Which nationality had the best navy in the War?

Yeah. I think I heard that at The Battle off Samar during the Leyte Gulf campaign, despite making some bear catastrophic errors, a small contingent of US escort carriers and destroyers fended off an attack of a much stronger Japanese surface strike force of cruisers and battleships. Despite the fact that the aircraft on the carriers were armed for strikes on land targets and submarines only…

At The Battle of Surigao Strait, the US Navy successfully “crossed the T” for the last time in a major naval engagement.

The American sailors involved certainly had some benefits in material and intelligence support. But they also had every bit the luck and skill of their adversary too…

At the oustet of the war it was the Japanese who had the most powerful navy afloat. It was modern and well trained, but more importantly its commanders understood the power of the aircraft carrier; something US commanders failed to grasp even after the attack on Pearl Harbor. The USA of course with its superior manufacturing might was able to produce more ships in a year than Japan could produce during the entire war and once the American machine was cranked up, there’s was no way Japan could keep up.

i dont think we can discount americas reliance on the aircraft carrier too much since it was the US’s main method of figting the war in the pacific

But only because it’s all we had left in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor.The US Navy learned the value of carriers pretty quick. Prior to the attack the US Navy didn’t believe an aircraft carrier could go toe to toe with a battleship. Battleships were considered to be the most formidable weapon on the high seas and carriers were assigned to a supporting role. Even after the Japanese left the battleships of the Pacific fleet lying at the bottom of Pearl Harbor the Navy didn’t believe it. Pearl Harbor was a fluke, an ambush and in any other situation they didn’t think a carrier could stand up to a battleship.
By the time the Battle of the Coral Sea was over I think the US Navy understood the power of the aircraft carrier pretty well.

There’s not question that the Imperial Japanese Navy was top notch, both innovative, trained and disciplined with a long history of maritime experience in which to draw on…

…but more importantly its commanders understood the power of the aircraft carrier; something US commanders failed to grasp even after the attack on Pearl Harbor. The USA of course with its superior manufacturing might was able to produce more ships in a year than Japan could produce during the entire war and once the American machine was cranked up, there’s was no way Japan could keep up…

…But only because it’s all we had left in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor.The US Navy learned the value of carriers pretty quick. Prior to the attack the US Navy didn’t believe an aircraft carrier could go toe to toe with a battleship. Battleships were considered to be the most formidable weapon on the high seas and carriers were assigned to a supporting role. Even after the Japanese left the battleships of the Pacific fleet lying at the bottom of Pearl Harbor the Navy didn’t believe it. Pearl Harbor was a fluke, an ambush and in any other situation they didn’t think a carrier could stand up to a battleship.
By the time the Battle of the Coral Sea was over I think the US Navy understood the power of the aircraft carrier pretty well.

You see this is where you lose me a bit as it’s a clear oversimplification. The US Navy was indeed heavily invested in the theory of carrier warfare, and they had been since the 1920s. I don’t think any service ever did more research and practice in light of the advent of air power. The US Navy largely pioneered dive bombing for instance. In fact, I recall it’s a German military attache that procured a US Navy dive bomber in which was used to conduct theory practicums which led to the advent of the Stuka, after observing US Naval pilots and their skill in hitting point targets such as ships. Much of the Luftwaffe tactical air support doctrine by the late 1930s and they use of pinpoint accurate strikes via dive bombers as a means of delivery forward artillery support largely devolved from this. Again, a lot of this is off the top of my head, so forgive any errors.

All armed services of the periods had their reactionary admirals and generals that believed in the primacy of the battleship or horse-calvary or whatever. But many of the Japanese ideas on the use of air power were in fact derived from observing US Naval exercises. And the IJN was far from abandoning the battleship or surface warfare themselves, as I’ll think you’ll note. I think you’ll also note that despite the supposed naval belief in the primacy of the battleship, the US Navy still had carriers and a significant assets devoted to naval aviation which made the Battles of the Coral Sea and Midway possible…

I would also like to add that even though Pearl Harbor is thought to be a massive Japanese victory showing the end of the battleship and Japanese cutting edge thinking regarding the use of air power (despite the fact that it was surprise attack conducted against an essentially, though not totally, peacetime military), it was also a large military blunder (by the Japanese as well as the Americans). The strikes failed to destroy critical US fuel and supply depots, enabling the “damage control” assets of the US Navy to rebuild and to eventually refloat its shattered ships and facilities…

USN Carriers vs IJN Carriers
The Pacific 1942
(Duel 6)

http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=T2482~ser=DUE~per=~view=extract

US NAVY CARRIER DOCTRINE

Following World War I, during which the British Royal Navy had demonstrated the utility of embarking aircraft on ships, including aircraft carriers, the US Navy realized that naval aviation was an instrumental part of modern naval operations. Fearful of falling farther behind the British, the US Navy received funding for the conversion of a collier into an aircraft carrier in July 1919. This experimental carrier was followed by the first fleet carriers in 1927. Upon first entering service, US Navy carriers’ primary task was to support the battle fleet. Carrier aircraft would provide reconnaissance and spotting for the battle fleet while denying those advantages to the enemy. Spotting was viewed as especially important as aircraft could observe the fall of fire and radio corrections. Carriers were also expected to protect the airspace over their own fleet, thus denying the enemy the advantages of long-range spotting and scouting.

Gradually, the US Navy developed the carrier’s role into an independent offensive platform. Early carrier aircraft were unable to carry torpedoes large enough to cripple or sink a capital ship, and although bombs could be carried, they posed no real threat to ships maneuvering at speed to avoid attack. However, in the 1920s, the offensive capability of carrier aircraft was greatly increased by the development of dive-bombing, which for the first time, allowed maneuvering ships to be struck with some degree of accuracy. Capital ships with heavy deck armor were still immune from attack, but carriers, with their unarmored flight decks, had now become very vulnerable to aerial attack.

Reflecting the premise that carriers could not withstand significant damage, US Navy doctrine increasingly separated the carriers from the battle fleet to prevent their early detection and destruction by the enemy. The primary task of the carrier was now to destroy opposing carriers as soon as possible, thus preventing their own destruction and setting the stage for intensive attack on the enemy battle fleet. To maximize the carrier’s striking power, standard US Navy doctrine called for the launch of an entire air group at one time. In order that an entire “deck load” strike be launched quickly, it was necessary to have the entire strike spotted on the flight deck.

Early in the war, US Navy carriers each had a permanently assigned air group. Each of the assigned squadrons carried the hull number of the ship it was assigned to. For example, Lexington’s fighter squadron was numbered VF-2, her dive-bombers VB-2, her scout bombers VS-2, and her torpedo squadron VT-2. After July 1938, air groups were known by the name of the ship. Thus, the squadrons listed above comprised the Lexington Air Group. By mid-1942, the entire air group was numbered to match its parent ship’s hull number. With few exceptions, the permanence of the squadrons within an air group lasted through the battle of Midway. After that, due to carrier losses or squadron exhaustion, carriers could have a mix of squadrons from two or three air groups. As such, when Enterprise engaged in the battle of the Eastern Solomons in August 1942, her air group had its original fighter and dive-bomber squadrons as well as the scouting squadron from the sunken Yorktown and the torpedo squadron from the damaged Saratoga.

Midway: Sheer Luck or Better Doctrine?
by Thomas Wildenberg
http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/sheerluck_midway.htm

Partial quotes from much larger article:

While the U.S. Navy was busy experimenting with the carrier-versus-carrier duels that would so heavily influence its future battle doctrine, the Japanese were still struggling to perfect their carrier doctrine. Sidetracked by the war in China, Japanese naval aviators made little progress in working out an effective strategy for dealing with enemy flight decks. Like their American counterparts, the Japanese expected aerial operations to precede the “decisive” clash of battleships that both sides predicted would determine the outcome of the next war. Unlike the Americans, however, they failed to anticipate the importance of carrier-based scouting, concentrating entirely on the attack mission. No scouting units were assigned to the Japanese carriers, and little emphasis was placed on this important aspect of carrier warfare. Reconnaissance was relegated to a few floatplanes, which would be catapulted from accompanying cruisers. The Japanese also overlooked or failed to develop the deck park, relying instead on the hangar deck to store and prepare aircraft for flight. On the Japanese carriers, aircraft capacity was determined by the size of the hangar, not of the flight deck, as was the case for the Americans. The disparity in aircraft-handling procedures and search strategies resulted in substantial differences in the makeup of the typical air group deployed by the two sides.

…As can be seen from table 2, the U.S. Navy, because of its innovative use of the deck park, was able to deploy more planes per carrier. Each carrier operated with seventy-two aircraft, on average, organized into four squadrons: one fighter (VF), one scout (VS), one bombing (VB), and one torpedo (VT). The Japanese, on average, operated with just sixty-three aircraft, organized into three twenty-one-plane squadrons: one fighter, one carrier attack, and one bombing.

The VS squadron on American carriers and the preponderance of scout bombers in air groups attest to the significance the Americans placed on scouting. The exercises of the early 1930s had pointed to the need for a fast, well armed scout plane that could not only find the enemy carrier but attack its flight deck. Heeding the advice of the aviators, the U.S. Navy’s Bureau of Aeronautics began to develop a series of scout bombers that evolved into the SBD, a plane that proved to be a superb dive-bomber as well as an effective scout…

…In the U.S. Navy, the main question was the positioning of carriers with respect to the main body of the fleet. Although the carrier task force had become a regular feature of exercises, the Navy’s battleship admirals continued to insist that carriers remain with the battleships for mutual support. At issue was the survival of the carriers, which were now considered essential for fleet air defense. Tying the carriers to the slow battleships was the kiss of death, according to the Navy’s airmen, who argued “that evasive movements at high speed were a carrier’s best protection against attack.” The Americans continued to experiment until the fleet moved to Hawaii in 1940; by then, carriers had become the center of the cruising formation when operating with the fleet. The question of the carriers’ position within the fleet’s force structure—both its physical location and tactical function—was not fully resolved in the U.S. Navy until after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, when carriers became its preeminent striking force by default. When hostilities commenced, however, all the pieces were in place for the deployment of a number of carrier task forces, complete with heavy escorts of cruisers and destroyers, and accompanied in every instance by an oiler for logistic support.

(CONTINUED BELOW)

(CONTINUED FROM ABOVE)

…Though the multicarrier attack was a brilliant tactical innovation, it did not challenge the concepts underlying the IJN’s overall strategy of overpowering the U.S. Navy by destroying its battle line at sea. When the Combined Fleet sailed for Midway at the end of May 1942, the battleship remained the centerpiece of Yamamoto’s strategy for dominating the Pacific. “For all his lip service to the principle of the offensive and to naval air power,” he “still . . . visualized the battleship as the queen of the fleet.” As part of the operation, Yamamoto hoped to draw out remnants of the U.S. Pacific Fleet so that it could be engaged in the “decisive battle” that still remained the focus of Japanese naval strategy. Instead of using his battleships in direct support of his carriers (as suggested by Rear Admiral Tamon Yamaguchi), Yamamoto stationed the three powerful dreadnoughts of the Combined Fleet far to the rear, to surprise and destroy any American surface force bold enough to attempt to interfere with the invasion of Midway

Langley’s crew invented the deck park, the crash barrier, flight-deck teams in jerseys of various colors, and a host of other innovations that radically changed the way operations were conducted.

