Off to see the lizard.....

[rustysi]

Spill their blood! Shoot them in the belly!

Calm down... Take a deep breath... Choose your words... [:D]

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
The response calls for a Spruance , not a Halsey.

Can we at least agree that it *doesn't* call for a Ghormley? [:'(]

Don't forget how King looked upon those he felt held insufficient 'enthusiasm' for the counteroffensive. I think Nimitz might be a more 'moderate' voice here too. So let's stick with the Nimitz idea for a minute. Remember his dictum to avoid 'over-exposure of carriers to attack unless more damage could be inflicted upon the enemy'. The part after 'unless' is worthy of consideration with some creativity. You *could* field 4 CVs (5 if you include the Limeys) and LBA LRCAP to boot. That-particularly against an inexplicably overapplied KB 4 could turn things around for you-and soon.

Avoid the modern McClellan syndrome wherein your units are never *really quite* ready for battle. Soon! After you get X, Y and Z! Almost! Just need a little R&R for this unit or that! Oooh...that's a shiny piece of kit! Better get that too! OK, will wait another month. Wait. Wait. Wait.

While you vacillate and retire from the field, you opponent makes good on catastrophic oversights for which he avoids punishment. Where the opportunity to capitalize on reckless and careless dispositions elapses, he learns from his mistakes without penalty.

Sometimes that KO punch is there in the first round. Sometimes you don't have to go a full 15 for the punch count and the decision. You finish the fight early. You accept opportunity and the (measured) risks that so accompany it.

To paraphrase Lee, "He is an able general but a very cautious one. His army is in a very demoralized and chaotic condition, and will not be prepared for offensive operations—or he will not think it so—for three or four weeks. Before that time I hope to be on the Susquehanna." (emphasis mine). To paraphrase Lincoln, "If General McClellan does not want to use the Army, I would like to borrow it for a time, provided I could see how it could be made to do something."

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
The response calls for a Spruance , not a Halsey.

Can we at least agree that it *doesn't* call for a Ghormley? [:'(]

Don't forget how King looked upon those he felt held insufficient 'enthusiasm' for the counteroffensive. I think Nimitz might be a more 'moderate' voice here too. So let's stick with the Nimitz idea for a minute. Remember his dictum to avoid 'over-exposure of carriers to attack unless more damage could be inflicted upon the enemy'. The part after 'unless' is worthy of consideration with some creativity. You *could* field 4 CVs (5 if you include the Limeys) and LBA LRCAP to boot. That-particularly against an inexplicably overapplied KB 4 could turn things around for you-and soon.

Avoid the modern McClellan syndrome wherein your units are never *really quite* ready for battle. Soon! After you get X, Y and Z! Almost! Just need a little R&R for this unit or that! Oooh...that's a shiny piece of kit! Better get that too! OK, will wait another month. Wait. Wait. Wait.

While you vacillate and retire from the field, you opponent makes good on catastrophic oversights for which he avoids punishment. Where the opportunity to capitalize on reckless and careless dispositions elapses, he learns from his mistakes without penalty.

Sometimes that KO punch is there in the first round. Sometimes you don't have to go a full 15 for the punch count and the decision. You finish the fight early. You accept opportunity and the (measured) risks that so accompany it.

To paraphrase Lee, "He is an able general but a very cautious one. His army is in a very demoralized and chaotic condition, and will not be prepared for offensive operations—or he will not think it so—for three or four weeks. Before that time I hope to be on the Susquehanna." (emphasis mine). To paraphrase Lincoln, "If General McClellan does not want to use the Army, I would like to borrow it for a time, provided I could see how it could be made to do something."

OK. I agree with your points. Noted. Thank you. [:)]

[AW1Steve]

Of course , from the other side there's Churchill referring to Jellico as someone who couldn't possibly win the war (WW1) by himself, but who could "lose it in an afternoon". [:(]

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Of course , from the other side there's Churchill referring to Jellico as someone who couldn't possibly win the war (WW1) by himself, but who could "lose it in an afternoon". [:(]

That comment was not aimed at Jellicoe, but at the strategic fact that Germany could lose her fleet in an afternoon and still continue the war, whereas if Britain lost the battle and lost her fleet, she could be blockaded and would starve for economic materials and food - thus being forced to surrender.
The British fleet lost some ships at Jutland but Jellicoe made all the right moves to keep the German fleet hemmed in to the south - even crossing their "T" with his (IIRC) eleven mile long battle line of 24 BBs. I think despite flaws in their operational doctrine, he saved the afternoon and kept the British fleet in the war .

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Of course , from the other side there's Churchill referring to Jellico as someone who couldn't possibly win the war (WW1) by himself, but who could "lose it in an afternoon". [:(]

That comment was not aimed at Jellicoe, but at the strategic fact that Germany could lose her fleet in an afternoon and still continue the war, whereas if Britain lost the battle and lost her fleet, she could be blockaded and would starve for economic materials and food - thus being forced to surrender.
The British fleet lost some ships at Jutland but Jellicoe made all the right moves to keep the German fleet hemmed in to the south - even crossing their "T" with his (IIRC) eleven mile long battle line of 24 BBs. I think despite flaws in their operational doctrine, he saved the afternoon and kept the British fleet in the war .

Oh I definitely agree. Jellicoe has always been a hero to me , in the same way as Spruance. Both were smart enough to know when to say when and NOT snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Jellicoe took a lot of heat (Mostly due to Beatty) for not following Scheer into a uboat/minefield trap, in much the same way as Spruance took heat for turning in the night after his Midway victory. The airdales (naval aviators) said he wasn't aggressive as a flier would have been and should have set up for continuing strikes against the retreating Japanese fleet , whereas Spruance was afraid of a Night naval surface engagement with his cruisers against Japanese battleships. It wasn't till after the war that Spruance was proved right. [:)]

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Of course , from the other side there's Churchill referring to Jellico as someone who couldn't possibly win the war (WW1) by himself, but who could "lose it in an afternoon". [:(]

That comment was not aimed at Jellicoe, but at the strategic fact that Germany could lose her fleet in an afternoon and still continue the war, whereas if Britain lost the battle and lost her fleet, she could be blockaded and would starve for economic materials and food - thus being forced to surrender.
The British fleet lost some ships at Jutland but Jellicoe made all the right moves to keep the German fleet hemmed in to the south - even crossing their "T" with his (IIRC) eleven mile long battle line of 24 BBs. I think despite flaws in their operational doctrine, he saved the afternoon and kept the British fleet in the war .

...and there was something wrong with his bloody ships that day!

[Chickenboy]

Well, I'll just provide my daily Halsey missive and be on my way:

"[Admiral Nelson's counsel] guided me time and again. On the eve of the critical battle of Santa Cruz, in which the Japanese ships outnumbered ours more than two to one, I sent my task force commanders this dispatch: ATTACK REPEAT ATTACK. They did attack, heroically, and when the battle was done, the enemy turned away. All problems, personal, national, or combat, become smaller if you don't dodge them, but confront them. Touch a thistle timidly, and it pr.icks you; grasp it boldly, and its spines crumble. Carry the battle to the enemy! Lay your ship alongside his!"

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Well, I'll just provide my daily Halsey missive and be on my way:

"[Admiral Nelson's counsel] guided me time and again. On the eve of the critical battle of Santa Cruz, in which the Japanese ships outnumbered ours more than two to one, I sent my task force commanders this dispatch: ATTACK REPEAT ATTACK. They did attack, heroically, and when the battle was done, the enemy turned away. All problems, personal, national, or combat, become smaller if you don't dodge them, but confront them. Touch a thistle timidly, and it pr.icks you; grasp it boldly, and its spines crumble. Carry the battle to the enemy! Lay your ship alongside his!"

