maxim wrote:
True, but they were even easier to disable, few bomb hits could reduce the fighting capacity of a carrier to 0%. If all sunken ships and heavily damaged carriers are counted, the complete carrier forces in the Pacific were so much reduced that in 1943 carriers played only a minor role
I think you are missing the point I was trying to make. Pre-war hype would have had you believing that the first hit would
always disable the carrier until it returned to the yard for repair. And first hit sinking was expected to be a common result. Combat proved that it wasn't that easy. Yorktown twice restored functionality to a damaged flightdeck within a couple of hours of the damage while in combat conditions. Enterprise also did that twice during 1942 alone. Saratoga conducted flight ops after her torpedo hits, in one case, while still under tow. And later in the war, significant flightdeck damage was field repaired frequently (admittedly not always) while the ships remained with their task forces. And don't forget that the carrier losses in the Pacific in 1942 were mostly the result of all-out battles rather than ships lost to the first minor hits. Of course, if you send the whole airgroup, you are going to do some damage. The lack of carrier combat in 1943 had as much, or more, to do with the Japanese lack of pilots as it did with the low carrier numbers. Enterprise, Saratoga and Victorious were all active in the Solomons during 1943.
The parallel I am trying to make is that today's "carrier killer missile" group would have you believe that their missiles will always disable the carrier with the first hit, and will always achieve enough hits to kill the carrier before it can return to base. (At least in the view of the author of the "article" in question.) It is that absurdity that I am disparaging. It is most likely as untrue now as the pre-WW-II hype was then.
maxim wrote:
Also USN supercarriers (see Forrestal and Enterprise) were disabled by relatively minor explosions, which caused multiple additional explosions, which caused heavy damage.
Chain-reaction events are rare and hard to prevent. Only a relatively small percentage of missile hits on a CV are expected to start chain-reactions. The Forrestal fire was, as you said, the result of a Zuni mis-fire. However, the Enterprise fire was caused by the operator of a starter cart parking his cart with the hot exhaust only inches from a live warhead. Some sources have indicated that, had the need been present, Enterprise's crew could have done enough temporary patching to restore some flight capability. But the need wasn't there and so it wasn't attempted.