Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Halsey Acted Stupidly
jastayme3    10/30/2007 2:43:41 AM
"Your conclusions were all wrong, Ryan. Halsey acted stupidly."-Hunt for Red October Well Ramius was not quite correct. Halsey was quite adept at the sort of "naval blitzkriegs" that marked the last stage of the Pacific War. But on the most famous occasion he did act stupidly. At Leyte Gulf. This is not just 20/20 hindsight. Arleigh Burke guessed at the time that Ozawa was bait. However Halsey's mistake was not in attacking Ozawa. Even knowing that Ozawa was bait he should have done so. However the battleships should have been left behind to cover the invasion force. Halsey had more then enough to handle both goals but failed to practice proper economy of force. The reason Halsey was right to attack Ozawa was that even if the Japanese succeeded, if the carriers were gone they had only gained a respite. But if the carriers remained the Japanese might have time to recover their air power enough to hold their own. If the Philipines fell to the Americans then the IJN effectively did not exist. Therefore it was at least equally important to guard the invasion force. Something like this: If invasion checked but carriers gone, Japan obtains useless lull If carriers available but invasion successful IJN is finished. A navy is just as dead from lack of fuel and with more loss of face. If carriers survive and invasion checked then comes lull, with small possibility of Japan temporarily regaining initiative. And if carriers destroyed and invasion successful, then the rest of the war is large-scale "mopping up"(an odd phrase for Okinawa but in the staffie sense it is pretty much true-albeit it is one big "mop-up". This is indeed pretty close to what happend. But the frightful "near-run thing" could have been made assured with proper force budgeting. And finally when the infamous, "the world wonders" message arrived Halsey turned back, out of pique apparently. It was to late to effect the battle. So he would be better off getting a good pursuit in. And indeed if he had, history might have been less resentful.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4   NEXT
gf0012-aust       10/30/2007 3:19:02 AM
I suspect that you're about to get a belting from Herald about this.... 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234    Too right, GF.    10/30/2007 4:55:39 AM

I suspect that you're about to get a belting from Herald about this.... 


http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/8-12305.aspx

"http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/8-12305.aspx"

That covers some of the son of a bitch's early blunders and saves me some time.

Do you want to read about the idiot's mishandling of the fleet during the typhoons, or how he tried to coverup his gross incompetence after the "Batttle of Bull's Run"; or the ongoing jealousy he developed in a one sided imaginary rivalry he had with the finest American Admiral to ever stand on a warship deck?  

Question you posed, Jessayme; 

Why did Halsey want Ozawa's empty carriers?

Answer. He wanted a victory to rival Midway. Spruance got four; he wanted four. Motive? Jealousy.    

Why do you think that Nimitz later sent in his best Admiral for the really tough fights at Iwo Jima and Okinawa? After Leyte Gulf you'll notice that the USN didn't send its carriers against the Japanese under Halsey again. The days of alternating commands were OVER. Nimitz had had enough. It was Spruance, thenceforward, all the way. 

Where is Taskforce 34? That message Nimitz sent we get the historical propaganda line that it was just a gentle reminder from Nimitz to Halsey to keep San Bernadino Strait covered. Horsefeathers and cowflop. By the time Nimitz sent the message, his staff had shown him a very good plotted sitrep of what was probably happening to the Taffys off of Samar. Kincaid's cries for help were heard in Pearl, and people forget who was staffing all of this for Nimitz at Pearl at the time. It was SPRUANCE.

So when Nimitz sent that message to Halsey, he was furious. The poor encoder who overpadded the message knew exactly what kind of Admiral's venom was going out over the radio. It was USN politese for "Get your junior ensign dumbass back down to Samar and cover San Bernardino, like we staffed it in the pre battle planning originally, you stupid son of a bitch."

The newspapers and the public had turned Halsey into a Hollywood hero much like they did MacArthur. He was a paper mache' hero that the US command could not disown. Otherwise I believe Nimitz would have relieved Halsey, then and there. It was hard fighting and a lot of luck as well as Clifton Sprague who saved us at Samar; after Halsey opened the door to a possible great Japanese victory.

One more thing. it wasn't just Arleigh Burke who saw the outlines of Sho 1. It was Nimitz, Spruance, Lee, both Shermans, Kincaid, Bogan, Oldendorf, Mitscher, McCain, the ancestor of the Arizona Senator, Walter Krueger, Kenney, MacArthur and practically every USN and US Army staff officer who attended the pre-battle planning conferences in the 6th Army, 5th Air Force, and 3rd and 7th fleets INCLUDING HALSEY; who was so briefed and advised to watch for it, by guess who? SPRUANCE.    

After all that; DOWNFALL would have been Spruance at sea, Eichelberger on land, and Kenney in the air. Our BEST we would send. Halsey? That PoS after the Leyte fiasco had just lost four destroyers, 300 aircraft, damaged almost a dozen major warships and drowned almost 1200 sailors in a !@#$%^&*() typhoon. That was the last straw. Halsey would continue to bob around as window dressing. The fighting would be left to the professionals.
 
Kimmel was court martialed for far less than Halsey ever did. I would have Bynged Halsey.
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234    Damned buggy software!    10/30/2007 4:57:54 AM
 
 
 
 
 
That is the Guadalcanal thread covering the Bull's bungling early in the war.
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

jastayme3       10/30/2007 11:23:32 AM

Herald, isn't it uneconomical to become angry just because I thought Halsey was intermittently, rather then universally stupid and justified the claim of "stupidity" in a calmer manner? Most people at least flame those they disagree with.

 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234    What is ytour problem?   10/30/2007 11:35:11 AM
Do you disagree that Halsey was an idiot?
 
If you do, then prove to me that he wasn't.
 
If you agree that he was an idiot, then you have no problem.
 
Herald  
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Ode to Ramius   10/30/2007 12:20:03 PM
 
I used to think Halsey was an okay guy who acted a bit too aggressively but on balance did a good job. I have to say that after reviewing the data in more detail (with Herald's insistence) I now agree we would have done better with one of the other available leaders in his place during the early years of the WWII Pacific war. To get caught in typhoons 3 times, not once, and actually kill Destroyers and seriously damage USN Cruisers in the process seems a bit beyond reasonable. He didn't listen to anybody (including his superior officers) and his "unrecommended" actions frequently caused lives and lost opportunities.
 
Ramius was right.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

caltrop    Two sides to every argument   10/30/2007 2:43:01 PM
I'm pretty sure that Halsey only blundered into TWO Typhoons and not 3.  Inexcusable any way.
 
He should have left the BB force behind at the San Bernadino Strait but since his flag and fleet staff were on one of the BB, he let his pride overrule logic and kept the entire force together when he went after Ozawa.  He wanted the total credit for the kills.  No doubt, it was dumb.
 
His staff knew the the IJN Center force had resumed an Easterly course towards Taffy 1-3 but failed to act appropriately. Halsey takes the blame for this but doubly so because he failed to create an environment where his staff functioned properly and efficiently.  They might have even been able to get back in time to cover the invasion force but again the staff did not get the info to Halsey.  I agree with Herald that Lee tried to rectify this error to no avail. 
 
Mitscher was Halsey's Chief of Staff and he hated Halsey.  Mitscher was awakened and told of the IJN force movements and did nothing and went back to sleep.  He should have been flogged for that.
 
 
To argue in Halsey's defense, the Chain of Command and communications protocols hampered the overall operation at Leyte.  Ohlendorf was under MacArthur's Command and information coming from MacArthur's staff was infrequent and useless (they hated the USN).  All comm traffic had to be sent coded to Pearl Harbor, decoded and read and replies sent back coded.  His orders from Nimitz were worded that he could break off from the invasion force in order to engage and destroy the IJN carriers at any time.
 
Like MacArthur, Halsey did some good things and some bad things..The USN knows this.  You don't see any "Halsey" class ships on the USN rolls but there was the "Spruance" class. 
 
Nimitz was no idiot and I am sure he would have put Halsey somewhere safe if he was completely useless.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Panther       10/30/2007 2:47:18 PM

 

I used to think Halsey was an okay guy who acted a bit too aggressively but on balance did a good job. I have to say that after reviewing the data in more detail (with Herald's insistence) I now agree we would have done better with one of the other available leaders in his place during the early years of the WWII Pacific war. To get caught in typhoons 3 times, not once, and actually kill Destroyers and seriously damage USN Cruisers in the process seems a bit beyond reasonable. He didn't listen to anybody (including his superior officers) and his "unrecommended" actions frequently caused lives and lost opportunities.

 

Ramius was right.

 

Check Six

 

Rocky


 
I agree with Rocky pretty much. Speaking of typhoon's, i am in the middle of reading "Halsey's Typhoon". I used to think it was fine for a commander too have such an aggressive spirit like Halsey's. But so far in what i am reading, that aggressiveness translated into "kill the enemy, d@mn all the other risks". Those other risks caused mother nature too just "barely" swipe Halsey's fleet in mid-december, losing nearly a thousand men and three destoyers and causing his fleet to fall back into port for major repairs. (Thank G*d we had more than just one Taffy group to rely on!) More than half his fleet knew they were in or near a powerful typhoon (Cobra) and took appropriate action. The other half kept to the admirals order's of not breaking formation until it was way much too late for them!
 
Mother nature did for the Japanese in mid-december of 44', what they were not in a position to do for themseleves. Putting out of action a Powerful USN carrier group!
 
Quote    Reply

caltrop       10/30/2007 3:08:52 PM

Do you disagree that Halsey was an idiot?

 

If you do, then prove to me that he wasn't.

 

If you agree that he was an idiot, then you have no problem.

 

Herald  


I both agree and disagree.  Evidently he was not too sharp a fellow but he had that intangible quality for leadership and aggresiveness.  This worked well against the Japanese since their doctrine assumed the enemy would always do what they thought it would do.
Some plusses for Halsey:
 
He was in Command of the South Pacific during the Battle for Guadalcanal which ended with an American strategic victory.
 
His command innovated the "island leapfrog" strategy of bypassing heavily defended islands to attack lesser defended. (Vella Lavella instead of Kolombangara).  MacArthur started doing this after Halsey.
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    October 4, 1945. You think they'd have learned by then...   10/30/2007 3:56:50 PM
ht***tp://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq102-6.htm
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics