Hubbry Logo
Fast Carrier Task ForceFast Carrier Task ForceMain
Open search
Fast Carrier Task Force
Community hub
Fast Carrier Task Force
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Fast Carrier Task Force
Fast Carrier Task Force
Fast Carrier Task Force
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Fast Carrier Task Force
Task Force 38 at Ulithi in December 1944
Active1944–45
Country United States
Branch United States Navy
TypeFleet
Size17 carriers, 6 battleships, 13 cruisers, 58 destroyers, 1,100 aircraft (December 1944);[1] increased for Battle of Iwo Jima, 1945
Part ofUnited States Pacific Fleet
Garrison/HQPearl Harbor
NicknameTask Force 38, Task Force 58
EngagementsPacific War
Commanders
Notable
commanders		Admiral Marc Mitscher
Admiral John S. McCain, Sr.
Admiral John H. Towers

The Fast Carrier Task Force (TF 38 when assigned to Third Fleet, TF 58 when assigned to Fifth Fleet) was a group of ships in World War II. It was the main striking force of the United States Navy in the Pacific War from January 1944 through the end of the war in September 1945. The task force was made up of several separate task groups, each typically built around three to four aircraft carriers and their supporting vessels. The support vessels were screening destroyers, cruisers, and the newly built fast battleships.[2]

Carrier-based naval warfare

[edit]

With the arrival of the fleet carriers the primary striking power of the navy was no longer in its battleship force, but with the aircraft that could be brought to battle by the carriers. The means by which the US Navy operated these carriers was developed principally by Admiral Marc Mitscher. Mitscher determined that the best defense for a carrier was its own air groups, and that carriers were more easily defended if they operated together in groups, with supporting ships along with them to aid in air defense, anti-submarine defense, and rescue of downed airmen.

Said Mitscher: "The ideal composition of a fast-carrier task force is four carriers, six to eight support vessels and not less than 18 destroyers, preferably 24. More than four carriers in a task group cannot be advantageously used due to the amount of air room required. Less than four carriers requires an uneconomical use of support ships and screening vessels."[3]

The ships of each task group sailed in a circle formation centered on the carriers. The supporting ships sailed relatively close by, and added their anti-aircraft fire to that of the carriers to help ward off attacking aircraft. When under attack by torpedo aircraft, the task group would turn toward the oncoming aircraft to limit attack angles.[4] Other than this measure, the carriers in the task group would not take evasive action from their attackers. This was in marked contrast with the Imperial Japanese Navy, but the choice made for more stable platforms for the anti-aircraft fire of all the ships in the task group and allowed the ships in the group to sail more closely together. The primary defense of the group against air attack was the group's own fighter cover.

Admirals

[edit]
Admiral Marc Mitscher aboard the USS Lexington

The individual primarily responsible for the development and operations of the task force was Admiral Mitscher.[5][6][N 1] The overall command of the task force alternated between two very different admirals: Raymond Spruance and William "Bull" Halsey. Spruance was calculating and cautious, while Halsey was more aggressive and known for taking risks. Most higher-ranking officers preferred to serve under Spruance; most common sailors were proud to serve under Halsey.[7] Their commander was Admiral Chester Nimitz, who was responsible for all Pacific Ocean assets.

When the force was part of Admiral Spruance's Fifth Fleet, the carrier task force was commanded by Mitscher and bore the designation Task Force (TF) 58. When led by Admiral Halsey as part of the Third Fleet, the carrier force was commanded by Vice Admiral John S. McCain Sr. and its designation was Task Force (TF) 38. Planning for upcoming operations was completed when each admiral and his staff rotated out of active command. This allowed the Navy to perform at a higher operational tempo, while giving the Japanese the general impression of naval assets greater than what were actually available.[8]

World War II

[edit]
As Task Force 58, moving under the cover of a combat air patrol, 1944

The Fast Carrier Task Force took part in all the US Navy's battles in the Pacific during the last two years of the war. The task groups could operate independently or combine with the others as needs dictated. Raids against island strong points such as Iwo Jima or Chichi Jima might be undertaken by one or two task groups, but when a major operation was underway the task force would concentrate all four groups together. Each group would remain distinct but operate in close proximity to the other groups to provide the task force with maximum protection and maximum striking power.

The Fast Carrier Task Force worked in conjunction with the other two major components of the Pacific Fleet: the Amphibious Force, which was much larger overall and which carried and provided direct support to the Marine forces, and the Service Squadrons of hundreds of support vessels which resupplied and maintained the fleet.[9] The fleet and task group designation changed when the command of the fleet changed hands. When under the umbrella of Fifth Fleet, the invasion force was called the Fifth Amphibious Force. When Halsey had command of the fleet, Third Amphibious Force was the designation. By the time of the Battle of Iwo Jima in early 1945, the Task Force included eighteen aircraft carriers, eight battleships and two Alaska-class large cruisers, along with numerous cruisers and destroyers. TF 58 alone commanded more firepower than any navy in history.[10]

The original TF 38 came into existence in August 1943, built around USS Saratoga, and under the command of Rear Admiral Frederick C. Sherman. TF 58 was created on 6 January 1944 with Rear Admiral Marc Mitscher commanding,[11] serving under the fleet command of Admiral Spruance in the Fifth Fleet. TF 38 continued to exist, but as a command structure only. TF 58 proved the success of the Fast Carrier TF concept with Operation Hailstone, a massive naval air squadrons and surface vessels attack on the Japanese ships and airfield at Truk Lagoon on 17–18 February 1944.

As Task Force 38, maneuvering off the Japanese coast, 17 August 1945

The only time that any aircraft carriers were used to support operations in New Guinea in the Southwest Pacific theater was during the double landings at Hollandia and Aitape in April 1944, hundreds of miles behind Japanese enemy lines and far beyond the range of short-ranged P-40 fighters of the Allied Air Forces. TF 58 and escort carriers in Task Force 78 supported the landings. TF 58 only stayed for four days but contributed much crucial air support to one of the greatest successes in the Pacific War.[12][13]

With command change from Spruance to Halsey on 26 August 1944, all units changed designations again. Mitscher, who was an aviator from early training and had a masterful command of the airgroups, requested that he retain command of the Fast Carrier Task Force until his replacement, Admiral John McCain, could have proper time to become more familiar with the handling of a carrier task force.[5] King and Nimitz concurred.[14] Admiral Halsey, like Spruance before him, sailed with the Fast Carrier Task Force. The force grew to nine CVs and eight CVLs in preparation for the landings on Leyte. Task Force 38 was composed of four task groups: Task Group 38.1 was commanded by Admiral McCain, with its previous commander, Admiral Joseph "Jocko" Clark, remaining on as advisor, Task Group 38.2 was under the command of Admiral Gerald Bogan, Task Group 38.3 was led by Admiral Frederick Sherman, and Task Group 38.4 was under the command of Admiral Ralph Davison.[15]

Following the Battle of Leyte Gulf, Mitscher went on shore leave and planning duty, and Vice Admiral McCain took over as commanding officer of TF 38, which continued under Halsey and the Third Fleet. In January 1945 TF 38 raided the South China Sea and attacked Japanese positions in Formosa and Luzon.

