USS Nimitz vs the Japanese fleet

[mlees]

@Boyo_Jim

Ok, there’s some odd information about Yorktown class carriers, including the Enterprise (the WWII version, CV-6), and catapults. Here is one site that mentions it, but I found several that say the same thing. According to these sites, Enterprise had 3 catapults, two on the flight deck and one on the hangar deck. On another site this was specified as the exact same piece of equipment.

I have never heard of any carrier, anywhere or anytime, launching planes from within the hangar deck. Can anyone shed light on this?

The catapults installed in the hanger deck of the Yorktown class CV’s were not used often.

@wiki

Unusually, the Yorktowns carried a seldom used catapult on the hangar deck level; this catapult was eliminated on all following carrier classes as it was relatively useless in operation. The hangar deck catapult was removed from Enterprise and Hornet in late June 1942.

It was an idea (one of many*) that looked good on paper, but in practice, not so much. The idea was to be able to launch scouts (the dive bombers filled this role) without having to “respot” the flight deck.

The aircraft of the day could take off without catapult assist, and usually did so, at least early in the war, because it was much faster to do this on their own, without messing around with the hooks and stuff.

Later on, with much heavier aircraft (and much heavier bomb loads), the catapults become more of a necessity. The US escort carriers were so small that catapult usage was absolutely madatory.

@wiki

In drawing up the preliminary design for Essex, particular attention was directed at the size of both her flight and hangar decks. Aircraft design had come a long way from the comparatively light planes used in carriers during the 1930s. Flight decks now required more takeoff space for the heavier aircraft being developed. Most of the first-line carriers of the pre-war years were equipped with flush deck catapults, but owing to the speed and size of these ships very little catapulting was done except for experimental purposes.

With the advent of war, airplane weights began to go up as armor and armament got heavier; aircrew complements also increased. By the war’s end in 1945, catapult launches would become more common under these circumstances, with some carrier commanding officers reporting up to 40% of launches by catapult.

*Another idea that did not survive the test of reality was having the ability to land and launch planes from either end of the flight deck on the US Yorktown class. It was feared that a bomb hit at the end of the flight deck would destroy the ability to launch or recover, depending on the location, so it was desired that the CV be able to run astern at full speed and launch off the stern. There was corresponding arresting gear forward.

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/n10000/n17422.jpg

As far as hanger deck launches, both the Japanese and the British toyed with multi-deck carriers, another idea eventually found wanting. I don’t recall why the US did not experiment with this either. (Probably because the Sara and Lexington were so freaking huge.)

It was found the a pilot taking off down a “tunnel” was distracted by stuff inside the ship, the wind vortesies could not have been predictable or nice, and having a plane crash into a bulkhead and burst into flames within a fuel filled hangar would not be a pleasant event.

Here is a photo that claims to be of a hangardeck catapult launch from the Essex-class Hornet:

Forward hanger deck catapult

[Deeg]

@M.Constant

How reliant are the precision munitions and such on GPS?

In our fictitious scenario GPS won’t work because there are no satellites in WW II.

[lazybratsche]

@Boyo_Jim

Becasue they have no need for it? Carriers don’t deploy troops into battle. They have a Marine detachment for some pretty rare events --slapping a sailor into the brig, guarding a prisoner. They might have some specialized gear for seach and rescue – pilots shot down in enemy territory, for example.

It would be nice if a Marine would wander through this thread.

My googling didn’t find much, but I did find this reference on the official Nimitz history page:

15 Apr 1998: Nimitz’s Marine Security Detachment of 26 marines disestablished (after nearly 23 years on board).

So in 1980 there was a security detachment of 26 marines. They’re not assault troops, they’re ship’s guards (though I did see a reference to training for boarding a hostile civilian ship). They’re probably not equipped with anything particularly special, so even with modern rifles and body armor they wouldn’t be much more powerful than a similar WW2 marine unit.

[mlees]

@lazybratsche

My googling didn’t find much, but I did find this reference on the official Nimitz history page:

So in 1980 there was a security detachment of 26 marines. They’re not assault troops, they’re ship’s guards (though I did see a reference to training for boarding a hostile civilian ship). They’re probably not equipped with anything particularly special, so even with modern rifles and body armor they wouldn’t be much more powerful than a similar WW2 marine unit.

If they’re lucky, the Marine officers onboard the Nimitz can tell the WW2 counterparts what works and what doesn’t as far as amphibious operations go.

Operation Watchtower (Guadalcanal operation) and Tarawa were operations that could have benefitted from some hindsight.

[ChrisBooth12]

I stand corrected. For some reason I always thought there was a little more than 26 marines on an Aircraft carrier of 3000+

[davekhps]

Great thread. A couple things to add to clarify:

– Again… it’s the 1980 Nimitz we’re talking about here. A lot of stuff folks here are talking about don’t exist yet. No GPS, no F/A-18s, etc.

– The U.S. Navy was very late to the precision-warfare game. Most of the fancy PGMs dropped during the First Gulf War were dropped by the Air Force-- USN carrier aircraft mostly made do with a lot of plain old iron bombs.

The 1980 Nimitz probably carries some PGMs-- I’m thinking its A-6 squadrons come equipped with Walleye TV-guided bombs– but there won’t be any Harpoons; in 1980, air-launched Harpoons were just beginning to be deployed only on P-3 Orions, it wouldn’t be until much later that a carrier plane-based Harpoon would be deployed.

– RE: the nuke question, if the Nimitz can’t use their bombs for some reason, it’s only a matter of time until they can be used. They’re a workable design, they have all the uranium/plutonium you need, the U.S. has access to lots of smart people in 1941, etc. “Codes” are there to prevent quick unauthorized use of the weapons, not necessarily preclude them from ever being used. And in 1980, the codes may not be all that advanced (in fact, I’m betting that they’re not… worst case scenario, just disassemble the bombs and rebuild them with your own detonators).

– As mentioned upthread: the most useful advantage afforded by the 1980 Nimitz and her crew is information. They know how the war turned out, they know the secrets, etc. Combine that with the revolutionary leap in technology, the war won’t last long.

There’s actually a benefit to having the 1980 Nimitz go back in time versus, say, a 2010 Stennis or similar-- the technology onboard is going to be incredibly advanced compared to 1941, but not too far advanced, i.e. much of what’s carried in 1980 can probably be reverse-engineered in the early 1940s whereas a larger share of today’s technology couldn’t be.

After sinking the Japanese fleet, the Nimitz might never sail again-- it’d be too valuable stripped down to teach American industry how to leapfrog a couple generations.

– To the commenters wondering whether the U.S would be in its rights to sink the Japanese fleet: going on the movie scenario, the Japanese planes are already in the air heading to Pearl Harbor. That’s an act of war under any reasonable scenario, there’d be no issues whatsoever. FDR impeached? Riiiiight.

[Johnny_L.A]

@davekhps

And in 1980, the codes may not be all that advanced (in fact, I’m betting that they’re not…).

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

[Boyo_Jim]

@davekhps

…-- To the commenters wondering whether the U.S would be in its rights to sink the Japanese fleet: going on the movie scenario, the Japanese planes are already in the air heading to Pearl Harbor. That’s an act of war under any reasonable scenario, there’d be no issues whatsoever. FDR impeached? Riiiiight.

I was specifically responding to comment that the Nimitz aircraft would sink the Japanes fleet before the planes even launched.

Until the attack, American was largely isolationist and unwilling to participate in “someone else’s war”. If American forces attacked and sank an entire Japanese fleet without provocation, heads would need to roll. Claiming “our guys from the future said the attack is coming” wouldn’t cut it.

[ChrisBooth12]

I seem to remember reading somewhere that at one time most launch codes were all zeros… I do not know why.

[Rick]

Don’t forget that history is written by the victors.
OK you don’t want to launch a first strike?
Let the Japanese get oh say 1/2 dozen planes in the air, then sink everything.
FDR can then get up and with a straight face say “Today the Imperial Japanese Navy launched a sneak attack against Pearl Harbor. However forces of the United States Navy totally destroyed the attacking planes and the ships that launched them. This is a day that will last in infamy (yadah, yadah, yadah).”
if pressed as to what ship did the sinking he could just say “The USS Shangri-la” was the ship.

[outlierrn]

@Boyo_Jim

I was specifically responding to comment that the Nimitz aircraft would sink the Japanes fleet before the planes even launched.

Until the attack, American was largely isolationist and unwilling to participate in “someone else’s war”. If American forces attacked and sank an entire Japanese fleet without provocation, heads would need to roll. Claiming “our guys from the future said the attack is coming” wouldn’t cut it.

Yeah, but we had a lot more than that. Not a formal declaration of war, but enough to justify attacking a 6 carrier fleet right off Hawaii.

The Japanese tried to uphold the conventions of war while still achieving surprise, but the attack began before the notice could be delivered. Tokyo transmitted the 5,000-word notification (commonly called the “14-Part Message”) in two blocks to the Japanese Embassy in Washington, but transcribing the message took too long for the Japanese Ambassador to deliver it in time. (In fact, U.S. code breakers had already deciphered and translated most of the message hours before he was scheduled to deliver it.)

Attack on Pearl Harbor | Japanese declaration of war

OTOH, what fleet is that exactly, Hiro san? We didn’t see any fleet. Off our territory, you say? What would it be doing there, then, exactly?

