Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Ideal World War Two RN
earlm    5/4/2008 3:13:32 PM
With hindsight what should the RN have done to be the best force possible for WW2? 1. Obtain better AA fire control from US. 2. Obtain US carrier based aircraft through lend lease. 3. Introduce a dual purpose 4.5-5" gun. (US 5"/38?) 4. Scrap the R class. 5. Save money on KGV and arm them with R class turrets with higher elevation. 6. Modernize Hood 7. Modernize Repulse
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23   NEXT
larryjcr    response   7/23/2008 12:00:06 PM




Name the FACT that you contest and I'll be more than happy to provide the source, Herald. 



 



The comment about 'set piece' battles is quite correct.  Unless you have the advantage of an overwhelming force, you have to count of the guys at the pointed end to win for you -- which is the core of the 'melee' school of tactics as opposed to the 'formalist' and of the 'leadership' style of command as opposed to the 'management' model. 




Dauntlesses and radars, dates and ships operated from.

 

Avengers same.

 

That will do for starters: you are really starting to bore me with your recycledl opinions stated as fact, Larry. How about putting up cited DATA?


 

Herald





Herald.  I've buried you in cited references on ASB radar on USN a/c.  By way of repetition of just ONE example.  On plate page viii of Clark Reynold's THE FAST CARRIERS, bottom of the page is a photo, dated 13 June, 1944 labeled "SBD Dauntlesses ... attack enemy positions on Saipan and Tinian"  The a/c plainly show the ASB radar masts under the wings of the a/c.  As the SBDs did NOT operate from CVEs, they could only have been from the CVs of TF58.
Same with the photos and diagrams of the TBF from UNITED STATES NAVY AIRCRAFT by Swanborough and Bowers clearly showing the masts.  Note that the TBF was out of production by the time of the Philippine Sea, let alone Leyte Gulf, replace by the Easter-built version, the TBM-1 which was identical to the late production TBF (ASB included), and the TBM-3 which had a more powerful engine and altered cowling, but was otherwise identical.  From the same source, photos of the SB2C showing the masts.
In fact, just about ANY decent photo of Navy attack a/c of the period, show the small, vertical masts of the ASB system under the outer wing panels.
You can, if you like, check out the website (as you seem to be alergic to printed sources) of the NRL (Naval Research Laboratory) who invented the system in late 1941.
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    sources   7/23/2008 1:10:27 PM
Specifically, the Swanborough and Bowers book (which is a standard reference) lists the ASB as becoming standard equipment in the Dauntless with the SBD-5 model.  While not specifically mentioned, the photos and diagrams of the SB2C (same source) plainly show ASB installed.  Same for the late model TBFs.
 
The NRL reference the first ASB equiped TBF going out on ENTERPRISE in the fall of '42.  It was experimental ONLY in reguard to the type of a/c.  ASB had been standard equipement in PBYs and some B-17s used for patrol work by mid. '42.  It was in use by those a/c in the Solomons at the time of Savo Island.
 
The handiest source I have for Order of Battle for Philippine Sea is the Avalanche Press board game LEYTE GULF, which lists all US CVLs and CVs as carrying TBMs, and all CVs except those of TF58.3 (ENTERPRISE and LEXINGTON which carried SBD-5/6s) as carrying SB2C-3s.  While I admit that the game company isn't exactly 'scholarly' they DO have an excellent reputation for researching their game scenarios, and they have a LOT of well informed critics ready to pounce on any inaccuracy.
 
As to sources, I have already informed you of my primary sources.  I would like to point out a couple of things about one of them in particular.  John Lundstrom.  It's clear enough that you want to dismiss him because you don't like what he has to day.  Tough!
John B. Lundstrom is Curator Emeritus of History at the Milwaukee Public Museum.  Over the last 30 years he has authored four major books on the subject we are discussing (the first year of the Pacific War), and co-authored a fifth.  These books have been subjected to critical peer review with very positive results.  He has recieved numberous awards for this work, including the Samuel Eliot Morison Award for Naval Literature and the National Museum of Naval Aviation's Admiral Arthur W. Radford Award.  He is certainly the most prestigeous authority currently writing on the subject.  I've invited you to refute any of his work by offering rebuttal of FACT.  That you don't like what he has to say (with evidence in support) cuts no ice!
 
In return, on those occassions when you DO offer a source, it's a link to a web page that (more often than not) doesn't acutally say anything that supports your position.  You're attempt to claim that ENTERPRISE SBDs attacked SORYU at Midway, for example.  A link to a witness statement who simply says that about a dozen a/c attacked in three groups.  From that you claim that 'one of them must have been from ENTERPRISE'.  Why?  YORKTOWN'S squadron attacked with 14 SBDs.  Many of your other claims have been equally unsupported.  Simply pasting in a long atricle from a site, isn't evidence and doesn't constitute support of your claims.
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr       8/2/2008 11:35:00 AM

1. I don't respect Lundstrom and told you exactly why. Do far better than lean upon that reed..

2. You haven't supported your position with anything but appeals to authority. I've used data and demanded you present the same.

