[Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings

[fredtheobviouspseudonym]

Originally Posted by downer

. . . you don't need a carrier. In WWII, the US had all their carriers commited in the Pacific, but where quite capable of keeping U-boats under threat in the Atlantic from land bases, coordinating their efforts with small surface units. The same strategy is feasible against larger targets. You only need a carrier if you have to take your air power elsewhere. And that is not self-evidently necessary for naval warfare, but it is for aerial warfare across oceans.

Not exactly.

Fleet carriers -- yes.

However, by late 1943 much of the Allied (NOT US) ASW effort in the Atlantic was carried by the so-called "escort carriers." These could project air power into regions not covered by short-based aircraft. (See William T. Y'Blood's "Hunter Killer" for details.)

Even in areas which could be covered by shore-side based ASW air the CVEs (escort carriers) were useful. It might take several hours to whistle up a PB4Y from Newfoundland or Iceland or Northern Ireland to respond to a possible U-boat contact in mid-Atlantic; if an escort carrier was present you could get aircraft to sighting location much more quickly. This time saving could translate into a kill vs. a "there's lots of ocean out here & no U-boat, Chief."

Remember that the USN was marginally involved in Atlantic ASW. It made more sense for the Royal Navy & Canadians to cover that area of operations while the USN went after the Japanese. IIRC by early 1943 the USN was contributing three percent only of Atlantic escorts. Note also that a very large number of escort carriers were US-built and British-manned. (I think a few were Canadian-manned, but might be wrong.)

Before the torches & pitchforks come out I should acknowledge that I am an American and have had family members in the USN. However, I also, in the interests of truth, have to acknowledge where our allies carried the lion's share of the load.

Back to Ms. Molokh's point -- it might be possible for an island nation to get by without a major navy if certain odd political arrangements occur. From 1945 to c. 1985 the Japanese navy (excuse me, marine self-defense force) could be fairly small and short-ranged, despite Japan's major need for imports. The US had a vested interest in Japanese prosperity (and still does, IMHO) so the USN basically provided Japan's sea lanes with security. Alternatively, if the nation is pretty much self-sufficient in vital commodities, it could get by with shore-based, relatively short ranged air as anti-invasion forces, and let the relatively more expensive long-range sea-based air (read carriers) go hang.

Other options -- are there space-based military assets in this scenario? While they would be pretty useless against submarines, they could be decisive against surface & air threats.

Other possible factors -- is the island nation needing only fairly small quantities of vital materials? Then cargo/tanker submarines would make sense and be no less tough to find/kill than the enemy's attack boats. (There would be more chance to find them as they approach port -- but then fairly short-range ASW assets could work against the raiders.)