how pivotal were aircraft carriers on turning the tide of war? is it comparable to when tanks were invented?
>>65001313Well tanks weren't pivotal so...
>>65001313Somme isn't comparable to Midway. Nothing was won in that place.
>>65001313Aircraft Carriers are far more important development. Tanks did not solve the problems of WWI when they were introduced (rapid ability to resupply due to built-up rail infrastructure all the way through to the point of contact) and tanks would not be in a form that would allow for maneuver warfare until 15-20 years after their first introduction.Aircraft Carriers allowed navies to project offensive air power into areas which were previously locked down by control of land-based air or ground fortifications. In a roundabout way I suppose you could make the argument that they both took about 15-20 years to develop into a useful form of warfare (WWI carriers technically existed but were not really useful) but the impacts of forward projection of air power are more important than the development of armored vehicles since AFVs didn't fundamentally change the nature of war on land - they just sped it up to outpace rail infrastructure and restore the previous balance of maneuver vs static defense that had existed since the Napoleonic era.
>>65001363>15-20Furious would be furious with that.Argus.
>>65001313They were so pivotal that all the soviet union's military budget went into countering them.
>how pivotal were aircraft carriers on turning the tide of war?Are we talking about the US-Iran War?
>>65001318 >>65001330 >>65001363Not to mass reply, but while tanks didn't fundamentally change the balance of war, in WWI it did force Germany to bring artillery right up to the front line to prevent breakthroughs, which allowed the Entente to counterbattery them to great effect. Germany didn't have any answer to this and had they not collapsed it would have depleted their artillery stockpile
>>65001318Not during WW1, but in WW2 they absolutely were.
>>65001318If tanks aren't, nothing is."Doesn't count unless they single-handedly won the war!"We don't have any wonderwaffe the enemy forgot to develop and made the other side win. But WWII aircraft-carriers definitely put out of business battleship, so they didn't turn the tide of one war, but they sure completely reshaped it.Hilariously enough, with a need for drones and anti-missile laser we might actually see battleship come back.Far stretch but...- you need huge swarm to go through defense- if laser are perfected we'll actually shot down fragile missile really fast- the only thing that can hardly be intercepted are plain shells.Of course I'm leaving submarine aside here, we'd need new sensors that make it fully impossible for submarine to do their missions.Before you mock me for this pic, I don't believe exoarmor will change anything, I'd rather bet on swarm of robot with AI-trained turrets sniping human at godlike speed
>>65001313Not much. Mainly used in ww2 side theater.
>>65001313Not comparable at all. After all, both were invented and used in World War One. But the tank actually did something, even if it wasn't a complete wonder weapon. The carrier? The most it did was attack a Zeppelin base with a total of fourteen 50 lb bombs lmao.
>>65002352Maybe we use the term pivotal differently in the context of turning the tide of war.Without tanks germany wouldn't have been able to keep fighting until 1919 or 1920 either. Their introduction didn't change the trajectory of the war.
On the topic of carriers can someone from the Navy/with Navy knowledge cast some light on how common and dangerous fires are. This may sound dumb but it's a metal ship with multiple cabins right ? How can a fire spread out so easily and so far ?
>>65005009>how commonPretty uncommon. There's a reason they suspect this was set deliberately, but an accidental fire in the laundry room isn't unheard of at least>how dangerousRanging from "kinda" to "extremely". Obviously it depends a lot on where the fire starts, how quickly it is discovered, and the damage control team's readiness. All the DCmen I knew liked to clown but not a single one of them didn't take their job very seriously. The part where it says the dire damaged 600 bunks is a bit misleading in terms of how far it may have spread before being controlled. At least on nimitz class carriers, the laundry room was directly below the cavernous air wing berthing at the stern. A fire right below it could pretty quickly start filling that berthing, aome 600 racks, with smoke and render it unlivable for awhile
LOL china's temu carriers will never be able to project power
>>65005300So, it's less likely to be "gutted", and more likely to be "smells too bad to let anybody sleep in there until it gets thoroughly cleaned out"?
>>65005310Probably more the latter than the former, ya
>>65001313They make it much easier to bomb enemy infrastructure, especially when the enemy is on the other side of the world.
>>65001313Carriers were pivotal for bringing the air force close enough. War is combined arms anon, so eventually it's all just big bombs from big vehicles from very far progressing to small bombs by hand very close. One enables the other.