Ships of Task Group 38.3 operating off Okinawa during May 1945

On 26 January 1945, Halsey and McCain went on shore leave and planning duty, while Spruance and Mitscher returned to their previous commands. Third Fleet became Fifth Fleet, and TF 38 became TF 58. They led the fleet through the battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, facing sustained attacks from land-based Japanese kamikaze aircraft. As the Okinawa campaign dragged into its second month, the presence of the carriers was still required to provide close air support to the soldiers on the island as the Army and its Air Corps were not as adept as the Marine Corps at quickly establishing airfields over newly occupied territory.[citation needed] At the end of April, Admiral Nimitz came out to review the situation. After two months operating off the coast of Okinawa in support of Army forces engaged in battle on the island, the command staff was exhausted from the continuous pressure of fending off kamikaze attacks. On his return to Pearl Harbor, he notified Halsey that he would have to take over command from Spruance in thirty days, whether or not the mission was completed.[16]

Nimitz' assessment of the exhaustion and psychological toll on Spruance and Mitscher and their staff due to the kamikazes proved to be justified. The kamikazes were so relentless at Okinawa that Spruance's flagships were struck two separate times (the heavy cruiser USS Indianapolis was hit on 31 March and had to retire for repairs which forced him to transfer to the battleship USS New Mexico which was also hit on 12 May). On 11 May, Mitscher and his chief of staff Commodore Arleigh Burke were merely yards away from getting killed or wounded by kamikazes on his flagship, USS Bunker Hill, which killed three of Mitscher's staff officers and eleven of his enlisted staff members and also destroyed his flag cabin along with all of his uniforms, personal papers, and possessions. Just three days later Mitscher's new flagship, USS Enterprise, was also struck by a kamikaze, forcing him to have to change his flagship yet again.[17]

On 28 May 1945, Halsey arrived aboard USS Missouri, his new flagship, whereupon he relieved Spruance, while McCain relieved Mitscher. Spruance and Mitscher returned to Pearl Harbor. Fifth Fleet once again became Third Fleet, and Task Force 58 became Task Force 38. Halsey remained in command until the Japanese surrender ended the war on 2 September 1945.

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Bibliography

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Fast Carrier Task Force

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Fast Carrier Task Force was a revolutionary U.S. Navy formation developed during , primarily for the Pacific Theater, consisting of multiple aircraft carriers supported by fast battleships, cruisers, destroyers, and logistics vessels to deliver mobile air power and secure sea control for amphibious operations. Evolving from smaller carrier groups in early 1942—such as those used in the Battle of the Coral Sea (May 4–8, 1942) and the Battle of Midway (June 3–6, 1942), where it sank four Japanese carriers—the task force grew into a massive, self-sustaining armada by 1944. Designated as Task Force 58 (or alternately Task Force 38 under Admiral William Halsey), it was formally established in January 1944 under Vice Admiral Marc Mitscher and typically comprised 12–15 fleet and light carriers (including Essex-class vessels like USS Wasp CV-18), 6–8 fast battleships, 8–12 cruisers, around 75 destroyers, and two Alaska-class large cruisers, carrying over 900–1,100 aircraft such as the F6F Hellcat. The task force's role was to neutralize enemy air and naval threats through pre-invasion strikes, diversionary attacks, and direct engagements, enabling the U.S. island-hopping campaign across the Pacific in 1,000-mile increments from the Gilberts to the Ryukyus. It achieved remarkable mobility at 25–30 knots and endurance of 6–8 weeks at sea via at-sea refueling from a support train of oilers and ammunition ships, destroying approximately 5,450 Japanese aircraft in 1944 alone while losing only 123 U.S. planes in key operations from June to November. Under overall command of Admiral Chester Nimitz and tactical leadership from Mitscher, Raymond Spruance, and Halsey, the task force executed pivotal actions, including the (June 1944), dubbed the "Marianas Turkey Shoot" for destroying over 600 Japanese aircraft, and the (October 1944), where it sank three Japanese carriers and supported the . Its innovative tactics, leveraging superior aircraft, , and intelligence from deciphered Japanese codes, marked a shift from battleship-centric doctrine to carrier dominance, culminating in strikes on Japan's home islands in August 1945.

