What mix of aircraft what type would you have on a "raiding" CVL?

[Oreo]

24 Fw 190's, any and all of which can be quickly converted to fly any task. All single-seaters. Different armament/ equipment packs available for different tasks. This means you only have to have one type of engine, one type of airframe, and simply have spare parts redundancy and total mission flexability. If US, then they would all be F6F or maybe F4U if it was safe for that type to fly off such a small carrier. British-- I'd rework the landing gear for Seafire to fold inward, and use those exclusively. Japanese didn't have the type of naval fighter bomber I'm talking about, although the N1K series might have been awesome adapted to carriers in 1944! Russian-- La-5 or La-7 derivative. Italian: Re 2002, but need more power. French: Bloch 155 derivative with larger wing.

 

[Freebird]

24 Fw 190's, any and all of which can be quickly converted to fly any task. All single-seaters. Different armament/ equipment packs available for different tasks. This means you only have to have one type of engine, one type of airframe, and simply have spare parts redundancy and total mission flexability. If US, then they would all be F6F or maybe F4U if it was safe for that type to fly off such a small carrier. British-- I'd rework the landing gear for Seafire to fold inward, and use those exclusively. Japanese didn't have the type of naval fighter bomber I'm talking about, although the N1K series might have been awesome adapted to carriers in 1944! Russian-- La-5 or La-7 derivative. Italian: Re 2002, but need more power. French: Bloch 155 derivative with larger wing.

I don't think the FW-190 or the F4U could carry torpedos could they?

Some have mentioned this idea of single seaters, but I think there is a significant problem with Search/Recon. Remember that the "Raiding" CVL would need to hunt over 1,000's of miles to find the targets, and single seater recon was rather poor in WWII. Consider the problems at Midway at Coral Sea with single-seat fighters either not finding or mis-identifing ships, and this was in a situation where they already knew the enemy fleet was in the area. In 1941/1942 the pilot could not effectivly operate the primitive airborne radar IIRC

 

[Oreo]

Well by 1944 the problems were solved. Fw 190's could carry Torpedos, and with the same easy modifications, F4U's could have also. About the Fw 190, look up fw 190F-8 / U14. The Fw 190G-1 was capable of carrying an 1800 KG (3,968 lb.) bomb into combat, using them to attack bridges with. That kind of load-out would not be possible on a carrier, but the 2,200 lb. loadout could be achieved, and so could the torpedo. Anyway, I am of the opinion that aerial torpedoes were highly overated and more trouble than they were worth-- much better to use dive bombing and skip-bombing tactics, especially in coordinated multi-level attacks. The torp planes were slow, vulnerable and not necessary. I know they accomplished a lot, but if they were replaced with dive bombers / skip bombers, they might have done more. There is just no replacement for sticking that enemy battleship in your face and dropping a bomb square on its deck or squarely below the waterline. High speed approaches for skip bombing should have been learned, approaching the warship at 250-300 miles per hour, spraying it with gunfire as you went, and delivering that bomb at extremely high speed in a skip attack, or doing as many dauntlesses and Val's did, diving down from on high to penetrate the decking with a thousand pounder. OK, I guess the Vals usually carried smaller bombs. The torp bombers had to come in very slow to drop their fish at exactly the right speed to obtain proper results, and then the enemy warship was capable of maneuvering to evade the torpedoes, and many times they never even went off when they hit the ship. I think the Fw 190 could have been modified into a veritable One-man-band, with top speed around 380 (like F6F) and capable of many different conversions for dive bombing, level bombing, rocket attack, torpedoes, bomber interception, fighter interception, night fighters, anti-shipping patrol with asv radar, photo recon, and anti submarine duties.

 

[Freebird]

Interesting Oreo, by 1944 you may well be right. However I was thinking mainly of 1940 - 1942, when the danger of the raiders was the greatest.

There is one thing to think about though - no capital ship was ever sunk by bombs IIRC, {other than Aircraft carriers} The Price of Wales, Yamato, Scharhorst, Warspite, Repulse, Nagato, Musashi, and many others were repeatedly bombed, but it was only the torpedoes that could sink them. Consider Nagato - at Leyte 24/25 October hit by 4 bombs, on the 26th hit by 4 more, then in July '45 attacked repeatedly by Helldivers and suffered 3 more hits - yet survived the war.

