion in 'Naval Warfare in the Pacific' started by bronk7, May 23, 2020.

  1. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,569
    Likes Received:
    284
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    ..when were and who realized the carriers were the dominant ship--- for the US and Japanese?
     
  2. R Leonard

    R Leonard Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Messages:
    972
    Likes Received:
    629
    Location:
    The Old Dominion
    For the US it wasn't Pearl Harbor. There was no epiphany of "oh crap, they sank my battleships, guess we better use carriers". Nope, it was well before 7 December 1941. Take a look at the construction envisioned for the "Two Ocean Navy Act" of 1940. Note aircraft carriers versus battleships.
    Two-Ocean Navy Act - Wikipedia
     
  3. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    9,484
    Likes Received:
    2,243
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    I would disagree.

    Of course the numbers are skewed towards aircraft carriers. Because the Wiki ignores the 2 North Carolina, 4 South Dakota, and 4 Iowa battleships already OK'd for construction.. No to mention the number of OBBs already on hand.

    The annual report for FY1941 shows 17 battleships & 12 carriers under construction as of June 30, 1941.
    Annual Report of the Secretary of the Navy - 1941

    The Times are changing, but the leap from the battle line to carriers has not quite been made.
     
    belasar likes this.
  4. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,569
    Likes Received:
    284
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    ..yes--I'm a big proponent of ''realistic thinking''...it was not an overnight deal....and I would think you had pro and con people....and a ''combination''/etc---fighters-bombers-recon-defense-offense
    ..those links are good reads for the Memorial Day long weekend
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2020
  5. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,569
    Likes Received:
    284
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    ...thanks---with some interesting details of the ''everyday'' issues along with the construction issues....
    ..interesting to see the USMC was training in the Caribbean way back then ...I [ we were ] was there with the USMC in the late 80s...they did get rid of training in Vieques....it had a beautiful bay with a great beach ....I remember we did a net loading of an LCVP or whatever it was there.....just like they did in WW2....it's not that easy climbing down those rope ladders..
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2020
  6. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,569
    Likes Received:
    284
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    ....all of those were under construction--not just ordered? 697 ships? under construction meaning the materials were at the yards and being used?
     
  7. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    9,484
    Likes Received:
    2,243
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    There are several items of a warship that have long lead in times; boilers, engines, big gun turrets, etc. Steel & armor needs to be made & cut. Drawing blueprints for the large warships can take up to 2 years to complet. Lots of work to do before the keel is laid.

    The figures from SecNav takes all this into account, not just warships whose keels have been laid and are being physically constructed on slipways or in drydocks.
     
  8. belasar

    belasar Court Jester Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,510
    Likes Received:
    1,176
    I am not sure navy's fully embraced carriers as the primary striking force until mid 1942 or a little later. Suspect Japan was further along under Yamamoto as they operated their fleet carriers in 'divisions' and in groups of divisions operating together. While the US and UK more often operated them singly, even after hostilities started. Even so, Japan still had to overcome considerable inertia as they were trying to build the 4 largest and most expensive class of battleships, the 'Yamato's'.

    It would be interesting to speculate on Japan substituting 4-6 'Kaku's' instead of the Yamato's. They would need to ramp up pilot training and possibly aircraft production to fully take advantage of the new carrier hulls, but one (possibly 2) would have been launched by December 7th, 1941 and a new one(s) following 9-12 months thereafter. It would need to be noted it takes many months to bring a launched ship to fully operational shape, so the first two might be ready by Midway at the earliest.
     
  9. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,569
    Likes Received:
    284
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    roger that
     
  10. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,569
    Likes Received:
    284
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    good points
    ....and like you said, pilot training which is not ''perfect'' or ''perfected''/as easy as building a ship
     
  11. R Leonard

    R Leonard Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Messages:
    972
    Likes Received:
    629
    Location:
    The Old Dominion
    Yet, how many of those new BBs construction were for replacement, not augmentation to, the existing OBBs. Along came the war and the replacement concept was tossed out the window, but everyone in position to know knew the OBBs could never keep up with carriers, either pre-war existing or authorized for construction in 1940. Absent the war, the OBBs were going to go away. Carrier construction was all new.
     
  12. belasar

    belasar Court Jester Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,510
    Likes Received:
    1,176
    I largely agree, the US wanted to replace many of the 'standard's' and the UK it's 'R's and possibly 'QE's'. Whether all would have been scrapped absent a war, but with rising tensions with Germany, Italy and Japan and not sent into some form of reserve for at least awhile is another question.
     
  13. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    9,484
    Likes Received:
    2,243
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Worth noting that the Wiki article is misleading, if not in error.

    The Vinson quote, where he is pontificating on the ascendancy of the aircraft carrier was not spoken in 1940.
    Vinson said it on June 18, 1942.
    Congressional Record
    After the Battle of Midway.

    Also, IIRC, the 1940 bill was an allocation of funds, not specifically setting what to build. But lunch break is over, will check the bill text later.

    Authorized tonnage increases for the 2 1940 Acts(June&July) were:
    Aircraft Carriers: 279,500 tons
    Capital Ships: 385,000 tons

    79,000 tons of carriers in June. 200,000 tons of carriers & 385,000 tons of Capital Ships in July.
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2020
  14. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,569
    Likes Received:
    284
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    .....so one answer is--------?? since they wanted to build so many carriers in 1941, they were leaning toward the carrier as the dominant ship-----? or there was no ''doctrine'' yet for BBs and carriers?
    ...anyone know what the top brass thought?
    ..regarding belasar's point on operating carriers in divisions = after PH, Aug 1942 we used 3 carriers for the Guadalcanal landings---3 out of how many?? this was 'alot'' of the total carrier force? did they change doctrine fin the period from 7 Dec 1941 to Aug 1942?
    ''until'' mid 1942-ok....did they not use the carriers in divisions because of doctrine or because they didn't have as many carriers as the Japanese?..didn't have as many to ''spread around'' ?
     
  15. belasar

    belasar Court Jester Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,510
    Likes Received:
    1,176
    Doctrine is one thing but must be informed by perceived needs and available resources while looking at what they do as much as what they say. For the US a need to cover two oceans, the UK literally everywhere, Japan pretty much just the Pacific. At the wars beginning the UK had the most carriers over all but operated them usually independently, even the Taranto raid was carried out by a single carrier. During the first months of the war for the US task forces were formed around a single carrier. I'm sure that within both navy's there were some officers who looked to mass carrier groups operating as a co-ordinated force.
     
  16. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,569
    Likes Received:
    284
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    I agree with that ...logical
     

Share This Page