Majority Of Americans Don't Know Thier History

[Stryder50]

After 1808, we bred our own slaves
Over the next 50 years the slave population grew to 4 million

The Southern States did.
Not much of that happening in the Northern States or the frontier West. Which is where many escaped slaves fled to BTW.

Many need to understand that compromises were made in the sake of a united front against England during the War of Independence. Also afterward when seeking to foster a nation of United States, hence the Constitutional quirks like slaves counting as 3/5ths a person for population purpose in allocating numbers in Congress (House of Representatives). Contrary to the lies/distortions of the "1619ers", it wasn't to demean the slaves, rather a concession to the Southern States to allow for non voting non-citizens to be included in their population numbers.

 

[whoisit]

Only about one out of ten Blacks taken out of Africa and to the New World colonies came to the future USA.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Also, if one reads the USA Constitution, they will note that Article I. Section 9. prohibits importation of persons(slaves) after the year 1808.

While not "outlawing" slavery at the time, this did put a crimp in it's growth/expansion.

They tried to outlaw slavery but S.Carolina held out and wouldn't join the states but all other states wanted to abolish slavery. I forgot alot but this is the jest of it.
You do understand also we were fighting the Barbary Pirates up around Tripoli also during all this time and adding the Marines to our military arsinal.

 

[whoisit]

I have to go cut some vines while its still daylight, be back later.,

 

[Mushroom]

Notice how they never attempted to invade Hawaii?
They could not sustain an invasion of Hawaii, how could they possibly invade Continental US?

Hawaii was a side-show for Japan. However, it was expected by them to eventually be taken - possibly in negotiations once they won the war.

There actually was a plan made to invade Hawaii in 1941, and it could have been taken. But doing so would have cut the forces used to take the Philippines in half, and could have jeopardized that mission. So the decision was made to concentrate on that much more important group of islands, and leave Hawaii for later.

 

[Mushroom]

They tried to outlaw slavery but S.Carolina held out and wouldn't join the states but all other states wanted to abolish slavery.

Wait, do you come from an alternate history?

There was no attempt to "abolish slavery", the idea of most politicians was that if left alone and restricted more it would eventually just die on its own. They could not just "outlaw" it outside of a Constitutional Amendment, and such would never have been ratified.

And "all other states"? No, actually that was around half of the states. Try reading the "Missouri Compromise" sometime.

 

[Stryder50]

Hawaii was a side-show for Japan. However, it was expected by them to eventually be taken - possibly in negotiations once they won the war.

There actually was a plan made to invade Hawaii in 1941, and it could have been taken. But doing so would have cut the forces used to take the Philippines in half, and could have jeopardized that mission. So the decision was made to concentrate on that much more important group of islands, and leave Hawaii for later.

The intent of the attack upon Pearl Harbor was to weaken the USA enough that it could not have resources to oppose Japanese expansions and conquests in the Western Pacific while creating their "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere". Expectation was anything not sunk/damaged in attack on Pearl Harbor could be destroyed in further USA responses and after a good "kick or two in the nuts" the USA would fold, loose resolve, and let Japan have it's way in the Western Pacific/East Asia.

As history shows, this was a major miscalculation on the part of Japan's military dominated leadership of the time.

A footnote here is that Japan's planners drew a page from earlier history of the UK/RN attack upon the Italian fleet at Taranto, 11–12 November 1940.

Battle of Taranto - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Stryder50]

They did bomb Pearl Harbor so whats the difference plus we lost over 200 ships I think it was in WW11. Maybe wrong about the number.

Are you talking warships, or including merchants ships as well?
Also, are you including the Battle of the Atlantic/ETO?

In which case the numbers of ships, warships and merchant, is much higher globally during WW2 for the Allies than 200.

 

[Stryder50]

I have to go cut some vines while its still daylight, be back later.,

Understood.
I should be doing assorted home, yard, garden chores myself.

 

[Stryder50]

I'm tempted to start a separate thread on the topic "Board/War Games as Instructional Devices"; and likely will at a later time. For now and related to this topic I'm going to suggest one which I've found very helpful in getting a grasp on what happened; and/or could have happened, during the past @6,000 years of human civilizations and history.

