- Jul 18, 2011
Bro agreed with everything but do your homework.Historical Significance of the value of carrier & Why Number's aren't the only thing:
Carrier's were born out of the need of for conducting long range strategic maritime missions of national interest and force projection. It's not a deterrence per se, it's more of a forward floating operational naval base and debating over it is pure subjective matter.
#1: It was Japan in WW2 to have only 1 operational carrier that carried out the infamous Perl harbour raid. That huge shit storm was carried by only 1 operational carrier, several thousand NM away of the cost of Japan ... rest is history.
Having a Carrier doesn't also mean you go policing the world (unless you are USN).
#2: In the Falkland wars, even though UK had 2 operational carrier, but Argentinian Navy proved that having few frigates and carriers and Airforce backing your 6, you can slow down the indecisive crack of Royal Navy's operations. In fact, to this day, military analyst are surprised to why the 2 carriers weren't utilised to it's full potential.
One operational carrier? Man, I don't what to say. The Kido Butai that deployed under Vice Admiral Nagumo for the Pearl Harbor attack had three carrier divisions: the 1st, the 2nd and the 5th. That meant SIX fleet carriers comprised of Akagi, Kaga, Soryu, Hiryu, Shokaku and Zuikaku.
Don't demean the achievements of the IJN. It was a brilliantly executed operation but a strategic disaster.
Two carriers weren't used to their potential my ass. The only thing the Argentinians did was the Exocet missile strikes. Their own carrier never even sortied out to challenge the Royal Navy. The RN, on the other hand, improvised brilliantly to allow merchant vessels to carry more Harriers in addition to the Hermes and the Invincible. and the carriers were used to the best of their capabilities. The limiting factor was the Sea Harrier's own lacunae when faced with modern supersonic fighters.