Unfortunately, the latter was done ... in the mud of Ironbottom Sound. [:(]

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Well, I'll just provide my daily Halsey missive and be on my way:

"[Admiral Nelson's counsel] guided me time and again. On the eve of the critical battle of Santa Cruz, in which the Japanese ships outnumbered ours more than two to one, I sent my task force commanders this dispatch: ATTACK REPEAT ATTACK. They did attack, heroically, and when the battle was done, the enemy turned away. All problems, personal, national, or combat, become smaller if you don't dodge them, but confront them. Touch a thistle timidly, and it pr.icks you; grasp it boldly, and its spines crumble. Carry the battle to the enemy! Lay your ship alongside his!"

Try that with a cactus. Don't ask me...

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Well, I'll just provide my daily Halsey missive and be on my way:

"[Admiral Nelson's counsel] guided me time and again. On the eve of the critical battle of Santa Cruz, in which the Japanese ships outnumbered ours more than two to one, I sent my task force commanders this dispatch: ATTACK REPEAT ATTACK. They did attack, heroically, and when the battle was done, the enemy turned away.

Of course, despite his bluster, this was not true. Halsey suffered one of the few (only?)* tactical defeats in a carrier battle for the US, and arguably also suffered a strategic defeat:

"Dr. John Prados offers a dissenting view: this was not a Pyrrhic victory for Japan, but a strategic victory.

By any reasonable measure the Battle of Santa Cruz marked a Japanese victory -- and a strategic one. At its end the Imperial Navy possessed the only operational carrier force in the Pacific. The Japanese had sunk more ships and more combat tonnage, had more aircraft remaining, and were in physical possession of the battle zone... Arguments based on aircrew losses or who owned Guadalcanal are about something else -- the campaign, not the battle."

But admittedly, Halsey talked a good game. [:'(]


*Coral Sea maybe being the other tactical defeat.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Well, I'll just provide my daily Halsey missive and be on my way:

"[Admiral Nelson's counsel] guided me time and again. On the eve of the critical battle of Santa Cruz, in which the Japanese ships outnumbered ours more than two to one, I sent my task force commanders this dispatch: ATTACK REPEAT ATTACK. They did attack, heroically, and when the battle was done, the enemy turned away.

Of course, despite his bluster, this was not true. Halsey suffered one of the few (only?)* tactical defeats in a carrier battle for the US, and arguably also suffered a strategic defeat:

"Dr. John Prados offers a dissenting view: this was not a Pyrrhic victory for Japan, but a strategic victory.

By any reasonable measure the Battle of Santa Cruz marked a Japanese victory -- and a strategic one. At its end the Imperial Navy possessed the only operational carrier force in the Pacific. The Japanese had sunk more ships and more combat tonnage, had more aircraft remaining, and were in physical possession of the battle zone... Arguments based on aircrew losses or who owned Guadalcanal are about something else -- the campaign, not the battle."

But admittedly, Halsey talked a good game. [:'(]


*Coral Sea maybe being the other tactical defeat.

EDIT: In fact, did Halsey ever win a carrier on carrier battle? Maybe in sinking some of Ozawa's decoy fleet, but since that was a decoy fleet that successfully (for the IJN) pulled him out of position of guarding the invasion fleet, i would hesitate to call this a victory.

[Zecke]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Well, I'll just provide my daily Halsey missive and be on my way:

"[Admiral Nelson's counsel] guided me time and again. On the eve of the critical battle of Santa Cruz, in which the Japanese ships outnumbered ours more than two to one, I sent my task force commanders this dispatch: ATTACK REPEAT ATTACK. They did attack, heroically, and when the battle was done, the enemy turned away.

Of course, despite his bluster, this was not true. Halsey suffered one of the few (only?)* tactical defeats in a carrier battle for the US, and arguably also suffered a strategic defeat:

"Dr. John Prados offers a dissenting view: this was not a Pyrrhic victory for Japan, but a strategic victory.

