Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
Sign In   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

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
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    Leyte Gulf   5/30/2008 9:51:11 PM
You should check out some items that you seem to have missed on the Hyper War site you like so much.  As I've said before, it's not useful as a source for what happened, but very good for what the people involved THOUGHT happened.
 
  I refer you to the section listing 'lessons learned from Leyte Gulf'.  Notably the remarks by CTG38.4 (that would have been Davison.
 
  Several months after the battle, he did not understand why the Japanese carriers had been there at all, and believed that they had made "a grave error" in not withdrawing them.  He presumed that they had launched air strikes and were either waiting for new air groups, or waiting to recover the strikes he believed they had launched.  As far as he was concerned, the chance to destroy them had been a wonderful opportunity for the USN.
"No circumstances more favorable to ourselves could be hoped for."
 
Even after the fact, the idea that the Japanese would have sacrificed their carriers as a decoy was simply unthinkable.  He didn't occur to him after the fact, as it didn't occur to Hasley at the time.  That was why it work.  Not a matter of the Japanese depending on anyone's studpidity at all.  They were depending on the fact that they were sacrificing any real ability for the IJN to influence the future of the war, in return for what whould have been, at the very best, a delay of a few weeks in the American advance against Japan.  This simply didn't make any sense at all to the Americans.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Wicked Chinchilla       5/30/2008 10:01:09 PM
Ah, but it was playing off of stupidity.  Just because it was unprecedented and that many didnt think they were bait does not make it untrue.

It was stupid because the primary objective of the battle was to protect the landing forces.  No matter if the carriers were a fat juicy target.  No matter if, somehow, there was an even more desirable target sitting where they were doing the same thing.  Halsey's mission was to protect the landing forces.  Bait, is bait, is bait.  He knowingly sacrificed his primary mission for pride and trying to put a couple flattops on his belt.  It is by the sheer tenacity of the Taffy's and foolishness of the Japanese they did not further exploit his stupidity.  Besides, there were ways to go after what he wanted without being SO dumb about it  

It was a stupid move on Halsey's part.  Competent analysis has shown this, repeatedly.  
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr       5/30/2008 10:44:32 PM





FIRST UP HERALD, I DO NOT LIKE BEING CALLED A LIAR BY SOMEONE I'VE CAUGHT LYING IN PRIOR POSTS!!!!  Try putting up an arguement that makes some sense, and doesn't ignore historical reality, instead on falling backj on lies and insult!!!


I have called you a liar on point and showed the lie. You have a problem with it? TOUGH.


Try reading your  own map!  The Japanese don't need to come within range of any land base strike a/c except those from Henderson -- and since Henderson is a known location and the Japanese had longer ranged a/c, even that claim is a farce!  As is your claim that the USAAF had P38s in the Solomons at the time of the carrier battles.  The first P38s didn't arrive (loaned my McArthur) until November!  Also, your statement that the A20 outranged the Kate and Val is incorrect.  The pre-G model of the A20 had a range with maximum payload of just over 1000 miles, marginally less than that of the Kate, and about 100 miles less than that of the Val.

    Try looking at the geography and the air coverage as well as the prevailing winsds Larry. As i said you don't know the first thionmg about the subject or you would see the threat axis drawn for you and the approach routes laid out. No more BS, from you, Larry,. this is MY subject area. I prepared the damned map and i know exactly what it says.since I LAID IT OUT FOR YOU.

The A-20 had an air endurance radius of  of one hour out from its base which is about the same as that of  most carrier borne aircraft of the day. Don't look at  Wiki  and read a number like 1300 km for a Val or 1600 km for a 1900 km for a Kate or 1600 km for a havoc and try to tell me what the radius of an aircraft was. Carrier planes had to burn up almost a third of their air time to form uop a strike or to land. their effective reach is not some range number McGee. Its measured in roughly in thirds of air endurance time whereas a landbased plane is measured in fourths especially when under BURDEN. Its just one of those little factoids that you conveneinetly don't have, which explains why the  Japanese struck at about 225 to 250 miles while Americans teneded at least wearly in the war to strike at no greater than 150 miles range if they could help it. The functional radius of the Havoc burdened was about 300-350  miles or 1 HOUR, McGee, so you've just stepped on Mr. Johnson again.


