Scott-Ainsworth

[zed]

I think both of these are underrated. Scott won the battle of Cape Esperance, does he merit 53-56? Should it not be higher?
Ainsworth is 49- something. To my way of thinking he used Radar very well and won both Kula Gulf and Kolombangara.

Noyes was a disaster, as is reflected in this game.
Spruance may have hesitated in the Marianas, but he won Midway with a brilliant move, at 69-63 he is correct.

Sakamaki and Kusaka were 11th Air Fleet commander and XO. I dont believe they ever commanded surface fleets.

[Drongo]

Don't know the logic behind the ratings but....

Scott won the battle of Cape Esperance but has been heavily criticised over the fact that his failed to capitalise on a near perfect ambush setup (and with his force outnumbering the enemy).

IIRC, one IJN CA and a DD were sunk and another CA severely damaged for the allied loss of a DD (friendly fire) and a CA heavily damaged.

He probably was responsible for some of the command/control problems that night.

[corbulo]

july 12-13 1943:
ijn losses: CL JINTSU (Tanaka's old flagship) (sunk)
allied losses:
CA Leander (damaged) (out for 1 year)
DD GWIN (sunk)
CA ST louis (damaged) (out till November, 10 days to fix at PH)
(regunning at Mare Island)
CA Honolulu (damaged) (out till November, 10 days to fix at PH)
(regunning at Mare Island)

Ainsworth definitely lost this one. Japanese Commander Izaki KIA.
All Allied losses caused by Long Lance torpedoes.

[panda124c]

Originally posted by Drongo
Don't know the logic behind the ratings but....

Scott won the battle of Cape Esperance but has been heavily criticised over the fact that his failed to capitalise on a near perfect ambush setup (and with his force outnumbering the enemy).

IIRC, one IJN CA and a DD were sunk and another CA severely damaged for the allied loss of a DD (friendly fire) and a CA heavily damaged.

He probably was responsible for some of the command/control problems that night.

I'm not real sure if this will make any sense but, just because your enemy lost more units than you do not mean that you have won. This attitude leads to the WWI land battle mentality of I lost 10,000 troops the other guy lost 15,000 troop therefore we won even though the enemy now sits in my old HQ. Scott's job was to stop the Japanese from attacking Henderson Field, this he did. Maybe this is the inspiration rating where men will do the job regardless of the cost.
So all the talk about who won a naval battle has to be put into context of what was trying to be accomplished by the battle. Not who lost what ships.

[Drex]

i agree with Pbear. "Cape Esperance was an American Victory but the Japanese accomplished their main object."(Morrison, Struggle for Guadalcanal,pg 171) and he mentions that Scott made fallacious conclusions from the battle that a long single -column formation was okay and that US gunfire could master any night battle situation. the Japanese were able to load troops and heavy artillery at Tassafaronga and had no effect at preventing bombardments of Henderson field.