While the First Air Fleet (designated the “Mobile Force” in this operation) was steaming in what would prove to be its highly vulnerable box formation toward Midway, the three carriers (Yorktown, Enterprise, and Hornet) available to the commander in chief of the Pacific Ocean Area at the end of May 1942, Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, sortied from Pearl Harbor. They steamed in two task forces, the tactical units that had come to dominate U.S. naval operations since 7 December 1941. Unlike its adversary across the Pacific, the U.S. Navy’s love affair with the battleship now rested in the mud of Pearl Harbor, where a number of its cherished “battlewagons” were being laboriously salvaged. Though Nimitz still had a strong force of battleships (Task Force 1 comprised Pennsylvania, Maryland, Colorado, Idaho, Tennessee, New Mexico, and Mississippi), he chose not to deploy them; they would only slow the carriers down and would require screening ships that were needed more elsewhere. Nimitz also deployed a number of submarines for the defense of Midway; however, they too would not be a factor in the battle, the outcome of which would be determined by airpower alone.

The outcome of the battle of Midway was decided, and the fate of the IJN was sealed, at precisely 10:22 AM on 4 June 1942, when the first of three squadrons of American dive-bombers from Yorktown and Enterprise attacked the First Air Fleet as it was preparing to launch its own planes against the U.S. carriers. The American planes struck the Kaga, Akagi, and Soryu in quick succession, setting all three ablaze within three minutes. The surviving Japanese carrier, Hiryu, quickly retaliated. After an exchange of air strikes that afternoon, Hiryu was burning from stem to stern, while its opponent, Yorktown, was dead in the water, without power. Hiryu sank the next day. Yorktown survived long enough to be taken under tow but then was torpedoed by a Japanese submarine.

The different paths of carrier development taken by the Japanese and American navies led to differences in carrier doctrine—differences that had a tremendous impact once the two forces were engaged. First and foremost of these was the American airmen’s obsession with locating the enemy’s carriers first so they could be struck first. This principle became sacrosanct in U.S. carrier doctrine as soon as commanders realized that the best way to achieve air supremacy was to attack the opposing carrier before it had a chance to get its own planes in the air. Once launched, such a strike would be almost impossible to fend off, since (prior to the introduction of radar) there was virtually no way to detect approaching enemy planes or direct fighters to intercept them. Although the Japanese understood this principle, they made no attempt to find an adequate means of locating the enemy’s carriers. As Mark Peattie aptly points out, success “depended not only upon the time required for carriers to launch their attack squadrons but, even before that, upon finding the enemy first.”

That the lack of a carrier-borne capability for scouting (reconnaissance, in Japanese naval parlance) contributed greatly to the demise of the Japanese carriers was affirmed by Akagi’s former air officer, Mitsuo Fuchida. As Fuchida explained, writing in 1955, Japanese carrier forces were devoted entirely to the attack mission. There were no organic scouting units of any appreciable size in the Japanese navy, and very little emphasis was placed on this important aspect of carrier warfare: “In both training and organization our naval aviators [devoted] too much importance and effort . . . to attack.” Reluctance to weaken the carriers’ striking power led to a single-phase search plan that was insufficient—in Fuchida’s opinion—to ensure the carriers’ security. “Had Admiral [Chuichi] Nagumo [the commander of the Mobile Force] carried out an earlier and more carefully planned two-phase search . . . the disaster that followed might have been avoided.”

The second doctrine-based difference was the predominance of the scout/dive-bomber on the American side. This type was unique to the U.S. Navy and could both locate and attack an enemy carrier. The effectiveness of the scout/dive-bomber (particularly the superb SBD, which outflew, outdove, and outbombed the Japanese Val) was proved beyond the shadow of a doubt at Midway.

Last, but certainly not least, was the adoption of the deck park and the associated handling procedures devised by American airmen to maximize the number of aircraft that could be operated at one time from an aircraft carrier. This system enabled the U.S. Navy to operate more aircraft per carrier than its Japanese counterparts and thus to fly almost as many aircraft as the Japanese at Midway, with one less carrier. The deck park allowed a second dive-bombing squadron (though bearing the VS designation) to be added to each carrier’s air group. It was one of these squadrons, VS-6 from the Enterprise, that made up for the lost planes from the Hornet, which failed to locate the enemy carriers. The extra squadron allowed the United States to strike three carriers at once, leaving just one. The outcome at Midway would have been very different had VS-6 not been present.

SEE ALSO:

US Navy Aircraft Carriers 1922-45: Pre-War Classes
http://books.google.com/books?id=QNtKa7PxJvgC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq="us+navy+carrier+doctrine"&source=web&ots=l1SauVv88C&sig=ccKZM5MaUw_vcB-5j7L3GU9uRks#PPP1,M1

US Navy Aircraft Carriers 1922-45: Pre-War Classes - Review
http://www.armorama.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Reviews&file=index&req=showcontent&id=1212

Well the jap navy was good but they weren’t used strategically correct so i would have to go with the us

Hi

It seems that a lot of people have forgoten about the Royal Canadian Navy.
The RCN joined the fight as soon as Britain declared war on Germany. The RCN was providing convoy escorts trying to get much needed supplies to Britain as soon as the war started. The convoy escorts encountered terrible conditions in the North Atlantic and were escorting convoys during the worst of the U Boat attacks. The RCN also escorted supplies from Scapa Flow in Scotland to Murmansk in Russia. At the end of the war the RCN was the largest navy in the world.

Ironsides

ah yes the RCN a extremely good navy but it was simply never given credit where credit was due

The Japanese did what they always do, improve on someone elses idea.

The raid on Taranto was the inspiration for the assault on Pearl Harbour

The Royal Navy had seven aircraft carriers in operation at the start of World War 2. This provided a considerable advantage over enemy forces. The supierority and effectiveness of aircraft carriers was demonstrated in several naval engagements.

HMS Illustrious launched a long-range strike on the Italian fleet at Taranto. This operation incapacitated three of the six battleships in the harbour at a cost of two of the 21 attacking Fairey Swordfish torpedo bombers.http://www.killifish.f9.co.uk/Malta%20WWII/Taranto.htm

The Japanese and the Germans had both been developing and preparing their forces for war while the rest of the world had been dis-arming.

http://www.royal-navy.org/warships/type-11.php

In the Pacific the American Navy. In the Atlantic and Mediterranean the Royal Navy. So you could almost call it a tie between the two.

Interesting pic of the White-ensign, George. Just as a point of interest, it was Nelson’s personal standard, and was adopted by the RN to honour him after his exploits and death at Trafalgar.

The R.N., even today, refer to the nelson spirit and enthuse it into their personnel from day one.

I would have to say the USN.
IMO…USN have over 50% of the entire worlds combat value.

I am very intrigued by this thread, and while I am not an expert on WWII by a long shot I have read on the subject at length and feel that I have a better than average graps of the subject.

When discussing who had the better navy (over-all it was not the US) Germany, Japan, and England each in its own way had far better designs, experience and “other” qualities that the US lacked.

The one thig the US did have was the industrial strength, Technology, resources and a almost unlimited workforce. This allowed the US to build more, ships and planes as well as substain losses that neither of the other powers could hope too substain. If you think about it, it does no side good to have say one superior battleship or carrier while your opponet can bring to force 4-5 capital ships. The war was really won on Attrition especially in the pacific, Japan after Midway had no hope of competing against the US in numbers alone not to mention the technology factor.

Yamamoto himself stated at the attack on Peral Habor, " I can cause havoc in the Pacific for a year and a half after that I can not gurantee anything".

HE unlike the powers to be in Japan had visited the US and knew of its indutrial might. i thing when talking about who had the best Navy this has to be factored in. I think overall the Germans had the best navy, but lacked suffient quanties of ships and deep/open ports to operate from.

I think the German navy service men did not wear the swastika as part of their uniform unlike all other branchs of the military. Would someone know if this is true and if so, why?

They had Reichseagles on their uniforms which meant they did have haukenkreuz on them.

THE FRENCH, because they sunk themselves in Oran in 1940!

flamethowerguy: :smiley:
I vote for first period to Germany,in the last USA