Eastern Solomons was a clear victory for Fletcher, by any REASONABLE standard.  Your claim otherwise is either an out rght LIE or the result of mental defect (since that seems to be the way you think a debat should be conducted).  Fletcher sank a CVL, seriously damaged a CV, and prevented the Japanese from knocking out Henderson, in return for serious damage to a CV and a very favorable K/L ratio in a/c.  NO WAY that can be called a defeat by anyone with any grasp at all!!

The Eastern Solomons did not stop the Japanese from pursuing their objectives . At least the Coral Sea defeat fletcher suffered accomplished that much. At best you could argue a tactical draw;  where the carrier forces were almost evenly matched and  neuitralized each other. Fletcher was unable to drive the Japanese off. THAT under the circumstances is an American  DEFEAT.
 


Ref Halsey's orders:  quote: "If a situation presents itself, or can be created, to destroy a major portion of the enemy's carriers, THAT BECOMES YOUR PRIMARY MISSION!!!

But Halsey was too stupid to create it and was too stupid to recognize [as apparently are you] that if he had stayed put as was planned he would get his opportunity to exercise the option to whack those carriers as Ozawa had to attack to draw him
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    History says???   5/31/2008 4:02:39 AM
By the way, you keep saying that 'history says' that Eastern Solomons was a defeat for Fletcher.
Just WHAT history says that??  Care to cite me the source of your wisdom, or are you making things up AGAIN.  Even Morison admits of Eastern Solomons that "it is generally accounted an American victory."  Quote from his THE TWO OCEAN WAR, Chapter VII part 3.
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    first TBF radar & others   6/2/2008 6:05:52 PM
By the way, the very first radar equiped carrier a/c to see combat was a TBF-1 with an ASB-1 set, belonging to VT10 on the ENTERPRISE that went out in October, 1942. 
 
Later TBM-3Es sometimes carried the APS air search radar along with the  ASH surface search sets.  Those with the ENTERPRISE's specialized night air group, later in the war, did have it.
As to your picture, since the ASH, ASB and ASV radars were all underwing, they would not be visible with the wings folded, even if the particular a/c pictured were so equiped.
 
As to your maps and circles, the map of the Eastern Solomons battle doesn't matter.  At the time, as I've pointed out, land based Army bomber types like the A20 and B25 were not effective against heavy warships, and without long range fighter cover, would be slaughtered anyway.  I know of only one occassion when a Japanese carrier was hit by an Army bomber while at sea.  JUNYO was 'successfully' bombed by a B26 operating from Dutch Harbor during the northern attack in June of 1942 (same time as Midway).  Unfortunately, the weapon making the direct bomb hit was a torpedo, which crashed through the flight deck, but didn't explode (of course, since it never had a chance to arm).
 
The circles on the Philippine Sea map don't mean anything either.  Since Ozawa had no way to get past Mitscher to achieve a central position, talking about the advantages of such a position is meaningless.  Mitscher knew how far Ozawa could advance, and planned to go just far enough west to be within striking range.  He DIDN'T want to risk a surface engagement, which would be throwing away his strength and accepting the one style of combat where the Japanese could still fight effectively. 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Keep digging that hole, Larry. i'll tend to you in due time.    6/2/2008 8:00:01 PM
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Herald   6/2/2008 10:17:44 PM
This isn't personal you know..it's a discussion, supposedly about the ROYAL NAVY...not the USN 1942-44.
 
And could both you and please stop with this long inclusive posts?  I don't think anyone wants to scroll thru a page or more of previously published material(s) to try and find the new stuff.
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    TBF radar   6/3/2008 4:30:52 AM
see: link
 
photo of TBFs showing ASB radar antenna underwing.
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    To JFKY   6/4/2008 12:35:27 PM
Again my apologies as this had certainly wandered from the original subject of the thread.  Only defense I can offer (beyond the fact that I can't quite resist a debate) is that the original subject seemed to have pretty much run its course before this arguement got under way.
Also sorry about the huge 'quote' postings.  Some of these get so long that I have trouble keeping track of the sub-issues without being able to refer back while writing. 
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    No Answer??   6/13/2008 11:05:33 AM

Herald

No answer?
 
larryjcr
 
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



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy