Quotulatiousness

November 26, 2021

The modern carrier debate

Filed under: China, History, Military, Technology, USA, Weapons — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 05:00

I recently started reading A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry, a fascinating historical blog run by Dr. Bret Devereaux. You can expect to see plenty of QotD entries from his blog in future months, as I’ve been delighted to find that he not only has deep knowledge of several historical areas I find interesting, but that he also writes well and clearly. This post from last year is a bit outside his normal bailliwick, being modern and somewhat speculative rather than dealing with the ancient world, classic-era Greece, Republican and Imperial Rome, or the Middle Ages in Europe and the Mediterranean basin:

The Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71) underway in the Persian Gulf, 3 December 2005.
U.S. Navy photo by Photographer’s Mate 2nd Class Matthew Bash via Wikimedia Commons.

Let’s talk about aircraft carriers for a moment […] There is currently a long-raging debate about the future of the aircraft carrier as a platform, particularly for the US Navy (by far the largest operator of aircraft carriers in the world), to the point that I suspect most national security publications could open companion websites exclusively for the endless whinging on aircraft carriers and their supposed obsolescence or non-obsolescence. And yet, new aircraft carriers continue to be built.

As an aside, this is one of those debates that has been going on so long and so continuously that it becomes misleading for regular people. Most writing on the topic, since the battle lines in the debate are so well-drawn, consists of all-or-nothing arguments made in the strongest terms in part because everyone assumes that everyone else has already read the other side; there’s no point in excessively caveating your War on the Rocks aircraft carrier article, because anyone who reads WotR has read twenty already and so knows all of those caveats already. Except, of course, the new reader does not and is going to read that article and assume it represents the current state of the debate and wonder why, if the evidence is so strong, the debate is not resolved. This isn’t exclusive to aircraft carriers, mind you – the various hoplite debates (date of origin, othismos, uniformity of the phalanx) have reached this point as well; a reader of any number of “heterodox” works on the topic (a position most closely associated with Hans van Wees) could well be excused for assuming they were the last word, when it still seems to me that they represent a significant but probably still minority position in the field (though perhaps quite close to parity now). This is a common phenomenon for longstanding specialist debates and thus something to be wary of when moving into a new field; when in doubt, buy a specialist a drink and ask about the “state of the debate” (not “who is right” but “who argues what”; be aware that it is generally the heterodox position in these debates that is loudest, even as the minority).

Very briefly, the argument about carriers revolves around their cost, vulnerability and utility. Carrier skeptics point out that carriers are massive, expensive platforms that are increasingly vulnerable to anti-ship missiles and that the steadily growing range of those missiles would force carriers to operate further and further from their objectives, potentially forcing them to choose between exposing themselves or being pushed out of the battlespace altogether (this, as an aside, is what is meant by A2/AD – “Anti-Access/Area-Denial” – weapons). The fear advanced is of swarms of hypersonic long-range anti-ship missiles defeating or overwhelming the point-defense capability of a carrier strike group and striking or even sinking the prize asset aircraft carrier – an asset too expensive to lose.

Carrier advocates will then point out all of the missions for which carriers are still necessary: power projection, ground action support, sea control, humanitarian operations and so on. They argue that no platform other than an aircraft carrier appears able to do these missions, that these missions remain essential and that smaller aircraft carriers appear to be substantially less effective at these missions, which limits the value of dispersing assets among a greater number of less expensive platforms. They also dispute the degree to which current or future weapon-systems endanger the carrier platform.

I am not here to resolve the carrier debate, of course. The people writing these articles know a lot more about modern naval strategy and carrier operations than I do.

Instead I bring up the carrier debate to note one facet of it […]: the carrier debate operates under conditions of fearsome technological uncertainty. This is one of those things that – as I mentioned above – can be missed by just reading a little of the debate. Almost none of the weapon systems involved here have seen extensive combat usage in a ship-to-ship or land-to-ship context. Naval thinkers are trying to puzzle out what will happen when carriers with untested stealth technology, defended by untested anti-missile defenses are engaged by untested high-speed anti-ship missiles which are guided by untested satellite systems which are under attack by untested anti-satellite systems in a conflict where even the humans in at least one of these fighting forces are also untested in combat (I should note I mean “untested” here not in the sense that these systems haven’t been through test runs, but in the sense that they haven’t ever been used in anger in this kind of near-peer conflict environment; they have all been shown to work under test conditions). Oh, and the interlinked computer systems that all of these components require will likely be under unprecedented levels of cyber-attack.

No one is actually certain how these technologies will interact under battlefield conditions. No one can be really sure if these technologies will even work as advertised under battlefield conditions; ask the designers of the M16 – works in a lab and works in the field are not always the same thing. You can see this in a lot of the bet-hedging that’s currently happening: the People’s Republic of China has famously bet big on A2/AD and prohibiting (American) carriers from operating near China, but now has also initiated an ambitious aircraft carrier building program, apparently investing in the technology they spent so much time and energy rendering – if one believes the carrier skeptics – “obsolete”. Meanwhile, the United States Navy – the largest operator of aircraft carriers in the world – is pushing development on multiple anti-ship missiles of the very sort that supposedly render the Navy’s own fleet “obsolete”, while also moving forward building the newest model of super-carrier. If either side was confident in the obsolescence (or non-obsolescence) of the aircraft carrier in the face of A2/AD weapons, they’d focus on one or the other; the bet hedging is a product of uncertainty – or perhaps more correctly a product of the calculation that uncertainty and less-than-perfect performance will create a space for both sets of weapon-systems to coexist in the battlespace as neither quite lives up to its best billing.

(I should note that for this brief summary, I am treating everyone’s development and ship procurement systems as rational and strategic. Which, to be clear, they are not – personalities, institutional culture and objectives, politics all play a huge role. But for now this is a useful simplifying assumption – for the most part, the people procuring these weapons do imagine that they are still useful.)

In many ways, the current aircraft carrier debate resembles a fast moving version of the naval developments of the late 1800s and early 1900s. Naval designers of the period were faced with fearsome unknowns – would battleships function alone or in groups? Would they be screened against fast moving torpedo boats or forced to defend themselves? How lethal might a torpedo attack be and how could it be defended against? Would they be exposed to short-range direct heavy gunfire or long-range plunging gunfire (which radically changes how you arm and armor these ships)? With technologies evolving in parallel in the absence of battlefield tests, these remained unknowns. The eventual “correct solution” emerged in 1903 with the suggestion of the all-big-gun battleship, but the first of these (HMS Dreadnought), while begun in 1904 was finished only after the Battle of Tsushima (May 27-8, 1905) had provided apparently startling clarity on the question.

November 23, 2021

Canadian Army Newsreel – Baby Flat-Tops Protect Convoys

Filed under: Britain, Cancon, History, Military, WW2 — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 02:00

canmildoc
Published 18 Nov 2012

Newsreels shot between 1940 and 1946 by the Canadian Army Film Unit for presentation to servicemen and women. A unique document of Canada’s role in the war on the front lines as well as on the home front.

Tags: Canadian Army Film Unit, Canadian Army, war, World War II, front lines, home front, servicemen, servicewomen, newsreel, military, WWII

October 31, 2021

Nazi General Dies of Heart Attack – WW2 – 166 – October 30, 1942

World War Two
Published 30 Oct 2021

The Allies may be on the verge of a breakthrough in North Africa, but they’re losing at sea to the Japanese this week, and the Axis are also advancing in the Caucasus, though the street by street struggle at Stalingrad continues as always.
(more…)

October 14, 2021

Canada’s carrier-borne fighters onboard HMCS Bonaventure; the story of the McDonnell F2H-3 Banshee

Filed under: Britain, Cancon, History, Military, USA — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 04:00

Polyus Studios
Published 2 Apr 2021

Don’t forget to like the video and subscribe to my channel!
Support me on Patreon – https://www.patreon.com/polyusstudios

Up until the late 1960s the Canadian Navy operated a modern aircraft carrier. It had an angled flight deck, steam catapults, and fighter jets. The jets were comparable to land-based aircraft like the CF-100 but could pack a vicious air-to-air punch with their Sidewinder missiles. They saw a brief service aboard HMCS Bonaventure before being retired without replacement. It was the McDonnell F2H Banshee, Canada’s premiere sea-based jet fighter.

0:00 Introduction
0:29 Canadian Navy aircraft carriers 1945 to 1957
2:13 New Fighter Selection
3:34 Specifications
5:07 Comparison to the CF-100
5:50 Operational Service
8:23 Accidents and Retirement

Music:
Denmark – Portland Cello Project

Research Sources:
CASM-Aircraft Histories – HMCS Bonaventure CVL-22 by Robert T. Murray
McDonnell Banshee – Royal Canadian Air Force – http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/a…
Magnificent Moments by Vintage Wings of Canada – http://www.vintagewings.ca/VintageNew…
McDonnell Banshee – Shearwater Aviation Museum – http://www.shearwateraviationmuseum.n…
HMCS Bonaventure: Canada’s Last Aircraft Carrier by Kevin Patterson – http://www.sevenyearproject.com/canad…

Footage Sources:
HMCS Magnificent (CVL 21) – Majestic Class Light Aircraft Carrier – Camildoc – https://youtu.be/_Zvnz06-MRc
HMCS Bonaventure (CVL 22) – Majestic Class Aircraft Carrier – Camildoc – https://youtu.be/QmFD5bijrok

#Banshee #CanadianAerospace #PolyusStudios

September 19, 2021

Stalingrad Falls? – WW2 – 160 – September 18, 1942

World War Two
Published 18 Sep 2021

It’s a big week, but by now they all are. The fighting in Stalingrad is intense, the fighting on Guadalcanal is intense, and the US loses a carrier in the Pacific. And the German quest for oil in the Caucasus … how’s that going again?
(more…)

August 29, 2021

Yamamoto: Midway Round Two? – World War Two – 157 – August 28, 1942

World War Two
Published 28 Aug 2021

The Battle of the Eastern Solomons takes place this week — another carrier battle. As for the Germans, they’re advancing on Stalingrad, slowing down in the Caucasus, and Erwin Rommel is preparing to launch another assault in North Africa.
(more…)

August 7, 2021

HMCS Magnificent – Guide 142

Filed under: Britain, Cancon, History, Military — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 02:00

Drachinifel
Published 14 Sep 2019

The first ship of “Canada Month”, HMCS Magnificent, is the subject of today:

Want to support the channel? – https://www.patreon.com/Drachinifel

Want a shirt/mug/hoodie – https://shop.spreadshirt.com/drachini…​

Want a medal? – https://www.etsy.com/uk/shop/Drachinifel​

Want to talk about ships? https://discord.gg/TYu88mt

Want to get some books? www.amazon.co.uk/shop/drachinifel

Drydock Episodes in podcast format – https://soundcloud.com/user-21912004

July 23, 2021

‘Armoured’ and ‘Unarmoured’ Carriers – Survivability vs Strike Power

Filed under: Britain, History, Military, Pacific, USA, WW2 — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 02:00

Drachinifel
Published 2 Jan 2019

In which we try to unpick the somewhat thorny issue of armoured vs unarmoured flight decks in WW2 carrier design.

Want to support the channel? – https://www.patreon.com/Drachinifel​

Want to talk about ships? https://discord.gg/TYu88mt​

Music – https://www.youtube.com/c/NCMEpicMusic

July 13, 2021

HMCS Bonaventure – Guide 143

Filed under: Britain, Cancon, History, Military — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 02:00

Drachinifel
Published 21 Sep 2019

Canada’s last carrier is today’s subject for discussion.

Want to support the channel? – https://www.patreon.com/Drachinifel​

Want a shirt/mug/hoodie – https://shop.spreadshirt.com/drachini…​

Want a medal? – https://www.etsy.com/uk/shop/Drachinifel​

Want to talk about ships? https://discord.gg/TYu88mt

Want to get some books? www.amazon.co.uk/shop/drachinifel

Drydock Episodes in podcast format – https://soundcloud.com/user-21912004

June 29, 2021

QotD: Carrier dive bombers in the early Pacific war

Filed under: History, Japan, Military, Pacific, Quotations, USA, Weapons, WW2 — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 01:00

The Japanese Nakajima B5N “Kate” (235mph, 1 x 7.7mmm mg, 1760lbs torpedo or bombs, 1,075 mile range) torpedo bomber had been introduced in 1941, and was the mainstay of the early years of the wartime Japanese carrier operations. It had good range, was reliable, and had a good payload. But it still lacked armour or self-sealing fuel tanks. As a result it was desperately vulnerable to daytime operations against reasonable fighter opposition.

