# What if nations were not so slow to adopt aircraft carriers in WW2?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-nations-were-not-so-slow-to-adopt-aircraft-carriers-in-ww2/623088>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [May 25, 2012, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-nations-were-not-so-slow-to-adopt-aircraft-carriers-in-ww2/623088 "2012-05-25T18:27:59Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gunnergoz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e95f7d/32.png) [@gunnergoz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gunnergoz)\
**Post date:** [May 27, 2012, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-nations-were-not-so-slow-to-adopt-aircraft-carriers-in-ww2/623088/41 "2012-05-27T18:36:39Z")

</div>

> [@colonial](#):
>
> Tis extent of pilot shortage occurred only after 2+ years attrition.
> 
> Also, Yamato and Musashi were manned by ~2,500 men each.  
> Shokaku-class AC carried about 1,000 less, including only ~75 pilots
> 
> Neither Germany nor Japan could afford the luxury of rotating pilots.  
> That is one reason their defeat was assured.
> 
> However, it is reasonable to assume Japan could have had 2-3 times more  
> fully manned AC to begin with, and that the Pacific war would have been  
> consequently prolonged.

None of your comments addresses the fact that both the Germans and the Japanese employed almost no system of pilot rotation and simply used them up in air combat. Furthermore, the prewar and early war Japanese pilot selection and training standards (particularly in the IJN) were so high as to insure only a small trickle of replacement pilots reached the fleet every year. The allies, OTOH, set up sophisticated systems of selecting, training and rotating pilots to maximize their experience and “shelf life” (if you will.)

If rotating pilots made so much difference in wartime (as the evidence indicates), then it was not a “luxury” but a necessity; a necessity which Germany and Japan failed to learn, to their extreme disadvantage…thank goodness.

As to the assertion that if Japan “could have had 2-3 times more  
fully manned AC to begin with, and that the Pacific war would have been  
consequently prolonged,” I think history does not support this conclusion. At the beginning of the war in the Pacific, Japanese numbers, training and operational experience were sufficient to do massive damage to the Allied forces in the Pacific areas. The problem for the Japanese was not their initial striking power, but their staying power. This in turn reflected their “quick victory” approach to starting the war in the first place. They did not prepare for a prolonged war where they would need not hundreds, but thousands of effectively trained pilots every year. At the end of the war, Japan had many hundreds of combat-effective aircraft available - but very few capable pilots to operate them any more.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\
**Post date:** [May 27, 2012, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-nations-were-not-so-slow-to-adopt-aircraft-carriers-in-ww2/623088/42 "2012-05-27T18:49:07Z")

</div>

> [@gunnergoz](#):
>
> None of your comments addresses the fact that both the Germans and the Japanese employed almost no system of pilot rotation and simply used them up in air combat. Furthermore, the prewar and early war Japanese pilot selection and training standards (particularly in the IJN) were so high as to insure only a small trickle of replacement pilots reached the fleet every year. The allies, OTOH, set up sophisticated systems of selecting, training and rotating pilots to maximize their experience and “shelf life” (if you will.)
> 
> If rotating pilots made so much difference in wartime (as the evidence indicates), then it was not a “luxury” but a necessity; a necessity which Germany and Japan failed to learn, to their extreme disadvantage…thank goodness.
> 
> As to the assertion that if Japan “could have had 2-3 times more  
> fully manned AC to begin with, and that the Pacific war would have been  
> consequently prolonged,” I think history does not support this conclusion. At the beginning of the war in the Pacific, Japanese numbers, training and operational experience were sufficient to do massive damage to the Allied forces in the Pacific areas. The problem for the Japanese was not their initial striking power, but their staying power. This in turn reflected their “quick victory” approach to starting the war in the first place. They did not prepare for a prolonged war where they would need not hundreds, but thousands of effectively trained pilots every year. At the end of the war, Japan had many hundreds of combat-effective aircraft available - but very few capable pilots to operate them any more.

I agree. The IJN already had as many pilots and planes as they could muster, in fact the carriers at Midway weren’t completly full. More carriers would just have meant more targets.

Assuming the IJN would have all those extra planes, pilots and carriers would have to assume a radically different way of thinking for the entire Imperial Japanese military- which likely means they wouldn’t have attacked the USA.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\
**Post date:** [May 27, 2012, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-nations-were-not-so-slow-to-adopt-aircraft-carriers-in-ww2/623088/43 "2012-05-27T20:24:24Z")

</div>

> [@gunnergoz](#):
>
> None of your comments addresses the fact that both the Germans and the Japanese employed almost no system of pilot rotation and simply used them up in air combat.

What part of this do you not understand?:

> [@colonial](#):
>
> Neither Germany nor Japan could afford the luxury of rotating pilots. That is one reason their defeat was assured.

However, pilot rotation has nothing to do with Japanese naval aviation potential  
for the _start_ of the war if all the resources dedicated to _Yamato_ and _Musashi_ had  
been available for AC. This increased potential would have been ongoing after the  
war began, although attrition and relative lack of personnel and resources would  
have led to diminishing returns.

> [@gunnergoz](#):
>
> Furthermore, the prewar and early war Japanese pilot selection and training standards (particularly in the IJN) were so high as to insure only a small trickle of replacement pilots reached the fleet every year. The allies, OTOH, set up sophisticated systems of selecting, training and rotating pilots to maximize their experience and “shelf life” (if you will.)

We are only talking about ~150 more pilots (for two additional AC) to ~300 more  
pilots (for four additional AC) for the start of the war. The US may have had  
500,000 men with the aptitude to be pilots. If so then Japan would have had well  
over 200,000 itself.

See link for details:

[The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia- Pilots](http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/F/i/Fighter_Pilots.htm)

By reducing its standards to select “only” the best 10% for naval aviation could surely  
have produced enough good, well-trained pilots to continue manning 2-4 more AC  
provided it was not devoting resources to new BB.

> [@gunnergoz](#):
>
> If rotating pilots made so much difference in wartime (as the evidence indicates), then it was not a “luxury” but a necessity; a necessity which Germany and Japan failed to learn, to their extreme disadvantage…thank goodness.

You are playing quibbly little word games, and Germany and Japan did not  
“fail to learn” because the advantages of rotation are too obvious to miss.  
Rather, Germany and Japan were so heavily engaged in so many sectors  
and had such a small pool from which to draw replacements that they could  
not spare their veterans from combat duty.

> [@gunnergoz](#):
>
> As to the assertion that if Japan “could have had 2-3 times more  
> fully manned AC to begin with, and that the Pacific war would have been  
> consequently prolonged,” I think history does not support this conclusion. At the beginning of the war in the Pacific, Japanese numbers, training and operational experience were sufficient to do massive damage to the Allied forces in the Pacific areas.

_Obviously_ they could have done _more_ damage with _more_ AC.

We have already discussed Midway in this regard. The same might be said  
for Coral Sea and the numerous Solomon Island engagements. And it occurs  
to me that with two more AC at Pearl Harbor someone might have thought  
to dedicate a few fighters and dive bombers to the US oil storage which was  
a sitting duck and miraculously untouched in the actual event. Without that  
fuel the USN might have had to retreat to the mainland because it would not  
have been able to conduct even defensive operations for every long.

> [@gunnergoz](#):
>
> The problem for the Japanese was not their initial striking power, but their staying power. This in turn reflected their “quick victory” approach to starting the war in the first place. They did not prepare for a prolonged war where they would need not hundreds, but thousands of effectively trained pilots every year. At the end of the war, Japan had many hundreds of combat-effective aircraft available - but very few capable pilots to operate them any more.

This is close enough to being true that I have no quarrel with it.

However, OP asks how the course of the war might have differed with a different  
emphasis on AC. I made a case for Japan devoting all its capital ship resources to  
AC with US allocations being unchanged.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\
**Post date:** [May 27, 2012, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-nations-were-not-so-slow-to-adopt-aircraft-carriers-in-ww2/623088/44 "2012-05-27T22:14:37Z")

</div>

It should also be noted that the IJN carriers had many technical problems, and were poorly designed:  
-they did not have the modern “island” structure, with a tall stack to carry away exhaust smoke(Japanese carriers vented smoke at deck level, obscuring the landing and takeoff surface)  
-there was very little thought given to damage control-once fires broke out in the hangers, their carriers were doomed  
-no provision for sea rescue of downed pilots  
Plus, almost no upgrading of carrier aircraft-the little Zero was a fine plane in 1941, but hopelessly obsolete by 1944.  
The newly commissioned carrier “Shinano” sank with all hands after two torpedo hits-because the crew forgot to shut off severed gasoline lines (fumes built up and an internal explosion sank the ship).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\
**Post date:** [May 27, 2012, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-nations-were-not-so-slow-to-adopt-aircraft-carriers-in-ww2/623088/45 "2012-05-27T22:17:30Z")

</div>

Given the premise of the OP, I believe the USA would have still out built the Japanese and won the war. Once the US torpedoes were working, a Japanese carrier was sunk on the way to pick up it’s first aircraft.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\
**Post date:** [May 27, 2012, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-nations-were-not-so-slow-to-adopt-aircraft-carriers-in-ww2/623088/46 "2012-05-27T22:24:14Z")

</div>

> [@carnivorousplant](#):
>
> a Japanese carrier was sunk on the way to pick up it’s first aircraft.

Er, see above post. :smack:

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![kombatminipig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b5ac83/32.png) [@kombatminipig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kombatminipig)\
**Post date:** [May 28, 2012, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-nations-were-not-so-slow-to-adopt-aircraft-carriers-in-ww2/623088/47 "2012-05-28T07:25:35Z")

</div>

> [@colonial](#):
>
> First off, I will format my posts to please myself.

Are you here to debate your point with others or to simply proselytize your views?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\
**Post date:** [May 28, 2012, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-nations-were-not-so-slow-to-adopt-aircraft-carriers-in-ww2/623088/48 "2012-05-28T16:31:33Z")

</div>

> [@kombatminipig](#):
>
> Are you here to debate your point with others or to simply proselytize your views?

See the 1st sentence of post #30 to this thread by **smiling bandit**.

One reason for being here is to one-up snark from other members.

Another reason is to employ fact and reason to make a point.

Now, if you have no other questions how about a bit of on-topic  
fact and reason of your own.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![OttoDaFe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ottodafe/32/356_2.png) [@OttoDaFe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OttoDaFe)\
**Post date:** [May 28, 2012, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-nations-were-not-so-slow-to-adopt-aircraft-carriers-in-ww2/623088/49 "2012-05-28T19:29:07Z")

</div>

> [@ralph124c](#):
>
> It should also be noted that the IJN carriers had many technical problems, and were poorly designed:  
> -they did not have the modern “island” structure, with a tall stack to carry away exhaust smoke(Japanese carriers vented smoke at deck level, obscuring the landing and takeoff surface)  
> -there was very little thought given to damage control-once fires broke out in the hangers, their carriers were doomed  
> -no provision for sea rescue of downed pilots  
> Plus, almost no upgrading of carrier aircraft-the little Zero was a fine plane in 1941, but hopelessly obsolete by 1944.  
> The newly commissioned carrier “Shinano” sank with all hands after two torpedo hits-because the crew forgot to shut off severed gasoline lines (fumes built up and an internal explosion sank the ship).

A couple of nitpicks (sorry, I’m feeling pedantic today):

First, the IJN did give considerable thought to damage control. The problem was that compared to the USN, the crew of an IJN ship was more “compartmentalized” (for want of a better word). There was less cross-training, and roles were more specialized. In particular, while the USN trained and drilled the entire crew in at least the basics of damage control, in the IJN it was more the province of specialists. It would seem that most of these were killed or incapacitated in the initial explosions at Midway, and the rest was . . . history.

Second, it was the _Taiho_, not the _Shinano_, that sank — hardly with all hands — due to internal explosions well after the ship was hit by one or two torpedoes on the way to the Marianas. While faulty damage control undoubtedly played a large part in her loss, there were other problems: her avgas bunkerage was poorly designed, and she was loaded with an unusually volatile type of fuel oil (she was in Borneo when the US attacked the Marianas). Had either of these been different, the ship may have survived.

(The _Shinano_, BTW, was a _Yamato_-class superbattleship hull that had been converted to a carrier. She was sunk while being moved to the Inland Sea for fitting out — ironically, to protect her from air attack. Her loss can be ascribed to the fact that many of her watertight doors had not even been installed, and to the fact that she had less of a crew [in the usual sense] than a ferry contingent.)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Incubus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c68b51/32.png) [@Incubus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Incubus)\
**Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-nations-were-not-so-slow-to-adopt-aircraft-carriers-in-ww2/623088/50 "2012-05-29T01:22:05Z")

</div>

I wouldn’t think the location of the funnel would really matter much, considering carriers typically turn into the wind to launch planes. Wouldn’t all the smoke be blown backward, away from the flight deck? Also, I had heard the omission (or minimizing) of an island on many IJN carriers was because they believed it helped minimize the carrier’s profile on the horizon. I guess they never really grasped stuff like radar and whatnot when making these design choices- even their carriers that DID have islands, they looked pretty dinky compared to US carriers like the Yorktown or Lexington.