Background and Development

Origins in Carrier Warfare

The development of aircraft carrier warfare began during with experimental conversions of existing ships, marking the transition from seaplanes launched from auxiliary vessels to dedicated carrier operations. The British HMS Furious, originally laid down as a in 1915, was modified in 1917 with a forward to launch aircraft, enabling the first successful carrier takeoff and landing that year; by 1918, it conducted the inaugural carrier-based air raid against German targets in Tondern, , on July 19, demonstrating the potential for offensive air strikes from sea. In the United States, the USS Langley (CV-1), converted from the collier USS Jupiter between 1920 and 1922, became the Navy's first purpose-built upon its commissioning on March 20, 1922; it served primarily as a training platform in the , facilitating the refinement of catapult launches, arrested landings, and pilot proficiency with early biplanes. These early efforts highlighted carriers' role in and limited strikes but were constrained by short flight decks and rudimentary aircraft, setting the stage for more integrated naval tactics. Interwar period exercises further evolved carrier integration into fleet operations, challenging the dominant battleship-centric doctrine. The U.S. Navy's Fleet Problem IX in January 1929 simulated a carrier-led assault on the Panama Canal, involving three carriers (USS Langley, USS Saratoga, and USS Lexington) that launched coordinated air strikes against defended targets, revealing the effectiveness of massed carrier aviation in neutralizing shore defenses and surface ships from standoff ranges; this exercise, the largest to date with over 30,000 personnel, underscored the need for carriers to operate in task-organized groups with escorts for protection. Influential advocates like U.S. Army Brigadier General Billy Mitchell accelerated this doctrinal shift through demonstrations, such as the 1921 sinking of the captured German battleship Ostfriesland by air-dropped bombs, which proved the vulnerability of capital ships to aerial attack and argued for independent air forces, including carrier-based ones. Meanwhile, Japanese naval developments, including the conversion of battlecruisers into carriers like Akagi and Kaga in the 1920s, emphasized aggressive carrier tactics, culminating in the devastating Pearl Harbor raid on December 7, 1941, where six carriers launched over 350 aircraft to cripple the U.S. Pacific Fleet, illustrating the primacy of mobile carrier strike forces in modern naval strategy. Pre-World War II constraints on U.S. carrier expansion, imposed by the 1922 , limited the and the each to 135,000 tons of displacement, to 81,000 tons, and and to 60,000 tons each (with individual ships capped at 27,000 tons standard displacement, except for conversions like Lexington-class at 33,000 tons), forcing the to prioritize versatile designs and training over numbers. The early battles of 1942 validated these evolving concepts, as the (May 4–8) became the first carrier-versus-carrier engagement, where U.S. carriers and , operating in a mobile , intercepted a Japanese invasion fleet through codebreaking and air reconnaissance, preventing the capture of despite mutual carrier losses and emphasizing the importance of sustained carrier mobility over fixed defenses. Similarly, the (June 4–7) showcased decisive carrier doctrine, with U.S. forces ambushing four Japanese carriers using ambush tactics and dive-bombing, sinking three in minutes and shifting naval power toward carrier-centric operations. Central to this evolution were carrier air groups, standardized in the late 1930s as composite units of fighters, dive bombers, and torpedo planes for balanced strike and reconnaissance missions. The Grumman F4F Wildcat, introduced in 1940 as the Navy's primary carrier fighter, provided defensive cover with its rugged design and four .50-caliber machine guns, proving effective in early actions like Midway despite being outclassed by Japanese Zero fighters. Complementing it was the Douglas SBD Dauntless dive bomber, entering service in 1941, which excelled in precision strikes with 1,000-pound bombs and self-sealing fuel tanks, sinking more Japanese tonnage during the war than any other U.S. carrier aircraft through its role in scouting and vertical bombing attacks. These aircraft enabled air groups to conduct multi-role operations, laying the groundwork for the fast, offensive carrier task forces that dominated subsequent Pacific campaigns.

Formation and Early Concepts

The Fast Carrier Task Force emerged from the U.S. Navy's evolving carrier doctrine in the Pacific during , with initial formations established in late 1943 under Admiral Chester W. Nimitz's command of the Pacific Fleet. This built on experiences from earlier operations, including carrier operations supporting the in 1942, with Task Force 50 established for later raids and expanded for Operation Galvanic in November 1943, where it served as the Fast Carrier Force with four fleet carriers and four light carriers providing air cover for the invasion. Key planning accelerated in mid-1943, highlighted by Pacific Fleet Instruction PAC-10 issued on June 10, which formalized multicarrier operations emphasizing offensive flexibility, concentration of air power, and integration with surface screening forces. Early concepts prioritized "fast" carriers capable of speeds exceeding 27 knots, enabling them to outpace slower battleships and amphibious forces while maintaining formation integrity for mutual defense and rapid strikes. This doctrinal shift was tested in 1943 fleet exercises involving two-carrier groups, which demonstrated the advantages of massed carriers over dispersed operations, resolving coordination challenges through improved communications like VHF radio and . Initial task groups typically comprised 4-6 carriers—combining fleet and light types—screened by fast battleships, cruisers, and destroyers to project air power independently across vast ocean distances. By early 1944, with the activation of the Fifth Fleet on April 26 under Admiral , the fast carrier element was redesignated Task Force 58, departing from as its primary basing point. To facilitate command rotations between the Third and Fifth Fleets without alerting the enemy, the force adopted the nickname Task Force 58 under the Fifth Fleet and Task Force 38 under Admiral William F. Halsey's Third Fleet, a practice that continued through the war; forward basing later shifted to Atoll after its capture in September 1944.

Organization and Composition

Task Force Structure

The Fast Carrier , designated as Task Force 58 under the Fifth Fleet, was organized into four primary task groups—typically TG 58.1 through TG 58.4—to enable flexible, self-contained operations across vast oceanic distances. Each task group generally comprised 2 to 4 aircraft carriers, supported by a screening force that included 2 fast battleships for surface engagement and gunfire support, 4 to 6 cruisers for anti-aircraft defense, and 15 to 20 destroyers for and escort duties. This modular structure allowed the task force to disperse for reduced vulnerability to air attack while maintaining the ability to concentrate for strikes, with total composition reaching up to 15 carriers screened by 6 to 8 battleships, 8 to 12 cruisers, and as many as 75 destroyers during major engagements. At the command level, each task group was led by a Carrier Division (CarDiv) commander, usually a , who oversaw the carrier operations within that unit while coordinating with the overall commander, . For instance, Joseph J. "Jocko" Clark commanded TG 58.1 starting in early 1944, directing carriers such as and light carriers like USS Belleau Wood (CVL-24) and USS Cowpens (CVL-25), with authority over their air wings and tactical dispositions. This hierarchical arrangement ensured that individual groups could execute independent strikes or defensive maneuvers, reporting to Mitscher's staff aboard USS Enterprise or a flagship cruiser for synchronized fleet actions. The screening formations were arranged in concentric rings to optimize defense against multifaceted threats. An inner ring of heavy and light cruisers provided concentrated anti-aircraft firepower to protect the carriers from aerial assault, positioned close enough to form a protective envelope. The outer ring consisted of destroyers focused on , patrolling for torpedoes and submarines, while select destroyers served as radar pickets stationed 10 to 20 miles ahead to detect incoming early and relay warnings via radio. This disposition evolved from earlier single-carrier escorts, emphasizing layered protection that allowed carriers to maintain high speeds of 25 to 30 knots without compromising security. Over the course of , the task force's structure expanded significantly to match operational demands in the Central Pacific. In late 1943, during initial raids like those on the , it operated with approximately 8 to 11 carriers (including both fleet and light types) divided into fewer groups, reflecting the limited availability of Essex-class vessels commissioned that year. By mid-1944, for operations such as the Marianas campaign, the force grew to 15 carriers across four groups, incorporating additional Independence-class light carriers for enhanced scouting and fighter coverage. Into 1945, during assaults on and Okinawa, the structure peaked at 15 to 18 carriers, with escort carriers integrated into auxiliary roles for replenishment and to amphibious forces, though the core fast carrier groups remained the offensive spearhead. This growth underscored the U.S. Navy's industrial capacity and doctrinal shift toward massed carrier power projection.

Aircraft and Support Elements

The Fast Carrier Task Force primarily relied on Essex-class fleet carriers as its core striking platforms, each capable of embarking 90 to 100 aircraft depending on mission requirements and modifications. Exemplified by ships like USS Essex (CV-9), these vessels provided the high-capacity air wings essential for sustained offensive operations across the Pacific. In contrast, Independence-class light carriers, such as USS Independence (CVL-22), supplemented the fleet with more agile support, carrying approximately 30 to 35 aircraft optimized for escort and roles. By late 1944, the task force's carrier complement could total up to 15 vessels, enabling an overall air strength exceeding 1,000 aircraft for major campaigns. Aircraft composition emphasized a balanced mix for air superiority, bombing, and torpedo strikes, with the serving as the primary fighter, typically numbering around 36 per fleet carrier to counter Japanese Zero threats effectively. Dive bombing duties fell to the , which replaced earlier models and equipped squadrons of about 36 aircraft per Essex-class carrier for precision strikes on enemy shipping and installations. Torpedo bombers, primarily the , rounded out the air group with roughly 18 per carrier, delivering heavy ordnance against surface targets. This standardized structure allowed task force air wings to project over 1,100 sorties in peak engagements by late 1944, showcasing the scalability of U.S. . Support elements included fast battleships like the Iowa-class, such as USS Iowa (BB-61), which provided antiaircraft protection and shore bombardment capabilities to shield carriers from enemy threats. Heavy cruisers of the Baltimore-class, exemplified by USS Baltimore (CA-68), bolstered the formation with robust antiaircraft batteries and scouting functions, ensuring layered defense around the carrier groups. Screening was handled by Fletcher-class destroyers, like USS Fletcher (DD-445), which formed outer rings to detect submarines and repel air attacks with their agile maneuverability and depth charge armament. Logistical sustainability was achieved through (UNREP) systems, utilizing fleet oilers such as the Cimarron-class to transfer fuel, ammunition, and provisions while steaming at high speeds. This innovation, refined during , permitted the Fast Carrier Task Force to conduct extended operations lasting up to several months without returning to port, fundamentally enabling its dominance in the Central Pacific.

Command and Leadership

Key Admirals

Vice Admiral Marc A. Mitscher, a pioneering naval aviator who earned his wings as the 33rd certified pilot in the U.S. Navy in 1916, became the inaugural commander of the Fast Carrier Task Force as Task Force 58 (TF 58) on January 6, 1944, under the Fifth Fleet. Mitscher's background included early advocacy for concentrated carrier forces, which directly shaped the task force's structure as a powerful, unified striking unit capable of projecting air power across vast Pacific distances. His leadership style emphasized aggressive air operations, pushing carriers to launch maximum strikes while innovating recovery techniques, such as the famous "low state" night recoveries where he ordered searchlights turned on to guide returning pilots despite the risk of enemy detection. Mitscher's unassuming, soft-spoken demeanor fostered high morale among aviators, who appreciated his focus on their safety and tactical boldness, contributing to the task force's evolution into a decisive weapon against Japanese forces. Admiral , a 1906 U.S. Naval Academy graduate with a career marked by commands of destroyers, cruisers, and the battleship , assumed overall command of the Fifth Fleet in April 1944, overseeing the Fast Carrier Task Force as its strategic director. Spruance's cautious, methodical approach contrasted sharply with more impulsive styles, prioritizing precise planning and risk minimization to preserve carrier assets for sustained campaigns. As a strategist, he integrated the task force into broader Central Pacific offensives, ensuring its carriers provided overwhelming air superiority while avoiding unnecessary engagements that could deplete resources. His intellectual detachment inspired confidence in subordinates through clear directives and consistent execution, enhancing the task force's operational efficiency and morale by emphasizing disciplined coordination over bold gambles. Admiral William F. Halsey Jr., who rose from commanding the carrier USS Saratoga in the early to fleet admiral, took command of the Third Fleet in June 1944, directing the Fast Carrier Task Force as Task Force 38 (TF 38) with a focus on relentless offensive pressure. Halsey's aggressive leadership, characterized by impulsive decisions and a "dashing, colorful" persona, drove the task force to pursue Japanese targets with unyielding vigor, often prioritizing decisive action to exploit fleeting opportunities. This bold style, while sometimes criticized for overextending forces, galvanized morale across the fleet, as his approachable, salty demeanor and rallying spirit—"Kill Japs, kill Japs, kill more Japs!"—motivated sailors and aviators to embrace high-risk missions. Halsey's contributions solidified the task force's role as a mobile striking arm, transforming carrier warfare from defensive to offensive dominance in the Pacific. Vice Admiral , a career naval officer who advocated for aviation's expansion in the , served as a key reliever for Mitscher, assuming command of TF 38 in under the Third Fleet and leading it through the war's final phases. McCain's fighter-like tenacity, as described by , emphasized continuous action and adaptation, including managing the devastating that tested the task force's resilience. His straightforward style complemented the rotation system, providing seamless transitions that maintained the task force's momentum, while his focus on air power's strategic potential helped cement carriers as the Navy's primary offensive tool. Overseeing all these leaders as of the Pacific Fleet, Fleet Admiral provided the strategic framework for the Fast Carrier Task Force, integrating it into grand campaigns like the Central Pacific drive and Operation Iceberg at Okinawa. Nimitz's balanced oversight ensured the task force's carriers, including up to 17 in major operations, delivered critical air support and defense against threats like kamikazes, while his emphasis on inter-fleet coordination amplified the admirals' individual contributions. The contrasts in styles among these admirals—particularly Halsey's risk-embracing versus Spruance's calculated caution—shaped the task force's adaptability, with Halsey's approach boosting immediate through bold pursuits, while Spruance's fostered long-term via methodical , ultimately enhancing overall under Nimitz's unified command.

Command Rotation System

The command rotation system for the Fast Carrier Task Force was a strategic mechanism devised by Admiral to alternate operational control between the U.S. Third Fleet, commanded by Admiral William F. Halsey Jr., and the Fifth Fleet, commanded by Admiral . This arrangement ensured that the same core naval assets, including carriers, battleships, cruisers, and destroyers, could maintain relentless pressure on Japanese forces in the Pacific without prolonged pauses for recovery. Under Halsey's Third Fleet, the fast carrier component operated as Task Force 38, while it became Task Force 58 under Spruance's Fifth Fleet, effectively re-designating the identical force to facilitate seamless transitions. Implementation of the system began in the summer of 1944, with the Fifth Fleet assuming command for major operations such as the Marianas campaign in June, followed by a handover to the Third Fleet on August 28 for preparatory raids ahead of the invasion. A pivotal example occurred in August 1944, following the Marianas campaign, when command passed from the Fifth Fleet to the Third Fleet for strikes on Formosa and other preparatory actions. Another handover occurred on January 3, 1945, when Spruance resumed command of the Fifth Fleet (TF 58) after Third Fleet operations, including post-Leyte strikes on . These handovers typically took place at forward bases like Ulithi Atoll, where logistics support enabled the incoming command staff to assume control while the outgoing team returned to for debriefing and planning. The rotation formalized a "changing riders" approach, as Halsey described it, prioritizing continuity over static fleet assignments. The primary benefits of the rotation centered on mitigating personnel fatigue and optimizing logistical resupply, allowing carrier crews and commanders to rotate out for rest periods that prevented burnout amid the intense operational tempo. For instance, Marc A. Mitscher, the enduring carrier task force commander under both fleets, benefited from these breaks to manage health strains from prolonged at-sea duty. This system enabled near-continuous strikes against Japanese targets, minimizing downtime between offensives and sustaining the fast carrier force's role as the decisive arm of the Pacific Fleet. Despite its advantages, the rotation presented challenges, particularly in communication and coordination during transitions, which occasionally led to delays or ambiguities in operational orders. A notable challenge occurred during in December 1944, under Third Fleet command, when severe weather damaged multiple ships and tested the task force's resilience amid the high operational tempo. These issues underscored the complexities of synchronizing staff changes while maintaining in a dynamic theater.

Operations in World War II

Central Pacific Campaign (1943-1944)

The Fast Carrier Task Force played a pivotal role in the U.S. Navy's island-hopping strategy during the Central Pacific Campaign, providing critical air support for amphibious assaults while neutralizing Japanese defenses through preemptive strikes. Task Force 50, comprising fast carriers under Charles A. Pownall, conducted initial raids to soften enemy positions, enabling Marine and Army landings while minimizing exposure to entrenched Japanese forces. These operations marked the task force's transition from raiding to sustained offensive support, growing in scale and effectiveness as the campaign progressed from the to the Marianas. Operation Galvanic, launched in November 1943, represented the task force's first major commitment to a Central Pacific amphibious assault on and Makin atolls in the . Task Force 50 deployed eight fast carriers—four Essex-class fleet carriers (Yorktown, , Lexington, and Saratoga) and four Independence-class light carriers (, Princeton, Cowpens, and Belleau Wood)—to conduct pre-invasion raids starting in September, bombing Japanese airfields and destroying nine of 18 aircraft on while gathering photographic intelligence. These strikes reduced enemy ammunition stocks and coordination, providing during the landings on November 20; however, fierce Japanese resistance on resulted in high Marine casualties, with 980 killed and 2,101 wounded over four days, including 1,500 casualties on D-Day alone from the 2nd Marine Division's 5,000 troops ashore. At Makin, opposition was lighter, with 64 U.S. deaths and 150 wounded, allowing quicker seizure and airfield construction to support further advances. In February 1944, the task force shifted to offensive raiding with Operation Hailstone against Truk Lagoon, Japan's primary Central Pacific naval base, to neutralize it ahead of the Marshall Islands campaign. Now designated Task Force 58 under Vice Admiral Marc A. Mitscher, it included nine fast carriers—five fleet carriers (Yorktown, Essex, Intrepid, Bunker Hill, and Enterprise) and four light carriers (Belleau Wood, Cabot, Monterey, and Cowpens)—which launched over 1,250 combat sorties from February 17–18. F6F Hellcat fighters led initial sweeps to suppress air defenses, while TBF Avenger torpedo bombers delivered strikes that sank two light cruisers (Naka and Katori), four destroyers (Oite, Tachikaze, Fumizuki, and Maikaze), three auxiliary cruisers, and numerous transports and tankers, while destroying 250–275 Japanese aircraft. U.S. losses were limited to 25 aircraft and the carrier Intrepid's damage, with 40 personnel killed, effectively rendering Truk a secondary base thereafter. The 's support for Operations Reckless and Persecution in April exemplified the island-hopping doctrine by aiding amphibious landings at Hollandia, , and Tanahmerah Bay on , bypassing major Japanese strongholds like Wewak and . Seven fast carriers from Task Force 58—Lexington, Enterprise, Bunker Hill, Yorktown, and light carriers Langley, Monterey, and Cabot—conducted raids on Hollandia airfields starting April 21, destroying enemy aircraft and infrastructure to secure air superiority for the landings on April 22. These strikes targeted positions 75–125 miles west of bypassed defenses, facing minimal opposition as Japanese forces had largely evacuated; landings encountered scant resistance, with delays caused by mud rather than enemy fire, allowing rapid U.S. consolidation of the area. The campaign culminated in the on June 19–20, , during Operation Forager's Marianas phase, where Task Force 58 confronted the Japanese First Mobile Fleet to protect invasions of Saipan, Tinian, and . Comprising 15 fast carriers (seven fleet and eight light) with over 900 aircraft, the task force engaged in what became known as the "Marianas Turkey Shoot," downing over 600 Japanese aircraft—primarily from Carrier Division 3—through superior fighter intercepts and coordinated strikes several hundred miles west of Saipan. U.S. pilots and radar-directed combat air patrols overwhelmed the attackers, sinking carriers Taiho and Shokaku while inflicting 476 aircraft and 445 pilot losses on , decisively crippling its air arm. By the end of 1944, these operations secured key Central Pacific bases in the Marianas, enabling the establishment of B-29 Superfortress airfields on Saipan, Tinian, and for strategic bombing of starting in . The task force expanded to 15 carriers during the battle, reflecting its growing capacity with over 900 aircraft and demonstrating U.S. dominance that neutralized Japanese power in the region and advanced the inner defense perimeter toward the home islands.

Philippine Sea and Leyte Gulf (1944)

