Replies

What the Yamato did not have was the backing of the world’s #1 superpower, with virtually unlimited assets and technological know-how.

The USS Gerald Ford DOES.

Which means that the USN’s techniques for disrupting/destroying/intercepting all of the low tech “bogey-man” weapons that the author arrays against it will continue to be well ahead of any such weapons, allowing for the carrier to be able to carry out her mission.

To continue the analogy, had the Yamato such a backing force behind it, no US planes could have gotten through to attack it, and she could have just parked off of the target zone while raining hellfire on her enemies ... just like the Iowa-class battleships were, in fact, able to do, at the same time.

So ... to sum up ... a nice attention-grabbing article for the author, but as an indictment of the Nimitz-class carrier capabilities ... not very accurate.

Any questions?

BTW, an excellent history of the Yamato-class, including every single surviving photo of these battleships, and many action photos from her final mission, taken by the USN planes bombing her, can be seen at:

http://www.battleshipyamato.com

These anti carrier people are not asking the right questions. Of course in a hot war CVNs will take hits, heck some might sink outright(which is very hard to do to a CVN). But most CVNs can and will be repaired while brand new ones will be built.

What I just posted would have been true before the USA foolishly de industrialized. There is just ONE shipyard with a drydock that can build/repair a CVN. ONE.

Given recent events, the phrase “The USS Gerald Ford DOES” should read “The USS Gerald Ford DID”.

A working catapult would help also.