 

[Oreo]

There is one thing to think about though - no capital ship was ever sunk by bombs IIRC, {other than Aircraft carriers} The Price of Wales, Yamato, Scharhorst, Warspite, Repulse, Nagato, Musashi, and many others were repeatedly bombed, but it was only the torpedoes that could sink them. Consider Nagato - at Leyte 24/25 October hit by 4 bombs, on the 26th hit by 4 more, then in July '45 attacked repeatedly by Helldivers and suffered 3 more hits - yet survived the war.

Good point, FB. I think that mostly means they weren't using big enough bombs.

I also think if Germany, for instance, had managed to build, say, a dozen of these small escort carriers with 24 planes each, even if they had to build them on hastily reworked cargo ships, and even if they used Bf 109T's in 1941 or 42, the best thing they could have done would have been to use 100% fighters, and use them only for air defense, and use them to keep the ocean patrol types of the RAF, and their carrier planes, under control so the U-boats and surface fleet could have done their jobs unmolested. Then a naval barrier could have been made between Greenland and France, and the U-boats and surface raiders could have killed all the ships, while the Bf 109T's knocked out the Catalinas, Sunderlands, CAM fighters, Swordfish, and Martlets. The capital ships could do the air recon with their Ar 196's, and the Fw 200's could have coordinated from France in the search for convoys. I think it would have been an unbeatable team, at the time.

 

[delcyros]

For the german perspective:

critical limitations:
A) landing deck on a CVL likely no longer than ca. 150m usable.
--->No Fw-190, No Bf-109, No Stuka.
B) CVL hangar spaces limited in height (ca. 4.2-4.5m each)
--->No Fi-TB

Options left:
Ar-195 (multi purpose recon / bomber / torpedo bomber)
-yes, it´s a biplane but effective compact

Advances:
Diesel propulsion
---->long range capability, high cruise speed, highest degree of readiness (initial acceleration)


My raiding CVL would be kind of a slightly enlarged K-class cruiser with bulges (for more stability) and slightly longer to accomodate hangar spaces for 24 + 3 Ar-195. Max displacement is about 11.500t. I would leave the two 5.91'"/60 triple turrets aft, slightly replaced from the centerline to give better firing arcs forward (K-class cruiser layout). Those guns are good short range hitters, they have a decent total range for this gunsize and are basically rapid firing mounts (the improed turret design from NÜRNBERG). Good for lone merchants and very handy when disangeging any escorts / hunters.
Propulsion would consist of three shafted Diesel machinery (engines same like Graf Spee but three instead of two shafts, resulting in ca. 81.000 SHP design output), endurance ca. 19.000 nm @ 20 kts like Scheer. Max. Speed would be a little below that of the K-class cruisers, at around 31 to 32 Kts, most likely 31.5. If it can hit 30 Kts after one month at sea, it´s fine.

Enter ship name, Enter country Enter ship type laid down 1934

Displacement:
9.430 t light; 9.740 t standard; 11.030 t normal; 12.061 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(644,83 ft / 628,94 ft) x 60,20 ft x (18,54 / 19,87 ft)
(196,54 m / 191,70 m) x 18,35 m x (5,65 / 6,06 m)

Armament:
6 - 5,91" / 150 mm 60,0 cal guns - 110,23lbs / 50,00kg shells, 150 per gun
Quick firing guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1934 Model
3 x Triple mounts on centreline, aft deck aft
10 - 3,46" / 88,0 mm 76,0 cal guns - 23,57lbs / 10,69kg shells, 250 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1934 Model
4 x Twin mounts on sides, aft evenly spread
2 raised mounts
1 x Twin mount on centreline, forward deck forward
1 raised mount
16 - 0,79" / 20,0 mm 115,0 cal guns - 0,29lbs / 0,13kg shells, 500 per gun
Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1934 Model
4 x Quad mounts on sides, evenly spread
4 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 902 lbs / 409 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 1,97" / 50 mm 410,11 ft / 125,00 m 16,40 ft / 5,00 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 100% of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 3,15" / 80 mm 1,57" / 40 mm 2,36" / 60 mm
2nd: 0,79" / 20 mm 0,39" / 10 mm -

- Armoured deck - single deck:
For and Aft decks: 1,18" / 30 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 3,15" / 80 mm, Aft 1,18" / 30 mm

Machinery:
Diesel Internal combustion motors,
Geared drive, 3 shafts, 81.000 shp / 60.426 Kw = 31,79 kts
Range 15.500nm at 12,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 2.322 tons

Complement:
537 - 699

Cost:
£3,744 million / $14,976 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 271 tons, 2,5%
- Guns: 271 tons, 2,5%
Armour: 1.215 tons, 11,0%
- Belts: 543 tons, 4,9%
- Armament: 106 tons, 1,0%
- Armour Deck: 520 tons, 4,7%
- Conning Towers: 46 tons, 0,4%
Machinery: 2.330 tons, 21,1%
Hull, fittings equipment: 4.414 tons, 40,0%
Fuel, ammunition stores: 1.600 tons, 14,5%
Miscellaneous weights: 1.200 tons, 10,9%
- Hull below water: 200 tons
- Hull above water: 200 tons
- On freeboard deck: 400 tons
- Above deck: 400 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
20.938 lbs / 9.497 Kg = 203,3 x 5,9 " / 150 mm shells or 2,1 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,12
Metacentric height 2,9 ft / 0,9 m
Roll period: 14,8 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 71 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,31
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,83

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has low forecastle, rise forward of midbreak,
a normal bow and small transom stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0,550 / 0,561
Length to Beam Ratio: 10,45 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 26,78 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 55 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 39
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 8,53 ft / 2,60 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 10,00%, 27,46 ft / 8,37 m, 21,33 ft / 6,50 m
- Forward deck: 60,00%, 31,17 ft / 9,50 m, 31,17 ft / 9,50 m
- Aft deck: 15,00%, 14,76 ft / 4,50 m, 14,76 ft / 4,50 m
- Quarter deck: 15,00%, 14,76 ft / 4,50 m, 14,76 ft / 4,50 m
- Average freeboard: 25,51 ft / 7,77 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 82,1%
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 267,8%
Waterplane Area: 27.077 Square feet or 2.515 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 136%
Structure weight / hull surface area: 94 lbs/sq ft or 459 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,91
- Longitudinal: 2,25
- Overall: 1,00
Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

 

[Freebird]

For the german perspective:

critical limitations:
A) landing deck on a CVL likely no longer than ca. 150m usable.
--->No Fw-190, No Bf-109, No Stuka.
B) CVL hangar spaces limited in height (ca. 4.2-4.5m each)
--->No Fi-TB

Displacement:
9.430 t light; 9.740 t standard; 11.030 t normal; 12.061 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(644,83 ft / 628,94 ft) x 60,20 ft x (18,54 / 19,87 ft)
(196,54 m / 191,70 m) x 18,35 m x (5,65 / 6,06 m)

Why could they not operate Ju 87, Me109?

The CVL converted from a CA {~630' - 640' OA} is about the same size as the HMS "Unicorn" {640' OA} which operated SeaHurri, SeaFire Barracuda, and Firefly.

Would your Ju-87's not be able to operate if launche by Catapult?

 

[Oreo]

Scratches head

 

[Timppa]

There is one thing to think about though - no capital ship was ever sunk by bombs IIRC, {other than Aircraft carriers}

AFAIK, Billy Mitchell's famous demonstration of air power, the sinking of USS Ostfriesland in 1921 was done entirely by bombs.

From memory I can recall the following ships sunk by bombs alone:
- USS Arizona at Pearl Harbor, 1941
- Japanese battleship Ise (not sure about Haruna), 1945
- Tirpitz ( took 3 "Tallboys" though), 1944
- German battleship Schleswig-Holstein, 1945
- Russian battleship Marat (by Rudel himself), 1941

 

[Freebird]

AFAIK, Billy Mitchell's famous demonstration of air power, the sinking of USS Ostfriesland in 1921 was done entirely by bombs.