The Battle of the Philippine Sea, fought from June 19 to 20, 1944, marked a decisive confrontation between the U.S. Fast Carrier Task Force (TF 58) and the Japanese First Mobile Fleet during Operation Forager, the invasion of the Marianas Islands. U.S. submarines played a crucial role in the lead-up, with USS Cavalla detecting Vice Admiral Jisaburo Ozawa's fleet on June 17 and sinking the carrier Shokaku with six torpedoes on June 19, resulting in 1,272 Japanese deaths. USS Albacore also torpedoed the flagship carrier Taiho on June 19, which later sank due to fuel vapors igniting, killing approximately 650 crew members. On June 19, TF 58, commanded by Vice Admiral Marc A. Mitscher and comprising 15 carriers with about 900 aircraft organized into four task groups, conducted extensive air searches using five teams from USS Lexington starting at 1350, downing three Japanese scout planes. The battle's first day, known as the "Great Marianas Turkey Shoot," saw Japan launch 326 aircraft in four waves against TF 58, but U.S. Hellcat fighters and antiaircraft fire downed 224 of them, crippling Japanese naval aviation. Mitscher, opting for aggressive action despite the risks, launched a maximum-effort strike of 226 aircraft at 1610 on June 20 against Ozawa's force, located 230 miles away, even as dusk approached and recovery would occur at night. This twilight raid sank the carrier Hiyo and the oilers Seiyo Maru and Genyo Maru, while damaging four other carriers; however, 86 U.S. planes were lost, with 90 initially rescued from the water. Overall, suffered heavy losses, including three carriers (Taiho, Shokaku, and Hiyo), 476 aircraft, 445 pilots, and around 3,000 personnel, while TF 58 lost 123 aircraft in total (42 in combat) and 76 pilots or . These results secured the Marianas for U.S. forces, placing the Japanese home islands within B-29 range and effectively ending 's carrier-based offensive capability. By , the Fast Carrier Task Force, redesignated TF 38 under Mitscher's command within F. Halsey's Third Fleet, shifted focus to support the Leyte invasion in the , engaging in the largest naval battle in history, the from October 23 to 26. TF 38, with 17 carriers (eight Essex-class, USS Enterprise, and eight Independence-class) divided into four task groups, provided air cover and struck Japanese forces, beginning with attacks on October 24 in the Sibuyan Sea that sank the super-battleship Musashi after 19 bomb and 17 torpedo hits. Halsey split TF 38 into northern and southern groups, with three task groups (38.2, 38.3, and 38.4) operating east of northern ; upon sighting Ozawa's decoy Northern Force of four carriers northeast of Luzon, Halsey pursued northward with the entire fast carrier force and battleships, leaving San Bernardino Strait unguarded. This decision exposed the invasion forces to Takeo Kurita's Center Force, which transited undetected and ambushed Task Unit 77.4.3 ("Taffy 3"), a group of six escort carriers, three , and four destroyer escorts off on October 25. Despite being outgunned by battleships including Yamato, Taffy 3's ships conducted a heroic delaying action, with Johnston, Hoel, and charging the Japanese line and scoring hits while their from Taffy 2 and 3 strafed and torpedoed Kurita's vessels, forcing a retreat after heavy damage to several cruisers. Meanwhile, TF 38's pursuit culminated in the Battle off Cape Engano on October 25, where over 500 sank the carrier Zuikaku (843 lost), Zuiho (215 lost), and Chitose (903 lost), along with a and , annihilating Ozawa's force. The battle crippled the , losing four carriers, three battleships, and numerous other ships, enabling the unhindered Leyte landings; TF 38 incurred minimal losses, with only 18 downed in the Sibuyan Sea phase and no major ship damage.

Iwo Jima and Okinawa (1945)

In February 1945, as part of the preparations for the invasion of , Task Force 58, comprising 16 aircraft carriers including 11 fleet carriers and five light carriers, launched pre-invasion strikes against Japanese airfields and strategic targets on to neutralize enemy air power and support the amphibious assault. These operations, conducted under Marc Mitscher's command, began on 16 February with carrier aircraft targeting Tokyo-area facilities, aiming to divert Japanese attention and degrade their ability to contest the landings scheduled for 19 February. Following the initial landings, TF 58 provided continuous to Marine forces, including strikes and fighter sweeps that suppressed enemy defenses on the island. The task force encountered its first significant attacks during the campaign on 21–22 February, when Japanese suicide planes struck the formation, severely damaging the fleet carrier and sinking the escort carrier , the only U.S. carrier lost to enemy action in the operation. These assaults marked an escalation in Japanese tactics, testing TF 58's antiaircraft defenses and radar-directed combat air patrols, though the force maintained operational tempo and contributed to the capture of 's airfields by mid-March, which provided emergency landing sites for B-29 Superfortress bombers conducting raids on . Transitioning to Operation Iceberg, the invasion of Okinawa beginning 1 April 1945, TF 58—now with approximately 18 carriers—intensified its role by sustaining air strikes on airfields to preempt launches against the invasion fleet. Under Mitscher's direction, carrier-based aircraft from the force targeted Japanese aircraft bases and infrastructure, destroying hundreds of enemy planes on the ground and in the air to reduce the threat of organized suicide attacks during the 82-day campaign. These efforts supported the overall amphibious operation but came amid mounting challenges, including a severe storm in () that, while preceding Okinawa directly, had already strained the fast carrier force by sinking three destroyers—USS Hull (DD-350), USS Monaghan (DD-354), and USS Spence (DD-512)—and damaging numerous vessels during refueling operations east of the . During Okinawa, TF 58 faced relentless kamikaze waves, compounded by radar jamming tactics, resulting in at least 48 ships damaged across the task force and broader fleet, with severe attrition from suicide strikes that overwhelmed picket lines and carrier screens. A notable incident occurred on 19 March when USS Franklin (CV-13), operating near Japan in preparation for the landings, was struck by two 550-pound bombs from a Japanese dive bomber, igniting catastrophic fires among fueled and armed aircraft that killed 807 crew members and wounded 487, forcing the carrier to withdraw for extensive repairs. Despite these losses, the task force's sustained operations secured Okinawa by late June, enabling Allied control of the Ryukyus and providing forward bases that facilitated B-29 escorts and strategic bombing campaigns against the Japanese homeland.

