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: ww2 Yamato vs Iowa class
capt soap    9/17/2005 12:55:11 PM
How would this fight turn out? the Iowa's 16 inch guns against the Yamato 18 guns? The iowa had radar,which one would sink the other 1 on 1.
 
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 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36   NEXT
JFKY    And yet   7/10/2009 11:43:12 AM
Halsey faced the same logistics burdens as Ghormley and he ADVANCD and Ghormley dithered and was relieved...I guess that dumb ole' Nimitz was just taken in.
 
Burke had the OPPORTUNITY to train and took it, earlier in the Solomons Campaign there was NO TIME to train, as units...and so none could be taken.  Of course, that makes GHORMLEY responsible for that doesn't it Herald?  As anything that happens, bad, is the CinC's fault...anything could be to the subordinates credit, under Herald Command Accounting.  So any way Ghormley dithered and nearly lost Guadalcanal and had ill-trained units, so he was an IDIOT-using Herald "logic"...
 
Now Halsey won at Guadalcanal, then won all the way up to Bougainville, completing his portion of "Operation Cartwheel" was never stopped by the Imperial Japanese Forces, and had Burke and his well-trained destroyers under his command...all that makes Halsey very GOOD, by Herald logic and makes Ghormley the failure...see how easy this is.
 
Herald when it comes to things like muzzle velocity and the like, you rule, but when it comes to judging command abilities, you are too binary...and the fact is that for this era  (1941-43/44) "Bill" Halsey was a more than adequate commander.  In fact, a better commander than Ghormley or Fletcher...
 
Yes he had a great many flaws...the Typhoon Incident(s) and Samar
 
Bottom-line: in this case you, Herald, are Bluewings, making outrageous claims, and simply not making logical arguments, all in order to support a visceral decision you have made...that Halsey, or whoever you don't like was an "idiot."  Just like Bluewing's obsession that the Rafale is a GREAT plane, the best at everything, rather than take a more reasoned approach and discuss what the plane or commander did well or failed to do...Again, Halsey is your Rafale...and you simply can't let go of this obsession and make coherent arguments.  Sorry.
 
Quote    Reply

elclip1    Sometimes it take a fighter   7/10/2009 12:22:44 PM
The thing about Halsey was that he was a fighter and sometimes that's what it takes. That's why Nimitz put the Bull in charge in the Solomans - he wanted someone to take the fight to the enemy and the Bull was the right man for that job at that time. The thing was that Halsey just kept coming at you. You beat him, he shook it off and continued the fight. As others have noted, the result was the the Japanese were rolled back and wasn't that the goal?

Reminds me a little of Grant in Virginia. Lee Bloodied Grant at the Wilderness and Grant kept coming. At Cold Harbor, Lee beat him clean, but Grant kept coming. Eventually, he wore the enemy down and attritted his resources to the point were he could no longer fight. Not a particularly elegant solution, but effective regardless.

Anyway, in the book "How we won the war" that Herald posted (good book by the way), the author compares Halsey and Spruance and notes that Halsey was obsessed with destroying the Japanese Fleet, while Spruance was focused on the larger picture of winning the war. That's why it was impossible to get Spruance to chase the Combined Fleet, he put less importance on sinking ships and more on taking the objective.  The Bull just wanted to mix it up.  Nimitz knew this and used his commanders as he saw fit. Certainly, by the end of the war, Nimitz had tired of Halsey, but early, he wanted a fighter to stick his nose in there and selected Halsey. He (Nimitz) rode that horse for a long time.

 Speaking of horses, this one is looking pretty dead. Shall we continue to flog it?


 



 

 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Most assuredly...   7/10/2009 12:36:25 PM
Speaking of horses, this one is looking pretty dead. Shall we continue to flog it?
 
You must be new here.....this is a 4 y.o. thread....that came to life again, and now that we are discussing one of Herald's bete noir's it could go on a long time.
 
If flogging dead horses were perceived as foolish or perverse; then a half the threads and most of the comments on the Rafale would NEVER have been posted or written...
 
Assuredly Herald will respond, because HALSEY GETS CREDIT FOR NOTHING!  And until you acknowledge that fact, and understand with absolute moral clarity the Eternal Truth of Halsey's No-Good-a-tudedness, it will be argued!
 
Imagine Herald as Yul Brenner's Ramses character in The Ten Commandments...Herald likes to make the sort of pronouncement that Pharaoh was wont to do, and then say, "So let it be written, so let it be done."  And woe unto any of us that is Moses and would disagree with Yul/Ramses/Herald.....
 
 
Quote    Reply

elclip1       7/10/2009 2:35:36 PM

Speaking of horses, this one is looking pretty dead. Shall we continue to flog it?

 

You must be new here.....this is a 4 y.o. thread....that came to life again, and now that we are discussing one of Herald's bete noir's it could go on a long time.

 
Ahh... gotcha. Ok, I don't mind!
 
Quote    Reply

Leech    Dead War Horse   7/11/2009 4:03:29 AM


The thing about Halsey was that he was a fighter and sometimes that's what it takes. That's why Nimitz put the Bull in charge in the Solomans - he wanted someone to take the fight to the enemy and the Bull was the right man for that job at that time. The thing was that Halsey just kept coming at you. You beat him, he shook it off and continued the fight. As others have noted, the result was the the Japanese were rolled back and wasn't that the goal?




Reminds me a little of Grant in Virginia. Lee Bloodied Grant at the Wilderness and Grant kept coming. At Cold Harbor, Lee beat him clean, but Grant kept coming. Eventually, he wore the enemy down and attritted his resources to the point were he could no longer fight. Not a particularly elegant solution, but effective regardless.




Anyway, in the book "How we won the war" that Herald posted (good book by the way), the author compares Halsey and Spruance and notes that Halsey was obsessed with destroying the Japanese Fleet, while Spruance was focused on the larger picture of winning the war. That's why it was impossible to get Spruance to chase the Combined Fleet, he put less importance on sinking ships and more on taking the objective.  The Bull just wanted to mix it up.  Nimitz knew this and used his commanders as he saw fit. Certainly, by the end of the war, Nimitz had tired of Halsey, but early, he wanted a fighter to stick his nose in there and selected Halsey. He (Nimitz) rode that horse for a long time.




 Speaking of horses, this one is looking pretty dead. Shall we continue to flog it?
You couldn't put it better.

 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    You didn't read at all.....   7/12/2009 2:59:09 AM

Halsey faced the same logistics burdens as Ghormley and he ADVANCD and Ghormley dithered and was relieved...I guess that dumb ole' Nimitz was just taken in.

 

Burke had the OPPORTUNITY to train and took it, earlier in the Solomons Campaign there was NO TIME to train, as units...and so none could be taken.  Of course, that makes GHORMLEY responsible for that doesn't it Herald?  As anything that happens, bad, is the CinC's fault...anything could be to the subordinates credit, under Herald Command Accounting.  So any way Ghormley dithered and nearly lost Guadalcanal and had ill-trained units, so he was an IDIOT-using Herald "logic"...

 

Now Halsey won at Guadalcanal, then won all the way up to Bougainville, completing his portion of "Operation Cartwheel" was never stopped by the Imperial Japanese Forces, and had Burke and his well-trained destroyers under his command...all that makes Halsey very GOOD, by Herald logic and makes Ghormley the failure...see how easy this is.

 

Herald when it comes to things like muzzle velocity and the like, you rule, but when it comes to judging command abilities, you are too binary...and the fact is that for this era  (1941-43/44) "Bill" Halsey was a more than adequate commander.  In fact, a better commander than Ghormley or Fletcher...

 

Yes he had a great many flaws...the Typhoon Incident(s) and Samar

 

Bottom-line: in this case you, Herald, are Bluewings, making outrageous claims, and simply not making logical arguments, all in order to support a visceral decision you have made...that Halsey, or whoever you don't like was an "idiot."  Just like Bluewing's obsession that the Rafale is a GREAT plane, the best at everything, rather than take a more reasoned approach and discuss what the plane or commander did well or failed to do...Again, Halsey is your Rafale...and you simply can't let go of this obsession and make coherent arguments.  Sorry.

Bottom line it was RICHMOND KELLY TURNER who took up the logistics mantle and sorted out Watchtower and Ringbolt, not Halsey, who shot off his mouth, and did none of the work..
 
Again.
 
When did Arleigh Burke arrive on station with his Little Beavers again? 23 October 1943. That makes it a Halsey foul up all up and down the line. Check your dates. Ghormley, as I pointed out, did not have a surface defeat between Savo Island and Halsey's arrival. Eastern Solomons and Esperance were Ghormley. (Or if you prefer, Fletcher and Scott.)  Halsey started out with a string of three major defeats where he meddled and screwed up commands, communications and staffs as previously mentioned. He threw away shops planes and men in those defeats. Santa Cruz, First Guadalcanal, and Tassafaronga being the three defeats for which I blame him. 
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    The Bull was only a good Admiral.....   7/12/2009 3:05:05 AM




(Having trouble posting from my MAC - trying the PC)



 



In Winton's "Carrier Glorious", the German action report shows that Marschall held the Battlecruisers on their original heading for a while after spotting the enemy. He did this to allow the ships to raise steam for a high speed run. Once this was done, he turned toward Glorious. Making 26 knots and accelerating eventually to around 29 knots, Scharnhorst began firing at 28,000 yards making the first hit on the third salvo at about 14 miles.










By the time Glorious saw S&G the game was up. With cold boilers and no time to bring them on line, there was no chance to escape. The Carrier was doomed from the moment she was spotted by the German Group.

















Halsey. I give him credit for the early actions in the war. His early raids in the South Pacific were good for moral, though of little real impact. The Doolittle raid could have gone better, but it accomplished the goals set for it.  Most accounts of the Guadalcanal action indicate that Halsey was a welcome boost when he relieved Ghormley. His willingness to mix it up and go in harms way was a sharp contrast to Ghormley and Fletcher too. 










If you've ever read Spruance's bio, you'd find that he was aghast at the lack of structure and discipline within Halsey's staff when Spruance took over the fleet before Midway. Halsey was no great thinker, that much is certain. 



His main focus seems to have been to attack the enemy whenever and wherever he found them. In 42, some of that was needed. Of course disaster was always a possibility with that approach. Halsey slipped in and back out of Pearl right after the attack and went looking for the Japanese fleet with Enterprise. Had he found them, he probably would have been destroyed and one of our few carriers lost. It's a good thing that he didn't find them, but he was a fighter.













Most agree that, eventually, the war just got to big and too complex for The bull.













The Bull wasn't responsible enough. He was best when he was "unleashed", free to attack whatever he wants. Halsey was, as someone already put it, Blitzkrieg specialist and popularity icon. Mitcher was responsible and careful naval commander. And Kimball also done it good when he was degraded and put into command of CVN task force (USS Enterprise, if I'm right). However, it should be noted that general MacArthur also comanded both naval and land troops, like Nimitz, and both of them performed well especially in amphibious assualts. It was only in 1944., during or after recapturing Phillippines, that MacArthur took command of all land troops, and Nimitz took command of all naval forces in Pacific theatre of operations.


on August 17, 1959.
 
Herald


 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    The Bull was only a good Admiral.....   7/12/2009 3:35:20 AM


The thing about Halsey was that he was a fighter and sometimes that's what it takes. That's why Nimitz put the Bull in charge in the Solomans - he wanted someone to take the fight to the enemy and the Bull was the right man for that job at that time. The thing was that Halsey just kept coming at you. You beat him, he shook it off and continued the fight. As others have noted, the result was the the Japanese were rolled back and wasn't that the goal?

You did read where CINCPAC staff thought that the Bull could and would not be the best choice? The staff knew he was an idiot by August 1942. The goal obviosly was to win. If I could have put in a man wuth charisma who could fight, well I would. If I have to put in an idiot with leadership charisma to "fight", then I better take a good hard look at my officer corps and see where the Navy screwed up in training its leadership cadre.
 
Halsey in one month cost the Navy two carriers, two cruisers, seven destroyers SUNK, more than 300 planes, plus again that many ships damaged, Henderson Field shot up by battleships TWICE and the Marines almost overrun because he threw away our carrier task force and killed 5000 sailors who could have been better used Mannstein style pff the backhand.    
Reminds me a little of Grant in Virginia. Lee Bloodied Grant at the Wilderness and Grant kept coming. At Cold Harbor, Lee beat him clean, but Grant kept coming. Eventually, he wore the enemy down and attritted his resources to the point were he could no longer fight. Not a particularly elegant solution, but effective regardless.

Grant could maneuver well and he did. Look beyond the skop history they spoonfed you and see what Grant actually did. Grant knew he was going to bleed casualties seriously, but he also knew with the WW I style trench warfare he faced he had no choice in this. Remember this is the same guy who fought the Chattanooga and Vicksburg campaigns so a little thing like Robert E Lee wasn't gpoing to phase him one bit. 
 
We had men who could beat every Japanese admiral except Raizo Tanaka. Trouble is we sent in an idiot to command at Watchtower who would not use the men we had, but instead sent in his school chums or overruled the men who knew how from biutter experuence with his own stupid notions and orders.
 
Anyway, in the book "How we won the war" that Herald posted (good book by the way), the author compares Halsey and Spruance and notes that Halsey was obsessed with destroying the Japanese Fleet, while Spruance was focused on the larger picture of winning the war. That's why it was impossible to get Spruance to chase the Combined Fleet, he put less importance on sinking ships and more on taking the objective.  The Bull just wanted to mix it up.  Nimitz knew this and used his commanders as he saw fit. Certainly, by the end of the war, Nimitz had tired of Halsey, but early, he wanted a fighter to stick his nose in there and selected Halsey. He (Nimitz) rode that horse for a long time.

And it was a huge mistake Nimitz regretted. Me? After the "Where is Task Force 34 merssage" last straw, I would be convening that Flag Officers board and looking for a length of rope. http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emsad.gif" align="absmiddle" border="0" alt="" />   

 Speaking of horses, this one is looking pretty dead. Shall we continue to flog it?

As long as the point is clear that Halsey was the Grigory Kulik of the US Navy, I'm done.

 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    And Yet At The End   7/12/2009 10:11:04 AM
of that long diatribe you neglect to mention, HALSEY WON...Halsey's forces triumphed...ole'Ghormley was worried about keeping Guadalcanal.  He was INEFFECTIVE.  Halsey was EFFECTIVE, if not particularly efficient...and it was Halsey that advanced up the Slot.  In conjunction with Macarthur it was HALSEY who neutralized Rabaul. 
In conjunction with MacArthur it was HALSEY that destroyed the IJN light surface forces and gutted IJN  Naval Air power.  It WAS who made it impossible for the IJN to stop the Tarawa invasion, by tying up and attriting Japanese Carrier Aviation. 
 
It was Halsey, with MacArthur who so damaged IJN Naval Aviation that it NEVER was a real threat after the Solomons/New Guinea Campaign(s).  It was Halsey that set the stage for the Battle of the Philippine Sea, by destroying IJN Naval Aviation.
 
You kind of neglect that portion of the history don't you Herald?  Facts, such nasty difficult things aren't they?
 
Bottom-Line: for the period 1941-43 Halsey was the most successful operation naval commander the USN had...Nimitz was a great CinC, but he commanded NOTHING-he chose PERSONNEL.  Time-after-Time, it was Halsey that CHOSEN to advance the US forces in the Solomons.  Not not McClellan, not a Burnside, a Meade or so....I'd say.  Very Mahanian, you'd think you'd like Halsey, Herald.  He focused on the Japanese FLEET, not the mission objective...get back to us on how a Mahanian guy like Halsey is an idiot, within the bounds of Mahan's focus on Battle to destroy the Enemy Fleet as the prime focus of Naval Operations.  You're almost sounding like Julian Corbett now....
 
Quote    Reply

elclip1       7/12/2009 2:51:12 PM
Herald wrote:
Halsey in one month cost the Navy two carriers, two cruisers, seven destroyers SUNK, more than 300 planes, plus again that many ships damaged, Henderson Field shot up by battleships TWICE and the Marines almost overrun because he threw away our carrier task force and killed 5000 sailors who could have been better used Mannstein style pff the backhand.    
I think Henderson was shot up by battleships once....

Anyway, tell me why the loss of Wasp was Halsey's fault. 


Then let's play a different game.  Back to Yamato (remember her?)   Suppose instead of Kirishima, it was Yamato the night that Halsey sent Lee in. For fun, let's say that events unfolded the same way - DD's hammered, South Dakota beat up and Washington forgotten about. What happens if it's Yamato that Washington opens up on at close range? I assume that Yamato would have been able to withstand the initial damage better than Kirishima and she would have been able to punch back. 

What does that close in punch-out look like? It's one of those rare moments where there could have been a true one on one between BB's...Washington vs Yamato at a couple miles distance. 

Again, assumes that events would have unfolded the same way, but with the bigger ship in place of the Battlecruiser...(not sure that Yamato had the speed to get down the slot and back before daylight, but that's a different question)

Anyone? 
 

 


 
 
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 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics