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.
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:
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: