did aircraft carriers had long range anti aircraft or anti aircraft missles during ww2?
550798
In the second world war aircraft carries were limited on air defense in comparison to toady's naval carriers. There would be two lines of defense on a carrier of world war two. The first line was the fighter cap usually posted close to the carrier and then vectored in by the ships radar. If a Japanese plane got through the fighter cap the ship was limited to its anti aircraft guns. These would be of various caliber mounted on several locations on the ship. Americans had some of the best anti aircraft ammunition of the war, as they were the first to invent the proximity fuse on larger caliber rounds. The way anti aircraft fire worked before the advent of proximity fuses was they had a timing fuse on the shell they had to pre-set the shell to explode at a specific altitude before firing it. The proximity fuse had a fuse that detonated the shell close to large metallic objects. The use of missiles for downing aircraft was pioneered in world war two by the Germans using rockets and radio controlled devices. To my knowledge they never shot down a plane with this technology mainly due to the fact like all of the German wonder weapons it was to little to late, thankfully.
146520
It goes against the MAD doctrine, ie, being able to observe nuclear launches.  If the missiles are disguised in lead-lined cargo ships, then, we get no notice of a preemptive strike.  MAD deterred us from nuclear war for 60 years, now MAD is being thrown out the door.
960931
Without question the Maus. One of the subjects of liveliest controversy during the Allied invasion of France was the heavy tank—the 50-ton Pershing, the 62-ton Tiger, the 75-ton Royal Tiger. Were these worth their weight? Did they gain—in protection and fire power—as much as they sacrificed in mobility? Adolph Hitler's mind was presumably made up on this point. A pet project of his, which few were aware of, appears to have been a superheavy tank that would have dwarfed even the Royal Tiger. Dubbed the Mouse, this behemoth of doubtful military value was to weigh 207 tons, combat loaded. Two were actually built, although they were never equipped with their armament. \n\nThe Mouse is an amazing vehicle, with spectacular characteristics. The glacis plate up front is approximately 8 inches (200 mm) thick. Since it is sloped at 35 degrees to the vertical, the armor basis is therefore 14 inches. Side armor is 7 inches (180 mm) thick, with the rear protected by plates 6 1/4 inches (160 mm) thick. The front of the turret is protected by 9 1/2 inches (240 mm) of cast armor, while the 8-inch (200 mm) thick turret sides and rear were sloped so as to give the effect of 9 inches (230 mm) of armor. \n\nARMAMENT \n\nFor the main armament, a pea-shooter like an 88-mm gun was ignored. Selected instead was the powerful 128-mm tank and antitank gun, which was later to be replaced by a 150-mm piece 38 calibers in length. (The standard German medium field howitzer 15 cm s.F.H. 18 is only 29.5 calibers in length.) Instead of mounting a 7.9-mm machine gun coaxially, the Mouse was to have a 75-mm antitank gun 76 calibers in length next to the 128- or 150-mm gun. A machine cannon for antiaircraft was to be mounted in the turret roof, along with a smoke grenade projector. \n\nIn size, the Mouse was considerably larger than any German tank. Its length of 33 feet made it nearly 50 percent longer than the Royal Tiger. Because of rail transport considerations. its width was kept to 12 feet (that of the Royal Tiger and Tiger). A 12-foot height made it a considerable target. \n\n\nThis German drawing shows a sectionalized elevation of the Mouse hull. The following salient features may be diingtinguished: driver's seat (20) and periscope (14 and 18); radio operator's seat (12) and radio (21); radio antenna (28); air intakes for main engine (30); main engine (3); generator (4); the right motor of the two electric motors driving the sprockets (9); auxiliary fuel tank (29). The coaxial 75-mm gun is on the right of the turret; its position relative to the 128-mm gun is shown in dotted outline. \n\n\n\nA sectionalized plan view of the Mouse hull gives another view of many of the features shown in the first illustration. The driver's and radio operator's seats (left) are flanked by the main fuel tanks. Just to their rear is the main engine, flanked by air pumps and radiators. Further to the rear is the generator, with ammunition stowage in the sponsons on either side. In the sponson on the front right of the generator is the auxiliary engine, with storage batteries to its rear. To the rear of the hull, also in the sponsons, are the motors furnishing the electric drive. The actual transmission is in the deep part of hull between the motors, behind generator. \n\n\nIn order to reduce the ground pressure so that the tank could have some mobility, the tracks had to be made very wide—all of 43.3 inches. With the tracks taking up over 7 of its 12 feet of width, the Mouse presents a very strange appearance indeed from either a front or rear view. With such a track width, and a ground contact of 19 feet 3 inches, the Mouse keeps its ground pressure down to about 20 pounds per square inch—about twice that of the original Tiger. \n\nPOWER PLANTS \n\nDesigning an engine sufficiently powerful to provide motive power for the mammoth fighting vehicle was a serious problem. Though the Germans tried two engines, both around 1,200 horsepower (as compare
554543
I'm not to sure of this ,but I think I once read somewhere\nabout bomber crews of the R.A.F. and the U.S.A.A.F.(as it was then)reporting strange looking aircraft that they saw in European skies,try the reference library,a fascinating subject,best of luck with it
634454
The Long Beach was a nuclear powered ship, but that was not the only reason it was not allowed into ports. It was also rumored to ahve carried nuclear weapons, and that is why it was not allowed into many ports.\n\nBelow is a history of the ship:\n\nUSS LONG BEACH, the third ship in the Navy to bear the name, was the first nuclear powered surface warship in the world and the first large combatant in the US Navy with its main battery consisting of guided missiles. She was also the first American cruiser since the end of World War II to built entirely new from the keel up, and, when completed, boasted the highest bridge in the world. She was also the last warship to be fitted with teakwood decks.\n\nLONG BEACH was originally ordered as CLGN 160. She was reclassified CGN 160 in early 1957, but was again reclassified as CGN 9 on 1 July 1957. On May 1, 1995, LONG BEACH was decommissioned and stricken from the Navy list. She was then berthed at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton, WA, and got her superstructure removed. LONG BEACH's hull is currently awaiting final disposal.\n\nGeneral Characteristics: Awarded: October 15, 1956 \nKeel laid: December 2, 1957 \nLaunched: July 14, 1959 \nCommissioned: September 9, 1961 \nDecommissioned: May 1, 1995 \nBuilder: Bethlehem Steel Company Shipyard, Quincy, Mass. \nPropulsion system: 2 - Westinghouse C1W nuclear reactors, 2 geared turbines \nPropellers: two \nLength: 721 feet (219.8 meters) \nBeam: 73 feet (22.3 meters) \nDraft: 30.8 feet (9.4 meters) \nDisplacement: approx. 17,500 tons \nSpeed: 30 knots \nAircraft: none but helicopter landing platform \nArmament: two 5-inch/38 caliber Mk 30 guns, two Mk 10 missile launchers Standard missiles (ER), two Mk 141 Harpoon missile launchers, one Mk 16 ASROC missile launcher, Mk 46 torpedoes from two Mk 32 triple mounts, two 20mm Phalanx CIWS, two armored box launchers for Tomahawk cruise missiles \nCrew: 79 officers and 1081 enlisted (after mid-life conversion: 55 officers and 770 enlisted)
794207
During WWII, the Japs knew the US military was bigger and badder then theirs. They tried to destroy the Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor to take the US Navy out of the equation to make the playing field more even. However, many of the Jap military leaders thought bombing the Pacific fleet was a bad idea. They thought of the bombing as simply awakening a sleeping giant. Turns out, they were right.
936113
I'm on a destroyer and we have had our CIWS train on seagulls before.  Ha!  Yours is probably a Block 1B or greater, and has probably had some software upgrades that will enable it to track objects that small.  When you consider that it's designed to counter antiship cruise missiles (the nose-on aspect of which is only slightly larger than a mortar round) you shouldn't have much to worry about as far as the radar.  From my experience though, it's a really buggy system especially if you have the pneumatic drive vice the hydraulic system.  You get 4500 rounds a minute, but the tradeoff is less reliability.  What's more important?  Keep your head down out there, dude.
773433
Capt M is close... Arty shells were not the first ordinance dropped from aircraft to use as bombs.  \n\nThe very first ordinance to be considered air to ground bombardment would have been the improvised anti-troop bombs sometimes employed by the pilots of small recon aircraft (likewise in WWI, just much earlier).  They wouldn't have weighed much at all, seeing as their construction was simply a handgrenade with the pin pulled and shoved into a mason jar.  The jar would hold the explosive lever until the jar broke upon impact, then the grenade would explode (with the pilot's hope being the death of several troops in the trenches).  Specific weight would be dependant on both the jar and the grenade employed, but couldn't have been much more than 2 pounds, and probably on average much less.\n\nEDIT: For Rich, Rockets, artillery shells, and mortars do not fall under the bomb category, no matter how explosive they are.
621428
First of all, don't listen to adm_maaf. I was on a tank in Iraq that took about a dozen rpgs while it was there, and all they did was scratch the paint. That said, an aerial bomb has a hell of a lot more destructive energy than an rpg. Not to mention the 30mm chain gun on the A-10 was specifically designed to penetrate armor. Good thing they're on our side.
401271
The Royal Navy had been using a converted cruiser, HMS Hermes, as a seaplane carrier, to conduct trials in 1913. On the outbreak of the First World War a number of cross channel ferries were converted as well. However, another ship was needed, and in 1914 a tramp steamer was requisitioned whilst under construction. This 7,000-ton vessel was turned into the first purpose-built aircraft carrying vessel, HMS Ark Royal in Blyth, Northumberland. She could carry five floatplanes and 2 normal aircraft. The latter would have to return to land after launch, but the seaplanes could take off over the bow and land in the water alongside the carrier, before being lifted back into the hold by crane.\n\nThe ship spent the war in the Eastern Mediterranean and took part in the Dardanelles campaign from February to May 1915.\n\nIn January 1918 two of her Sopwith ABC planes attempted to bomb SMS Goeben.\n\nAfter the war she operated in the Black Sea, transporting aircraft to Batumi to support White Russian forces fighting the Russian Civil War. She was also used in support of the land campaign in Somalia against the Mad Mullah.\n\nDuring 1920 she assisted the withdrawal of White Russian forces from Crimea. She then returned to Britain and was put into reserve at Rosyth for a refit.\n\nShe was recommissioned in September 1922 to take aircraft out to the Mediterranean during the Chanak crisis, before undergoing another refit at Malta in April 1923.\n\nIn December 1934 she was renamed HMS Pegasus to free her name for a new carrier that was then beginning construction.\n\nHMS Pegasus served in only minor roles during the Second World War, and was sold in December 1946. Work began to convert her into a merchant ship named Anita I, but this was halted and she was broken up for scrap in 1949.\n\nSee HMS Ark Royal for other ships of the same name.
1122910
Sorry about your grandfather.  Yes, the Princeton was a famous light aircraft carrier that took part in WWII in the Pacific campaign.  You should Google this; there'll be a lot of stuff there.
1035217
guns and bazookas and tanks and bomber airplanes
82567
It was a ship in WWII. That is all i know. THANKS.
1160611
After the fall of France, Hitler thought the British would be an easy mark.  What makes the Battle of Britain unique, is that it was fought solely in the air and at sea.  Hitler thought he could bomb the British into submission and that his submarine "Wolf Packs" could effectively cut off supplies from the "Arsenal of Democracy" which was the United States.  He was horribly wrong.  He underestimated the British resolve as well as new technologies such as radar which gave the British plenty of time to intercept the German bombers over the British channel.  He also underestimated Britain's "home field advantage" with fighting in the air on their turf; The British pilots were still fresh when they went into combat while their German counterparts were flying for hours before encountering combat.
391685
The Japanese Army had its own "air wing" just as their navy had naval aviatiors which comprised the Pearl Harbor force.\n\n  There was no independent Japanese Air Force "Department" during WW2.\n\n  The US went through the war with a similar arrangement with separate Naval and Army "air forces".  The modern USAF didn't arrive until 1947.\n\n  The German Luftwaffe enjoyed a separate status much earlier not doubt due to the great influence of Hermann Goering.
985346
yes there are, and there is artillery and anti aircraft installations
976978
Those fighter pilots(with the help of radar)might, just might, have been a turning point in WWII. The Germans could not neutralize Britain before attacking Russia. Did this keep German troops and air-power, needed on the Eastern Front, facing West, in the wrong direction?. Maybe?