Tactics and Innovations

Air Operations and Defense

The air operations of the Fast Carrier Task Force emphasized coordinated strike doctrine, where fighter aircraft provided top cover for dive bombers and torpedo planes during attacks on enemy naval forces. This approach integrated aircraft from multiple carriers into unified strike packages, enabling simultaneous launches to overwhelm targets before effective defenses could respond. Fighters, such as the Grumman F6F Hellcat, escorted bombers to neutralize enemy interceptors, while bombers focused on delivering precise ordnance against carriers and surface ships. Range limitations typically restricted strikes to 200-300 miles from the task force, necessitating careful positioning to close the distance without exposing the carriers to counterattacks. To manage these constraints, operations followed search-and-strike cycles, beginning with scout aircraft or submarines locating enemy positions, followed by rapid assembly and launch of strike groups. Radar-directed coordination from the 's Combat Information Centers (CICs) refined targeting, allowing strikes to adapt in real time. Defensive tactics centered on the (CAP), a standing force of Hellcat fighters orbiting the task force to intercept incoming raids at extended ranges. CAP pilots used advanced tactics like the "Thach Weave," a beam-defense maneuver developed by Commander John S. Thach in 1942, where paired fighters crisscrossed to force attackers into unfavorable positions and enable mutual gunnery support against more maneuverable foes like the Japanese Zero. Secondary defense relied on anti-aircraft (AA) batteries aboard screening destroyers and cruisers, which provided layered firepower once enemy planes penetrated the outer CAP. The effectiveness of these AA batteries was greatly enhanced by the proximity (VT) fuze, introduced in 1943, which used radio signals to detonate shells near targets, dramatically increasing hit rates against aircraft. Innovations in air operations included expanded night carrier capabilities, exemplified by Marc A. Mitscher's decision during the on June 20, 1944, to illuminate the entire task force with deck lights, searchlights, and flares to recover the returning aircraft from a strike of over 200 planes, many low on fuel after a long-range mission. This bold action, despite the risk of silhouetting the fleet for Japanese submarines or aircraft, saved numerous pilots and marked a shift toward routine night recoveries. Photo reconnaissance flights, using equipped with high-resolution cameras, played a key role in targeting by mapping enemy formations, assessing damage from prior strikes, and identifying high-value objectives like airfields or fleet anchors. Challenges in sustaining operations included fuel conservation for extended missions, where pilots monitored reserves to ensure return capability, often diverting to emergency fields if necessary, as occurred in the 1944 action where many planes ditched due to exhaustion. Deck cycle management addressed rapid launches by organizing —fighters forward for quick , heavier bombers aft—and employing catapults to achieve launch rates of up to 30 seconds per plane during surges, minimizing exposure during vulnerable cycles. These procedures optimized the task force's tempo, balancing offensive reach with defensive readiness across the Pacific campaigns.

Maneuver and Logistics

The Fast Carrier Task Force's maneuver doctrine prioritized high-speed mobility to enable surprise strikes and rapid repositioning across the Pacific theater. Operating at sustained speeds of 25-30 knots, task forces executed high-speed dashes to optimal launch positions for carrier aircraft, enabling strikes on the Solomons one week and on the the following week. Circular steaming patterns were employed to minimize exposure during vulnerable periods, with carriers maintaining central positions while escorts formed protective rings, facilitating continuous operations over expansive ocean areas. Formation tactics focused on layered defense and evasion, utilizing echelon or circular screens of cruisers and destroyers to provide 360-degree coverage against aerial, surface, and subsurface threats. Task groups typically spaced 10-20 miles apart to allow for concentrated when needed while dispersing to reduce the risk of massed attacks. Zigzagging was a core evasive tactic against , involving irregular course changes to disrupt aim, integrated into standard steaming procedures throughout Pacific campaigns. Logistical systems were engineered for prolonged at-sea endurance, with innovations in replenishment proving vital for the task force's operational tempo. By , at-sea fueling methods, including the broadside technique where oilers approached alongside carriers and escorts without towlines, supported refueling rates of up to 32,000 gallons per hour and extended range beyond traditional limits. Destroyer-tender approaches further streamlined transfers during underway operations, while forward basing at Ulithi Atoll served as a secure hub enabling extended at-sea operations of 6-8 weeks through repairs, ammunition loading, and crew rotations for Task Force 38. Adaptations to adverse conditions enhanced survivability, particularly in response to typhoons and the demands of extended strikes. During in December 1944, Task Force 38 implemented protocols such as course alterations to keep winds on the port quarter, aircraft securing, and emergency ballasting, though the storm scattered formations over 50-60 miles and sank three destroyers. These experiences led to refined weather evasion tactics, including earlier dispersal and stability measures. For long-range operations, precise navigation via and plotting positioned forces up to 1,500 miles from objectives, ensuring undetected approaches for strikes like the February 1945 raid on Japan.

Impact and Legacy

Casualties and Losses

The Fast Carrier Task Force incurred significant personnel losses during its operations from 1944 to 1945, with estimates totaling around 12,000–15,000 killed or wounded across combat, accidents, and environmental hazards. The primary causes included attacks, which accounted for the majority of fatalities; for instance, during the Okinawa campaign, these suicide strikes resulted in nearly 5,000 U.S. sailors killed and an additional 5,000 wounded, marking the Navy's bloodiest battle of the war. Operational accidents also contributed heavily, as seen in the March 1945 bombing of USS Franklin, where 807 crew members were killed and 487 wounded in a single incident that nearly sank the carrier. Aircraft attrition was another major cost, with over 2,000 planes lost to combat and operational causes throughout the task force's campaigns. In the , for example, the U.S. Navy lost 123 , approximately 100 of which ditched at sea due to fuel exhaustion after extended missions. These losses highlighted the risks of long-range strikes and night recoveries, though overall attrition rates improved as operations progressed. Ship damage further compounded the toll, with more than 20 carriers struck by enemy fire or kamikazes, leading to one sinking: the light carrier USS Princeton during the in October 1944. Accompanying vessels faced severe risks as well; in December 1944 sank three destroyers (USS Hull, USS Monaghan, and USS Spence) and caused 790 deaths across the task force, alongside damage to 27 ships and the loss of 146 aircraft. To mitigate these losses, the U.S. Navy enhanced damage control procedures, including better firefighting systems and compartmentation, which proved vital in saving heavily damaged carriers like USS Franklin and USS Bunker Hill from hits. Additionally, intensified pilot training and the use of combat air patrols with proximity-fuzed antiaircraft ammunition reduced aircraft and personnel vulnerabilities in later phases, lowering the relative rate of attrition despite escalating Japanese resistance.

Influence on Naval Doctrine

The success of the Fast Carrier Task Force during World War II fundamentally reshaped naval doctrine by establishing carrier-centered formations as the cornerstone of blue-water navies, supplanting the battleship-centric fleets of the prewar era and influencing the U.S. Navy's reorganization in 1946 to prioritize mobile air power projection. This shift emphasized integrated task forces combining carriers with escorts for offensive operations, a model that informed NATO's early standards for multinational naval cooperation in the Atlantic and Mediterranean. The task force's demonstrated ability to conduct sustained, long-range strikes dispelled prewar skepticism among surface warfare officers regarding aviation's dominance, paving the way for doctrinal documents like the 1946 Naval Strategy that integrated carrier operations into forward deterrence. Postwar adaptations built directly on these tactics, as seen in the where U.S. carrier operations echoed Task Force 58's emphasis on rapid response and air superiority, with Task Force 77 launching over 100,000 sorties from carriers like USS Valley Forge to support amphibious assaults such as Inchon in 1950. By the , this evolved into supercarrier deployments, expanding task force compositions to include nuclear-powered vessels for extended endurance and all-weather capabilities, refining logistics like at-sea replenishment to sustain operations far from bases. These conflicts validated the task force's flexibility under the "" doctrine of the late , transitioning carriers from roles to conventional amid rising submarine and missile threats. The global impact extended beyond the U.S., as the observed American carrier successes in local wars and developed its own fast carrier concepts, such as the Kiev-class in the 1970s, to counter U.S. task forces with antisubmarine and strike capabilities integrated into balanced fleets. Similarly, the (PLAN) drew lessons from U.S. carrier operations, incorporating Mahanian principles of sea control into its doctrine while adapting Task Force 58-style formations for its growing carrier groups, as evidenced by exercises emphasizing joint air-sea strikes with and . This emphasis on integrated air-sea power became a legacy concept worldwide, promoting all-weather operations and joint strikes, though critiques of carrier vulnerability to missiles prompted innovations like Aegis-equipped escorts in U.S. forces by the 1980s to enhance defensive layers.

References

  1. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1945/november/carrier-task-force-world-war-ii
  2. https://ijnh.seahistory.org/from-fleet-exercise-to-fast-carrier-task-force-the-development-of-multicarrier-formations/
  3. https://www.historynet.com/how-the-navys-fast-carrier-task-force-swept-the-pacific/
  4. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1955/june/fishers-folly-fabulous-furious
  5. https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/ships/aircraft-carriers/uss-langley.html
  6. https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/heritage/usn-lessons-learned/fleet-problem-ix.html
  7. https://www.maxwell.af.mil/News/Commentaries/Display/Article/1201405/billy-mitchell-and-the-rise-of-naval-airpower/
  8. https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2018/april/how-japan-developed-carrier-aviation
  9. http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-089_Washington_Naval_Limitation_Treaty_1922.php
  10. https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/wars-conflicts-and-operations/world-war-ii/1942/battle-of-coral-sea.html
  11. https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2022/june/air-force-midway-doctrinal-lessons-joint-force
  12. https://www.militaryaviationmuseum.org/aircraft/general-motors-fm-2-wildcat/
  13. https://www.history.navy.mil/about-us/leadership/director/directors-corner/h-grams/h-gram-025/h-025-1.html
  14. https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/wars-conflicts-and-operations/world-war-ii/1944/battle-of-leyte-gulf/calmness-courage-and-efficiency.html
  15. https://ww2db.com/person_bio.php?person_id=1119
  16. https://ijnh.seahistory.org/supremacy-at-sea-task-force-58-and-the-central-pacific-victory/
  17. https://usnhistory.navylive.dodlive.mil/Recent/Article-View/Article/2974899/essex-class-aircraft-carriers/
  18. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2021/june/little-carriers-could
  19. https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-two/weapons-of-world-war-two/grumman-f6f-hellcat/
  20. https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2018/june/century-replenishment-sea
  21. https://www.navalgazing.net/Auxiliaries-Part-4
  22. https://pacificwrecks.com/people/veterans/mitscher/index.html
  23. https://www.history.navy.mil/our-collections/photography/us-people/s/spruance-raymond-a.html
  24. https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2016/april/halsey-and-spruance-study-contrasts
  25. https://www.britannica.com/biography/William-F-Halsey-Jr
  26. https://navyhistory.org/2020/04/admiral-john-s-mccain/
  27. https://www.history.navy.mil/about-us/leadership/director/directors-corner/h-grams/h-gram-044/h-044-1.html
  28. https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1668&context=nwc-review
  29. https://www.battleshipnewjersey.org/the-ship/full-history/
  30. https://www.history.navy.mil/about-us/leadership/director/directors-corner/h-grams/h-gram-032/h-032-1.html
  31. https://www.history.navy.mil/about-us/leadership/director/directors-corner/h-grams/h-gram-026/H-026-3.html
  32. https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/wars-conflicts-and-operations/world-war-ii/1944/reckless-and-persecution.html
  33. https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/wars-conflicts-and-operations/world-war-ii/1944/battle-philippine-sea.html
  34. https://www.history.navy.mil/content/dam/nhhc/about-us/leadership/hgram_pdfs/H-Gram_032.pdf
  35. https://www.history.navy.mil/about-us/leadership/director/directors-corner/h-grams/h-gram-038/h-038-2.html
  36. https://www.history.navy.mil/about-us/leadership/director/directors-corner/h-grams/h-gram-042/h-042-1.html
  37. https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/a/amphibious-operations-capture-iwo-jima.html
  38. https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/wars-conflicts-and-operations/world-war-ii/1945/battle-of-iwo-jima.html
  39. https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2020/april/operation-icebergs-mixed-legacy
  40. https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/wars-conflicts-and-operations/world-war-ii/1945/battle-of-okinawa/okinawa-historic-overview-importance.html
  41. https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/p/pacific-typhoon-18-december-1944.html
  42. https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/wars-conflicts-and-operations/world-war-ii/1945/battle-of-okinawa/antiaircraft-problem.html
  43. https://www.history.navy.mil/about-us/leadership/director/directors-corner/h-grams/h-gram-043/h-043-1.html
  44. https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/wars-conflicts-and-operations/world-war-ii/1945/battle-of-okinawa.html
  45. https://www.history.navy.mil/about-us/leadership/director/directors-corner/h-grams/h-gram-005/h-005-2.html
  46. https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/1992/march/oral-history-butch-ohare-and-thach-weave
  47. https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/1999/august/tiny-miracle-proximity-fuze
  48. https://www.historynet.com/let-there-be-light-admiral-mitchers-decision/
  49. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1959/july/air-reconnaissance-great-silent-weapon
  50. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1970/may/developments-and-problems-carrier-based-fighter-aircraft
  51. https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/c/current-doctrine-submarines.html
  52. https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/c/chester-nimitz-development-fueling-sea.html
  53. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/typhoon-cobra-halsey-versus-mother-nature
  54. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/operation-iceberg-battle-okinawa
  55. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/pacific-john-chapman/
  56. https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/wars-conflicts-and-operations/world-war-ii/1944/battle-philippine-sea/turkey-shoot.html
  57. https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/wars-conflicts-and-operations/world-war-ii/1944/leyte-gulf/princeton.html
  58. https://www.history.navy.mil/about-us/leadership/director/directors-corner/h-grams/h-gram-039/h-039-2.html
  59. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD0725163.pdf
  60. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1950/february/navys-first-carrier-task-force
  61. https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/t/time-change.html
  62. https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2006/april/sharp-edge-containment
  63. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1964/march/crisis-confidence
  64. https://news.usni.org/2013/06/27/the-carrier-debate-from-1922-to-now
  65. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1973/december/soviet-carrier-strategy
  66. https://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/CSBA8336_%28Chinese_Lessons_from_the_Pacific_War%29_FINAL_web.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.