I came across this one a couple/few decades ago and while raising my two teenage sons at the time, we played it often. I still recall them discussing one day which they'd rather have been, the Han or the Chin Dynasty of China.
.....

History of the World (1991)​

Build History by expanding 7 Civilizations: who will Dominate the World?
....
History of the World works under the assumptions that all empires eventually fade and that the only things differentiating great empires from lesser ones is how much territory they conquer and how long it takes for their civilizations to disappear. The game is played out over 7 epochs or rounds, from the ancient 3000 B.C. Sumerians to the pre-WW1 Germany, with every player controlling a new rising empire from history. Some empires are stronger than others (like the Romans), but the game's clever mechanisms can help balance that out. At the end of each epoch, players score points for all units of their color (from both the current and any previous empires) remaining on the board.

Gameplay: Each player selects a color and takes all pieces of that color, as there are different miniatures for each of the 7 Epochs, these should be sorted by Epoch. The game board is a stylized version of the globe. The Event cards should be separated into Greater and Lesser Events. Each player is dealt 3 Greater Events. These are either Minor Empires, Leaders, Weaponry or Reallocation. Each player is also dealt 7 Lesser Events. There are 22 different types of Lesser Events (Disasters, Diseases, and Special abilities, to name a few). Players roll 2 dice and determine first player and begin drawing their first Epoch empires. One unique mechanism is that the drawing player can examine their drawn empire and decide whether to keep it for themselves or give it to another player who hasn't gotten one yet. If it is given to another player, the receiving player has no choice but to keep it for himself to play that Epoch. Then the next player draws and makes his decision. The player who gives their drawn Empire has to wait until given an empire by another player or until the last player draws. Each Empire card contains the Empire name, how many troops the Empire has for expansion, the Empire's starting land space, if it has a Capitol or not (barbarian or nomadic nations frequently do not) and if it has any Navigation (Seas and Oceans to travel by). One player reads out the Epochs Empires in order and turns are taken, in this roughly historical order, when a player's Empire is called.

Before the start of their turn a player may play up to two Event cards from their hand. The Events played are resolved before the player starts his Empire's actions. If the player's active Empire has navigation a ship token is placed in each sea or ocean listed (if an ocean is listed all adjacent seas to the ocean have ship markers put into them). A Reallocation Greater Event allows an Empire with Navigation to exchange Fleets in seas and oceans for Coins that can be used to buy back defeated troops (1 coin per troop). If the active Empire has a capitol it is taken and placed in the Empire's starting land with one unit of the Empire's available troops.

Since each land space may only contain one troop the player begins expanding from their starting land by placing troops in any adjacent land space that they wish to occupy or conquer. To conquer a land the attacker moves one unit into the land space either from adjacent land or through a sea with a ship in it. Then dice are rolled, the attacker gets 2 dice and the defender only one, unless the attacker traveled across a strait or the defender's land has either a forest, the great wall of China, or mountains on the border of the land that the attacker came from. In this case the defender receives 2 dice as well. If the attack comes from the sea the defender gets 3 dice for defense. Highest score wins with ties killing off both the defender and attacker. In this case the attacker can merely place the next troop, if he has any left, in the now-empty land space.

At any time the active Empire player may exchange an unplaced troop for a fort. On later turns, a fort gives the player a +1 to defensive rolls in that land. Also, if the defender in a fort loses or ties with an attacker only the fort is removed and the battle continues. Whenever an army conquers a land with a capitol the capitol mini is flipped reducing it to a city (if it was a city to begin with it is removed from board when conquered). After the active player's Empire is finished with it's actions check to see if it conquered to land spaces with resource symbols, if so it can build a monument.

Then scoring takes place. Each area (Middle-East, Northern Europe, Eurasia, etc...) has a tile with 3 values for the current Epoch. One value is for having a presence in the area (at least one land). Another value is for having Dominance in the area (at least 2 lands and more than any other player in area). The last value is for having Control of an area (at least 3 lands and no other player has any in area). These values vary from Epoch to Epoch and Area to Area (Middle-East is more valuable in early Epochs and fades in later Epochs, for example). Total the scores from each area for all pieces of the player's color from all Empires controlled that remain on board. Then add 2 points for each capitol controlled, 1 point per city and one point for each monument controlled. After all areas are scored the next Empire called takes its turn.

After all players have taken their turns and scored, for the first Epoch, the player with the highest score gets to take a pre-eminence marker and places it in front of him. These are secret bonus points (worth somewhere from 3 to 6) for the end of the game and may not be examined till then. This bonus to leader helps balance the Empire-draw mechanic and makes it valuable to score maximal points even early in the game, rather than tanking to get a better draw later. Then drawing begins for the next Epoch with the player having the lowest score drawing first on up to the person with the highest score drawing last (and likely being given a less than optimal Empire by another player).

Victory: After the last player has scored for Epoch 7 and the leader has drawn a pre-eminence marker, all players reveal their pre-eminence markers and add them to their scores. The player with the highest score wins.
...

History of the World

Build History by expanding 6 Civilizations: who will Dominate the World ?

boardgamegeek.com

(Actually, the boardgame version by Avalon Hill is slightly different in play and scoring.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
History of the World (often abbreviated HotW) is a board game designed by Ragnar Brothers and originally published in 1991. It is played by up to six players in seven epochs (6 epochs in the 2009 edition, and 5 epochs in the 2018 edition),[2] each player playing a different empire in each epoch.
...

History of the World (board game) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One computer version;

History of the World (Windows)

Remember History of the World (Windows), an old video game from 1997? Download it and play again on MyAbandonware.

www.myabandonware.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~
OR:

History of The World Download (1997 Strategy Game)

www.old-games.com

OR:

History of the World (1997) - MobyGames

Based on the board game of the same name, players play against each other or AI opponents for "world conquest." This is done by players each receiving an "empire", a major civilization during a time in history. Each player attempts to expand his...

www.mobygames.com

 

[Stryder50]

Another good learning tool, with a focus on WW2, is this board game;

Axis & Allies (1981)​

Re-fight WWII on a global scale with plastic soldiers, tanks, planes, and ships!

Axis & Allies

Re-fight WWII on a global scale with plastic soldiers, tanks, planes, and ships!

boardgamegeek.com

...
Axis and Allies is the most successful of Milton Bradley's Gamemaster series.

It depicts WWII on a grand scale, full global level. Up to five players can play on two different teams. The Axis which has Germany and Japan, and the Allies which has the USA, the United Kingdom, and the USSR. A full map of the world is provided, broken up in various chunks similar to Risk. The game comes with gobs of plastic miniatures that represent various military units during WWII. Players have at their disposal infantry, armor, fighters, bombers, battleships, aircraft carriers, submarines, troop transports, anti-air guns, and factories. All of the units perform differently and many have special functions. Players have to work together with their teammates in order to coordinate offenses and decide how best to utilize their production points. Players also have the option of risking production resources on the possibility of developing a super technology that might turn the tide of war.

Axis and Allies was originally published by Nova Games in 1981.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Online and computer versions also available.

 

[Mushroom]

The intent of the attack upon Pearl Harbor was to weaken the USA enough that it could not have resources to oppose Japanese expansions and conquests in the Western Pacific while creating their "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere". Expectation was anything not sunk/damaged in attack on Pearl Harbor could be destroyed in further USA responses and after a good "kick or two in the nuts" the USA would fold, loose resolve, and let Japan have it's way in the Western Pacific/East Asia.

Yes, but the actual strategic purpose of attacking the US in the first place was to secure the Philippines. Their actual target was the Dutch East Indies, but the Japanese knew that might have been enough to push the US or UK into war with them. And there was no way they could leave such a large outpost of American forces sitting across their supply lines. Pearl Harbor was not the cause, simply the largest attack at the start of the war. That was the intent of that mission of course, but not the intent of the war itself. Which was to secure the GEACPS.

And in fact, it was that very attack that ensured that Japan would ultimately lose the war. They really did not understand the advantages that the newer carriers provided a fleet, and actually tried to spend the entire war with the plans of the US and Japanese fleets meeting in massive engagements between ships (Admiral Yamamoto was obsessed with this). But that almost never happened, and most of the war was fought with aircraft with the ships as support for ground forces. or submarine defense.

Many do not realize that Yamamoto was hoping to recreate the Battle of Tsushima, with the US taking the place of the Russians in that battle. Of the ships of each country doing battle and the Japanese fleet emerging victorious. That was part of the Japanese plan of Midway. To secure the island, forcing the US to send the fleet to try and take them back and sinking it with their own ships. If he had known he was going to be ambushed on the way and his ships sunk without ever firing a shot at another ship, he never would have designed that battle plan.

He called it the "Kantai Kessen" or "Naval fleet decisive battle". He did support Naval Aviation, but even he thought that true victory could only come from a clash of Capitol Ships. The US was already engaged in a massive buildup of carriers by the time of Midway, and Japan only started after the battle. But Japan did it in their own way, like converting the already under construction Shinano (half way through a build of over 4 years) to a carrier instead of just another Yamato class battleship. Meanwhile the US churned out dozens of escort carriers.

By sinking or badly damaging most of the US Battleships, the US had to resort to using carriers. Which were very quick to build in comparison to a Battleship or even an Armored Cruiser. It took 4+ years to build one of those ships, but an escort carrier could be converted in a matter of months. Even the 2 of the 3 Midway class "Battle Carriers" were built in under 2 years. They came too late to participate in the war, but the speed they were built was a fraction of the time it took Japan to build their carriers.

If not for losing most of our Pacific Battleships at the start, the US might likely have done just that and the war would have played out very differently.

 

[Mushroom]

Another good learning tool, with a focus on WW2, is this board game;

Axis & Allies (1981)​

It is a great "beer and pretzels" game, and to be honest I have won a great many tournaments in it, and have not lost a game in decades (unless I was just horsing around and did not care). And most times, I won as the Axis powers.

The main thing I advise all players in it is to take the entire Axis war plan, and flush it down the toilet. Over and over I have seen people try to follow that, and I just shake my head. Why do people insist on following the strategy of the side that lost?

Japanese fleet in the Pacific? Ignore Hawaii, concentrate all ships off Japan and go all-in for Asia. For Germany, pull all offensive units back to Germany and build infantry. It is normally not hard to sucker in most Soviet players into an attack n the second or third round, and then counter with lots of infantry. Destroying the entire Soviet armored force and then one area at a time take Moscow within 4-5 turns.

It is not a bad game though, and I often use it as a teaching tool for showing people how to 'think outside the box". Most players simply try to recreate WWII, where as I try my own strategies and tactics, which always confuses the traditionalists. I still remember my last game before they closed down the A&A Online area for the original MB computer game. It was just days before it was closed, and as Japan I took Washington DC and Moscow in a single turn. The US player simply never realized that the fleet I had sitting off Panama (yes, Japanese fleet off Panama) could be used to attack and capture the East Coast. Or that by going all-in on Asia, Japan can normally take Moscow in around turn 5 or 6.

Of course, the game also completely ignores the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact of most of the war.

 

[whoisit]

Hardly true

We can celebrate the great things our country has done while acknowledging those things where we acted inappropriately.

That is how you learn not to repeat your mistakes

I thought that was what I was saying.

 

[Stryder50]

Yes, but the actual strategic purpose of attacking the US in the first place was to secure the Philippines. Their actual target was the Dutch East Indies, but the Japanese knew that might have been enough to push the US or UK into war with them. And there was no way they could leave such a large outpost of American forces sitting across their supply lines. Pearl Harbor was not the cause, simply the largest attack at the start of the war. That was the intent of that mission of course, but not the intent of the war itself. Which was to secure the GEACPS.

And in fact, it was that very attack that ensured that Japan would ultimately lose the war. They really did not understand the advantages that the newer carriers provided a fleet, and actually tried to spend the entire war with the plans of the US and Japanese fleets meeting in massive engagements between ships (Admiral Yamamoto was obsessed with this). But that almost never happened, and most of the war was fought with aircraft with the ships as support for ground forces. or submarine defense.

Many do not realize that Yamamoto was hoping to recreate the Battle of Tsushima, with the US taking the place of the Russians in that battle. Of the ships of each country doing battle and the Japanese fleet emerging victorious. That was part of the Japanese plan of Midway. To secure the island, forcing the US to send the fleet to try and take them back and sinking it with their own ships. If he had known he was going to be ambushed on the way and his ships sunk without ever firing a shot at another ship, he never would have designed that battle plan.

He called it the "Kantai Kessen" or "Naval fleet decisive battle". He did support Naval Aviation, but even he thought that true victory could only come from a clash of Capitol Ships. The US was already engaged in a massive buildup of carriers by the time of Midway, and Japan only started after the battle. But Japan did it in their own way, like converting the already under construction Shinano (half way through a build of over 4 years) to a carrier instead of just another Yamato class battleship. Meanwhile the US churned out dozens of escort carriers.

By sinking or badly damaging most of the US Battleships, the US had to resort to using carriers. Which were very quick to build in comparison to a Battleship or even an Armored Cruiser. It took 4+ years to build one of those ships, but an escort carrier could be converted in a matter of months. Even the 2 of the 3 Midway class "Battle Carriers" were built in under 2 years. They came too late to participate in the war, but the speed they were built was a fraction of the time it took Japan to build their carriers.

If not for losing most of our Pacific Battleships at the start, the US might likely have done just that and the war would have played out very differently.

Yet, nearly a year and a half before the attack upon Pearl Harbor, the USA/USN had committed to expanding their main attack aircraft carrier~CVA numbers to near three fold.

Start with the Lexington and Saratoga, toss in the Ranger and Wasp, plus the Enterprise, Yorktown, and Hornet and we are looking at about 6-7 main CVA decks in inventory about Dec. 1941.

Then ...
After the abrogation of disarmament treaties by Japan in 1936, the U.S. took a realistic look at its naval strength. With the Naval Expansion Act of Congress passed on 17 May 1938, an increase of 40,000 tons in aircraft carriers was authorized. This permitted the building of Hornet, which was the third Yorktown-class carrier, and Essex, which was the lead ship of a new class.

CV-9 was to be the prototype of the 27,000-ton (standard displacement) aircraft carrier, considerably larger than Enterprise, yet smaller than Saratoga (a battlecruiser converted to a carrier). The Navy ordered the first three of the new design, CV-9, CV-10 and CV-11, from Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock on 3 July 1940. These were to become known as Essex-class carriers.[4] Under the terms of the Two-Ocean Navy Act, ten more of these carriers were programmed. Eight were ordered on 9 September, CV-12 through −15 from Newport News, and CV-16 through −19 from Bethlehem Steel's Fore River Shipyard; the last two, CV-20 and CV-21, were ordered eight days after Pearl Harbor from the Brooklyn Navy Yard and Newport News respectively.
...
That's @ 3 + 8 = 11(+) CV decks (Essex Class) on order prior to Pearl Harbor attack which would put the USA/USN up to about 17~18 CVs~Carriers within a few years. More on the line to come.

Essex-class aircraft carrier - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Then comes another @9 of the CVL - Independence class, just under a full CV size but much larger than your escort carriers.

Independence-class aircraft carrier - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Suggests that about 1944, less any losses in combat, the USA/USN would be fielding about 30 +/- main deck aircraft carriers in form of CVA and CVL and then scores of Escort Carriers as well. !!!

Would look like the USA/USN were on to the future of Naval Warfare being aircraft carrier based a bit before the attack at Pearl Harbor underscored such and way ahead of what the Japanese/IJN had in mind.

One could say Japan had lost even before the war began.

 

[Otis Mayfield]

The way we were isolationist in the 1930s and Congress kept passing these non-aggression pacts saying we wouldn't participate in any war, it made us look like we had no fight.

So, the Japanese thought, "all we have to do is bloody America's nose a little and they'll sue for peace right on the spot."

But it didn't turn out like the Japanese had hoped.

 

[Mushroom]

Yet, nearly a year and a half before the attack upon Pearl Harbor, the USA/USN had committed to expanding their main attack aircraft carrier~CVA numbers to near three fold.

Not sure what that even means, as there only "CVA" the US even considered building Was the United States class after the war, and none were built,

Before Pearl Harbor, the new carriers under construction was the Wasp, Hornet, and Essex, The Yorktown and Intrepid were laid down the same week. But those were actually the first (and only) ship of her class. The Hornet was the last of the Yorktown class. And the Essex was of course the lead ship in her class.

And the reason why those were built was the Washington Naval Treaty. The oldest 3 carriers (Langley, Lexington, Saratoga) were to be scrapped upon completion or converted to training-test ships. But there was no "threefold" increase, as that would mean an additional 24 fleet carriers. And obviously we never built that many at all.

Not quite sure what you are trying to say here, as the "CVA" was not even a thing then. Some of the Essex class would be redesignated that during the Korean War, but not then. The Midway class would be designated at the very end of the war as a CVB for "Battle", but the first was not put into service until after the war was over.

But what the Navy did start to expand on greatly was the escort carrier. Those were not capitol ships, therefore were largely unregulated by the Washington Naval Treaty. And also until the US actually got into the war, all of those built but 3 were not even used by the US but "loaned" to the UK.

Start with the Lexington and Saratoga, toss in the Ranger and Wasp, plus the Enterprise, Yorktown, and Hornet and we are looking at about 6-7 main CVA decks in inventory about Dec. 1941.

The Langley when war started was off the Philippines, having just delivered a shipment of fighters there.

The Saratoga was just pulling into San Diego after finishing a 9 month long refit and modernization.

The Ranger was enroute back to Norfolk after a patrol of Trinidad and the surrounding waters.

Enterprise was enroute back to Pearl after delivering a shipment of fighters to Wake island.

Yorktown was in Norfolk.

Hornet was still undergoing sea trials off Norfolk.

But those were all designated "CV", not "CVA". And the Langley, Lexington, and Saratoga were all scheduled to be retired as the replacement ships became available if not for the war. Why do you think ever carrier class prior to Essex that survived the war was scrapped or destroyed after the war? One of the most spectacular being the Saratoga, which was part of the Bikini Atoll tests.

Then ...
After the abrogation of disarmament treaties by Japan in 1936, the U.S. took a realistic look at its naval strength. With the Naval Expansion Act of Congress passed on 17 May 1938, an increase of 40,000 tons in aircraft carriers was authorized. This permitted the building of Hornet, which was the third Yorktown-class carrier, and Essex, which was the lead ship of a new class.

But they were still going to retire the oldest ones. The US never quite the treaty, and was still following it until war broke out. And reclassifying a ship to test or training was allowed in the Washington Naval Treaty. Heck, a lot of our carriers were only made carriers by that same treaty. It limited the number of battlecruisers, but also allowed the conversion of ships already under construction to become carriers without affecting the treaty. Both Lexington and Saratoga were to have been battlecruisers, but ultimately became carriers.

The US did not actually "build a carrier" until the Ranger in 1931.

CV-9 was to be the prototype of the 27,000-ton (standard displacement) aircraft carrier, considerably larger than Enterprise, yet smaller than Saratoga (a battlecruiser converted to a carrier). The Navy ordered the first three of the new design, CV-9, CV-10 and CV-11, from Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock on 3 July 1940. These were to become known as Essex-class carriers.[4] Under the terms of the Two-Ocean Navy Act, ten more of these carriers were programmed. Eight were ordered on 9 September, CV-12 through −15 from Newport News, and CV-16 through −19 from Bethlehem Steel's Fore River Shipyard; the last two, CV-20 and CV-21, were ordered eight days after Pearl Harbor from the Brooklyn Navy Yard and Newport News respectively.

Because the US had yet to really get serious about carriers prior to that. They were building single ship classes and converting other ships. And it was an improvement over the one-off Wasp class.

...
That's @ 3 + 8 = 11(+) CV decks (Essex Class) on order prior to Pearl Harbor attack which would put the USA/USN up to about 17~18 CVs~Carriers within a few years. More on the line to come.

Essex-class aircraft carrier - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Once again, if not for the war as the Essex ships entered service the older ones would have all been retired or sold off to other nations. Other than a few that would have been used for training or testing, such as the conversion of one or two to seaplane tenders (which under the WNT were not "carriers").

Just because the US was building new carriers, that is not the same as increasing their fleet. The plan was the same with the Iowa class. Which were designed and built as replacements for some of the Pre-WWI battleships still in service.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Then comes another @9 of the CVL - Independence class, just under a full CV size but much larger than your escort carriers.

Independence-class aircraft carrier - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Suggests that about 1944, less any losses in combat, the USA/USN would be fielding about 30 +/- main deck aircraft carriers in form of CVA and CVL and then scores of Escort Carriers as well. !!!

Would look like the USA/USN were on to the future of Naval Warfare being aircraft carrier based a bit before the attack at Pearl Harbor underscored such and way ahead of what the Japanese/IJN had in mind.

One could say Japan had lost even before the war began.

You do not seem to realize that as those newer ships came into service, older ones would have been scrapped or sold if not for the war. Most of those were replacing post-WWI era ships. And of the carriers in service at that time, there were 8 ships of 5 different classes. with the Essex class, it was hoped that all of the old carriers could be gotten rid of, and the Navy could then work with a single unified class of ships. Which if not for the war was planned by around 1948.

But even that was still undergoing change, as by 1943 all Essex ships under construction were changed to the "Long Hull" version. After the war the Short Hull ships were converted to other duties, like anti-submarine, amphibious, training, and transport carriers. By the end of WWII they were already "obsolete".

 

[whoisit]

Wait, do you come from an alternate history?

There was no attempt to "abolish slavery", the idea of most politicians was that if left alone and restricted more it would eventually just die on its own. They could not just "outlaw" it outside of a Constitutional Amendment, and such would never have been ratified.

And "all other states"? No, actually that was around half of the states. Try reading the "Missouri Compromise" sometime.

I'll look it up , I could be wrong but usually know my history.

 

[Mushroom]

I'll look it up , I could be wrong but usually know my history.

Just like you know who made an earlier quote. Then when even given the name of the one who falsified many quotes, you simply insisted you were right.

 

[Stryder50]

Not sure what that even means, as there only "CVA" the US even considered building Was the United States class after the war, and none were built,

Before Pearl Harbor, the new carriers under construction was the Wasp, Hornet, and Essex, The Yorktown and Intrepid were laid down the same week. But those were actually the first (and only) ship of her class. The Hornet was the last of the Yorktown class. And the Essex was of course the lead ship in her class.

And the reason why those were built was the Washington Naval Treaty. The oldest 3 carriers (Langley, Lexington, Saratoga) were to be scrapped upon completion or converted to training-test ships. But there was no "threefold" increase, as that would mean an additional 24 fleet carriers. And obviously we never built that many at all.

Not quite sure what you are trying to say here, as the "CVA" was not even a thing then. Some of the Essex class would be redesignated that during the Korean War, but not then. The Midway class would be designated at the very end of the war as a CVB for "Battle", but the first was not put into service until after the war was over.

But what the Navy did start to expand on greatly was the escort carrier. Those were not capitol ships, therefore were largely unregulated by the Washington Naval Treaty. And also until the US actually got into the war, all of those built but 3 were not even used by the US but "loaned" to the UK.



The Langley when war started was off the Philippines, having just delivered a shipment of fighters there.

The Saratoga was just pulling into San Diego after finishing a 9 month long refit and modernization.

The Ranger was enroute back to Norfolk after a patrol of Trinidad and the surrounding waters.

Enterprise was enroute back to Pearl after delivering a shipment of fighters to Wake island.

Yorktown was in Norfolk.

Hornet was still undergoing sea trials off Norfolk.

But those were all designated "CV", not "CVA". And the Langley, Lexington, and Saratoga were all scheduled to be retired as the replacement ships became available if not for the war. Why do you think ever carrier class prior to Essex that survived the war was scrapped or destroyed after the war? One of the most spectacular being the Saratoga, which was part of the Bikini Atoll tests.



But they were still going to retire the oldest ones. The US never quite the treaty, and was still following it until war broke out. And reclassifying a ship to test or training was allowed in the Washington Naval Treaty. Heck, a lot of our carriers were only made carriers by that same treaty. It limited the number of battlecruisers, but also allowed the conversion of ships already under construction to become carriers without affecting the treaty. Both Lexington and Saratoga were to have been battlecruisers, but ultimately became carriers.

The US did not actually "build a carrier" until the Ranger in 1931.



Because the US had yet to really get serious about carriers prior to that. They were building single ship classes and converting other ships. And it was an improvement over the one-off Wasp class.



Once again, if not for the war as the Essex ships entered service the older ones would have all been retired or sold off to other nations. Other than a few that would have been used for training or testing, such as the conversion of one or two to seaplane tenders (which under the WNT were not "carriers").

Just because the US was building new carriers, that is not the same as increasing their fleet. The plan was the same with the Iowa class. Which were designed and built as replacements for some of the Pre-WWI battleships still in service.



You do not seem to realize that as those newer ships came into service, older ones would have been scrapped or sold if not for the war. Most of those were replacing post-WWI era ships. And of the carriers in service at that time, there were 8 ships of 5 different classes. with the Essex class, it was hoped that all of the old carriers could be gotten rid of, and the Navy could then work with a single unified class of ships. Which if not for the war was planned by around 1948.

But even that was still undergoing change, as by 1943 all Essex ships under construction were changed to the "Long Hull" version. After the war the Short Hull ships were converted to other duties, like anti-submarine, amphibious, training, and transport carriers. By the end of WWII they were already "obsolete".

Not sure where you got my claiming a "threefold", especially as you present it. Of the eight carriers on hand, would hardly consider the Langley a front line ship, so that makes 7, maybe six depending on how usable the Ranger was. Add the eleven Essex and the USN would be looking at a total of 18 CVs during WWII if four of the first main ones hadn't been lost.

The CVA is something I've seen used interchangably. I did so to avoid confusion on the CVL and CVE classifications, since all can be generically considered "CV". Here's some examples of others mixing CVA~CV;

USS Ranger (CVA/CV-61) History and Memorial​

...
The seventh USS Ranger (CV/CVA-61) was the third of four Forrestal-class supercarriers built for the United States Navy in the 1950s. Although all four ships of the class were completed with angled decks, Ranger had the distinction of being the first US carrier built from the beginning as an angled-deck ship.

Commissioned in 1957, she served extensively in the Pacific, especially the Vietnam War, for which she earned 13 battle stars. Near the end of her career, she also served in the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf.

Ranger was decommissioned in 1993, and was stored at Bremerton, Washington until March 2015. She was then moved to Brownsville for scrapping, which was completed in November 2017.
...

USS Ranger (CV-61) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

~~~~~~~~~~
Ranger again sailed for the Far East 6 August 1964. This deployment came on the heels of the unprovoked assault against USS Maddox (DD-731) on the night of 2 August and, two nights later, against both Maddox and USS Turner Joy (DD-951), by North Vietnamese motor torpedo boats. In retaliation for this aggression on the high seas by North Vietnam, President Lyndon B. Johnson, on 5 August, directed the Navy to strike bases used by the North Vietnamese naval craft. As Ranger steamed from the western seaboard, some 60 attack sorties rose from the decks of USS Ticonderoga (CVA-14) and USS Constellation (CVA-64).

Ranger made only an eight-hour stop in Pearl Harbor 10 August 1964, then hurried on to Subic Bay, and then to Yokosuka, Japan. In the latter port on 17 October 1964, she became flagship of Rear Adm. Miller who commanded Fast Carrier Task Force 77. In the following months, she helped the Seventh Fleet continue its role of steady watchfulness to keep open the sealanes for the Allies and stop Communist infiltration by sea.
...

CV 61 USS Ranger Forrestal class Aircraft Carrier US Navy

cva-61 cv-61 uss ranger forrestal class aircraft carrier air wing cvw-2 us navy

www.seaforces.org

 

[Stryder50]

Bump!
For near future reference; excerpts.