Thirty Extra Feet: The History of the Pacific War, 1938-1944
- Thread starter loughery111
- Start date
I'm going to have to quibble over Ranger. She was a dog and it was known she was a dog soon after she launched. The Navy slotted her into a training role as fast as they could with the only things slowing the process being the availability of other decks and treaty considerations.
She's too slow, too small, too poorly armed, too poorly armored, and has too little compartmentalization. In the OTL, she was thought of so poorly that the rabid Anglophobe Ernie King went hat in hand to the British borrow Victorious for a brief period rather than send Ranger into combat in the Pacific.
Ranger proved to be an invaluable test bed and trainer, but the IJN is going to have to be cruising off Santa Barbara before the the USN thinks of using her in combat.
Don, in the same post I counted CV Hosho for the IJN. Training carriers are a necessity. USS Ranger (CV4) can also be used as an aircraft transport (most of the US flattops served in this role at least once), for rear-area patrols... she isn't going to be part of the 'battle-line' unless the US gets desperate, but that doesn't mean she can't be quite useful.
Also, compare her to CV Kaga or CV Ryujo, both of which I also counted for the IJN:
USS Ranger (CV4): 29.25kts, air wing ~70 A/C, AA 8x5"/25DP, 24x40mm, 46x20mm
CV Kaga: 28kts, air wing ~75-81 A/C, AA 16x5"/40, 22x25mm
CV Ryujo: 29kts, air wing ~48 A/C, AA 8x5"/40, 4x25mm
Kaga is more than full knot SLOWER and carries 5-10 more aircraft. She has more medium AA but her light AA is nowhere near as good.
Ryujo is only a hair slower, but her air wing is nowhere close and her AA is notably inferior.
I'm not sure of the status of USN/IJN AA fire direction in 1938, but by 1942 the US had an edge, and that grew rapidly during the war.
The only carriers the IJN has that are notably better than USS Ranger in early 1938 are CV Akagi and CV Soryu. Against them the US has USS Lexington (CV2), USS Saratoga (CV3), USS Yorktown (CV5), and will soon have USS Enterprise (CV6). CV Hiryu is over a year from her planned commissioning. CVS Chitose and Chiyoda will probably be converted on the ways to light carriers, but even if they're just hastily completed for recon they won't be ready until after USS Enterprise.
USS Ranger was only a dog in comparison to the other USN fleet carriers. The IJN would have been more than happy to have her, and probably would have put her in Kido Butai.
Bearcat
Banned
Yeah, Ranger might be used to ferry aircraft, to train pilots, or as the core of a token 'Atlantic Squadron' until things start to go south in Europe, but no way she sees major action in the Pacific.
We'll probably see an improved Yorktown , or 'Hornet' class very soon. Similar in most respects to OTL Essex ships. Probably not quite as many as IOTL, at least at first. Probably 1938 program will include 6 to 8. The US will lay down a fair number of BBs, however. Four South Dakota class ships ASAP - the Iowa design isn't quite ready, followed by four Iowas as soon as the new shipyard capacity can be had (late 1939-1940?). And more Iowas as soon as the SD slips are clear. By then, the lessons of carrier warfare will have emerged, however, and emphasis in building switches to CVs for the balance of the war. We finish up with around 12 new BBs (counting North Carolina and Washington) and maybe 16 to 18 'Hornets' (and Wasp). CVEs will still be produced as they are so damned useful for several roles (escort, amphibious support, training, transport of A/C). Not sure about the Independence CVLs though - its a matter of timing and when the US figures out how important CVs are.
We'll probably see an improved Yorktown , or 'Hornet' class very soon. Similar in most respects to OTL Essex ships. Probably not quite as many as IOTL, at least at first. Probably 1938 program will include 6 to 8. The US will lay down a fair number of BBs, however. Four South Dakota class ships ASAP - the Iowa design isn't quite ready, followed by four Iowas as soon as the new shipyard capacity can be had (late 1939-1940?). And more Iowas as soon as the SD slips are clear. By then, the lessons of carrier warfare will have emerged, however, and emphasis in building switches to CVs for the balance of the war. We finish up with around 12 new BBs (counting North Carolina and Washington) and maybe 16 to 18 'Hornets' (and Wasp). CVEs will still be produced as they are so damned useful for several roles (escort, amphibious support, training, transport of A/C). Not sure about the Independence CVLs though - its a matter of timing and when the US figures out how important CVs are.
loughery111
Banned
Dammit, quit predicting my building programs!
There will be an initial imbalance in favor of the gunline, given the early kick-off date, which will gradually shift as the war goes on and people realize that the Pacific is big.
I'll admit I'm prejudiced towards the gun-line, but... in 1938, will it really become quickly clear that the carrier is dominant? 1938 aircraft aren't 1941 aircraft, much less 1943 aircraft.
Think about this: the TBD, which is widely despised in OTL, was state of the art in 1938. The USN is still dreaming about the F4F and the SBD. Heck, the F2A hasn't been put into major service yet when the war breaks out ITTL!
How much of a threat to battleships, really, are SB2Us and TBDs escorted by F3Fs?
On the IJN side, the D3A is also only in prototype testing; in OTL major orders didn't happen until 1939. They have early models of the B5N, and no A6M "Zeroes" to escort them.
On the defensive side, the US already has the 5"/38 for its medium AA deployed in large numbers, though the Mk 37 fire control and prox fuses are still in the future. IJN AA was never terribly impressive, but it did down its share of US aircraft in OTL. Against slower, lighter aircraft its shortcomings will be somewhat less clear.
I'm sure carriers will quickly demonstrate that they are the equal of battleships, and capable of inflicting heavy losses on lighter combatants, but I don't think the day of the battleship was quite over in 1938.
Think about this: the TBD, which is widely despised in OTL, was state of the art in 1938. The USN is still dreaming about the F4F and the SBD. Heck, the F2A hasn't been put into major service yet when the war breaks out ITTL!
How much of a threat to battleships, really, are SB2Us and TBDs escorted by F3Fs?
On the IJN side, the D3A is also only in prototype testing; in OTL major orders didn't happen until 1939. They have early models of the B5N, and no A6M "Zeroes" to escort them.
On the defensive side, the US already has the 5"/38 for its medium AA deployed in large numbers, though the Mk 37 fire control and prox fuses are still in the future. IJN AA was never terribly impressive, but it did down its share of US aircraft in OTL. Against slower, lighter aircraft its shortcomings will be somewhat less clear.
I'm sure carriers will quickly demonstrate that they are the equal of battleships, and capable of inflicting heavy losses on lighter combatants, but I don't think the day of the battleship was quite over in 1938.
Some background on aviation
We may see the F2A Buffalo produced by more companies than just Brewster, as the USN attempts to modernize its carrier wings - the XF2A was undergoing service tests around the time the war starts ITTL.
The XF4F-1 biplane may get redesigned into something resembling OTL's F4F-3, though that will take some time. In the meantime, the service fighter of the USN is the F3F.
The USAAF probably steps up orders for B-17Bs. This event probably won't happen, of course, given that it's wartime; I bet Army Air Force officers are itching to use their B-17s to intercept Japanese ships, however. In the meantime, the frontline American bomber is the B-18 Bolo.
The USAAF is primarily operating P-26s - open-cockpit metal-wing monoplanes armed with two 30-cals (0.30" MGs). Faster, closed-cockpit fighters with retractable landing gear and heavier armament - the P-35 and the P-36, specifically - are starting to enter service, but it'll take a bit for the aircraft to be delivered to the front.
***
The IJN operates A5Ms - open-cockpit metal-wing monoplanes, faster than the USN's standard F3F biplanes but more lightly armed (two 7.7mm MGs vs. a 0.30" and a 0.50"). The F2A's faster than the A5M, and can be even more heavily armed, with a pair of wing-mounted 50-cals in addition to the 50-cal and 30-cal in the nose.
Development on the A6M began in 1937, but the first aircraft didn't even fly until 1939, and the fighter only entered service in 1940. Not sure if this could be sped up.
The Japanese army operates the Ki-27, a maneuverable fighter with enclosed cockpit, fixed landing-gear, and a top speed faster than the P-26. It dominated Chinese skies until the Polikarpov I-16 arrived; I can see it doing well against American P-26s, though not so much against P-35s and P-36s. A requirement for a replacement was set out in 12/1937, but the fighter that replaced the Ki-27 didn't fly until 1939 in OTL, and it took until April 1941 to get a superior version into production.
***
I wonder what lessons will be drawn from the battles of this war, and what implications that will have on Europe. I'm sure the British and Italian navies are paying close attention to the war in the Pacific, for one.
We may see the F2A Buffalo produced by more companies than just Brewster, as the USN attempts to modernize its carrier wings - the XF2A was undergoing service tests around the time the war starts ITTL.
The XF4F-1 biplane may get redesigned into something resembling OTL's F4F-3, though that will take some time. In the meantime, the service fighter of the USN is the F3F.
The USAAF probably steps up orders for B-17Bs. This event probably won't happen, of course, given that it's wartime; I bet Army Air Force officers are itching to use their B-17s to intercept Japanese ships, however. In the meantime, the frontline American bomber is the B-18 Bolo.
The USAAF is primarily operating P-26s - open-cockpit metal-wing monoplanes armed with two 30-cals (0.30" MGs). Faster, closed-cockpit fighters with retractable landing gear and heavier armament - the P-35 and the P-36, specifically - are starting to enter service, but it'll take a bit for the aircraft to be delivered to the front.
***
The IJN operates A5Ms - open-cockpit metal-wing monoplanes, faster than the USN's standard F3F biplanes but more lightly armed (two 7.7mm MGs vs. a 0.30" and a 0.50"). The F2A's faster than the A5M, and can be even more heavily armed, with a pair of wing-mounted 50-cals in addition to the 50-cal and 30-cal in the nose.
Development on the A6M began in 1937, but the first aircraft didn't even fly until 1939, and the fighter only entered service in 1940. Not sure if this could be sped up.
The Japanese army operates the Ki-27, a maneuverable fighter with enclosed cockpit, fixed landing-gear, and a top speed faster than the P-26. It dominated Chinese skies until the Polikarpov I-16 arrived; I can see it doing well against American P-26s, though not so much against P-35s and P-36s. A requirement for a replacement was set out in 12/1937, but the fighter that replaced the Ki-27 didn't fly until 1939 in OTL, and it took until April 1941 to get a superior version into production.
***
I wonder what lessons will be drawn from the battles of this war, and what implications that will have on Europe. I'm sure the British and Italian navies are paying close attention to the war in the Pacific, for one.
I know this is unlikely, but will the RN conceive of a raid on Taranto after seeing the results of Pearl Harbor?
Seeing cause-and-effect events flipped in AH is always kinda fun.
loughery111
Banned
The question you should be asking is "How much of a threat to battleships are B5N's and D1A's escorted by A5M fighters?" I'm prepared to say that the answer is "Much more of one than their American counterparts of the day."
And I never did say that the gunline is going away... just that carriers will take up more and more of the building programs as the war goes on. I think 1938 is about the last date that one can get away with having a "half-and-half" naval war, so to speak... and I've given away too much.
Then count Langley for the USN because they'll both be of the same utility.
Please look beyond the gun/plane/speed numbers. Kaga was built on a battleship hull, do you seriously want to compare that with a Ranger whose hull strength and compartmentalization didn't even approach light cruiser levels?
Ranger also never later attained her commissioning speed thanks to both deficiencies in he engineering plant and the weight added during her many refits.
She was basically a CVE and used solely in both that role and the role of an aircraft ferry. In contrast, Ranger acted as a CVE twice for brief periods and acted as a testbed/trainer nearly her entire career.
There is more to consider here besides plane loads or the numbers of AA guns. The perceptions of the ships in question by the navies involved are paramount. Kaga was part of the Kido Butai no matter how unsuitable she was from a USN perspective, Ryujo was a busy CVE for an IJN which could not build lots of hulls quickly, and Ranger was seen by the navy which owned her as a far too fragile training carrier whose use in combat would be severely limited if not prohibited.
You cannot compare those carriers "straight up" anymore than you can compare a Sherman or Panther "straight up". You can only compare the service they gave the navies which operated them and the service those navies thought they were capable of.
Langley was no longer a carrier in 1938, having been converted into a seaplane tender in a refit from Oct. 1936-Feb. 1937 in order to free her tonnage for new fleet carriers withing the treaty limits, part of which involved removing over half the flight deck.
However, even as a carrier, she would have been even less useful than Hosho due to being even slower than a WW2 CVE, as well a rather awkward hanger arrangement, where to take a plane from the hanger and spot it for launch, the plane in partially dissassembled condition (i.e. wings removed) had to be hoisted out of one of the former coal holds which were used as hangers, then all the parts and pieces attached, usually on a platform built on the original weather deck, and only then the plane could be fueled, armed, and put onto the flight deck elevator, whereupon it could be spotted for eventual launch.
See those contrails in the stratosphere and hear that sonic boom?
That's the point I was making going over your head.
Last edited:
OK, what criteria do you evaluate a carrier on? I agree she was inferior to the USN fleet carriers and I never said otherwise. I said she'd be useful, and pointed out that her deficiencies compared to the USN fleet carriers are often absent when compared to the IJN fleet carriers, which did serve successfully in combat. Are 8" guns vital for evaluating a carrier? USS Ranger certainly loses in that comparison to CV Kaga! CVEs were often built from merchant hulls. Gee, they must have been really useless, right?
So if the IJN carriers (BTW, the Hiryu/Soryu class had their own hull weaknesses and CV Shinano's Yamato-type hull didn't keep her from being sunk with embarrassing ease) were successful in combat despite having every weakness you ascribe to USS Ranger, why couldn't she have been useful in non-combat missions that would place lower demands on her? Again agreed that the US would only put her in combat as a last resort. The USN wouldn't even dream of putting one of the Cimmaron-class AO's in combat - but they weren't just useful, they were vital.
BTW, she also functioned as an aircraft ferry several times. There was a LOT of need for that in the Pacific war of OTL, and with the less developed aircraft of 1938 I'd expect even more need for that mission. Explain, please, how she wouldn't be HIGHLY useful in that role?
So you can arbitrarily say USS Ranger wasn't useful, but I can't use hard numbers in comparison to useful ships to argue that she would be useful?
Again, the USN IOTL did use USS Ranger as an aircraft ferry, training ship, and as a combat carrier. What is different in 1938 that she would not be assigned these duties? These were useful missions in 1941. How are they not useful missions in 1938?
I find that very easy to believe. But is it a real threat to the battle line at sea and maneuvering? I don't know. The IJN of 1941 was certainly capable of it, but even for the USN in 1944 it took a LOT of sorties to sink a BB. Can the handful of IJN carriers (I'm guessing with an even smaller replacement pool than OTL 1941) generate enough sorties to really endanger the battle line? I don't know. That's one of the reasons I'll be watching this thread with interest.
Heck, the gunline didn't truly go away until after the war OTL. However, it was always second fiddle IOTL, from the morning of December 7th onwards. When I said the day of the battleship wasn't over I meant as the primary arm, which wasn't clear in my original post. I'm glad to see we'll see the battle-line getting some time in the limelight.
BTW, if you need any data on 1938 US ships I can provide it fairly easily.
And I'd like to put in a request: can USS Gridley (DD380) get a mention? :-}
As with the Sherman vs. Panther example I mentioned, by the criteria employed by the people of the time who were using the carrier in question. Just as with that very similar tank question, I'm using the what was perceived and believe then and not what we perceive and believe now.
I think so too and primarily in the role the USN used her for nearly the entirety of her career: training.
Her deficiencies compared to USN combat carriers and IJN carrier's deficiencies compared to USN combat carriers are of no consequence. All that matters is what the USN of the period believes her abilities are. They're not judging her against IJN decks, they're judging her against what the USN needs and what the USN can risk.
What the IJN needs and can risk are completely different questions, so comparing Ranger "straight up" to IJN decks to determine how well Ranger can meet USN needs and face USN risks is of no use.
For the USN apart from the Lexingtons, no. For the IJN with regards to that deck, yes. And for examining whether the USN would use Ranger more often in more dangerous roles, it's of no consequence whatsoever.
They were insanely useful according to the criteria of the people judging them at the time and their criteria are the only ones that count.
You're also ignoring that the US used Ranger in the OTL as a CVE twice and both times in very low threat environments because, apparently, Ranger didn't meet the criteria at the time to be deployed as a CVE.
You cannot compare Ranger's flimsy construction with the IJN carriers you mentioned.
Why can't you understand that all non-combat missions aren't equal? Threat level encountered during those missions was taken into account by the people of the time and must be taken into account by us now.
Ranger served as a CVE, a training vessel, and an aircraft ferry primarily in the Atlantic where the naval threat level was tiny compared to the Pacific. She didn't even enter the Pacific until mid-44 and then operated solely off the West Coast with exception a few months at Pearl. Not only was she was the only pre-war carrier never to face the Japanese but she never got with a thousand miles of the Japanese.
If the USN of 1941-45 never even attempted to use her in even a combat support role in the Pacific, why would they do so routinely in 1938? While the USN's perception of her wouldn't have changed between those two periods, the USN's needs will have changed. The question now is how much those needs have changed.
Which, of course, is why they routinely steam at the center of carrier battle groups.
They may not be fighting, but they're right there where the fighting is occurring. Threat levels.Once in the Pacific between San Diego and Pearl in late '44. There's big difference between that run and Wasp flying of fighters to Malta or CVE working as ferries in the western Pacific.
She would be and she'd be used more often than in the OTL. She wouldn't be the first choice however.
I said no such thing. I said the people of the time perceived her as not useful for many of the missions you were assigning her.
For the same reason using numbers alone to compare and contrast Sherman guns vs Panther guns and Sherman armor vs Panther armor doesn't prove anything about the Sherman's usefulness.
Numbers are the beginning. Analysis is the goal. You've posted plenty of the former and none of the latter.
Again, not where you think they did, not in the manner you think they did, and not facing the threat levels you think they did.
She was assigned those duties in 1941-45. Those duties aren't what you want to believe they were.
They were useful missions in 1941-45 and they were performed far more often by other ships. They will be useful missions in 1938 too and, while Ranger will undertake them, she'll perform fewer of them in fewer places than you believe.
Ranger will be used. Ranger will not be used to the extent that you presume.
Bearcat
Banned
Don't be so quick to dismiss the TBD. For 1938, its still a very solid torpedo plane. The issue was less with the TBD at Midway and more with its dreadful torpedoes, which had to be dropped very low and very slow. Also, it was unescorted there. If fighters had protected them, and been the equal of the Zero, things would have been somewhat different. The USN dive bomber of the time, the Vindicator, is probably better than the Japanese had until they got the Val. The Claude still is better than the F3F, but not that much better, and the pressure and production of wartime means that by mid-1939 we see a Wildcat equivalent (and SBDs). The IJN then counters with a Zero analog, which the pressures of wartime will keep from being built in sufficient numbers, and then there is the pilot problem. Still, the US is forced to develop something along the lines of the F6F. Also by 1940, the US's wretched torpedoes begin to improve, just as the TBF analog is being delivered...
I said she'd be useful. You agreed.
I said she'd be a training ship. You agreed.
I said she'd be an aircraft ferry. You've agreed she was used in that role IOTL.
I said she'd be able to pinch-hit as a combatant in a secondary zone. You've agreed she was used in that role IOTL.
So how, exactly, do you think she'll be used less than I presume? Do you think she'll spend much of the war swinging at anchor when she didn't OTL, despite the USN had a much larger pool of resources IOTL WWII then they will ITTL?
What assets would be in the Philippines at the beginning of hostilities ITTL? Keep in mind the US has a month, maybe two, depending on when the military decided to start reinforcing the Philippines, before the war broke out (assuming they did go with reinforcing the islands), and that the US military, before the war, is teeny-tiny.
***
Will the US be firing the first shots in the war with Japan (not counting the attack on USS Panay or the pre-existing Sino-Japanese War)? It did declare war, after all.
***
I doubt Japan would conduct an air raid on Pearl Harbor... but I could see the Japanese considering an invasion of Hawaii, depending on how events pan out.
***
Will the US be firing the first shots in the war with Japan (not counting the attack on USS Panay or the pre-existing Sino-Japanese War)? It did declare war, after all.
***
I doubt Japan would conduct an air raid on Pearl Harbor... but I could see the Japanese considering an invasion of Hawaii, depending on how events pan out.
Yes.
Yes.
She was used in that role in the OTL, but in lower threat environments which will be hard to match in a 1938 war.
Again, in much lower threat environments. Serving in a flotilla of CVEs during Torch and sneaking up to Bodo, Norway in the company of battleships to launch an afternoon of anti-shipping strikes against a bored Luftwaffe is not the same as serving in Taffy 3 off Leyte.
Threat levels.
Nope. She'll be training pilots as fast as the USN can produce them and training them where she trained them for most of WW2; the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico.
It's a matter of degree, not kind.
The USN isn't all that tiny on 3/3/1938 compared to 12/7/1941.
15BB vs. 15BB +2 working up
4CV +1 about to commission vs. 7CV
17CA vs. 18CA
12CL + 5 more within six months vs. 19CL + 4 more within six months
I don't have tabulated data for how long before the war any given flush-decker DD was reclassified or scrapped, but of the newer types the US has 45 vs. 102. However 73 flush-decker DD were still classified as DD at the start of the war, and more would be in 1938. 200 were reclassified or scrapped between the mid-1920's and 12/7/1941.
84SS vs. 117SS
I'm afraid I also don't have tabulated data for auxiliaries. Sorry.