It's true that aircraft played a huge part in the Pacific theatre, but the beginnings of the idea began with the decimation of the Nazi naval forces by aircraft. The most famous happening of course being the Bismarck, which was crippled by torpedo bombers launched from the British carrier Ark Royal, which allowed Royal Navy surface units to engage and sink her, but there's much more. Bismark's sister ship, the Tirpitz, was kept out of the war almost entirely by aircraft, and eventually sunk by 12,000 lb bombs dropped by the British Lancaster bombers. The battlecruisers Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were also hounded by aircraft and kept from causing any significant amount of havoc. If the Nazis had had air superiority to keep their ships safe, the battle for the Atlantic would have been much more dangerous for the British. The Royal Navy was much larger, but the Kriegsmarine had better surface ships (they sure knew how to build ships) and their U-boat force would have been frightening, especially if the Kriegsmarine had been able to bring more of the type XXI U-boats into service. Thankfully, Hitler had a bad habit of overriding his Kriegsmarine commanders, and his decision-making became more and more erratic as the war drew on.ADeskofRichMahogany said:
The reason that aircraft carriers didn't play a part in the Atlantic theatre was because near Europe and Great Britain, they were unnecessary due to most of the action happening close enough to shore to use land-based aircraft. But from lessons learned in the Atlantic theatre and from the effectiveness of the Pearl Harbor attack, the death warrant of battleships had already been signed by the time the major Pacific naval battles occurred.
I disagree with your assertion that air power has made naval power obsolete, however. Again, air, land, and sea dominance are ALL necessary for a country to fight on foreign soil. The U.S. has a great many airbases on foreign soil, but our carriers are absolutely a necessary element of projecting air power. Airbases are much more vulnerable to attack (even small craters can prevent the aircraft currently in U.S. service from taking off, our air power is extremely high-tech but also has a reputation for being extremely high-maintenance and not rugged at all, as opposed to the Soviet-then-Russian design philosophy of making rugged airframes capable of operating from little more than patches of dirt) and our overseas airbases are also subject to shifting political climes. Aircraft carriers are much less vulnerable. But it takes traditional naval power to protect the carrier herself. Aircraft intercept aircraft, and aircraft can take out surface vessels with missiles like the Harpoon and the Exocet, but the carrier's warship screen keeps it safe from missile threats and submarines. In turn, the carrier's air power keeps the warships safe and can also protect troops on the ground that are within the combat radius of its hardware. It's all about synergy - everyone has a part to play.