3. You haven't answered my questions and all you've done when I boil you down in assert.


 4. Now produce the radar proof for Taffy Three Avengers at Samar like I demanded or CONCEDE.all of this argument.


 

Herald, Your 'data' all comes from 'authorities'.  You weren't there. Neither was I.  EVERYTHING either one of us knows comes from some authority.  The difference is that I go to sources that are subject to CRITICAL PEER REVIEW!  You use whatever web site agrees with your position.  The difference is something that anyone who seriously studies history understands!   I know enough about historical research methodology to leave the analysis of original sources to professionals with both the time and experience to do the job properly.  That's what they're for.  I suggest that you seriously consider doing the same. 

1.  Lundstrom.  Yes, I understand.  You don't accept him because he DOES'T AGREE WITH YOU!!  That's the ONLY reason you'veoffered.  I've set out his qualifications and challenged you to contest him with any sort of worthwhile rebuttal.  You have ignored that challenge, because you CAN'T!  You have no rebuttal to offer!  My challenge remains open.  Pick a point on which you disagree with Lundstrom and try to make your case.  His work is generously footnoted as to his own sources.  I HAVE checked out points on which he disagrees with other authorities, and found that he offers better evidence.  For example, Prange in MIRICLE AT MIDWAY states that the message traffic in which Fletcher turned over control to Spruance occured at the time the strike against HIRYU was launched, basing that conclusion on a statement by ONE member of Spruance's staff.  Ludstrom times the traffic at 1811 hours based on communications logs.
 
2. Your 'data' is just paste ups from web sites of unknowable accuracy, which often as not, DOESN'T actually support your position.  I have provided DATA from sources subject to PROFESSIONAL PEER REVIEW!  No contest in quality!
 
3.  I have provided proof that the TBM-1s and TBM-3s equiping ALL USN CVs, CVLs and CVEs by that date were equiped with ASB type surface search radar, except for the D and E models which had more advanced types.  Your refusal to except the proof that you are wrong is beyond my control!  I would demand that you concede to the proof I've laid out for you, but I don't expect anything more than continued denial on your part.

 

 

 




 
Quote    Reply

perfectgeneral2    Subject: Ideal World War Two RN   8/2/2008 7:02:15 PM
Can you guys get a room (or a thread that fits your interest)? I keep thinking that someone has posted on the original topic (remember that?).
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    data   8/2/2008 10:41:52 PM
By the way, how do YOU define 'data'?
Webster: Data - plural of datum
Datum - A fact on which reasoning is based.
 
UNITED STATES NAVY AIRCRAFT is simply a compilation of data. 
Ludstrom's books are the organized end product of reasoning on the basis of data.  The actual data are listed in the footnotes for anyone to reference.
 
Very little of what you have put up could be called 'data' in any reasonable use of the word.  It isn't 'data' just because you got it from a web site instead of a recognized and authoritative source.
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    original subject   8/2/2008 10:49:03 PM

Can you guys get a room (or a thread that fits your interest)? I keep thinking that someone has posted on the original topic (remember that?).


Again, apologies.  I get carried away on the subject.
On the original topic, one thing that the RN COULD have done, was go with the US designed 5"/38 dualpurpose gun and its associated fire control system instead of puting so much effort into at least three different attempts to produce a similar weapon.  They did have one of the 'C' class cruisers rearmed in the US with the 5"/38s as a CLAA and were very pleased with the result.  They wanted to buy more of the guns and FC systems, but the US could barely produce enough to meet its own needs (which is why so many of the DEs were armed with 3x3" guns instead of the intended 2x5").  If the RN had dropped the other projects and produced the US design themselves it would have saved developement effort for other things, and given them what was probably the best mid-size DP gun of WW2.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    PerfectGeneral2   8/3/2008 7:21:44 PM
That thread died months ago...What was the Perfect RN?  I don't know...what the thread became was this.  Mo one else seems to mind that it isn't about the RN, any more because they all left the room long ago.  But if you want to try to resurrect it, feel free.  So stop complaining and make some entries on what you think the Perfect RN would have been.  Personally I'm enjoying THIS thread, too.
 
OK, here's a start, Britain ought to have done is scrapped most of her surface fleet, what good did it do her?  What was the threat to Britain, the Tirpitz, the Bismarck, the Scharnhorst, the Gneissenau ?  Hardly.  The threat was the FW-200 Condor and the U-boat.  Had Britain stood down it's major surface fleet units and focused on the Fleet Air Arm and ASW  combat Britain would have been better served.  But all that would have required a  RETHINK of the RAF and the RN...the RAF would have had to allow the FAA to prosper apart from the "Bomber Barons" of the RAF, and the RN would have to have seen a value in the carrier and it's air craft and to cease focusing on the next Jutland.
 
