# 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:** 11\
**Page:** 4

<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, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-nations-were-not-so-slow-to-adopt-aircraft-carriers-in-ww2/623088/61 "2012-05-29T21:40:50Z")

</div>

> [@colonial](#):
>
> [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]

Interesting supposition. The 1939 U.S. military that Imperial forces had decided to attack was something like 37th or 39th largest in the world. Definately not a worldbeater and hardly a worthy opponent. Congress finally opened it pursestrings and military personal was increased to 500K in 1940. Money, equipment, and manpower increased again in 1941.

The attack on Pearl was intended to prevent the U.S. from interfering with Imperial expansion for 6 to 12 months. At that point in time, it was assumed by some that the U.S. would be willing to sue for peace in the Pacific. Since the intention was only to disable the U.S. fleet at Pearl and not invade, 6 AC’s were more than enough.

The Doolittle raid in April 1942 surprised everyone. B-25’s can’t launch from AC’s and Japan was beyond the range of “conventional” attack. One more impossiblity had proven to be possible.

At Coral Sea, the IJN made several assumptions including that the U.S. only had 2 functional AC’s in the Pacific. They guessed wrong. The IJN may have sent more AC’s to finally destroy the U.S. in their “one big battle strategy” but they underestimated the U.S. forces.

The U.S. also had dependable radar, proximity fuzed shells, plus they were still able to deciper some of the IJM code. These gave the U.S. a considerable advantage.

By the battle of Midway, it was understood that Japanese manufacturing, shipbuilding, and pilot training could not keep up with their losses. Plus natural resources were in short supply. U.S. manufacturing was still increasing and resources were readily available (considering there was a war on).

The battle itself depended on who located who first and the U.S. knew the IJN was coming.

Of course, none of this matters if there weren’t sailors willing to put their lives on the line.

---

<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, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-nations-were-not-so-slow-to-adopt-aircraft-carriers-in-ww2/623088/62 "2012-05-29T22:23:24Z")

</div>

> [@AndrewL](#):
>
> 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.

The 3rd strike was discussed by the IJN fleet officers and Nagumo. It was decided at the time that there were too many unknows and the possibility of having to retrieve aircraft at night was dangerous. The original plan had been to conduct two strikes.

IF the fuel bunkers at Pearl were destroyed, the USN would have been forced to refuel from San Diego or another base. The resulting destruction from the fuel bunker fires could have rendered Pearl useless as a Naval base for several months or longer.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\
**Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-nations-were-not-so-slow-to-adopt-aircraft-carriers-in-ww2/623088/63 "2012-05-29T22:24:02Z")

</div>

One of the things about Midway was that it was an educated guess (as far as the U.S.'s knowledge of Japanese intentions).

The American political leadership was convinced that the cracked codes may be a disinformation campaign, and that the real assault would be on Hawaii or the U.S. West Coast. Some influential politicians were opposed to having the American carriers lurking so far to the west. They wanted them either in Hawaiian waters, or lurking between Hawaii and the mainland.

Ultimately, Nimitz was able to reach a compromise by stationing the Pacific battleships to intercept any thrust towards the U.S. (Without air cover, they would be vulnerable if the Kido Butai sighted them in clear weather.)

Nimitz was risking a lot. The Essex class would not begin to replace war losses until mid to late '43. Wars aren’t won hiding in the basement, though. 🙂

---

<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, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-nations-were-not-so-slow-to-adopt-aircraft-carriers-in-ww2/623088/64 "2012-05-29T22:43:44Z")

</div>

> [@doorhinge](#):
>
> The 3rd strike was discussed by the IJN fleet officers and Nagumo. It was decided at the time that there were too many unknows and the possibility of having to retrieve aircraft at night was dangerous. The original plan had been to conduct two strikes.

What is debatable is whether the 3rd strike was ever proposed at the time, or if it was though up as an what-if after the fact. The evidence that it was discussed and turned down at the time is disputed, and the claim that there was supposed to be a 3rd strike didn’t appear till years afterwards.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\
**Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-nations-were-not-so-slow-to-adopt-aircraft-carriers-in-ww2/623088/65 "2012-05-29T22:44:59Z")

</div>

> [@doorhinge](#):
>
> 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.

Thanks for posting the list but restricting it only to fleet carriers gives a full impression that Japan was not too far behind the United States.

There were also the escort carriers. They weren’t as big (or glamorous) as the fleet carriers and they only held about a third of the amount of airplanes. But the USN had a huge lead in them (122 were built during the war while Japan built 5) and those numbers add up. This meant that the USN could have aircraft coverage all over the place - every convoy and task force and landing force would have at least one escort carrier.

---

<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, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-nations-were-not-so-slow-to-adopt-aircraft-carriers-in-ww2/623088/66 "2012-05-29T23:01:01Z")

</div>

> [@Sailboat](#):
>
> …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.
> 
> 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.

Thank you for the information, and it is always refreshing to have a cite  
whose name does not begin with the letters w-i-k-i.

I had never heard of the “neap” tides at Tarawa before, although I do now  
recall mention of LC stranding on the reef. No doubt American losses were  
subsequently worse.

---

<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 30, 2012, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-nations-were-not-so-slow-to-adopt-aircraft-carriers-in-ww2/623088/67 "2012-05-30T00:16:29Z")

</div>

> [@Little\_Nemo](#):
>
> gives a full impression that Japan was not too far behind the United States.

I was wondering about that.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\
**Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-nations-were-not-so-slow-to-adopt-aircraft-carriers-in-ww2/623088/68 "2012-05-30T02:26:09Z")

</div>

> [@Little\_Nemo](#):
>
> Thanks for posting the list but restricting it only to fleet carriers gives a full impression that Japan was not too far behind the United States.

I meant a false impression. I’m not sure what a full impression is.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\
**Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-nations-were-not-so-slow-to-adopt-aircraft-carriers-in-ww2/623088/69 "2012-05-30T02:37:47Z")

</div>

> [@carnivorousplant](#):
>
> I was wondering about that.

If you add both side’s escort carriers, the list looks like this:

Japan:

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)

United States:

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)  
Coral Sea (CVB 43)  
Valley Forge (CV 45)  
Iwo Jima (CV 46)  
Philippine Sea (CV 47)  
Saipan (CVL 48)  
Wright (CVL 49)  
Long Island (CVE 1)  
HMS Archer (BAVG 1)  
HMS Avenger (BAVG 2)  
HMS Biter (BAVG 3)  
HMS Charger/USS Charger (BAVG 4/CVE 30)  
HMS Dasher (BAVG 5)  
Altamaha/HMS Battler (CVE 6)  
Barnes/HMS Attacker (CVE 7)  
Block Island/HMS Hunter (CVE 8)  
Bogue (CVE 9)  
Breton/HMS Chaser (CVE 10)  
Card (CVE 11)  
Copahee (CVE 12)  
Core (CVE 13)  
Croatan/HMS Fencer (CVE 14)  
Hamlin/HMS Stalker (CVE 15)  
Nassau (CVE 16)  
St. George/HMS Pursuer (CVE 17)  
Altamaha (CVE 18)  
Prince William/HMS Striker (CVE 19)  
Barnes (CVE 20)  
Block Island (CVE 21)  
HMS Searcher (CVE 22)  
Breton (CVE 23)  
HMS Ravager (CVE 24)  
Croatan (CVE 25)  
Sangamon (CVE 26)  
Suwannee (CVE 27)  
Chenango (CVE 28)  
Santee (CVE 29)  
Prince William (CVE 31)  
Chatham/HMS Slinger (CVE 32)  
Glacier/HMS Atheling (CVE 33)  
Pybus/HMS Emperor (CVE 34)  
Baffins/HMS Ameer (CVE 35)  
Bolinas/HMS Begum (CVE 36)  
Bastian/HMS Trumpeter (CVE 37)  
Carnegie/HMS Empress (CVE 38)  
Cordova/HMS Khedive (CVE 39)  
Delgada/HMS Speaker (CVE 40)  
Edisto/HMS Nabob (CVE 41)  
Estero/HMS Premier (CVE 42)  
Jamaica/HMS Shah (CVE 43)  
Keneenaw/HMS Patroller (CVE 44)  
Prince/HMS Rajah (CVE 45)  
Niantic/HMS Ranee (CVE 46)  
Perdido/HMS Trouncer (CVE 47)  
Sunset/HMS Thane (CVE 48)  
St. Andrews/HMS Queen (CVE 49)  
St. Joseph/HMS Ruler (CVE 50)  
St. Simon/HMS Arbiter (CVE 51)  
Vermillion/HMS Smiter (CVE 52)  
Willapa/HMS Puncher (CVE 53)  
Winjah/HMS Reaper (CVE 54)  
Casablanca (CVE 55)  
Liscombe Bay (CVE 56)  
Coral Sea/Anzio (CVE 57)  
Corregidor (CVE 58)  
Mission Bay (CVE 59)  
Guadalcanal (CVE 60)  
Manila Bay (CVE 61)  
Natoma Bay (CVE 62)  
Midway/St. Lo (CVE 63)  
Didrickson Bay/Tripoli (CVE 64)  
Wake Island (CVE 65)  
White Plains (CVE 66)  
Solomons (CVE 67)  
Kalinin Bay (CVE 68)  
Kasaan Bay (CVE 69)  
Fanshaw Bay (CVE 70)  
Kitkun Bay (CVE 71)  
Tulagi (CVE 72)  
Gambier Bay (CVE 73)  
Nehenta Bay (CVE 74)  
Hoggatt Bay (CVE 75)  
Kadashan Bay (CVE 76)  
Marcus Island (CVE 77)  
Savo Island (CVE 78)  
Ommaney Bay (CVE 79)  
Petrof Bay (CVE 80)  
Rudyerd Bay (CVE 81)  
Saginaw Bay (CVE 82)  
Sargent Bay (CVE 83)  
Shamrock Bay (CVE 84)  
Shipley Bay (CVE 85)  
Sitkoh Bay (CVE 86)  
Steamer Bay (CVE 87)  
Cape Esperance (CVE 88)  
Takanis Bay (CVE 89)  
Thetis Bay (CVE 90)  
Makassar Strait (CVE 91)  
Windham Bay (CVE 92)  
Makin Island (CVE 93)  
Lunga Point (CVE 94)  
Bismark Sea (CVE 95)  
Salamaua (CVE 96)  
Hollandia (CVE 97)  
Kwajalein (CVE 98)  
Admiralty Islands (CVE 99)  
Bougainville (CVE 100)  
Mantanikau (CVE 101)  
Attu (CVE 102)  
Roi (CVE 103)  
Munda (CVE 104)  
Commencement Bay (CVE 105)  
Block Island (CVE 106)  
Gilbert Islands (CVE 107)  
Kula Gulf (CVE 108)  
Cape Gloucester (CVE 109)  
Salerno Bay (CVE 110)  
Vella Gulf (CVE 111)  
Siboney (CVE 112)  
Puget Sound (CVE 113)  
Rendova (CVE 114)  
Bairoko (CVE 115)  
Badoeng Strait (CVE 116)  
Saidor (CVE 117)  
Sicily (CVE 118)  
Point Cruz (CVE 119)  
Mindoro (CVE 120)  
Rabaul (CVE 121)  
Palau (CVE 122)

(some of these were built for or transferred to the UK)

---

<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 30, 2012, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-nations-were-not-so-slow-to-adopt-aircraft-carriers-in-ww2/623088/70 "2012-05-30T02:45:22Z")

</div>

> [@Little\_Nemo](#):
>
> Thanks for posting the list but restricting it only to fleet carriers gives a full impression that Japan was not too far behind the United States.
> 
> There were also the escort carriers. They weren’t as big (or glamorous) as the fleet carriers and they only held about a third of the amount of airplanes. But the USN had a huge lead in them (122 were built during the war while Japan built 5) and those numbers add up. This meant that the USN could have aircraft coverage all over the place - every convoy and task force and landing force would have at least one escort carrier.

The question was about building fleet carriers instead of battleships and the possible outcome if that had happened.

During WWII, the U.S. built more of just about every type of weapon and weapons platform than the rest of the combatants combined but that wasn’t the situation before Pearl.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\
**Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-nations-were-not-so-slow-to-adopt-aircraft-carriers-in-ww2/623088/71 "2012-05-30T04:01:45Z")

</div>

> [@doorhinge](#):
>
> The question was about building fleet carriers instead of battleships and the possible outcome if that had happened.

No, I think the OP just said “carriers” without specifying any class.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-nations-were-not-so-slow-to-adopt-aircraft-carriers-in-ww2/623088.md?page=3)