During WW2 at the pacific theater of operation, should have the USA implicated carrier-based warfare

than the bloody island-hopping campaigns? instead of taking islands for airfields, simply placing carriers strategically would have been better. peal harbor was a carrier-based operation

During WW2 at the pacific theater of operation, should have the USA implicated carrier-based warfare rather...secure browser

if airfields were not taken then our carriers at sea would be at great risk from enemy planes

During WW2 at the pacific theater of operation, should have the USA implicated carrier-based warfare rather...home theater opera theater

islands cant sink
1. Aircraft carriers were relatively easy to sink if they were located. Islands, though easily located, are difficult to put out of commision and can be defended properly.

2. The size of the aircraft carrier severely limits the size and mass of aircraft launchable off one. The upper limit was the size of a B25 Mitchel bomber, something unable to LAND on a carrier. The limited size limits both the range and weapons load of carrier aircraft resulting in a higher number of aircraft flying from a closer airbase/carrier risking more crew to drop the same load of ordnance.

3. The type of aircraft that had the greatest effect on Japan were four-engined bombers... something that could not be launched from aircraft carriers.

4. Captured islands can also be used as staging areas and basing for ground troops used to actually eliminate enemy bases. Although elimination of using island for bases in lieu of aircraft carriers limits the need for ground troops, without them you have little ability to decisively influence battles on land.
Do you understand the logistics involved in maintaining a carrier battle group in a prime condition of readiness?

We only took the islands we needed and we took them to establish repair facilities and fuel/supply depots. It's two weeks sailing back to Pearl Harbor from the Western Pacific.
How do you plan tour logistics around such masive supply lines. Secondly suppose you skip some of these islands. Ok now you have to deal with there radars, and more imporantly there fighter and bomber formations which can harass you all the way to Japan. Also think of the amount of time needed to do this. Are you saying the US should have held out on an attack and let Japan continue to build its military up til we had enough Carriers to try in win in one stroke. Sounds risky.
If I understand your ? After the peal harbour attack American re grouped and counter attacked even after many ships and personal were sent to Europe We won didn't we?
Supporting and supplying a large invasion force going into Japan itself by sea only would have meant insane supply lines. Also you can only build carriers so fast.
A. We didn't have the carrier fleet we have now.

B. It was strategically important to "own" the airstrips on the islands... as a defensive tactic. If we owned them, then the Japanese didn't... which decreased the vulnerability of the carriers we DID have..

C. The fuel capacity and range of the fighters we were using then was much less than those we use today. By having airfields on islands AND carriers positioned in the Pacific, we had much better mobility than we would have had using carriers alone.
Did we have enough carriers to do that?
um....we didn't have that may carriers and perhaps you may remember pearl harbor. Islands were a cheaper and faster solution.
I've wondered that myself. Assemble a kick-butt armada and head straight to Tokyo Bay... instead of the island hopping. Their Navy would have been overstretched.