Almost exactly the same could be said for the American Douglas Dauntless dive bomber (255mph, 2 x 0.5 and 2 x 0.3 mg, 1,200lbs bombs, 1,115 mile range). Arrived at the same time, same strengths, similar weaknesses. Like all American aircraft it could absorb considerably more damage than any Japanese plane, but like all daylight attack aircraft, its top speed made it a sitting duck against organized fighter defenses. The greatest success of the Dauntless was at Midway, where the sacrificial run of the TBD Devastator torpedo bombers fortuitously arrived just far enough in advance to pull the entire Japanese fighter cover away and allow the Dauntlesses exactly the sort of unopposed attacks that the theoretically inferior Japanese “Val” dive bombers had enjoyed at Ceylon and Coral Sea. The increased success of the Dauntless later in the war was in direct parallel to the increased ability of American fighters to clear a path. By the time of the sinking of the Yamato in 1945, Dauntless formations always had almost completely unopposed runs. (Perhaps that is why it continued in operation when every other contemporary aircraft had been replaced?)

Nigel Davies, “Comparing naval aircraft of World War II”, rethinking history, 2010-12-20.

June 22, 2021

QotD: The “Stringbag”, formally known as the Fairey Swordfish

Filed under: Britain, History, Military, Quotations, Weapons, WW2 — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 01:00

The British torpedo bomber [of 1939] was the Fairey Swordfish (138mph, 2 x .303mg, 1,600lbs torpedo or bombs — later rockets, 1,030 miles range). A slow but reliable biplane, with more lift and range than the [American Douglas TBD] Devastator, and more combat survivability than the [Japanese Yokosuka B4Y] “Jean”. (It frequently astounded even the crews how much damage a Swordfish could absorb and keep flying. Ragged anti-aircraft holes in the wings and tail and fuselage, lines of tracer holes across various surfaces, broken struts, cut control cables, the Swordfish would absorb them all and make it home.) Nevertheless the Swordfish was quickly proved to be a deathtrap for daylight operations against an enemy with fighter cover, and was scheduled for replacement by a more modern torpedo bomber for combat ops. Yet, amazingly, the Swordfish was the only allied pre-war naval carrier aircraft still in production when the war ended.

There are three reasons for this feat. The first is that the British were early adaptors of night operations, and performed successful Swordfish strikes (such as the amazingly successful strike at the Port of Taranto which crippled or sank several major warships – becoming the Japanese model for Pearl Harbor), and successful night attacks at sea once the second innovation came in. This was the development of airborne radar, which was first operational on Swordfish operating on British carriers six months before Pearl Harbor. The British were to hold this unique ability to use radar for carrier aircraft operations for a couple of years before the Americans deployed similar concepts in 1943. They were to hold their unique advantage of night-time strikes also. (Both the Japanese and Americans lost many pilots over the next few years in strikes that failed to get home before dark!) So the Swordfish could soldier on under the cover of night, and continued to be useful as a strike aircraft long after its use in daytime had been demonstrated to be suicidal by the easy slaughter of those attempting to attack the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau during the Channel Dash in 1941.

The third, and unexpected reason, why the Swordfish was still in production at the end of the war, was that its unrivalled flying characteristics made it the only aircraft capable of surviving operations from small escort carriers operating in the Arctic Circle in bad weather. Whereas more modern, higher speed aircraft, like the Hurricane, Wildcat and Avenger could work from escort carriers in calmer seas, none of those would even consider operations under the sort of conditions that a Swordfish could easily manage. So the venerable old bus continued to serve successfully purely in an anti-submarine role until the final days of the war. This was not because there weren’t many better aircraft available, but simply because no other aircraft available could do the job as well. An example of a World War Two aircraft still having a (slightly reduced) role, long after being technically obsolete — see the many inadequate fighters that lived on as very successful night fighters. (Though the fact that “modern” B-52s are scheduled to still be operational 80 or 90 years after their initial deployment shows that new roles are always possible for reliable old aircraft, even when their technology is fifty years out of date.)

Nigel Davies, “Comparing naval aircraft of World War II”, rethinking history, 2010-12-20.

June 14, 2021

QotD: Obsolescent carrier aircraft in the Pacific war

Filed under: Britain, History, Japan, Military, Quotations, USA, WW2 — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 01:00

The most obsolete first-line strike aircraft in any carrier force in 1942 was the American Douglas TBD Devastator torpedo bomber (206mph, 2 x.303 mg. 1,000lbs of a torpedo or bombs, range 716 miles). Despite — or because of — being the first monoplane on any carrier air-wing (1937!), it had never been a very good aircraft. Fully loaded with a torpedo (a much lighter torpedo than used by anyone else), it had a hard time getting off the deck, and had a much reduced speed and range. In fact its attack speed was actually slower than a [British Fairey] Swordfish, and it lacked the Swordfish’s maneouvrability or capacity to take damage. Used in daylight (the only way it could be used), it was an absolute death-trap if there was any airborne opposition at all. In fact the role played by the Devastators at the Battle of Midway was as [unintentional] kamikaze decoy targets to draw the Japanese fighter forces out of place. A point made even clearer by the fact that the few Devastators which had managed to attack at Coral Sea had usually seen their torpedoes fail to work anyway. (The American carrier fleet would not get a successful airborne torpedo until mid 1943!)

The next most obsolete was the Japanese Aichi D3A “Val” dive-bomber (266mph, 3 x 7.7 mg, 1 x 500lb and 2 x 60lb bombs, 970 mile range) which had also entered service in the mid 30’s. It was a fixed landing gear dive-bomber modeled on the famous Junkers Ju87 (183mph, 1 x 7.7mm mg, 1,000lb bomb load, 621 mile range), and was just as good a dive bomber … if there was no opposition. Unlike the Ju87 (and like the [British Blackburn] Skua) the Val also had the ability to defend itself as a second-rate fighter once the bombs had been dropped. Still, the Val relied for success on clear skies, and achieved excellent results under those conditions at Ceylon (cruisers Devonshire and Cornwall and unarmed old carrier Hermes) and Coral Sea (carrier Lexington). Under even moderate air pressure at Trincomalee and Midway the performance fell off markedly, and later in the war the phrase that comes to mind is “Great Marianas Turkey Shoot”. Nonetheless they had to soldier on because the replacement aircraft was too fast for the smaller carriers that were to become the majority of the Japanese carrier fleet after Midway.

Nigel Davies, “Comparing naval aircraft of World War II”, rethinking history, 2010-12-20.

June 8, 2021

Midway pt.2 – A New War? – WW2 – 145c – June 7, 1942

Filed under: History, Japan, Military, Pacific, USA, WW2 — Tags: , , , , , , — Nicholas @ 04:00

World War Two
Published 7 Jun 2021

We left off last time with several burning behemoths. Watch today to see the action that follows, not just on the high seas, but also in Alaska. We also turn to Washington DC and Tokyo and follow the reaction to the Battle of Midway there. The Japanese one may surprise you.
(more…)

June 6, 2021

Midway, pt.1 – Clash of the Titans – 145a – June 5, 1942

Filed under: History, Japan, Military, Pacific, USA, WW2 — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 04:00

World War Two
Published 5 Jun 2021

The supposedly surprise Japanese operations against Midway Atoll and the Aleutian Islands kick-off, but they don’t know that Allied intelligence has cracked their codes. As the Japanese fleet advances in the Central Pacific and Japanese planes bomb Midway, the US Navy has a big surprise waiting for them.
(more…)

May 29, 2021

History Buffs: Midway Part Two

Filed under: History, Japan, Media, Military, Pacific, USA, WW2 — Tags: , , , , , , — Nicholas @ 04:00

History Buffs
Published 28 May 2021

As promised here is Part Two of my Midway review. Hope you guys enjoy it 🙂

You can join Nebula today and get Curiosity Stream at 26% off for a year! Click on the link below

http://curiositystream.com/historybuffs
Part Two of this review will be out next Friday on the 28th of May!

● Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/HistoryBuffs_

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress