The Whale has Wings

Status
Not open for further replies.
The current docrtrine of the RN is to use 2 CV together. If available (and if facing a strong opponment), they also can use a light carrier with the group, mainly to serve as defence for the TF. They only use a bigger group if its something like a pre-prepared night strike, where coordination issues arent such a problem.

On the other hand, the RN does need to learn how to perform multi-carrier operations, and having five Fleet Carriers together in the same theatre gives an opportunity the Sea Lords may not want to miss.

The reason I suggest this is that they must be planning for what they are going to do to maintain their funding in the event that the IJN battleline and carrier force is defeated. They need to find something credible to do for the rest of the war, and, lacking enemy navies to fight, that only really leaves supporting amphibious attacks in the teeth of land based aircraft. Pairs of carriers don't cut it in that scenario, you need to be operating multiple mutually supporting carriers to be able to do so, and they'll know it.
 
On the other hand, the RN does need to learn how to perform multi-carrier operations, and having five Fleet Carriers together in the same theatre gives an opportunity the Sea Lords may not want to miss.

The reason I suggest this is that they must be planning for what they are going to do to maintain their funding in the event that the IJN battleline and carrier force is defeated. They need to find something credible to do for the rest of the war, and, lacking enemy navies to fight, that only really leaves supporting amphibious attacks in the teeth of land based aircraft. Pairs of carriers don't cut it in that scenario, you need to be operating multiple mutually supporting carriers to be able to do so, and they'll know it.

The real problem at this time is the technology simply isnt up to coordinating a 4-carrier group. Even the Japanese used divisions of 2 carriers. I don't think its practical until short range TBS, better radar and plots, and radar pickets.

Anyway, Somervilles carriers are better used sinking the IJN :) :)
 
. As I've said before, IITL, the day Bradley liberates Paris, and Stalin's crossing the Belarus/Polish frontier, will NOT be the day Monty takes Berlin.:D

Now, ITTL it is quite unlikely Monty will take Berlin.

O'Connor, OTOH.....:D:D:D

Hmm, O'Connor and Patton in competition as they head towards Germany.....:D

Patton never commanded an Army Group. Considering his poor strategic insight, and inability to handle infantry, allies, and the press... I have to wonder if he really had the gravitas to handle such a job.

O'Connor would win the race over Monty, Patton, or anyone else, no question. He was the best the West had. But geographically it would be more likely an American Army under his command that would actually do the job. Assuming the Supreme Commander (whoever he might be) allows a battle that takes 100,000 lives of his own command.:( And this, at war's end.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066

I don't think FDR is under the same pressure to defend the home coastline. The Pacific war is going better and he has done something about all the sinking ships on the east coast. If this still goes ahead, it might be used in a narrower way. To prevent lights on the coast, allow manoeuvres, beef up port security and to site coast watches rather than to intern US citizens with Japanese/Korean ancestry. Opposition from JE Hoover and Eleanor might prove just that bit more convincing.

Astrodragon is right to leave 9066 as is.

The factors involved had nothing to do with "invasion dangers". After, the Nisei of Hawaii were untouched, right? And rest assured, if the Nisei had represented 1/4 of the population of California, as they did in Hawaii, THEY wouldn't have been touched either. Expulsion did not occur until long after any "threat" of invasion had ebbed. The factors behing 9066 were two-fold:

1) Maintaining control of the US House of Representatives in the 1942 Off-year elections. This was FDR at his absolute worst, his absolute coldest. Even his greatest champions do their damndest to gloss over 9066.

2) It was about the money to be had by greedy speculators and evil politicians (but I repeat myself) who made a financial and political killing by feeding the racist hatreds and fears of Whites as well as making a fortune by buying up Nisei property at bargain basement prices. TWO future California governors made their start in politics AND made their personal fortunes in this travesty. Pat Brown-D (Jerry Brown's father!), and Earl Warren-R.

Judging by Earl Warren's later career as Chief Justice of SCOTUS, he must have been suffering from a delayed conscience.:rolleyes:

The only justice the Nisei ever got against Pat Brown was political. After humiliating Richard Nixon in the 1962 California gubernatorial election, Brown basically just "mailed in" his re-election campaign in 1966. Only to discover three weeks before election day that his dark horse political unknown Republican opponent's "door-to-door" campaign had put him within striking distance. So, three days before the election, Brown told a press conference: "You know, Lincoln was shot by an actor." He really said this. In California.:eek: I don't think he said this on the corner of Hollywood and Vine, but...:eek:

Dark horse candidate and washed up actor turned Governor Ronald Reagan.:cool:

And no doubt, lots of saki being drunk that election night.:)
 
Last edited:
O'Connor would win the race over Monty, Patton, or anyone else, no question. He was the best the West had. But geographically it would be more likely an American Army under his command that would actually do the job. Assuming the Supreme Commander (whoever he might be) allows a battle that takes 100,000 lives of his own command.:( And this, at war's end.

As long as the commander isnt MacArthur we're probably OK....:eek::eek:
 
Astrodragon is right to leave 9066 as is.


1) Maintaining control of the US House of Representatives in the 1942 Off-year elections. This was FDR at his absolute worst, his absolute coldest. Even his greatest champions do their damndest to gloss over 9066.

I've read more than a few suggestions that Roosevelt was pretty damm close to being a dictator from Dec 41 on.
 
Patton never commanded an Army Group. Considering his poor strategic insight, and inability to handle infantry, allies, and the press... I have to wonder if he really had the gravitas to handle such a job.

O'Connor would win the race over Monty, Patton, or anyone else, no question. He was the best the West had. But geographically it would be more likely an American Army under his command that would actually do the job. Assuming the Supreme Commander (whoever he might be) allows a battle that takes 100,000 lives of his own command.:( And this, at war's end.

Guys

O'Connor was damned good but again this was mainly with relatively small forces in the early stages of the war. After he escaped captivity and commanded an army in the Normandy campaign his performance doesn't seem to have been dramatically good and I did read the suggestion that he was probably, like Patton perhaps, mainly better at medium level units in a more open battlefield.

As such, which he would probably make more ground than Monty it might come at a heavier cost and also is unlikely to be a dramatic winner of major victories in W Europe in the latter stages of the war.

Steve
 
I've read more than a few suggestions that Roosevelt was pretty damm close to being a dictator from Dec 41 on.

In regards to 9066, I won't argue. It has to be remembered how POPULAR this order was to Whites in the Western US. The Nisei had made for damn prosperous citizens (even if the US Government didn't recognize them as citizens in 1942:mad:). All that $$$ to be had from them made it so easy for people to either look away...or join in!:mad::eek:

I'd watch out for the title of "dictator" though. There were so many "Roosevelt-Haters" as they were called then, ascribing so many evil acts with malevolent motives to Roosevelt (basically from the day he was sworn in:rolleyes:), that most critical contemporary reports against FDR were pretty much beyond lurid. The Chicago Tribune, in particular, was able to get away with more than one act of out-and-out treason simply to embarass Roosevelt, and he couldn't prosecute for fear that the Axis enemy might believe the Tribune's release of government secrets. Sadly, in some cases, they did. In one case, aiding in strategic surprise in the Ardennes.

Judging FDR's level of power can be difficult for someone grown up in a parliamentary system. In a republican system, the Chief Executive enjoys far greater power than a Prime Minister over the nation at large. However, a Prime Minister enjoys far greater power over the legislative body of government of which of he/she is a member. I would recommend comparing the American Presidency to France's.
 
Last edited:
Guys

O'Connor was damned good but again this was mainly with relatively small forces in the early stages of the war. After he escaped captivity and commanded an army in the Normandy campaign his performance doesn't seem to have been dramatically good and I did read the suggestion that he was probably, like Patton perhaps, mainly better at medium level units in a more open battlefield.

As such, which he would probably make more ground than Monty it might come at a heavier cost and also is unlikely to be a dramatic winner of major victories in W Europe in the latter stages of the war.

Steve

Perhaps if he has a chance ITTL to grow in command of ever larger forces?

Beyond all his other faults, Halsey's biggest command problems were that he was commanding the Guadacanal Campaign while Spruance inherited one task group, and commanded it as it built up into a veritable armada. All along, he was able to build up his staff, and gain the vital experience he needed in the process. When Halsey took over from him again, he brought his old staff with him, and they just couldn't cope.

Maybe O'Connor can avoid Halsey's path, and follow in Spruance's?:confused:
 
Not sure about Mac, but I am still coming to terms with AD describing 1942 Alice Springs as a ..metropolis..?:p
Maybe Doug could convalesce there, boating with the Todd River Yacht club.
Re commanders, ITTL Blamey actually has more and wider command experience, in combat, with larger forces than Doug does.:D
 
Not sure about Mac, but I am still coming to terms with AD describing 1942 Alice Springs as a ..metropolis..?:p
Maybe Doug could convalesce there, boating with the Todd River Yacht club.
Re commanders, ITTL Blamey actually has more and wider command experience, in combat, with larger forces than Doug does.:D

It's only in staff work where Dougie may have more experience. Yet Blamey has far more experience in higher command ITTL than he did OTL, and he won't have Dougie emasculating his command with a bogus "Alamo Force".
 
O'Connor was damned good but again this was mainly with relatively small forces in the early stages of the war. After he escaped captivity and commanded an army in the Normandy campaign his performance doesn't seem to have been dramatically good and I did read the suggestion that he was probably, like Patton perhaps, mainly better at medium level units in a more open battlefield.

As such, which he would probably make more ground than Monty it might come at a heavier cost and also is unlikely to be a dramatic winner of major victories in W Europe in the latter stages of the war.

I posted a very interesting analysis of O'Connor that was produced at a US staff college. Basically, the conclusion was that to succeed, he needed a certain degree of autonomy, and when heavily constrained to fit into a grand plan and limited discretion about how to deploy his forces he did nowhere near as well. It sees to be that, rather than force size, that was the problem.

He either needed to be in charge, or given wide latitude to interpret his orders, so if he was in Monty's place, he's likely to have done vastly better than he did as his subordinate.
 
I posted a very interesting analysis of O'Connor that was produced at a US staff college. Basically, the conclusion was that to succeed, he needed a certain degree of autonomy, and when heavily constrained to fit into a grand plan and limited discretion about how to deploy his forces he did nowhere near as well. It sees to be that, rather than force size, that was the problem.

He either needed to be in charge, or given wide latitude to interpret his orders, so if he was in Monty's place, he's likely to have done vastly better than he did as his subordinate.

:)
The problem would have been for O'Connor, that in the British position of Normandy OTL, it was an absolute slogging match for every hedgerow. If Normandy is repeated ITTL, the British should at least have more surviving infantry to protect the tanks than they did OTL. And once the breakout occurs, both the closing of the Falaise Gap and the seizing of the Antwerp Estuary will be handled far better. And no Market-Garden.

I wonder how O'Connor would have been dealing with his allies? The only British senior generals who come to mind in a positive light in that regard are the CBI generals (It was Stilwell who was the problem, when he was warring with Chaing), the Anzac generals (when they weren't suffering with Dougie and his Bataan Gang) and Alexander.:confused:
 
:)
The problem would have been for O'Connor, that in the British position of Normandy OTL, it was an absolute slogging match for every hedgerow. If Normandy is repeated ITTL, the British should at least have more surviving infantry to protect the tanks than they did OTL. And once the breakout occurs, both the closing of the Falaise Gap and the seizing of the Antwerp Estuary will be handled far better. And no Market-Garden.

It was a slogging match, but O'Connor commanded troops on the Italian front in WWI. He knows how to deal with that situation, and still exploit opportunities.
 
It was a slogging match, but O'Connor commanded troops on the Italian front in WWI. He knows how to deal with that situation, and still exploit opportunities.

Up to a point, yes. But when the terrain is worse for attacking from your own position, as opposed to the other sectors of the front... I can't see any British force breaking through ahead of the Americans simply by virtue of the fact that for every tank and 88mm AT gun facing the Americans FIVE were facing their poor British & Canadian Allies.:(:(:(
 
Usertron, you are probably correct re the Staffwork, but Balmey was COS for the Australian Corps in WW1, with Hamel and Amiens, having previously been COs for 3 Div AIF. Did Doug ever get that level of Staff command? I was under the impression that pre 1941, his highest level of actual combat was the Rainbow division in 1917/18
 
Usertron, you are probably correct re the Staffwork, but Balmey was COS for the Australian Corps in WW1, with Hamel and Amiens, having previously been COs for 3 Div AIF. Did Doug ever get that level of Staff command? I was under the impression that pre 1941, his highest level of actual combat was the Rainbow division in 1917/18

It's difficult to measure. Mac was in charge of West Point (where he tried, mostly unsuccessfully, to make major badly needed reforms) as well as being CoS for the US Army. Much of his experience was in positions filled in peacetime. There doesn't appear to be anything in his record showing staff officer only experience in wartime, but that is not a surprise for a highly successful West Point graduate.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top