[DesertFox]

Hypothetical battle, somewhere at a mythical Pacific island group between two of the first carriers built from the keel up as carriers. Figure the battle occurs during the late Nineteen-Twenties or as late as Nineteen-Thirty. Air groups will be as per this time

This battle is between the carriers Hosho and Hermes. Each will have an escort of a current cruiser (probably a light cruiser) and a pair of destroyers.

Each starts at around 300 nm from each other and they know that the other is in the general area with some escorts (Neither captain knows the exact composition of escorts of the other side)

[Tuccy]

What exactly is the point? Neither side engages the other in anything but few aerial skirmishes unless one commander feels lucky and sends his escorts to attack the opposing fleet IMO.

[DesertFox]

Tuccy, on Sun 31 May 2009 1109, said:

What exactly is the point? Neither side engages the other in anything but few aerial skirmishes unless one commander feels lucky and sends his escorts to attack the opposing fleet IMO.

The point is to see if either side could effectively hurt each other or if it would come down to a battle of the escorts.

[Luke Y]

Who wins? Whichever side has the fewest dud torpedoes.

[Ken Estes]

Very likely they will fail to make contact of any sort. If they manage to locate and launch, there is no shipkilling ordnance for the carrier aircraft, nor is it likely the strike would find a target.

Does illustrate how far they yet had to go in CV warfare.

[DesertFox]

I have heard people say that "With the introduction of carriers and aircraft, battleships became obsolete" and it seems that this is anything but the case,

[Tuccy]

DesertFox, on Sun 31 May 2009 2008, said:

I have heard people say that "With the introduction of carriers and aircraft, battleships became obsolete" and it seems that this is anything but the case,

Well, by early 30s it was a bit of exaggeration, sorta vision of things to come... by the next decade. So not that much off the mark ;)

[Ken Estes]

Tuccy, on Sun 31 May 2009 1927, said:

Well, by early 30s it was a bit of exaggeration, sorta vision of things to come... by the next decade. So not that much off the mark ;)

Yeah, only off by a decade or two. Hector Bywater's fictional epic of the next Pacific War was all battleline stuff. Battleship admirals ran all navies through WWII, except for the USN -- EJ King did it all [by contrast it is not until Mountbattan 1956 that the RN has a non-BB man as 1st sea lord]. One might say that the BB is the measure of sea power through 8Dec41. Had the Italians or Germans had carriers, their BBs would still have been the priority targets in 1940-41. By the time the RN gets it together in CV war, there is no longer an enemy to face at sea. Almost every tactical and technical initiative is US or IJN, until the British came up with the angled deck and the hurricane bow post-WWII.

[Luke Y]

DesertFox, on Mon 1 Jun 2009 0338, said:

I have heard people say that "With the introduction of carriers and aircraft, battleships became obsolete" and it seems that this is anything but the case,

I think that in general that statement is an oversimplification.
It should read more like: Against CV's, BB's were largely obsolete as the primary engagement platform upon which to base a fleet action.

WWII in the pacific shows pretty clearly how important conventional gun-ships were though. The carriers couldn't be everywhere, particularly in '42 and early into '43.

By 1945 when there were CV's by the score, battleship's day had come, true, but the idea that on December 8th 1941 battleships magically became useless liabilities is silly.

[Tuccy]

Luke_Yaxley, on Mon 1 Jun 2009 0518, said:

By 1945 when there were CV's by the score, battleship's day had come, true, but the idea that on December 8th 1941 battleships magically became useless liabilities is silly.

"Obsolete" doesn't mean always "poof! You have no use now, go away immediately". The general consensus is that the advent of assault rifles made MSGs obsolete, yet the police and spec forces still use them...

[DougRichards]

If it was going to be a true 'fight to the death' both carriers make maximum use of the airgroups to find the other and perhaps try dropping what bombs that they had. Hosho had more aircraft (26 to Hermes 20) but both sides were probably using Gamecocks or their variants as fighters. Neither side had bombers with great ranges - maybe an hour each way at about 90mph.

The aircraft may have been useful to keep the other side's escorts busy, and for spotting.

However I would suggest that the engagement would be settled in the old fashioned way: Hermes 6 5.5in and 3 4in guns against Hosho's 4 5.5in and two 80mm guns. Hosho had a displacement of around 9,000 tons, Hermes had 11,000 tons, but had the advantage of a three inch armoured belt and a one inch armoured deck over magazines and machinery. Hermes should have been able to deliver greater firepower and absorb more punishment. Hermes was laid down using cruiser principles, Hosho was a converted oiler design.

So forget the aircraft, this would have been a fight between a light cruiser (Hermes) and an armed oiler (Hosho).

Hermes wins.

[Tuccy]

DougRichards, on Mon 1 Jun 2009 1449, said:

Hermes was laid down using cruiser principles, Hosho was a converted oiler design.

OTOH I believe that the war experience with converted oilers CVLs showed them to be pretty well compartmentalised and resistant to torpedo and Kamikaze damage, then again that was US experience, maybe Japanese oilers were built differently.

[Ken Estes]

Luke_Yaxley, on Mon 1 Jun 2009 0318, said:

...that statement is an oversimplification.....
By 1945 when there were CV's by the score, battleship's day had come, true, but the idea that on December 8th 1941 battleships magically became useless liabilities is silly.

I guess you are writing to yourself.

Maybe you can explain why there is not a single operational Allied battleship within steaming range of Japanese forces at the end of 8Dec41, yet not a single major caliber gun had been fired?

[DesertFox]

Ken Estes, on Mon 1 Jun 2009 1124, said:

I guess you are writing to yourself.

Maybe you can explain why there is not a single operational Allied battleship within steaming range of Japanese forces at the end of 8Dec41, yet not a single major caliber gun had been fired?

Well, none on the US Battleships were at sea, have proper water tight conditions set, or have anti-aircraft batteries manned?

[Luke Y]

Ken Estes, on Tue 2 Jun 2009 0054, said:

I guess you are writing to yourself.

Maybe you can explain why there is not a single operational Allied battleship within steaming range of Japanese forces at the end of 8Dec41, yet not a single major caliber gun had been fired?

FFS Ken, the date of 08/12/41 is to indicate post-Pearl Harbour (You know, the Solomons, Leyte...) :rolleyes:

But I guess expecting a bit of common-sense from Tank-Net's Official Contrarian #2 is just too much...

[Miner]

Ken Estes, on Tue 2 Jun 2009 0124, said:

Maybe you can explain why there is not a single operational Allied battleship within steaming range of Japanese forces at the end of 8Dec41, yet not a single major caliber gun had been fired?

A bit pedantic but the Prince of Wales and the Repulse were operational and within steaming range at the time and would be for the next day and a half.

[Harold Jones]

Hunt up a copy of US Navy Plan Orange by Avalanche Press, the whole game is based on the premise that naval war between Japan and the US starts in the March 1930.

[Ken Estes]

Luke_Yaxley, on Mon 1 Jun 2009 2224, said:

FFS Ken, the date of 08/12/41 is to indicate post-Pearl Harbour (You know, the Solomons, Leyte...)

But I guess expecting a bit of common-sense from Tank-Net's Official Contrarian #2 is just too much...

It does? In what language.

And yes, you can say 10 December Tokyo time; big deal. Sheer pedantry. Anybody grasp the concept yet?

[JWB]

Ken Estes, on Mon 1 Jun 2009 1524, said:

I guess you are writing to yourself.

Maybe you can explain why there is not a single operational Allied battleship within steaming range of Japanese forces at the end of 8Dec41, yet not a single major caliber gun had been fired?

Perhaps I am the only one confused :unsure: but you have two nots in one sentence and they seem to contradict each other.

[aevans]

Carriers and their aircraft were originally considered to be scouting assets. The large US and Japanese BB/BC conversion carriers were outfitted with 8" guns, because they were expected to get into gun fights with enemy scouting force cruisers. Navies still needed battleships to fight the battles that carriers and other scouting forces set up. It was only late in the 1930s, with the improvement in aircraft speed, range, and bomb load, that the carrier realistically became an offensive asset.