Bottom-Line:  The IDEAL RN is not a better thing, it's better Admirals...ones who would have focused on Britain's REAL threats, not their traditional strong suit, the surface fleet.
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr       8/4/2008 1:22:48 PM

That thread died months ago...What was the Perfect RN?  I don't know...what the thread became was this.  Mo one else seems to mind that it isn't about the RN, any more because they all left the room long ago.  But if you want to try to resurrect it, feel free.  So stop complaining and make some entries on what you think the Perfect RN would have been.  Personally I'm enjoying THIS thread, too.

 

OK, here's a start, Britain ought to have done is scrapped most of her surface fleet, what good did it do her?  What was the threat to Britain, the Tirpitz, the Bismarck, the Scharnhorst, the Gneissenau ?  Hardly.  The threat was the FW-200 Condor and the U-boat.  Had Britain stood down it's major surface fleet units and focused on the Fleet Air Arm and ASW  combat Britain would have been better served.  But all that would have required a  RETHINK of the RAF and the RN...the RAF would have had to allow the FAA to prosper apart from the "Bomber Barons" of the RAF, and the RN would have to have seen a value in the carrier and it's air craft and to cease focusing on the next Jutland.

 

Bottom-Line:  The IDEAL RN is not a better thing, it's better Admirals...ones who would have focused on Britain's REAL threats, not their traditional strong suit, the surface fleet.


Certainly some truth there, although the big German ships WERE a threat that HAD to be countered.  The control of fleet a/c by the RAF until the mid-thirties meant that FAA a/c were well behind in developement compared to Japanese and USN types, and, perhaps more importantly, that there were NO senior RN officers with first hand aviation experience.  The USN program to recuit fairly senior, serving officers in other branches to qualify as aviators was not popular with the career aviators (who went into air right out of Annapolis) and called them JCLs (Johnny Come Latelys), but the effort did provide a group of officers who understood aviation AND had the rank and seniority to have an effect on policy.
That was something that the RN needed badly, and didn't have.  The fact that the aviators TOOK OVER control of the USN may well have been too extreme a result, but the RNs total focus on gun ships certainly effected the nature of the fleet they had to start the war with.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY       8/4/2008 1:55:33 PM
I think people make too much of the gun vs. carrier debate...the USN said, "both."  I've just finished Millett's and Williamson's Innovation in the Interwar Period and a biography of Adm Reeves.  The Gun Club realized that aircraft made BB gunnery very effective, that the possession of Spotters allowed the USN the best chance of defeating the RN in a gun battle...and that if they could remove enemy spotters and retain their own spotters a great advantage accrued to them. And further, that the force that destroyed its opponent's aircraft carriers first, had the advantage in the gun battle.  So, even the Gun Club was air-minded, and it wasn't until the 1930's that the Aviators COULD defeat the surface forces, on their own.  IIRC, in the 1923 Fleet Problem the Blue Force BB's advanced, in spite of continuous air attack.  So really from 1919-193(?) it was not a binary situation, battleships OR CV's...the USN realized it was BOTH.  CV's provided scouting, spotting, air superiority, AND attack and the BB's provided the "punch" to destroy the enemy surface fleet.  The Gun Club didn't feel CV's were superfluous, the aviators might have felt, with little justification, that the BB's were superfluous...with little jsutification until after the mid-1930's, that is.  But for the first decade or decade and a half both saw value in the other.
 
As to "real" aviators objecting to Reeves and Moffett and the like becoming "Naval Observers", well that shows their short-sightedness.  It was a BRILLIANT political move, allowing, as you say, for senior officers to be introduced to naval aviation and building a career path and providing some high level support for the naval aviation community.  Suddenly, there were O-6's and above able to support aviation within the US Navy.
 
The Royal Navy suffered a catastrophe with the creation of the RAF.  The Royal Navy Flying Service, was abolished and the RN lost 60,000 personnel, at a stroke to the RAF.  Suddenly the RN was bereft of many people, who in the USN went on to make the case for naval aviation, to develop the doctrine, and to develop the ships and aircraft to utilize the doctrine.  The RN lost most of those people to the RAF.  And it was a catastrophe, the RN was never air-minded enough after that...it's carrier aircraft and CV's were deficient and it's land-based air was deficient as well.
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       8/4/2008 2:25:00 PM
Without the surface fleet, the German ships would have achieved massive damage. The precedence of the Condor and the U-Boat was in the absence of a German surface fleet, held in check by the Home Fleet. Also, without a strong British surface fleet, the Germans could have put a decent sized fleet to sea to run U-boat replenishment in the mid-Atlantic.

On top of this, there is the Italian situation and having to run supplies to North Africa. Italy had a fleet of modern and fast Battleships (albeit poorly led, trained and supplied) With land air cover and no BBs to stop the Italian navy closing the distance, the convoys would have been hit hard.

Finally, there is the weather. The North Sea and North Atlantic is not a nice environment to operate carriers and the frequently poor weather and short distances would allow a battleship to close in while aircraft could not operate.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics