[Wonder Warthog]

"Although I have no bias against aircraft carriers, for they are a useful ship for projection of naval air power at sea and protecting fleets from enemy air strikes, what you never knew about is that land-based aircraft of the USAAF shouldered a fair bit more of the combat burden than the carrier-based USN."

I'd say you are more than a bit biassed. Carriers have proven their worth repeatedly. The significant advantage of the carrier is that they can deploy air power to remote LAND areas and support their ops there. Land-based aircraft simply cannot do that. And I would certainly HOPE that "the USAAF shouldered a fair bit more of the combat burden", because they have more planes and more pilots.

[castlegreyskull]

I am a submarine officer, and the value and the power projection that carriers bring cannot be understated. Submarines can control the seas almost entirely alone, but a carrier battle group as we have seen can take the war deep into enemy territory like we have in Afghanistan, when the ENTERPRISE launched the aircraft responsible for punishing the AQ and the Taliban.