[Boyo_Jim]

No, you need evidence, and there wouldn’t be any in that case.

If I had to make up a scenario, I would hit the planes after they made landfall, and make sure there would be wreckage on dry ground – American dry ground.

Destroy most of the attack force, scatter the rest, and then go sink the ships. Whatever planes are left up will fall down sooner or later.

[Boyo_Jim]

@outlierrn

Yeah, but we had a lot more than that. Not a formal declaration of war, but enough to justify attacking a 6 carrier fleet right off Hawaii.
Attack on Pearl Harbor - Wikipedia

OTOH, what fleet is that exactly, Hiro san? We didn’t see any fleet. Off our territory, you say? What would it be doing there, then, exactly?

A couple of points about this. The US would never have revealed the ultimatum text, and with it the knowledge that it had broken the highest Japanese codes.

2nd, even with the text in hand before the Japanese diplomats had it, there wasn’t enough information to predict the attack.

[Boyo_Jim]

@Boyo_Jim

No, you need evidence, and there wouldn’t be any in that case.

If I had to make up a scenario, I would hit the planes after they made landfall, and make sure there would be wreckage on dry ground – American dry ground.

Destroy most of the attack force, scatter the rest, and then go sink the ships. Whatever planes are left up will fall down sooner or later.

I’ve re-thought this. Back in those pre-Nixon days, there hadn’t been the big break in trust between the people and the government. Roosevelt could have said anything, and pretty much everyone would believe him.

[UncleBill]

…wander…

Jarheads afloat include the flying squadron attached to the Air Group and a Ship’s Company of grunts and grunt-like beings as described above. The Security Detachment is not all Infantry (I applied for the job for the final cruise of the USS Missouri and my job was to shoot down airplanes) but the weapons available would have included Redeye missiles (precursor to the Stinger), M2HB .50 caliber machine guns (same as the guys in WWII had, actually), M1911 .45 caliber pistols (same as the guys in WWII) and the M-16A1 service rifle, (not as good as the stuff the guys in WWII had) and the Remington 870 12 guage shotgun, a vast improvement over the existing ones, being introduced in the 1950’s all of ten years more modern.

But they would all have been indoctrinated in amphibious warfare to some degree, a tactic yet to be fully developed in 1941, and many modern tactics that were to be developed in the next four years or so. Their radios would be far superior, whoop de do. Overall, the Marine Security det is not a huge asset to be exploited in the drive to victory, unless they all offloaded and taught the generals how to land amphib style.

Marine Air, on the other hand, turning the Japanese Navy into smoking holes in the water since December 7, 1941 with their Navy Flyboy brothers…

[Elendil_s_Heir]

Hate to say it, but the Nimitz’s Marine detachment was no great shakes. Remember the captured Japanese pilot escaped from them, armed himself and got ornery.

[Raza]

As a fan of the movie, I’m enjoying the discussion. But it got me thinking: we’re talking “walk in the park” for 1980 vs 1940 (approximately). I’m considerably older than 40 years myself; I don’t think a 2010 US carrier vs. anybody’s 1970 fleet would be a cake-walk…but would it? Has our military technology growth slowed? Or was 1940 vs. even 1950 a unique multiplication of our battle abilities?

[Little_Nemo]

I don’t think a 2010 US carrier vs. anybody’s 1970 fleet would be a cake-walk…but would it?

I won’t claim to be an expert but in my opinion, it probably would be a cakewalk. A 1970 fleet is not going to be able to put up any kind of electronic counter-measures that a modern fleet won’t be able to brush aside. So the 1970 carrier is basically a defenseless target. A 2010 fleet is going to be able to send up recon drones to locate the older carrier and fly in a guided cruise missile to sink it.

[Bartman]

@Little_Nemo

I won’t claim to be an expert but in my opinion, it probably would be a cakewalk. A 1970 fleet is not going to be able to put up any kind of electronic counter-measures that a modern fleet won’t be able to brush aside. So the 1970 carrier is basically a defenseless target. A 2010 fleet is going to be able to send up recon drones to locate the older carrier and fly in a guided cruise missile to sink it.

I think it would depend on when the two encountered each other. We have far more of a communications and intelligence network now than we did in the 1970s. And a current carrier going back in time would lose that network. Bring the fleet forward to 2010 and it’ll be sunk before it even realizes it is in combat, just like the IJN vs Nimitz scenario. Send the lone 2010 carrier back… and it’ll still most likely win. But it’ll lose a lot of its advantages.

[Boyo_Jim]

Ok, for some other interesting historical matchups:
USS Seawolf versus the Imperial German Fleet at Jutland (I think you might need a few more subs to have enough torpedoes, that was a BIG fleet.)
USS Missouri versus the Spanish Armada
101st Airborne Division versus the Huns.