FEDERAL WORKERS PUT ON DRAFT BASIS UNDER ORDERS OF MANPOWER BOARD (9/15/42)

Microfilm-New York Times archives, Monterey Public Library | 9/15/42 | Louis Stark, W.H. Lawrence

[Homer_J_Simpson]

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

[BroJoeK]

Speaking of fleet carrier losses...

By my count, the Wasp and soon Hornet sinkings bring to five the number of US fleet carriers lost (Langely, Lexington, Yorktown, Wasp, Hornet) with only three left afloat -- Saratoga, Ranger and Enterprise.

Enterprise is now damaged, out of action, Ranger is in the Atlantic, which I think will leave only one in the Pacific: Saratoga.

In the mean time, the Brits have also lost five fleet carriers (Hermes, Glorious, Eagle, Courageous, Ark Royal), and the Japanese three.

All this makes me wonder:

A) Are these newfangled aircraft carriers all they're cracked up to be?
After all, they seem awfully easy to sink, and what real good are they anyway?

B) Wouldn't we be better off building more battle ships -- they're tougher to sink, and guns more accurate?

Seriously, at this point, don't aircraft carriers look like an experiment that failed?

[CougarGA7]

• Walter Zinn and his crew of workers begins the first of what will be 16 successive exponential piles in the stands of Stagg Field to test the purity of the carbon shipments to be used by Fermi to generate a sustained chain reaction.

[henkster]

Well BroJoe, those are some good questions. Maybe if we just poured all our resources into one or two really massive “unsinkable” battleships we could win the war. I’m thinking about 72,000 tons displacement, maybe with 18” guns. That ought to do the trick.

But seriously, and I know the post is tongue-in-cheek, I think most navies are looking not at the carrier losses, but carrier v. battleship engagements. To date, only Glorious was sunk by battleships. On the other hand, looks like air power has claimed several more battleships.

One other thing to note; of the carrier losses, how many were to submarines? Courageous, Ark Royal & Wasp were sunk by subs. Yorktown was finished off by one. If we had decent torpedoes, Nautilus would have claimed one at Midway.

One of the little known facets of WW2 is that right now, the world’s navies are all short of carriers. It will be interesting to see how they deal with that problem.

[GeronL]

More words on the page that way, I guess

[InMemoriam]

Pearl Harbor, Midway, Doolittle Raid, Coral Sea...via battleships? In fact, battleships were present in some of these engagements, to no positive effect.

The reason carriers are sinking all over everywhere, as in this battle, is that both sides now realize that they are the crown jewels. The subs ignored the deadly escort screen as a nuisance.

Henderson Field prompting an epic six-month battle is an example of how valuable aerial platforms are in the Pacific. (How’d those planes get there?) ;-)

[Seizethecarp]

After land based Japanese aircraft blasted the two British battleships sent to defend Singapore, new battleships ceased being ordered.

Aircraft carrier defense tactics were a work in progress but improved with anti-sub systems above, on and below the surface, and destruction of Japanese air power on land and on carriers as well as attrition of Japanese subs faster then they could be replaced.

Only in this decade have US carriers been forced away from China by their increasingly sophisticated anti-carrier systems such as ballistic missiles and supersonic cruise missiles. The Chinese said “never again” after Clinton brushed them back from threatening Taiwan by using carriers that could operate close-in to China at the time. At least that is my impression.

[Seizethecarp]

I don't believe that a single new battleship was ordered after the Japanese wiped out the two sent to defend Singapore using highly effective land-based bombers.

[PAR35]

You can also cheat a little bit by taking out some of the space between the words. Headline writing is easier if you have multiple columns to work with. Writing single column headlines isn’t fun.

[BroJoeK]

henkster: "But seriously, and I know the post is tongue-in-cheek..."

Wouldn't you think? ;-)
But seriously, there are people even today, even on Free Republic who post regularly questioning if aircraft carriers are worth their expense.

So it strikes me that, if there were ever a time when those criticisms might seem valid, it was surely near the end of 1942 when:

• six of seven US pre-war carriers suitable for Pacific service, had been sunk or put out of action.
  Only Wasp sunk by submarine, the rest by carrier aircraft.

• Five of 10 British carriers were sunk.
  Three sunk by U-boats, one by battle ship, one by Japanese carrier aircraft.

• Six of 12 (large and small) Japanese carriers were sunk.
  All six sunk by US carrier aircraft.

No one in 1942 can yet know that the USS Hornet was the last US fleet carrier sunk in battle.
Again, my point: if there were ever a time for the US to question or abandon its carriers, the end of 1942 might be it.
Instead, dozens of new carriers were produced, each improved to correct problems learned in battle.

USS Yorktown, sunk at Midway, June 1942:

USS Intrepid, 1944:

[SteamShovel]

I think the answer is that carriers inflict much more damage per one sank than battle ships can achieve. Their reach is wider in a shorter period of time than a battle ship. I love battle ships, but they are single killers while the carriers are more like a hive of hornets.