# WW2 Planes attacking a modern aircraft carrier **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 22, 2013, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ww2-planes-attacking-a-modern-aircraft-carrier/656439 "2013-04-22T23:00:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ww2-planes-attacking-a-modern-aircraft-carrier/656439/41 "2013-04-24T06:43:50Z")
> [@the\_diego](#): > > ^ > The 10-kiloton bomb at Hiroshima detonated 500 meters above the city. Temperature at ground zero went past 4,000 degrees c. No ship can survive that. Generally the idea is to throw the grenade far enough away so it doesn’t blow your own ass off. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ww2-planes-attacking-a-modern-aircraft-carrier/656439/42 "2013-04-24T06:48:16Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Would a modern heat-seeking missile lock in on a WWII-era prop fighter? hp = heat with an ICE engine. Look outside the window of a twin engine plane at night and you’ll see the exhaust glowing red. Plenty of IR radiation there. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ww2-planes-attacking-a-modern-aircraft-carrier/656439/43 "2013-04-24T13:19:28Z")
> [@Snnipe\_70E](#): > > One thing that has not come up. 1930’s carriers were 30+ knott ships. A modern carrier is 40+ knotts. The Japanese pilots aim would be off because the ship would have already passed the point he ws aiming at when the wepon got there. Not true on either count. The [USS _Lexington_ (CV-2)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Lexington_(CV-2)) could make 33.25 knots, the [USS Nimitz (CV-68)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Nimitz_(CVN-68)) 31.5 knots. There has been persistent scuttlebutt that the nuclear carriers can make 40 knots or more, likely because of the navy’s tendency to describe top speed in vague terms, usually 30+ knots. I’ve never seen any evidence that it’s anything but scuttlebutt. Even if true, it wouldn’t do anything to throw off the Japanese aim; pilots on both sides in the war engaged ships at speeds from dead in the water up to 40 knots [(IJN _Shimikaze_)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_destroyer_Shimakaze_(1942)) without it disrupting their aim. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Would a modern heat-seeking missile lock in on a WWII-era prop fighter? Early generation missiles probably would have problems, but not modern ones. Early versions of the Sidewinder could only make chasing shots as they needed to see the exhaust from the engine to get enough of an IR signature for a lock, but from the [AIM-9L](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-9_Sidewinder#All-aspect_Sidewinders) onwards the seeker was sensitive enough to achieve an IR lock from all angles, including head-on. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ww2-planes-attacking-a-modern-aircraft-carrier/656439/44 "2013-04-24T14:09:43Z")
> [@the\_diego](#): > > Pretty sure. In test ‘Able’ in your link, 5 ships inside the 1,000-yard radius target zone sank. 14 others sustained serious damage. Only one large ship inside the zone sustained “moderate” damage, the modern Japanese battleship Nagato. She was near the edge of the circle and had her stern facing the blast. > > Able was a 23-kiloton blast at 150 meters above sea. My last try: “Sunk” does not equal vaporized. ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ww2-planes-attacking-a-modern-aircraft-carrier/656439/45 "2013-04-24T14:28:58Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > … anyone specifying in the design stage that they must be able to stop an attack by 353 WW2 Japanese aircraft as a likely threat would find their career coming to a rapid end… It’s guys like you who poop the whole party. 😉 ---
**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:** [April 24, 2013, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ww2-planes-attacking-a-modern-aircraft-carrier/656439/46 "2013-04-24T14:51:56Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > Early generation missiles probably would have problems, but not modern ones. Early versions of the Sidewinder could only make chasing shots as they needed to see the exhaust from the engine to get enough of an IR signature for a lock, but from the [AIM-9L](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-9_Sidewinder#All-aspect_Sidewinders) onwards the seeker was sensitive enough to achieve an IR lock from all angles, including head-on. Right. I’ve read that such “all-aspect” guidance is sensitive enough to track using the heating of the plane’s surfaces due to friction, but that might just be Tom Clancy talking. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ww2-planes-attacking-a-modern-aircraft-carrier/656439/47 "2013-04-24T15:11:35Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > The attack on Pearl Harbor was carefully planned even down to the level of deciding not to attack the oil as to not obstruct the view for the other attackers. > > . “Proscribe” means “forbid.” What you originally said, then, is that Japanese war doctrine “forbade” following detailed battle plans. It appears that this is not what you intended to say, but it’s not 100% clear. I’m looking for clarification. Was “proscribed” the wrong word to use in your first post? ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2013, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ww2-planes-attacking-a-modern-aircraft-carrier/656439/48 "2013-04-25T02:08:35Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > “Proscribe” means “forbid.” What you originally said, then, is that Japanese war doctrine “forbade” following detailed battle plans. It appears that this is not what you intended to say, but it’s not 100% clear. I’m looking for clarification. Was “proscribed” the wrong word to use in your first post? Blah. :smack: Prescribed. > [@Dissonance](#): > > It wouldn’t be enough to save it, and would certainly make no difference against the torpedoes, but one advantage the _Nimitz_ would have over US WW2 carriers is that all US carriers from the _Midway_ class on have incorporated armored flight decks; late in the war when facing kamikaze attacks the same deck crashes that could put US carriers out of service for months of repairs would usually only result in superficial damage to British carriers which had armored flight decks. Coming back to this, while the armored flight deck would help against the dive bombers, it’s not going to do anything against the level bombers who were carrying 800 kg (1760 lb) armor piercing bombs especially modified for use against the US battleships, as the IJN pilots would be unable to attack the inner row on Battleship Row with torpedoes and the bombs carried by dive bombers wouldn’t be powerful enough against the more heavily armored battleship. They apparently practiced more with level bombing against ships for this attack. The US certainly didn’t have much success with this tactic against moving ships, but this is where the seer number of attackers comes in. > [@Dissonance](#): > > Not true on either count. The [USS _Lexington_ (CV-2)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Lexington_(CV-2)) could make 33.25 knots, the [USS Nimitz (CV-68)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Nimitz_(CVN-68)) 31.5 knots. There has been persistent scuttlebutt that the nuclear carriers can make 40 knots or more, likely because of the navy’s tendency to describe top speed in vague terms, usually 30+ knots. I’ve never seen any evidence that it’s anything but scuttlebutt. I’ve also read this as well. Attacking ships with torpedoes wasn’t trivial even back in WWII as the IIRC, the Japanese torpedo had a running speed of 40 or 41 knots although this was faster than the Mark 13 (And it enjoyed that ability to explode on impact, something which many US submarine skippers would have also appreciated.) If it were just a few planes then again, the Nimitz could expect its maneuverability and the AA capabilities to help, but with 40 of them in a mass attack with the other 140 planes, it would be another contributor to the chaos. ---
**Author:** ![WreckingCrew](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wreckingcrew/32/4080_2.png) [@WreckingCrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WreckingCrew)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2013, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ww2-planes-attacking-a-modern-aircraft-carrier/656439/49 "2013-04-25T15:24:02Z")
Of course the real answer is that if the Nimitz manages to get any planes in the air, you order them to attack the Japanese carriers, effectively destroying all of the Japanese planes, and their highly trained pilots, because they would have no safe place to land. Six of Japan’s ten carriers were involved in the Pearl Harbor attack. If those were eliminated that day, if would have changed the war. And seeing how WW II era planes sunk 4 carriers at Midway, I have great confidence in F-18s being up to the task. I would gladly trade the Nimitz for 6 carriers, and any Japanese planes it destroyed preventing them from attacking Pearl would be gravy. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2013, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ww2-planes-attacking-a-modern-aircraft-carrier/656439/50 "2013-04-25T19:11:13Z")
An earlier thread addressing many of these issues: ["The Final Countdown": Tomcats vs. Zeros - Cafe Society - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=421352) ---
**Author:** ![Ranger\_Jeff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranger_jeff/32/2065_2.png) [@Ranger\_Jeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranger_Jeff)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2013, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ww2-planes-attacking-a-modern-aircraft-carrier/656439/51 "2013-04-26T00:27:05Z")
> [@WreckingCrew](#): > > Of course the real answer is that if the Nimitz manages to get any planes in the air, you order them to attack the Japanese carriers, effectively destroying all of the Japanese planes, and their highly trained pilots, because they would have no safe place to land. > > Six of Japan’s ten carriers were involved in the Pearl Harbor attack. If those were eliminated that day, if would have changed the war. And seeing how WW II era planes sunk 4 carriers at Midway, I have great confidence in F-18s being up to the task. I would gladly trade the Nimitz for 6 carriers, and any Japanese planes it destroyed preventing them from attacking Pearl would be gravy. Yes, I mentioned that upthread. Wax the 6 carriers and that would have changed what happened throughout the Pacific. ---
**Author:** ![DeptfordX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e68b1a/32.png) [@DeptfordX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DeptfordX)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2013, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ww2-planes-attacking-a-modern-aircraft-carrier/656439/52 "2013-04-27T23:05:35Z")
Even if a super-carrier could survive (ie: Not sink) a close range nuclear blast, it’s surely still going to be mission killed. The flight deck is going to be wrecked and warped by blast and heat. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2013, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ww2-planes-attacking-a-modern-aircraft-carrier/656439/53 "2013-04-28T03:58:03Z")
> [@WreckingCrew](#): > > Of course the real answer is that if the Nimitz manages to get any planes in the air, you order them to attack the Japanese carriers, effectively destroying all of the Japanese planes, and their highly trained pilots, because they would have no safe place to land. > > Six of Japan’s ten carriers were involved in the Pearl Harbor attack. If those were eliminated that day, if would have changed the war. And seeing how WW II era planes sunk 4 carriers at Midway, I have great confidence in F-18s being up to the task. I would gladly trade the Nimitz for 6 carriers, and any Japanese planes it destroyed preventing them from attacking Pearl would be gravy. It was just six of ten, it was their fleet carriers, the remaining four being escort carriers which carrier considerably fewer planes. Completely as an aside, in addition to losing their cream of the crop air crew, they also would have lost their skilled mechanics, an often overlooked resource which Japan, as a only recently industrializing country, had a considerably fewer number of young men with experience in working on cars or farm machinery from which to replenish their ranks. Back to the subject, in a game of Pacific War poker, it’s not clear that six Japanese fleet carriers would be worth sacrificing one super carrier, as the sum is not number of planes X fire power. The nukes on board would be game over. And, as is usually pointed out in these types of threads, you would gain so much game-changing information from the time travelers. “Yes, Douglas, you must protect those planes.” “OK boys and girls, this is called a proximity fuse. Can you say more effective AA?” Still, it’s not a clear-cut question. If the First Fleet were to be wiped out, even without gaining all of the benefits of future knowledge, you could still do really well. Say your _Final Countdown_ thing happened but left the nukes behind. If either you keep the Nimitz or sink the First Fleet (and ideally, both), you should be able to prevent the Japanese from taking PI, Malay, Singapore and the DEA. Without those, Japan would fail to expand its perimeter and it’s a much shorter war. Without additional oil, then Japan’s ability to wage full scale naval operations is measures in months rather than years. Even if the European colonies were to be lost, the Philippines would have been saved. One of the more perplexing puzzles of the war was MacArthur’s inexplicable response, or rather lack of response to the news of the attack on Pearl Harbor and the expected attack on his bases. Historically, he did nothing and allowed his planes to also be caught on the tarmac, wingtip to wingtip. Would a US victory at Pearl Harbor prevented what some call his apparent collapse? Even had nothing changed, the Philippines would have been rescued had the First Fleet been on the sea floor and the Pacific Fleet been floating. But back to the question. Given the choice between sacrificing the Nimitz in order to wipe out the First Fleet or keeping the Nimitz and going after them on Monday morning, I’d keep my nukes and my knowledge and let them sink the obsolete battleships. I don’t think it would have to be a choice, though. If you can get up enough planes with enough missiles to take out six carriers, you can protect yourself first and then destroy enemy’s ships once the swarm of aircraft are gone. ---
**Author:** ![Ranger\_Jeff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranger_jeff/32/2065_2.png) [@Ranger\_Jeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranger_Jeff)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2013, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ww2-planes-attacking-a-modern-aircraft-carrier/656439/54 "2013-04-28T04:21:31Z")
Oh, suppose the Nimitz did survive and destroyed the Japanese fleet. What’s it going to do that afternoon or the next day when Halsey on the Enterprise came steaming out of Pearl looking for blood and spotting a carrier of the like it’s never seen before? Defend itself? Surrender to the fighter, dive bomber, and torpedo bomber squadrons trying to sink it? ---
**Author:** ![rogerbox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/76d3ee/32.png) [@rogerbox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rogerbox)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2013, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ww2-planes-attacking-a-modern-aircraft-carrier/656439/55 "2013-04-28T07:19:42Z")
Would F-18’s be able to target certain parts of war ships without reprogramming? Or would they only be able to target the ship as a whole? ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2013, 8:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ww2-planes-attacking-a-modern-aircraft-carrier/656439/56 "2013-04-28T08:30:39Z")
Weren’t the Japanese expecting to to find 3 American carriers in port? If so, they would have planes in the formations to deal with them. And they planned to attack battleships, in fact they had specially modified armor-piercing bombs to attack them, so they could certainly pierce the modern armored flight deck – that is, if those particular planes chose to ignore orders and attack the Nimitz rather than their designated targets. At least some of the Japanese planes would attack the Nimitz, in that they were expecting to find carriers. They would think that the carrier had just left port or was heading into port. It wouldn’t matter much, because carriers were on their target lists. I agree with quite a few others here. If the entire attacking force decided to attack the Nimitz, and Nimitz only had a few minutes warning, it would be toast. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2013, 8:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ww2-planes-attacking-a-modern-aircraft-carrier/656439/57 "2013-04-28T08:43:22Z")
All these options depend on enough time to choose one and implement it. A bunch of Hornets aren’t going to be armed to BOTH defend their ship and attack the Japanese fleet. The only way the outcome isn’t a total crapshoot is if the Nimitz arrives some hours before the attack, and _realizes_ it. Then they can properly prepare a strike force to destroy the Japanese carriers before they even launch their planes. Which brings up a completely different question – preemptive war. How would the US government feel about some strangers claiming to be from the future showing up and starting a shooting war? “Well, we knew they were going to attack you, and the damage they would do, so we took them out first.” ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2013, 10:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ww2-planes-attacking-a-modern-aircraft-carrier/656439/58 "2013-04-28T10:36:11Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > Weren’t the Japanese expecting to to find 3 American carriers in port? If so, they would have planes in the formations to deal with them. (. . . .) > > At least some of the Japanese planes would attack the Nimitz, in that they were expecting to find carriers. They would think that the carrier had just left port or was heading into port. One can assume that they would be a tad bit surprised by the difference in size. The problem for the Japanese was that if they attacked the Nimitz with only the planes which were targeted for the carriers then it wouldn’t have gone very well for them, as 16 of the 40 torpedo bombers were assigned for the potential carriers, and the remainder for the battleships. The level bombers were slotted to attack the battleships as well as some of the dive bombers, if required, to draw AA fire. ---
**Author:** ![Pushkin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ee59a6/32.png) [@Pushkin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pushkin)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2013, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ww2-planes-attacking-a-modern-aircraft-carrier/656439/59 "2013-04-28T13:07:28Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > That seems odd! Do you know what the rationale for this was? > > (This together with no radios on the planes make it a wonder that anything got done. Did American pilots have radios, or was this too early for that? Maybe I’m not remembering the episode correctly, but I’m sure a US airman in an episode of Dogfights described being able to shoot down three Japanese aircraft which were flying side by side in formation with ease, as even when he started shooting at them, they were forbidden from breaking formation. Seemed like a pretty nervewracking way to fly. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2013, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ww2-planes-attacking-a-modern-aircraft-carrier/656439/60 "2013-04-28T17:27:46Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > One can assume that they would be a tad bit surprised by the difference in size. Well, you never can tell. Gross pilot misidentification of what they were attacking has a long history; it was some of the same pilots who were part of the Pearl Harbor attack force that five months later identified the destroyer _Sims_ and the oiler _Neosho_ as a battleship and an aircraft carrier at the Battle of the Coral Sea. I could swear I read somewhere that in the aftermath of Pearl a pilot in one of the scout dive bomber squadrons of the US carriers almost attacked one of the distant outlying islands of Palmyra or Johnson when he misidentified the runway through the haze of the clouds as the deck of an aircraft carrier. I haven’t been able to locate a cite for it though so I might be misremembering. During the rather daring, if unsuccessful, [Operation Tan No. 2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Tan_No._2) (also a great article on it at [combinedfleet.com](http://combinedfleet.com) [here](http://www.combinedfleet.com/Tan%20No.%202.htm)) the Japanese launched a long range kamikaze attack on the US fleet at anchor at Ulithi Atoll with 24 twin-engined bombers. Only two of them made the long and arduous flight without having to turn back, ditch, or crash land at Yap, and from the article at [Combinedfleet.org](http://Combinedfleet.org), bolding mine: > [@](#): > > At 1852, the sun set. Only two P1Ys, instead of the original 24 bombers, reached Ulithi, both well after dark. The Gingas approached Ulithi at high altitude. They dropped tin foil chaff to deceive the American’s radars. then dove and flew in low over the water. The two Gingas flew into Ulithi’s anchorage undetected. They wanted one of the large fast carriers. The pilot of the first Ginga radioed "Successful attack!” before crashing. > > No alert had been sounded. The islets and ships were all well lit, the ships’ crews relaxed and movies were being shown. At 2007, a P1Y slammed into the starboard side of the USS RANDOLPH (CV-15), a 27,100-ton ESSEX-class carrier, anchored off Sorlen Islet. The bomber hit aft just below the flight deck, but had so little fuel left in its tanks that it did not burst into flames. The explosion of its bomb destroyed planes in the vicinity of the flight and hangar decks. The RANDOLPH was badly damaged and 26 men were killed and another 105 wounded. **The other Ginga mistook Mog Mog, an adjacent recreation islet, for another aircraft carrier and plowed into a lit baseball diamond.** [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ww2-planes-attacking-a-modern-aircraft-carrier/656439.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ww2-planes-attacking-a-modern-aircraft-carrier/656439.md?page=4)