From memory I can recall the following ships sunk by bombs alone:
- USS Arizona at Pearl Harbor, 1941
- Japanese battleship Ise (not sure about Haruna), 1945
- Tirpitz ( took 3 "Tallboys" though), 1944
- German battleship Schleswig-Holstein, 1945
- Russian battleship Marat (by Rudel himself), 1941

Thank you for the correction, Timppa welcome to the forum!

Pardon me, I should have qualified that with "Modern Capital ship, at sea"

You are correct, except that I would note Marat Arizona were immobile, providing a stationary target.

Tirpitz was only vulnerable because it had previously been torpedoed by Barracuda's, and was also stationary when hit by a 12,000 pound tallboy!!!

Schleswig-Holstien was a 35 year old "pre-dreadnought".

I will have to check on ISE, but that might be the only "Dreadnought Battleship" that was sunk by bombs while at sea.

The point I was trying to make was that it was very difficult for bombers or carrier DB's to sink a modern BB/BC while at sea, as many survived after multiple bomb hits, but a couple of torpedoes were often fatal.

 

[Oreo]

What about those two British capital ships (maybe Repulse, Prince of Wales) sunk by Japanese level bombers?

 

[Freebird]

What about those two British capital ships (maybe Repulse, Prince of Wales) sunk by Japanese level bombers?

6 hits/near misses on the ships from 500 1000 lb bombs, no significant structural damage. {Fires started, sailors killed, but no debilitating damage} It was only torpedoes that did any serious damage to the ships.

PoW was unfortunate, the first torpedo attack hit the prop rudder, and was disabled. Later finished off by more torpedoes.

Repulse was not seriously damaged by 3 bombing attacks, and also managed to evade 2 torpedo runs by "combing". The third time the Japanese had to launch torpedoes from 3 different directions, and was hit by 2 or 3, sinking quickly.

 

[Lucky13]

I'd keep the aircraft mixed as they did on the Independence Class of CVL's...24 fighters (would be F4U's)
9 torpedo/bomber planes (would be Avenger's)

 

[Lucky13]

Come to think about it fellas....how vulnerable would a raiding carrier be, without her protective screen of other ships? How and where would we operate, how and where would we refitt with new aircraft when needed, would we operate during day or night (or early and late hours), if doing most of our damage during "night time", where do we hide during the day, a carrier is not a small ship and we're bound to be hunted for....

 

[Freebird]

I'd keep the aircraft mixed as they did on the Independence Class of CVL's...24 fighters (would be F4U's)
9 torpedo/bomber planes (would be Avenger's)

I had the capacity as 24 aircraft total, so presumably you would take 16 - 18 fighters and 6 - 8 TB's.

Come to think about it fellas....how vulnerable would a raiding carrier be, without her protective screen of other ships? How and where would we operate, how and where would we refitt with new aircraft when needed, would we operate during day or night (or early and late hours), if doing most of our damage during "night time", where do we hide during the day, a carrier is not a small ship and we're bound to be hunted for....

Good questions! I think I answered some already but here goes. The purpose of the CVL is to accompany a Raider/Hunter cruiser squadron in more distant Oceans, like the South Atlantic, South Pacific or Indian Ocean, where the RN or IJN cannot send a full-size carrier. The RN CVL "Hunter" squadron would be part of a group, probably 2 CA's, 2 - 4 CL's and a couple of large DD's. The IJN or KM "Raider" squadron would have a CVL, perhaps 1 - 2 CA's or CL's and perhaps a pocket battleship or Battlecruiser. The RN group would never be operate within range of enemy shore-based airpower or carrier battlegroups. The KM or IJN group would perhaps be within range of British outlying bases, {such as Ascencion, Capetown, Fiji, Ceylon, Mauritus}, but these bases would not have more than about a squadron of aircraft that could attack. The main air threat would be the opposing CVL.

The primary mission for the airgroup of both sides would be scouting, as the RN has to find the Axis raider group, and the Axis wants to find shipping targets in the vast oceans, as well as keeping an eye out for the RN or USN.

I had in mind mainly 1941 1942 as the period, but you can also put your choices for l1943 -1944 as well if you want. I would think that almost all operations would take place in the day, it would be very difficult to operate at night.

New aircraft for the RN could be sent to the nearest overseas base. IJN ships would probably have to return to Truk, Tarawa or Singapore. KM goups would have the most trouble, perhaps a freighter could carry some crated replacements? Or else they would have to return to Germany.


The main problem as I see it with those who want to take only fighters TB is that the single seat fighter is weaker at recon, cannot take a radar set and has a short range {before 1943}. Thats why I think that it would make more sense to have 6 - 12 FB/Recon aircraft instead of all fighters. {Firefly would be the best aircraft IMO, but in 1941 - 1942 only the "Fulmar" is available.

The reasons to take Fulmar/Firefly:

1.) Larger aircraft can carry airborne search radar, with second crewman to operate it, single-seat fighters could not

2.) Longer range than single seat fighters. {until the long range F4U's etc}

3.) FB/Recon can still be used as a fighter for defence, not fast enough to take on a Zero or Me 109, but could attack slower enemy TB's while the fighters deal with the enemy fighters.

4.) The main point though I think is that visual Recon was notoriously bad in early WWII, the second crewmember can be much more effective as an observer.

 

[Lucky13]

Thanks FB....! Much obliged...

 

[delcyros]

Why could they not operate Ju 87, Me109?

The CVL converted from a CA {~630' - 640' OA} is about the same size as the HMS "Unicorn" {640' OA} which operated SeaHurri, SeaFire Barracuda, and Firefly.

Would your Ju-87's not be able to operate if launche by Catapult?

Both, the Ju-87 and the Me-109 could be operated only in case major modifications would be done to the planes. The Me-109T carrier fighter received not only structural improvements and an arrestor hook but the entire wing had to be redesigned. A new wing filet (inner section) was added to increase the wing area in order to keep landing speeds in within torlerances for >240m usable deck landing area (CVA GRAF ZEPPELIN) and under 135 Km/h.
The landing deck of my CVL is 90m short of this, which would add to landing problems. HMS UNICORN suffered from comparable problems operating Seafires off Sicily but had actually 40m more landing deck length than my CVL. Nevertheless, it was to short to operate them safely. That was in calm sea under best conditions, not in the stormy North Atlantic.
Launching is one part of the problem and catapults helped (altough not on a Ju-87 with bombload) but the more serious problems are landing accidents.
Finally, the Ju-87 is bigger, has a lower range, less payload and higher stall speeds= no significant advantage over the Ar-195 other than speed.

It wouldn´t be wise to operate fighters or bombers on a CVL, not designed to have exceptional foregiving low speed handling.

For the KM, I wouldn´t compose any task forces at all. It does make tactically and strategically more senses to send one CVL and two other raiders independently on lone missions in the South Atlantic, the western approaches, the mid atlantic narrows or the indic ocean instead.
Supporting this line, it does not make sense to include any fighters at all. The main purpose of the CVL is to sink merchants, not to provide CAP. The Ar-195 is perfectly capable to fullfill all roles from recon over bombing to torpedo attacks. On top of this, the Ar-195 has a radial engine, very foregiving landing charackteristics, an unrestricted view and an stall speed of only 90 Km/h. The Ar-195 airwing cannot be ignored in the Atlantic and if this leads to more interceptors on RN hunting CV´s, fine. It would relief pressure from the other raiders in the ocean.


best regards,

 

[Freebird]

Both, the Ju-87 and the Me-109 could be operated only in case major modifications would be done to the planes. The Me-109T carrier fighter received not only structural improvements and an arrestor hook but the entire wing had to be redesigned. A new wing filet (inner section) was added to increase the wing area in order to keep landing speeds in within torlerances for >240m usable deck landing area (CVA GRAF ZEPPELIN) and under 135 Km/h.
The landing deck of my CVL is 90m short of this, which would add to landing problems. HMS UNICORN suffered from comparable problems operating Seafires off Sicily but had actually 40m more landing deck length than my CVL. Nevertheless, it was to short to operate them safely. That was in calm sea under best conditions, not in the stormy North Atlantic.
Launching is one part of the problem and catapults helped (altough not on a Ju-87 with bombload) but the more serious problems are landing accidents.
Finally, the Ju-87 is bigger, has a lower range, less payload and higher stall speeds= no significant advantage over the Ar-195 other than speed.

