I've never argued against the notion that under some tactical circumstances a Battleship is more suitable than a carrier. There is no question that in any surface engagement, day or night the latter is at a great disadvantage.alecsandros wrote:I'll try to change the perspective a bit: were is a carrier most suitable, and were is a battleship ?
I'd argue that a carrier is always preferable provided 1. the weather is good enough for launching aircraft, 2. the mission is to be performed during the day, and 3. the enemy positions are known, with little to no probability of surprise attacks. (I know about some carrier missions performed during the night, but those were rare exceptions, with great risks taken...)
But when are all of those conditions respected ? Probably only when the capital ships (CVs, BBs) are part of a large task-force, which can hold it's own against, say, a night surface attack, and that has a good number of recon aircraft (for observing incoming enemy units).
My argument is such superiority is irrelavent if the conditions under which it occurs never happen because the carrier is so superior operationally she can dictate the tactical circumstances under which the battle is fought so that they will always be in her favour.
All the engagements you post as examples of a BB's superiority under certain conditions IMO I could counter by pointing out that such an engagement need never have happened at all had more carriers been present in place of one side's BBs.
As such I don't think your Samar example really supports your position - In the entire war it's one of only two examples where an undamaged carrier found itself under surface fire. In BOTH cases it was only gross error on the part of the carriers that allowed it to happen.
Second it wasn't Yamato's capabilities that caused her to abandon the attack - there was already a recipe for disaster. It was Kurita after having his Flagship torpedoed underneath him and losing the largest BB in the world he lost his nerve and decided to withdraw. IMO he would likely have done regardless of which BB he was commanding from.
Thirdly - you cite it as evidence that carriers are at a disadvantage without good recon, to need to know where the enemy is to be effective - the problem is that applies equally to battleships if not more so given the limited range of their weapons. The US had SIX fast battleships at Leyte so why didn't they stop Yamato at Samar? Because they were uselessly running north with the carriers too. At least the Carriers sank Musashi and some Japanese CVs - what did Iowa and New Jersey accomplish? **ANY** weapon system is more effective if you know where your enemy is so you can employ it most efficiently.
???All those pre-necessary conditions made keeping a carrier at sea very very costly... That's probably why, after WW2 we don't see a proliferation of the carrier except in the US Navy. All other major navies retained heavily armored ships...
Yes carriers were costly but generally delivered performance related to that cost. Guns are far more expensive than rocks and yet no nation today maintains divisions of Rock Throwing Infantry.
Given how badly the other world economies were postwar, the differing priorities, and the spectre of nuclear warfare rendering control of the sea irrelavent in an all out conflict anyways it's not surprising the US was the only nation able to afford carriers in quantity - however having said that I don't see evidence that the desire to retain heavily armored ships was greater than the desire to obtain carriers - The British continued building carriers, The Australians, Canadians, French, and Dutch all acquired carriers. Eventually the Soviets, Brazilians, Argentinans, Italians, Indians and Spanish all joined the carrier club. Conversely most gun armed ship larger than light cruisers were quickly relagated to training or reduced to reserve.
Assuming both carriers have their full load of planes and reasonably trained aircrew I don't see why they couldn't score additional hits on a slowly moving unmaneuverable battleship and reduce her to a wreck regardless of whether or not they can sink her.alecsandros wrote:P.S.: imagine KGV and Rodney replaced by Victorious and Ark Royal during Bismarck's final battle. Could they score any hits on that weather ... ? How long would the battle last ... ? Or South Dakota and Washington replaced by Enterprise and Saratoga during 2nd battle for Guadalcanal. Would they be able to attack the Japanese ships during the night... at such a close range... ? Would Kirishima be sunk in 3 minutes ...? Would Enterprise survive the damage done to South Dakota ... ?
As for Guadalcanal - again tactical versus operational - if the second battle happened exactly as it did except for the substitutions the odds of the carriers sinking Kirishima are much less than the BBs. But IF the US had built 2 additional carriers in place of the SD and Washington and they had arrived in theatre at approximately the same time odds are the US does alot better at Santa Cruz and after the battle together the 3-4 carriers supported by henderson field have the strength to challenge Japanese surface forces in daylight much further up the solomons - and the naval battles of Guadalcanal may wind up never being fought.