Its true any changes wouldn’t have made a difference in the outcome of the war, but they may have affected how hard fought it was. Regarding the Japanese pilot skills, I definitely agree they would’ve been better off trying to keep their experienced pilots around to train newer generations of pilots. I noticed that in pitched battles between carriers, such as Coral Sea and Midway, even when you are fighting at full strength/training/equipment, against a prepared opponent you are going to suffer losses. For every US carrier the Japanese managed to sink with their carrier aircraft, they lost a TON of planes- in Coral Sea one of their carriers couldn’t participate in Midway because it lost so many planes/pilots. So attrition seems to be a really big factor for carriers, because I never heard the decisicive factor of surface combatants being the level of training of the crews (for surface combatants, it seems to be raw numbers, intelligence, and/or dumb luck).

Did any British carriers square off against Japanese carriers? I know their carriers used a very different design principle- they put most of their armor on the outer deck, kind of like an armored ‘box’, which sounds great in theory but was apparently a big liability against kamikazes. However, aside from suicide craft, I’m curious how the British did/would do against Japanese carriers. Most of what I know about the British carriers is stuff in the Mediterranian sea, and facing land-based aircraft from Italy I think.

I know history has 20-20 hindsight, but I find it pretty ironic that the Japanese seemed to embrace carrier warfare in theory- I mean, no other nation besides the US seemed to build as many flattops as they did nor deploy them the way they did. And yet they had to scramble to convert Yamato hulls into carriers (the Shinano being one of them) and make some weird battleship-carrier hybrids out of a pair of Ise-class battleships (how the hell were the planes supposed to land on that flight deck? Its in the STERN!).

So the key to carrier warfare in the 40s seems to be having a large corps of experience pilots, the ability/capacity to innovate, good damage control, and good intel. I’m curious how much more effective Japan’s navy would have been if we weren’t reading their mail at every turn- some critics say their navy kind of sucked for all the numbers and force it seemed to have (paper tiger?). Even against Taffy 3(?) what should have been a slaughter turned out to be a missed opportunity, not to mention the David and Goliath matchup of US Destroyers knocking out IJN Heavy Cruisers. Not to mention a light carrier force not even really tooled to deal with surface ships (I heard many of them were meant for antisub work, and in desperation to turn the Japanese back they were dropping _depth charges_ at the Yamato just to scare it off. Torpedoes ended up making it pretty much flee the battle.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\
**Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-nations-were-not-so-slow-to-adopt-aircraft-carriers-in-ww2/623088/51 "2012-05-29T02:14:35Z")

</div>

Building Aircraft Carriers instead of Battleships wouldn’t have significantly shortend the war in the Pacific, which ended shortly after the use of the Atomic “gadgets”. It probably would have changed the outcome of some of the sea battles and slowed the Island-hopping campaign.

The U.S. Navy had 8 aircraft carriers when it entered WWII and launched 31 more before the end of the war.

CV-1: Langley (1922-1942)  
CV-2: Lexington (1927-1942)  
CV-3: Saratoga (1927-1946)  
CV-4: Ranger (1934-1947)  
CV-5: Yorktown (1937-1942)  
CV-6: Enterprise (1938-1958)  
CV-7: Wasp (1940-1942)  
CV-8: Hornet (1941-1942)

CV-9: Essex (1942-1975)  
CV-10: Yorktown (1943-1975)  
CV-11: Intrepid (1943-1982)  
CV-12: Hornet (1943-1998)  
CV-13: Franklin (1944-1966)  
CV-14: Ticonderoga (1944-1974)  
CV-15: Randolph (1944-1975)  
CV-16: Lexington (1943-1992)  
CV-17: Bunker Hill (1943-1973)  
CV-18: Wasp (1943-1973)  
CV-19: Hancock (1944-1976)  
CV-20: Bennington (1944-1993)  
CV-21: Boxer (1945-1971)  
CVL-22: Independence (1943-1951)  
CVL-23: Princeton (1943-1944)  
CVL-24: Belleau Wood (1943-1960)  
CVL-25: Cowpens (1943-1960)  
CVL-26: Monterey (1943-1971)  
CVL-27: Langley (1943-1964)  
CVL-28: Cabot (1943-1967)  
CVL-29: Bataan (1943-1961)  
CVL-30: San Jacinto (1943-1971)  
CV-31: Bon Homme Richard (1944-1992)  
CV-34: Oriskany (1945-1994)  
CV-36: Antietam (1945-1974)  
CV-37: Princeton (1945-1971)  
CV-38: Shangri-La (1944-1988)  
CV-39: Lake Champlain (1945-1970)  
CV-40: Tarawa (1945-1968)  
CVB-41: Midway (1945-2003)  
CVB-42: Franklin D. Roosevelt (1945-1978)

The Imperial Japanese Navy had 13 carriers in 1941 making it the largest carrier fleet in the world. They only managed to launch 12 more before the end of the war.

Kaga (1921-1942) (Fleet Carrier converted Tosa-class battleship)  
Akagi (1927-1942) (Fleet Carrier converted Amagi-class battlecruiser)  
Ryūjō (1933-1942) (Light Carrier)  
Ryūhō (1934-1945) (Light Carrier)  
Sōryū (1937-1942) (Fleet Carrier)  
Chitose (1938-1944) (Light Carrier)  
Chiyoda (1938-1944) (Light Carrier)  
Hiryū (1939-1942) (Fleet Carrier)  
Zuihō (1940-1944) (Light Carrier)  
Zuidaku (1941-1944) (Fleet Carrier)  
Shōhō (1941-1942) (Light Carrier)  
Shōkaku (1941-1944) (Fleet Carrier)  
Taiyō (1941-1944) (Escort Carrier)

Junyō (1942-1947) (Fleet Carrier)  
Hiyō (1942-1944) (Fleet Carrier)  
Chuyo (1942-1943) (Escort Carrier)  
Unyo (1942-1944) (Escort Carrier)  
Kaiyo (1943-1946) (Escort Carrier)  
Shinyo (1943-1944) (Escort Carrier)  
Katsuragi (1944-1947) (Fleet Carrier)  
Amagi (1944-1945) (Light Fleet Carrier)  
Taihō (1944-1944) (Fleet Carrier)  
Shinano (1944-1944) (Fleet Carrier converted Yamato-class battleship)  
Unryū (1944-1944) (Fleet Carrier)  
Yamashiro Maru (1945-1945) (Escort Carrier)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\
**Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-nations-were-not-so-slow-to-adopt-aircraft-carriers-in-ww2/623088/52 "2012-05-29T02:16:51Z")

</div>

Hey, the USA had [Bull Halsey](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Halsey,_Jr.). The Japanese had only Yamamoto. 🙂

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\
**Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-nations-were-not-so-slow-to-adopt-aircraft-carriers-in-ww2/623088/53 "2012-05-29T02:26:49Z")

</div>

> [@colonial](#):
>
> And it occurs to me that with two more AC at Pearl Harbor someone might have thought to dedicate a few fighters and dive bombers to the US oil storage which was a sitting duck and miraculously untouched in the actual event. Without that fuel the USN might have had to retreat to the mainland because it would not have been able to conduct even defensive operations for every long.

There was supposed to have been a 3rd air attack at Pearl Harbor which would have targeted the fuel bunkers. The IJN didn’t know where the U.S. carriers were, or more to the point, didn’t know if the U.S. carriers were currently steaming towards the IJN. It was decided to cancel the 3rd attack, keep their aircraft on board for possible defense, and head for home.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![kombatminipig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b5ac83/32.png) [@kombatminipig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kombatminipig)\
**Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 10:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-nations-were-not-so-slow-to-adopt-aircraft-carriers-in-ww2/623088/54 "2012-05-29T10:40:15Z")

</div>

> [@colonial](#):
>
> See the 1st sentence of post #30 to this thread by **smiling bandit**.
> 
> One reason for being here is to one-up snark from other members.
> 
> Another reason is to employ fact and reason to make a point.
> 
> Now, if you have no other questions how about a bit of on-topic  
> fact and reason of your own.

Okay, English is obviously not your first language, so I won’t give you too much flak for the unintelligibility of the above paragraph. **Smiling Bandit** is completely correct in his critique though. My guess is that you’re writing from a mobile device, and you’re cutting your line lengths down so that you won’t have to scroll horizontally. The problem with your posts is that the short line length is a pain in the ass to read on any proper monitor, which in turn makes your posts a pain in the ass to read. But hey, if that’s how you enjoy debating, go wild.

> [@Incubus](#):
>
> I know history has 20-20 hindsight, but I find it pretty ironic that the Japanese seemed to embrace carrier warfare in theory- I mean, no other nation besides the US seemed to build as many flattops as they did nor deploy them the way they did. And yet they had to scramble to convert Yamato hulls into carriers (the Shinano being one of them) and make some weird battleship-carrier hybrids out of a pair of Ise-class battleships (how the hell were the planes supposed to land on that flight deck? Its in the STERN!).

That’s actually how you land, then and now. A plane landing on a carrier wants to come in at minimal speed without stalling, so the carrier will turn into the wind and planes will land from the stern. Way easier to land with the wind giving a bit of extra lift and your runway not moving in the opposite direction.  
In the Ise-class this seems to have been irrelevant however, because Wiki mentions that they were unable to recover aircraft other than their sea planes. I’m guessing that this is due to the flight deck being too short.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\
**Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-nations-were-not-so-slow-to-adopt-aircraft-carriers-in-ww2/623088/55 "2012-05-29T15:53:54Z")

</div>

> [@kombatminipig](#):
>
> Okay, English is obviously not your first language,

Ha ha. I have to admit this part is pretty decent snark. However,  
I am a good enough judge of good writing to confidently give my own  
high marks. (Provided I take the trouble to carefully proof read,  
and use spell check)

> [@kombatminipig](#):
>
> so I won’t give you too much flak for the unintelligibility of the above paragraph.

This part trails off a bit in snark quality. It possesses no other quality.

> [@kombatminipig](#):
>
> Smiling Bandit is completely correct in his critique though.

Smiling Bandit could not even come up with the right word:  
paragraph length is an example of formatting, and not, as he  
and you would have it, “punctuation”.

> [@kombatminipig](#):
>
> My guess is that you’re writing from a mobile device,

Wrong. Desktop.

> [@kombatminipig](#):
>
> and you’re cutting your line lengths down so that you won’t have to scroll horizontally.

The advantage of shorter lines is that you do not have to scroll your  
_eyeballs_ as far horizontally.

> [@kombatminipig](#):
>
> The problem with your posts is that the short line length is a pain in the ass to read on any proper monitor, which in turn makes your posts a pain in the ass to read.

My 13x10 monitor is \>10 years old. I keep putting off buying one of  
those new-fangled ones which appear to be ~50% longer.

I am confident you would appreciate the shorter lines if you got used  
to them. Have you ever read a poem?

> [@kombatminipig](#):
>
> But hey, if that’s how you enjoy debating, go wild.

Thanks.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\
**Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-nations-were-not-so-slow-to-adopt-aircraft-carriers-in-ww2/623088/56 "2012-05-29T16:46:33Z")

</div>

> [@TokyoPlayer](#):
>
> The Japanese were limited to the number of carriers by the Washington Naval Treaty until they withdrew in 1936. If they rejected it much earlier, would England or the US built more to counter them in the far east? The US may not have, given the deep isolationist sentiments.

> [@Incubus](#):
>
> I know history has 20-20 hindsight, but I find it pretty ironic that the Japanese seemed to embrace carrier warfare in theory- I mean, no other nation besides the US seemed to build as many flattops as they did nor deploy them the way they did. And yet they had to scramble to convert Yamato hulls into carriers (the Shinano being one of them) and make some weird battleship-carrier hybrids out of a pair of Ise-class battleships

I thought a big part of the reason the Japanese embraced aircraft carriers was the aforementioned Washington Naval Treaty. The treaty sharply limited Japan’s battleship and cruiser forces, but for whatever reason, did not mention or restrict aircraft carriers. Several nations converted partly-completed battleship and cruiser hulls to carriers in order to avoid having to scrap them, but the Japanese seem to have decided that fleet carriers offered a way around the treaty’s limitations on their naval strength, and explicitly set out to build the largest and most advanced fleet air arm in the world.

> [@Incubus](#):
>
> So attrition seems to be a really big factor for carriers, because I never heard the decisicive factor of surface combatants being the level of training of the crews (for surface combatants, it seems to be raw numbers, intelligence, and/or dumb luck).

Well, in older battles, crew quality was considered critical. It’s always been regarded as a reason the British did so well against the French in the Age of Sail, and even at Jutland, the decision to ignore the turret-trunk safety rules exposed several battlecruisers to catastrophic loss – perhaps not exactly crew “quality” issue, but human error moreso than design error.

But in general, one reason aircrew training is so important is that an airplane in that era fought almost alone. Everyone in the battleship went where it was steered, and operating the guns was a massive joint effort, but [one decision by an individual alert dive-bomber pilot](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Halsey_Best#World_War_II_.281941-1944.29) could make a huge difference in a battle’s outcome. So picking the right people and training them was critical.

> [@Incubus](#):
>
> Did any British carriers square off against Japanese carriers? I know their carriers used a very different design principle- they put most of their armor on the outer deck, kind of like an armored ‘box’, which sounds great in theory but was apparently a big liability against kamikazes.

That sounds like you might have it backwards – I’ve heard that the British carriers’ armored decks were a huge help against _kamikaze_ attacks. [Wikipedia says](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Pacific_Fleet#Active_service):

> [@](#):
>
> The carriers were subject to heavy and repeated kamikaze attacks, but because of their armoured flight decks, the British aircraft carriers proved highly resistant, and returned to action relatively quickly. The U.S.N liaison officer on the Indefatigable commented: "When a kamikaze hits a U.S. carrier it means 6 months of repair at Pearl [Harbor]. When a kamikaze hits a Limey carrier it’s just a case of ‘Sweepers, man your brooms.’”

> [@colonial](#):
>
> It might be most informative at this point to mention Betio (Tarawa). There the initial assault  
> was nearly repulsed, despite extensive naval bombardment. The Japanese had discovered that  
> slow-burning, non-splintering palm logs, stacked several feet thick, were proof even against battleship guns.
> 
> The US suffered 1,000 dead in the first two days of combat on Betio.

While the “soft” bunkers were pretty strong, my understanding is that the American casualties were made substantially worse at Tarawa by a command decision to deliberately ignore advice they’d been given about the tides. The attack coincided with a tidal phenomenon that lowered the water level over the surrounding reef, turning it into a barrier against the landing craft and swimming vehicles.

Ah, [Wikipedia mentions this issue](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_tarawa#November_20):

> [@](#):
>
> The Marines started their attack from the lagoon at 09:00, thirty minutes later than expected, but found the tide had still not risen enough to allow their shallow draft Higgins boats to clear the reef. Marine battle planners had not allowed for Betio’s neap tide and expected the normal rising tide to provide a water depth of 5 feet (1.5 m) over the reef, allowing larger landing craft, with drafts of at least four feet (1.2 m), to pass with room to spare. But that day and the next, in the words of some observers, “the ocean just sat there,” leaving a mean depth of three feet (0.9 m) over the reef. (The neap tide phenomenon occurs twice a month when the moon is near its first or last quarter, because the countering tug of the sun causes water levels to deviate less. But for two days the moon was at its farthest point from earth and exerted even less pull, leaving the waters relatively undisturbed.)
> 
> At 0900 the supporting naval bombardment was lifted to allow the Marines to land. The reef proved a daunting obstacle. Only the tracked LVT “Alligators” were able to get across. The Higgins boats, at four feet draft, were unable to clear the reef.[6]

> [@](#):
>
> A number of ‘Alligators’ went back out to the reef in an attempt to carry in the men who were stuck there, but most of these LVTs were too badly holed to remain sea worthy, leaving the marines stuck on the reef some 500 yards (460 m) off shore. Half of the LVTs were knocked out of action by the end of the first day.

No mention is made in Wikipedia, here’s a citation regarding [the advance warning the Americans received but ignored](http://books.google.com/books?id=4U71TFEaahcC&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=warned+about+neap+tide+at+tarawa&source=bl&ots=72FUpuEBE3&sig=INrnnK0Kd3gbICms5gIhVHv-mZo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FfzET_mEPIaa8gSYlMWMCw&sqi=2&ved=0CEYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=warned%20about%20neap%20tide%20at%20tarawa&f=false). A Royal Australian Navy Lt. Commander, and a Major who had been headmaster of a school on the island for twenty years and kept tidal records, were attached to the planning staff and indeed warned the Americans.

My point is that to a certain extant, the casualties at Tarawa were higher because of this fluke event and not necessarily a function _solely_ of the Japanese defensive preparations.

.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\
**Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-nations-were-not-so-slow-to-adopt-aircraft-carriers-in-ww2/623088/57 "2012-05-29T17:18:47Z")

</div>

> [@doorhinge](#):
>
> The U.S. Navy had 8 aircraft carriers when it entered WWII and launched 31 more before the end of the war.
> 
> \*\*CV-1: Langley (1922-1942) \*\*  
> **CV-2: Lexington (1927-1942**)  
> **CV-3: Saratoga** (1927-1946)  
> CV-4: Ranger (1934-1947)  
> **CV-5: Yorktown (1937-1942**)  
> **CV-6: Enterprise** (1938-1958)  
> \*\*CV-7: Wasp (1940-1942) \*\*  
> \*\*CV-8: Hornet (1941-1942) \*\*
> 
> **CV-9: Essex** (1942-1975) **(commissioned 12/31/42)**
> 
> **Kaga (1921-1942)** (Fleet Carrier converted Tosa-class battleship)  
> **Akagi (1927-1942)** (Fleet Carrier converted Amagi-class battlecruiser)  
> **Ryūjō (1933-1942)** (Light Carrier)  
> Ryūhō (1934-1945) (Light Carrier)  
> **Sōryū (1937-1942)** (Fleet Carrier)  
> Chitose (1938-1944) (Light Carrier)  
> Chiyoda (1938-1944) (Light Carrier)  
> **Hiryū (1939-1942)** (Fleet Carrier)  
> Zuihō (1940-1944) (Light Carrier)  
> \*\*Zuidaku (1941-1944) (Fleet Carrier) \*\*  
> **Shōhō (1941-1942)** (Light Carrier)  
> \*\*Shōkaku (1941-1944) (Fleet Carrier) \*\*
> 
> Taiyō (1941-1944) (Escort Carrier)  
> **Junyō (1942-1947) (Fleet Carrier) (commissioned 5/3/42)**  
> **Hiyō (1942-1944) (Fleet Carrier) (commissioned 7/31/42)**  
> Chuyo (1942-1943) (Escort Carrier)  
> Unyo (1942-1944) (Escort Carrier)

[COLOR=black]Thank you for providing the lists I know they must have taken quite bit [/COLOR][COLOR=black]of effort to compile.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=black]I have truncated and edited the lists above for AC commissioned 1942 and earlier.[/COLOR]

Fleet AC serving as of 1/1/43 are highlighted in **bold black**.

New ship 1942 commissioning dates for Fleet AC available for duty by the end of 1942  
are highlighted in **bold black**. Although _Essex_ is included, note its 12/31 date of  
commissioning compared to _Junyo_ and _Hiyo_ commissioned 5/3 and 7/31.

All AC sunk as of 1/1/43 are in **bold red.**

In the actual event IJN AC strength on 1/1/43 was:  
[COLOR=black]4 Fleet AC[/COLOR]  
[COLOR=black]4 Escort AC[/COLOR]

[COLOR=black]USN strength on 1/1/43 was:[/COLOR]  
[COLOR=black]4 Fleet AC (Including _Ranger_ although it was considered unfit for duty vs other AC, and spent the entire war in the Atlantic)[/COLOR]

[COLOR=black]I do think you should consider that if Japan had had 2 more carriers on 12/7/41, [/COLOR]  
[COLOR=black]and used them specifically at Coral Sea and Midway then the US might have ended [/COLOR]  
[COLOR=black]the year without a single AC in the Pacific facing 6 IJN fleet AC, and facing an[/COLOR]  
[COLOR=black]enemy in secure possession of Midway, the Outer Aleutians, the Solomon Islands,[/COLOR]  
[COLOR=black]New Guinea, and possible even Darwin Australia.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=black]That would have left the US with starting points _thousands_ of miles further east,[/COLOR]  
[COLOR=black]and would have made it unlikely that the Japanese home islands could be reached[/COLOR]  
[COLOR=black]by the USAAF before 1946 at the earliest. [/COLOR]

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\
**Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-nations-were-not-so-slow-to-adopt-aircraft-carriers-in-ww2/623088/58 "2012-05-29T17:19:50Z")

</div>

> [@doorhinge](#):
>
> There was supposed to have been a 3rd air attack at Pearl Harbor which would have targeted the fuel bunkers. The IJN didn’t know where the U.S. carriers were, or more to the point, didn’t know if the U.S. carriers were currently steaming towards the IJN. It was decided to cancel the 3rd attack, keep their aircraft on board for possible defense, and head for home.

Good points and thanks for the information.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\
**Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-nations-were-not-so-slow-to-adopt-aircraft-carriers-in-ww2/623088/59 "2012-05-29T19:44:10Z")

</div>

> [@colonial](#):
>
> The advantage of shorter lines is that you do not have to scroll your  
> _eyeballs_ as far horizontally.
> 
> I am confident you would appreciate the shorter lines if you got used  
> to them. Have you ever read a poem?

The advantage of resizeable windows is that you can make the lines you are reading as short as you like by resizing the window, but if someone’s entered a post where they insisted on manual linebreaks because they’re still thinking this is the 1970s and the thing in front of them is a typewriter, your audience doesn’t have this option.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![AndrewL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@AndrewL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AndrewL)\
**Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-nations-were-not-so-slow-to-adopt-aircraft-carriers-in-ww2/623088/60 "2012-05-29T20:10:57Z")

</div>

The claims that there was supposed to be a 3rd wave of planes attacking Pearl Harbor are disputed. It is dubious as to whether the carrier fleet would even have been able to launch a third wave of planes, and there is disagreement as to whether the notion was even raised at the time rather than being something proposed after the fact.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-nations-were-not-so-slow-to-adopt-aircraft-carriers-in-ww2/623088.md?page=2)

[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-nations-were-not-so-slow-to-adopt-aircraft-carriers-in-ww2/623088.md?page=4)