It wouldn´t be wise to operate fighters or bombers on a CVL, not designed to have exceptional foregiving low speed handling.

best regards,

How about the "Independance" class, 620' ft, 32 knts, operated both Hellcats Avengers? I know the short, {500'} slow CVE's had problems operating combat aircraft, but what was the record of the CVL's?

 

[Oreo]

The landing deck of my CVL is 90m short of this,

It wouldn´t be wise to operate fighters or bombers on a CVL, not designed to have exceptional foregiving low speed handling.

For the KM, I wouldn´t compose any task forces at all. It does make tactically and strategically more senses to send one CVL and two other raiders independently on lone missions in the South Atlantic, the western approaches, the mid atlantic narrows or the indic ocean instead.
Supporting this line, it does not make sense to include any fighters at all. The main purpose of the CVL is to sink merchants, not to provide CAP. The Ar-195 is perfectly capable to fullfill all roles from recon over bombing to torpedo attacks. On top of this, the Ar-195 has a radial engine, very foregiving landing charackteristics, an unrestricted view and an stall speed of only 90 Km/h. The Ar-195 airwing cannot be ignored in the Atlantic and if this leads to more interceptors on RN hunting CV´s, fine. It would relief pressure from the other raiders in the ocean.

In my opinion the only thing the Germans lacked in the Atlantic war (assuming they broke all their raiders out successfully) was air superiority. I would much rather have developed whatever size of carrier neccessary in order to provide air cover for the raiders and/or U-boat concentrations. The U-boats alone could have sunk all the shipping in the Atlantic if they weren't constantly having to run from Sunderlands, Liberators, Whitleys, Avengers, you name it. I admit, once more destroyers and other escorts became available, there would have been times when some rocket-armed a/c capable of swooping in and disabling some escorts would have been helpful, but fighters could have done this easily, and much more safely than the ungainly t/b's. Therefore, I would have ensured that my Fw 190T's were compatible with whatever size of carrier was necessary, and used them to clear the skies so the U-boats could function. Naval strike and reconnaissance would be secondary uses. However, if you insist that a two-seater was needed for rec, then I would have had about 1/4 of my Fw 190T complement be stretched 2-seaters, which still would have had 95% parts interchangeability with the single-seaters, and could have also been used against bombers when no single-engined enemy fighters were around. These stretched A/C probably would be better suited to carrying a torpedo, in case that ever became neccessary, too. The carrier would be concentrated around a single type, carying only one type of engine, propeller, landing gear, wings, tail assembly, etc. for repairs. There would not be much confusion around different types, because everyone would know all the routines for the Fw 190T. Put a few of those out in the mid Atlantic, and the US might have been forced to take some pressure off the Japanese!

Then, the biggest other thing Germany might have done to win the Atlantic war would have been, early, like 1941, declare on Portugal and capture the Azores. I think that could have been done with 100 U-boats carrying troops to invade, (like ten men each, or whatever) as the Azores were very lightly defended early on. Assuming the plans were not decoded by the Allies, complete surprise could have been obtained. having that for an air/sub base would have drastically increased the odds for the Axis. I know someone is going to say the logistics of said invasion are impractical-- well, I don't know, but I believe if they wanted it bad enough, it could have been overcome.

 

[Lucky13]

1942
1: CVL "Independence" class carrier....
1: CL "Booklyn" class light cruiser....
1: CA "Northampton" class heavy cruiser....
4: DD "Fletcher" class destroyers....
2: SS "Gato" class submarines....
1: BB "Colorado" class battleship for occasional heavy hitting....