By any reasonable measure the Battle of Santa Cruz marked a Japanese victory -- and a strategic one. At its end the Imperial Navy possessed the only operational carrier force in the Pacific. The Japanese had sunk more ships and more combat tonnage, had more aircraft remaining, and were in physical possession of the battle zone... Arguments based on aircrew losses or who owned Guadalcanal are about something else -- the campaign, not the battle."

But admittedly, Halsey talked a good game. [:'(]


*Coral Sea maybe being the other tactical defeat.

EDIT: In fact, did Halsey ever win a carrier on carrier battle? Maybe in sinking some of Ozawa's decoy fleet, but since that was a decoy fleet that successfully (for the IJN) pulled him out of position of guarding the invasion fleet, i would hesitate to call this a victory.

Chiken hows goingg¡..rtrapasso nice to see you again

[witpqs]

I agree, but also the IJN losses at Santa Cruz did matter and the outcome was 'good enough' to keep the Guadalcanal campaign on a 'favorable enough' trajectory. Of course the two naval battles of Guadalcanal were still to come.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Zecke

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso



Of course, despite his bluster, this was not true. Halsey suffered one of the few (only?)* tactical defeats in a carrier battle for the US, and arguably also suffered a strategic defeat:

"Dr. John Prados offers a dissenting view: this was not a Pyrrhic victory for Japan, but a strategic victory.

By any reasonable measure the Battle of Santa Cruz marked a Japanese victory -- and a strategic one. At its end the Imperial Navy possessed the only operational carrier force in the Pacific. The Japanese had sunk more ships and more combat tonnage, had more aircraft remaining, and were in physical possession of the battle zone... Arguments based on aircrew losses or who owned Guadalcanal are about something else -- the campaign, not the battle."

But admittedly, Halsey talked a good game. [:'(]


*Coral Sea maybe being the other tactical defeat.

EDIT: In fact, did Halsey ever win a carrier on carrier battle? Maybe in sinking some of Ozawa's decoy fleet, but since that was a decoy fleet that successfully (for the IJN) pulled him out of position of guarding the invasion fleet, i would hesitate to call this a victory.

Chiken hows goingg¡..rtrapasso nice to see you again

Thanks!

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Well, I'll just provide my daily Halsey missive and be on my way:

"[Admiral Nelson's counsel] guided me time and again. On the eve of the critical battle of Santa Cruz, in which the Japanese ships outnumbered ours more than two to one, I sent my task force commanders this dispatch: ATTACK REPEAT ATTACK. They did attack, heroically, and when the battle was done, the enemy turned away.

Of course, despite his bluster, this was not true. Halsey suffered one of the few (only?)* tactical defeats in a carrier battle for the US, and arguably also suffered a strategic defeat:

"Dr. John Prados offers a dissenting view: this was not a Pyrrhic victory for Japan, but a strategic victory.

By any reasonable measure the Battle of Santa Cruz marked a Japanese victory -- and a strategic one. At its end the Imperial Navy possessed the only operational carrier force in the Pacific. The Japanese had sunk more ships and more combat tonnage, had more aircraft remaining, and were in physical possession of the battle zone... Arguments based on aircrew losses or who owned Guadalcanal are about something else -- the campaign, not the battle."

But admittedly, Halsey talked a good game. [:'(]


*Coral Sea maybe being the other tactical defeat.

Not sure that another commander would have done better. From a strategic perspective Halsey:

1. Stopped the Japanese
2. Provided much needed enthusiasm for the task at hand. Remember, there was much anxiety and over-conservatism out there at the time.
3. Was well considered (prior to the whole Typhoon and 'world wonders' things) by the only ones that mattered. Do I think that I, 75+ years in the future, can say that I know more than Nimitz and King did then? Nope.

ETA: You don't get to 'erase' enemy CVs sunk just because they weren't the primary striking force. If you want to argue CVs lost vs. sunk then make that your argument. And Halsey came out ahead in that (artificial) metric.

[Zecke]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: Zecke

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso



EDIT: In fact, did Halsey ever win a carrier on carrier battle? Maybe in sinking some of Ozawa's decoy fleet, but since that was a decoy fleet that successfully (for the IJN) pulled him out of position of guarding the invasion fleet, i would hesitate to call this a victory.

Chiken hows goingg¡..rtrapasso nice to see you again

Thanks!

Your welcome; also salute u BBfanboy; WITPQS; and Steveeeee

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Well, I'll just provide my daily Halsey missive and be on my way:

"[Admiral Nelson's counsel] guided me time and again. On the eve of the critical battle of Santa Cruz, in which the Japanese ships outnumbered ours more than two to one, I sent my task force commanders this dispatch: ATTACK REPEAT ATTACK. They did attack, heroically, and when the battle was done, the enemy turned away.

Of course, despite his bluster, this was not true. Halsey suffered one of the few (only?)* tactical defeats in a carrier battle for the US, and arguably also suffered a strategic defeat:

"Dr. John Prados offers a dissenting view: this was not a Pyrrhic victory for Japan, but a strategic victory.

By any reasonable measure the Battle of Santa Cruz marked a Japanese victory -- and a strategic one. At its end the Imperial Navy possessed the only operational carrier force in the Pacific. The Japanese had sunk more ships and more combat tonnage, had more aircraft remaining, and were in physical possession of the battle zone... Arguments based on aircrew losses or who owned Guadalcanal are about something else -- the campaign, not the battle."

But admittedly, Halsey talked a good game. [:'(]


*Coral Sea maybe being the other tactical defeat.

Not sure that another commander would have done better. From a strategic perspective Halsey:


2. Provided much needed enthusiasm for the task at hand. Remember, there was much anxiety and over-conservatism out there at the time.


ETA: You don't get to 'erase' enemy CVs sunk just because they weren't the primary striking force. If you want to argue CVs lost vs. sunk then make that your argument. And Halsey came out ahead in that (artificial) metric.

Well, as i said, he did talk a good game - he WAS enthusiastic! [:D]

Yes, he did sink Ozawa's carriers, but since they really were pretty much empty, and were put there to be sunk, i can't really credit him with a "carrier battle victory", however, maybe you will. It was only by the narrowest of margins that the entire invasion fleet didn't get mauled because of his (Halsey's) actions. It might be analogous to a queen sacrifice* with a chance to force a mate in battle chess... it should have worked for the IJN, and almost did. (*In this case, the queen had no real power, however.)

I will credit him with delivering victories in the surface battles in the Solomons, which did eventually help break the back of the IJN, which is what mattered in the overall scheme of things.

I put Halsey in with MacArthur - a national hero, but with lots of actions that don't really look too great when carefully examined. Did they both help to win the war? Yes. Could other admirals/generals done a better job? I would argue that they would have, and i am really glad it was Spruance in charge in the some of our more critical battles (esp. Midway.)

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
It was only by the narrowest of margins that the entire invasion fleet didn't get mauled because of his (Halsey's) actions. It might be analogous to a queen sacrifice* with a chance to force a mate in battle chess... it should have worked for the IJN, and almost did. (*In this case, the queen had no real power, however.)

Yes, the queen sacrifice almost worked for the Japanese. Right up until the point where it didn't and then they all got crushed.

Meh. If you want to talk about a near run thing, look no farther than Midway. Could the "miracle at Midway" have turned ugly on Spruance? If just a few things happen differently, I see the American CV fleet being mauled badly and Midway being successfully invaded. He *was* lucky-thankfully for us all! But Spruance's star could have fallen off the map had everything not gone just so.

[AW1Steve]

rtrapasso , GREAT to see you! Andre..I greatly admire Halsey , and Nelson , and I'm still NOT risking my carriers. Period. Risk your own! These are mine! And you can't have them!

Besides , I adhere to a far more ancient and greater military sage....HAIL SIR ROBBIN!!!!![:D]