...Those Marvelous Tin Fish: The Great Torpedo Scandal Avoided

McPherson

Banned
About LUCK... PART THE THIRD, Or What Willis Lee, Daniel Callaghan and Norman Scott Lesson Learn...

Alas, poor Norman Scott in OTL.


Scott, Norman (navy.mil)

Excerpt, and it is pertinent...
Rear Admiral Scott had duty in connection with fitting out USS Stoddert at the Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation plant; San Francisco, California, in 1920, and went aboard that vessel as Executive Officer when she was commissioned 30 June 1920. He served as Assistant Fire Control Officer in USS New York from August 1920 to May 1921. After a year's service in USS Burns he reported to the Fourteenth Naval District for duty in July 1922. From August 1923 to July 1924, he served as Aide to the Commandant, Fourteenth Naval District. He joined USS Idaho in July 1924, and in September of that year he was appointed Aide on Staff of Commander, Battle Fleet, USS California, Flagship with additional duty as Fleet Personnel Officer.

Rear Admiral Scott had a tour of duty as instructor in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Physics at the Naval Academy from September 1927 until June 1930. His next duty was in the Asiatic Fleet where he served in USS Jason and later had command of USS Mac Leish and of USS Paul Jones. He had a tour of duty in the Bureau of Navigation, Navy Department, from August 1932 until June 1934, when he reported to the Naval War College, Newport, Rhode Island, for the senior course. He returned to sea in USS Cincinnati in June 1934, with duty as Executive Officer.

A Less than Laudatory View of RADM Norman Scott

Conclusion from the analysis.

Conclusion

While Admiral Scott’s success at Cape Esperance was a much-needed boost to American morale, his victory had sinister consequences on the conduct of future operations. South Pacific Commanders strove to replicate his achievement by mirroring Scott’s tactics, but Scott’s feat was due to exigent circumstances, and this flawed their logic. The Americans caught Goto off guard because since the August battle they virtually abandoned control of Savo Sound to the Japanese every night. Consequently, the Navy’s sudden reappearance completely surprised the Japanese. TF 64.2 also benefited from the fact that Joshima’s exact position was unknown to Goto, causing him to withhold fire for six to seven crucial minutes, while he challenged the Americans with his desperate “I am Aoba” message. Neither circumstance would likely occur again. The Navy’s belief that Cape Esperance was a smashing success (rather than a marginal victory) reinforced the pre-war notion that gunfire alone would be the final arbiter in naval combat. Furthermore, it seemed to vindicate the Mahanian 85 cult of the Big Gun as Scott “demonstrated his allegiance to this school of thought.”75 Consequently, the Americans continued to “concentrate on tactics designed to maximize the effectiveness of gunfire”76 to the exclusion of a balanced surface warfare doctrine. The superiority of the “hammer and anvil” of gunnery and torpedo would be demonstrated at Vella Gulf (6-7 October 1943), improved at Cape St. George (24-25 November 1943) and perfected at Surigao Straight (25 October 1944). It would be a year before anyone recognized the flaws in Admiral Norman Scott’s victory, and because of this, the Navy lost indispensable ships and many hundreds of sailors. Had Scott survived the South Pacific Campaign there is every reason to believe that he would have been an agent of change, but the fact is he did not live to celebrate Thanksgiving 1942. As mentioned previously, friendly fire from the San Francisco killed Scott on 13 November and he posthumously received the Congressional Medal of Honor. Incidentally, in 1942, 13 November was a Friday.

Now my (SARCASTIC) rejoinder.

In 1942, America Needed a Victory. The Battle of Cape Esperance Was It. | The National Interest

From the citation...

Scott was killed during the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal on November 13, and, according to Morison, he “became the hero of the South Pacific during the short month that remained in his valiant life.” His subordinates reported that they had combined to sink three Japanese cruisers and four destroyers. Scott was inclined to regard this evaluation as wishful thinking.

Although the Americans had inflicted much greater losses on the Japanese, the Battle of Cape Esperance cost them one destroyer, Duncan, sunk; another, Farenholt, damaged; and two cruisers, Boise and Salt Lake City, damaged. Also, Admiral Joshima’s group had landed its men and equipment on Guadalcanal.

The headline of the October 13, 1942, edition of The New York Times announced, “30-MINUTE COMBAT; Our Ships sink Cruiser, Four Destroyers and Transport At Night. US DESTROYER IS LOST.” The story went on to report, “In a midnight battle with Japanese warships in the Solomon Islands, United States warships sank one Japanese heavy cruiser, four destroyers and a transport, and repulsed an enemy attempt to land more troops on Guadalcanal, the Navy Department announced tonight.”

The story was more accurate than the version given by Scott’s subordinates but was also largely wishful thinking.

The conclusion from this more nuanced treatment?

A Victory for Morale

After the Battle of Cape Esperance, the sailors of the U.S. Navy now knew that they were capable not only of fighting the enemy at night but also of giving the Japanese a good drubbing. The Tokyo Express, as the Japanese reinforcement runs were nicknamed, was no longer completely safe in the darkness. The U.S. confidence that had been so badly damaged at Savo Island had now been restored.The Americans also gained valuable experience in night tactics and in the use of radar. Still, Cape Esperance showed that a much more thorough knowledge of radar was needed, which led to new training courses in both radar and in night combat.

Luck, preparation, and technology had combined to give the Americans a much needed victory. Morison summed up the outcome of the fighting: “At the very depth of this winter of our discontent came the battle off Cape Esperance—which, if far short of glorious summer, gave the tired Americans a heartening victory and the proud Japanese a sound spanking.”

Now I leave it to you, the readers, to choose between the two viewpoints, but I must emphasize what RADM Norman Scott did, after Savo Island.

See here: Admiral Norman Scott | The Inglorius Padre Steve's World and

One Learns More From Adversity Than Success

The battles around Guadalcanal occurred in a time of technical transition for the United States Navy as its radar became better at detecting ships and fire direction systems advanced in their accuracy and targeting ability. While almost all U.S. warships had radar primarily the SC search radar and FC Fire Control radar, not many U.S. Navy warships had the advanced SG surface search radar. But it was not just a matter of technology, it was a matter of training and experience. Their opponents, the Imperial Japanese Navy had very few ships equipped with radar, but their training for surface actions, especially night fighting where their superior optics, gunnery skills, and torpedoes proved deadly during the first year of the war before U.S. Navy crews mastered their technology edge.

People forget that this was as true for admirals as it was for the enlisted sailors who come to grips with RADAR and with the change in how to fight that arrives with this weapon system.

The first major operations mounted by the Japanese was in early August when a Japanese cruiser destroyer force ravaged the U.S. cruiser forces off Savo Island. The Japanese inflicted the worst defeat of an American naval squadron, sinking 3 American and one Australian Heavy cruiser while damaging another. The battle was a disaster for the U.S. forces and led to the early withdraw of transport and supply ships of the invasion force before many could finish unloading the equipment and supplies that were critical to the operation. In that operation radar played no role for U.S. forces, and sets were either turned off or not relied upon by commanders. Admiral Richmond Turner noted:

“The Navy was still obsessed with a strong feeling of technical and mental superiority over the enemy. In spite of ample evidence as to enemy capabilities, most of our officers and men despised the enemy and felt themselves sure victors in all encounters under any circumstances. The net result of all this was a fatal lethargy of mind which induced a confidence without readiness, and a routine acceptance of outworn peacetime standards of conduct. I believe that this psychological factor, as a cause of our defeat, was even more important than the element of surprise”
Turner, for all that he is the chief culprit and person responsible for those very conditions and the confusion poor dispositions, command dislocations and command fuck-ups that lead to Savo Island in OTL, at least identifies properly what goes wrong.

But... he does nothing about it.

This World War II Battle Crushed the Myth That Japan's Navy Was Unbeatable | The National Interest
They were a well-trained group in comparison to the force that had been annihilated in August at Savo Island. Under Scott’s leadership, Task Force 64 had done intensive night gunnery exercises, with men enduring general quarters from dusk to dawn. Scott had also laid down a carefully drawn battle plan. His ships would steam in column with destroyers ahead and astern. The tin cans would illuminate the Japanese targets with their searchlights, fire torpedoes at the largest enemy vessels, guns at the smaller ones, and the cruisers would open fire whenever they spotted an enemy ship. Cruiser floatplanes were to illuminate the battle area.
This was taken right out of the British and Japanese playbooks as understood by the United States Naval War College.
Despite the intense training and tight plans, Scott’s force had weaknesses. San Francisco had done poorly in gunnery exercises and had been used for convoy escorting duties, complete with a depth charge rack hammered on her stern. That was not too useful, as San Francisco lacked sonar. The depth charges were a potential fire hazard in battle. Boise also had a questionable history. She had missed a major battle in the Dutch East Indies when she ran aground.
This will change by the First Battle of Guadalcanal; the gunnery will improve. But the radars remain a sore point.
More importantly, the two heavy cruisers operated the early SC (“Sugar Charlie”) radar, while the light cruisers sported the more effective and modern SG (“Sugar George”) radar among the first American ships to do so. Worse, Scott, like other admirals of the time, was not overly impressed with radar, preferring the tried and effective night optics of scopes and searchlights. As a result, Scott hoisted his flag on San Francisco, which offered flag quarters, as opposed to the smaller cruisers, which did not. He accepted reports that the Japanese had receivers that could detect SC radars in use. So he ordered them shut off during the approach to action and only used the SG radars and narrow beamed fire control radars to supplement his lookouts. Perhaps most critically, in night naval battles in the Pacific to date, the Japanese had sunk eight Allied cruisers and three destroyers without losing a single ship.
Scott is unfamiliar with radar, but he knows optical gunnery and he falls back on what he knows. He will learn.
Nonetheless, Scott was ready. On October 9-10, he made tentative advances to Cape Esperance but turned back when aerial reconnaissance and codebreakers reported no suitable Japanese targets.
The Japanese are in a state of confusion themselves as to what they want to do with Hyakutake and Yamamoto crisscrossing the radio frequency spectrum as to what each plans with Terauchi and Tokyo Imperial General headquarters and the Navy high command. The IJA side is trying to ascertain how many Americans are there on :"あの大変な島" ("ah-no-tai-jin-na-ji-mah" or "that goddamned island"). Yamamoto is at Chu'uk trying to scrounge up fuel, because those "ineffectual" US submarines keep sinking the tankers enroute to Chu'uk that he requests to support and fuel his stranded battle fleet.
There was good reason for that. Japanese convoys down The Slot were being delayed by American bombers based on Guadalcanal’s Henderson Field, which irritated Mikawa. He complained to Vice Admiral Jinichi Kusaka, who headed the 11th Air Fleet at Rabaul. Kusaka said he would neutralize Henderson Field if Mikawa would run the Express.
Finally, somebody, Japanese, pulls his head out of his extruder and takes action.
On October 11, some 35 Japanese bombers and 30 fighters attacked Henderson Field but only managed to bomb the jungle. The Japanese lost four Mitsubishi Zero fighters and eight bombers. But they drew off the Americans, giving the Japanese ships a break to head south.
CACTUS lives up to its name as a plant with sharp thorns. It is a metaphor, folks.
However, the naval movements caught the eye of patrolling Boeing B-17 bombers of Colonel L.G. Saunders’ 11th Bombardment Group, and they reported two cruisers and six destroyers racing down The Slot. The bombers’ messages went to Scott and his command. On Helena, Ensign Chick Morris, the radio officer, wrote about “a steady, chattering stream that kept the typewriters hopping.”
Way to go, Army Air Farce. Took long enough. They still screw it up and this will lead to RADM Scott's errors in calculating a proper intercept merge later. The AAF miss Goto's bombardment force completely. Whoops.
The oncoming force was actually two groups. One was the “Reinforcement Group,” consisting of the fast seaplane tenders Nisshin and Chitose and five troop-carrying transports. The seaplane tenders’ aircraft had been removed in favor of four 150mm howitzers and their tractors, two field guns, and 280 men, which jammed the two ships’ hangar spaces. The other force was a veteran group of three heavy cruisers, Aoba, Kinugasa, and Furutaka, and two destroyers, Hatsuyuki and Fubuki. Except for Hatsuyuki, all ships were the victors of Savo Island. Called the “Bombardment Group,” their mission was to escort the reinforcements and then treat Henderson Field to a dose of heavy shellfire with their guns.
The idea as I have mentioned upthread was to bombard the runway and revetted planes at Henderson Field and put American airpower out of business. The Japanese had/have enough experience with RIKKO, themselves, to want to perform a "Little Caesar" on Henderson Field.

In command of this force was Rear Admiral Aritomo Goto, who graduated from the Imperial Japanese Naval Academy in 1910, 30th in a class of 149. He had commanded destroyers, served on battleships, and headed the second and successful invasion of Wake Island in 1941. It was a powerful group of well-trained sailors with victorious experience in night battles. Their job was simple: get the reinforcements in so that the Japanese 17th Army could attack Henderson Field on October 22, backed by more powerful naval and air forces.
Do not get too excited. This is the same rat-bastard who abandoned Shōhō at Coral Sea and let her be sunk bereft of his cruisers' AAA protection.
Because of this, the Japanese cruisers and destroyers were loaded with high explosive ordnance useful for blasting ground troops and installations instead of armor-piercing ordnance needed to rip through ships’ steel hulls.
Actually, as with the Second Night Battle of Guadalcanal, it is half and half loads with the modified sanshiki shells first in the hoists and stored in the magazines. But this comment digresses.
For once, the Americans had the intelligence advantage—the Japanese knew nothing of Task Force 64, and Goto’s force steamed southeast in utter ignorance of its enemy, in antisubmarine formation with Aoba and Goto in the lead, Furutaka behind, and Kinugasa in the rear. Fubuki stood guard on the starboard side with Hatsuyuki to port.
I dispute this conclusion. It appears that Goto adopted the Trident as more of a meeting engagement formation as he intended to port column and van his destroyers once he went past Savo Island. He did not get the chance.
Task Force 64 steamed northeast in battle line with the destroyers Farenholt, Duncan, and Laffey in the lead. Behind them were San Francisco, Boise, Salt Lake City, Helena, Buchanan, and McCalla. Scott’s plan was to intercept the Tokyo Express west of Guadalcanal, cross the T of his advancing enemy, lay down a broadside of torpedoes and shells, and then countermarch—all the ships turning on one point and staying in formation—and double back to deliver a second dose of fire. Scott sent this plan by signal flag to the other ships, and Chick Morris and his fellow junior ensigns—they called themselves the Junior Board of Strategy—took a break from the tension to stand on Helena’s forecastle, study the plans, analyze their implications, and wonder how they would stand the fight.
It is a good plan... if the Japanese show up on time and in the place Scott expects. Remember that point. Scott's plan actually depends on his estimated time of arrival of the enemy force being accurate and correct. He even puts up some of his cruiser float planes to recon for the Japanese and to alert him if they arrive early or late to the Happy Birthday Party he prepares. His cruiser floatplanes FAIL him.
Amid sunset colors, Morris wrote, “It was good to stand there and watch the ships of our formation steaming through that placid sea. And I was not alone. Other men were thinking the same thoughts. Some were sitting around anchor windlasses. Others were parked on the bitts, quietly ‘batting the breeze.’ One man was asleep on the steel deck, and another, nearby, was deep in a magazine of Western stories.
Finally...
To reduce the possibility of their catching fire, Scott sent all but one of each cruiser’s seaplanes to the American seaplane base at Tulagi. He launched the remaining planes to locate the onrushing enemy, and San Francisco’s plane did so. So did the cruiser’s radar—one of the operators made the report, and his officer said it must be the islands the ship was passing. The radarman answered, “Well, sir, these islands are traveling at about 30 knots.”

At 2330 Salt Lake City’s search radar made the definitive call: three clusters of steel on the water to the west and northwest—Goto’s cruisers. Scott ordered his countermarch immediately, radioing his commanders, “Execute left to follow—Column left to course 230.”

Not on time and not where expected. Scott's first order throws his line into confusion because

And with that simple order, Scott’s plan disintegrated. The three lead destroyers turned on the appointed dime and stayed in column, heading south. But San Francisco’s skipper, Captain Charles H. “Soc” McMorris, one level up from Scott’s bridge, did not get the order. He turned immediately.

So who gets the Navy Goat award? (^^^)

Read the rest of the Battle of Cape Esperance at the citation. But I will cite one more bit from the article to show what is going on inside the United States Navy Officer corps at the time and what it means for US performance in battle. At that moment, Goto’s ships emerged from two hours of rain squalls and into American radar range. All the American ships started lighting up their radars to lock on the Japanese targets and open fire immediately. But on San Francisco, Scott did not know what was going on. He had no idea where his lead destroyers were, and his ship lacked SG radar to find them. There was a danger he might fire on his own vessels.Scott immediately radioed Captain Robert Tobin, leading the destroyer squadron from Farenholt, asking “Are you taking station ahead?” Tobin replied, “Affirmative. Moving up on your starboard side.”
That meant that three American destroyers were steaming between his cruisers and the Japanese ships. Scott signaled back: “Do not rejoin, until permission is requested giving bearing in voice code of approach.”

Scott’s ships could not open fire, even though their lookouts could see the Japanese pagoda forecastles and bows cutting through the water. “What are we going to do, board them?” a chief petty officer growled on Helena. “Do we have to see the whites of the bastards’ eyes?”

That ship’s skipper, a Navy Cross holder named Gilbert Hoover, had the answer. He had served in the Bureau of Ordnance and led destroyers at Midway. He understood the value of both radar and time. Over Talk Between Ships (TBS) radio, he signaled “Interrogatory Roger” to Scott, the standard request for permission to open fire. Scott signaled back, “Roger,” the message to open fire. The problem was that Navy Signal Book regulations said that a voice signal of “Roger” merely meant “I have received your message.” Was Scott giving permission to open fire or merely acknowledging the message? Just to be sure, Hoover made the signal a second time and got the same response.

With that, Hoover opened fire with his 15 6-inch guns, a full broadside, hurling armor-piercing shells across the ocean and spent cases onto turret decks. Helena’s gunnery director called for automatic continuous mode to maintain the barrage. Chick Morris described the scene: “Now suddenly it was a blazing bedlam. Helena herself reared and lurched sideways, trembling from the tremendous shock of recoil. In the radio shack and coding room we were sent reeling and stumbling against bulkheads, smothered by a snowstorm of books and papers from the tables. The clock leaped from its pedestal. Electric fans hit the deck with a metallic clatter. Not a man in the room had a breath left in him.”

On Salt Lake City, Captain Ernest J. Small was reluctant to open fire, but he had a lookout chosen especially for his night vision, who yelled into his phone to the bridge, “Those are enemy cruisers, believe me! I’ve been studying the pictures. We got no ships like them.”

That did it. Salt Lake City joined the bombardment, firing at Aoba, 4,000 yards away, reporting “all hits.” Boise opened up next, with Captain Moran yelling at his gunnery officer, Lt. Cmdr. John J. Laffan, “Pick out the biggest and commence firing!” Boise’s directors were also trained on Aoba, and more shells whistled at her.

It was left to RADM Norman Scott to begin using "British methods" of night fighting to try to convince his TG64.2 at the time in our RTL, that they could work together and face off against the Japanese in a night battle. He had three weeks to teach his little squadron how to steam together, shoot together and fight together in a night environment amidst the rain squalls, sloppy soggy hot steamy clouds, amidst islands that throw back false return echoes to his assorted different type radars in his polyglot fleet as they exercised in the Sealark Channel.

By British methods I MEAN, he split his little squadron into two teams and they fired LIVE WARSHOTS at each other with a deliberate pre-calculated input offset so that the shots were adjusted as "overs" for a predicted miss margin in the fire control solution. That means if the USS Salt Lake City drops a straddle about a thousand yards over and the predicted "miss" is supposed to be a thousand yards and the extremely nervous spotters on the USS Salt Lake City range estimate the shells that fly directly over them and fall a thousand yards away as the "over" then the "umpires" call a hit on their own ship. How about them apples?

So that is how RADM Norman Scott uses his "LUCK". It runs out when he is assigned as Deputy OTC to the Hollywood Admiral who gets him killed.

=================================================================

Next I will discuss the ITTL changes Norman Scott "could" and "would" have made; if he is alive and is allowed between Esperance and this Battle of Guadalcanal.
 
Last edited:

McPherson

Banned
What Do The Americans Do After The Battle of Cape Esperance In This Timeline?

Even though the action of 22 August was a minor skirmish, it illustrated the challenges faced by the American Navy in the nighttime naval battles of the Solomons campaigns. Neither side may have been fighting the war as foreseen in prewar plans, but the Japanese emphasis on attritional nocturnal combat suited the situation in the Solomons more than American naval doctrine. As a result, the Imperial Japanese Navy punished the U.S. Navy severely in surface actions. Examination of ship losses illustrates this fact. During the Guadalcanal phase of the fighting, the Japanese lost 24 warships in the area while the Allies lost 25. These losses were due to airplanes, mines, and submarines in addition to surface actions. If only the surface actions are counted, the Allies lost 15 ships while the Japanese only lost 8.^21

Primary source data is...

^21 Frank, Richard B. Guadalcanal: The Definitive Account of the Landmark Battle. New York: Penguin, 1992.,(pp 601-602.)

The glimmers of how to do it "right" begin to appear at The Battle of Cape Esperance....

Scott’s pre-action course change caused considerable disarray in the van destroyers. The rear admiral ordered a column movement, but his own flagship misunderstood him and made an immediate turn. The other ships followed the flagship, but the van destroyers were left behind. Farenholt and Laffey raced to reassume the van position while Duncan, detecting Goto’s force, launched a torpedo attack on the Japanese ships. According to Lieutenant Commander Edmund Taylor, captain of the Duncan, he thought the Farenholt was starting to attack the approaching enemy vessels. Thus, he followed suit and the destroyer wound up charging the Japanese battle line by itself. Duncan engaged the cruisers with guns and torpedoes. As it maneuvered, the ship placed herself between the two opposing lines of ships. Shells started hitting the Duncan, killing sailors and starting fires. The ship flashed recognition lights to the American column, but some of the shells hitting the destroyer may have been from friendly vessels. The sailors tried to extinguish the fires and save the ship, but it had received too much damage and finally sank.^40
^39 Task Force 64, After Action Report, October 22, 1942, Box 239, RG 38, NARA. When reporting the bearing of a contact, the crew could use either true or relative bearing. True bearing related to actual compass bearings. For example, a contact at 90 degrees true would be to the east. Relative bearing related to the direction of the friendly task force with 0 degrees being the direction in which the task force is heading. For example, a contact at 90 degrees relative would be to the right of a task force with no relation to cardinal direction.
^40 USS Duncan, After Action Report, October 16, 1942, Box 955, RG 38, NARA.
To keep to the narrative of this time line, we do know a few things that RADM Norman Scott adopts as quick fixes for the mess that is The Battle of Savo Island. There are additional fixes he attempts after The Mess that is the Battle of Cape Esperance.

1. He attempts to keep all the allied ships together under positive tactical control. For Scott, this means the simplest formations; either a cruising formation of columns or the line of battle.
2. He formulates procedures and options in his cruising formation plan choices.
a. Plan Able is line of battle with the destroyers in the lead and the cruisers in trail in single column.
b. Plan Baker is two columns with the destroyers on the threat axis flank column and the cruisers as the gun-line to the disengaged side.
c. Plan Charlie is line of battle with the cruisers in the lead and the destroyers in trail.
d. Plan Dog. is the line of battle with half of the destroyers at the head of the line of battle, the cruisers in the middle and half of the destroyers in trail in line astern.

2. Each of these plans, except Baker, has its limits in that the destroyers are tied to the line of battle and must conform to cruiser line's movements until the admiral who commands the cruiser line releases either the van or trail destroyers to conduct their torpedo attacks. In the case of Baker, the given assumption is that the destroyer/squadron/division/section leaders will have enough initiative and common sense to charge the enemy formation to deliver a torpedo attack at their best operational torpedo range and then get out of the way while the cruisers open up with their guns.

3. He attempts to simplify training issues by assembling a common surface action groups. He drills them in his formation tactics, first in daylight, then at night. He separates the squadron into two teams, one team is ABLE. The other team is Oboe. Guess which one is the Japanese team? Both teams square off and try out RADM Scott's ideas about destroyers charging the enemy to get into close action range, first in broad daylight and then at night, while the cruisers maneuver to bring guns to bear to support the destroyer charge with covering gunfire. It quickly becomes apparent to Scott, during the daylight drills that several major issues arise:
a. Telling friend from foe.
b. Avoiding friends gunning or torpedoing friends.
c. Making sure friends go where they are told to go and do what they are told to do.

4. That means Scott has to work out how to create and maintain a battle plot. Leave it to comic books, pulp science fiction and science fiction writers to give Scott the idea of what he needs. (Quoted from the Wiki article...)
The idea of such a centralised control room can be found in science fiction as early as The Struggle for Empire (1900). Early versions were used in the Second World War; according to Rear Admiral Cal Laning, the idea for a command information center was taken “specifically, consciously, and directly” from the spaceship Directrix in the Lensman novels of E. E. Smith, Ph.D.,[3] and influenced by the works of his friend and collaborator Robert Heinlein, a retired American naval officer.[4] After the numerous losses during the various naval battles off Guadalcanal during the war of attrition that was part and parcel of the Solomon Islands campaign and the Battle of Guadalcanal, the United States Navy employed operational analysis, determined many of their losses were due to procedure and disorganization, and implemented the Combat Information Centers, building on what was initially called "radar plot" according to an essay CIC Yesterday and Today by the Naval Historical Center.[5] That same article points out that in 1942 radar, radar procedure, battle experiences, needs, and the operations room all grew up together as needs developed and experience was gained and training spread, all in fits and starts, beginning with the earliest radar uses in the Pacific battles starting with the Coral Sea, when radar gave rise to the first tentative attempt to vector an Air CAP to approaching Japanese flights, maturing somewhat before the Battle of Midway, where post-battle analysis of Coral Sea's results had given more confidence in the abilities and processes of a centralized control room.

901a.jpg
docsmith.jpg

The Space Review: “We must ride the lightning”: Robert ... E. E. “Doc” Smith (Creator) - TV Tropes

Who says reading comic books is a useless past time? The results can KILL you, if you don't.

Anyway... on to the communications problem.

5. The grim reality is that the United States Navy is going to have to re-invent its "Battle Language". Certain words will have to identify specific actions and specific objects so that "bogey" is not confused for surface contact. Bogey has to have a rigidly defined meaning for "unknown aircraft" and "skunk" will have to be used for unknown surface contact. The radio will have to be used, once battle is joined, as the primary command and control and information distribution method and that control has to be differentiated in the radio frequencies so that command is differentiated from information flow.

As for identification of friend from foe? Signal rockets in color sequence and the good old transponder. Failing that, the USN will have to dig back into its Spanish American War corporate memory and resurrect this item. The Americans used an infra-red version of it during the Spanish American War during the blockade of Santiago de Cuba.

Yikes!

=======================================================


Next, we will see how that process plays out in the battle.
 
Last edited:

McPherson

Banned
1611684841405.png

Credits in the illustration; from The Blueprints. com. (Illustration manipulated by McPherson.)_


Maybe yes... maybe no. We'll see.
 
Last edited:
Fascinating, adding an angled deck in 1943? No reason why it could not have been done that early, but OTL it didn't happen until after the war IIRC.
 
The angled deck came about due to the fast landings of Jets and heavier propeller aircraft. It had been theorized as being beneficial at that time for allowing landings to happen at the same time as take-offs.

There could of been suggestions/gripes of pilots that landings of aircraft impeded rearming of aircraft and take-offs during the Coral Sea and Midway battles.
 

McPherson

Banned
Someone noted that I hated ADM Harold Stark with a passion.

Now with FDR, clear as the shining sun, laying out the national policy... so that even the bemused electorate knew they were headed for WAR in 1940...

Ported in from HERE: a brief synopsis of what the Battle of the Coral Sea was.
King Kong Hara made a guess based on some bum reconnaissance reports as to Fletcher's position on 7 May 1942;. He had three reports, one out of Rabaul, one out of Shipwreck Shima's seaplanes from Tulagi and one from his own fliers.

His own fliers found Neosho and reported it as a flattop force. Shipwreck Shima's seaplanes reported a formation also in that vicinity. Rabaul's and Lae's fliers found Crace and reported him as Fletcher.

In that confusion, Hara could choose north or south. He expected Fletcher to be "south" based on the weather gauge and prevailing winds and so he informed Braindead Takagi. He trusted his own pilots. Actually none of the Japanese recon found Fletcher, even though Shima's seaplanes buzzed within about 50 kilometers of TF-17. Off went the alpha strike on Hara's guess and Neosho died.

Meanwhile Fletcher found Shoho and killed it on Fitch's advice. Fitch expected Braindead to be close covering the Port Moresby invasion convoy near Shoho. Unbeknownst to him, Braindead was 100 kilometers almost due north of TF17 and in a perfect position to be killed, because that IJN aircraft carrier warfare genius (intense sarcasm here) ADM Inoue had sent Braindead on an end-run to sneak up on Fletcher from the east and south.

View attachment 620887
Path to Midway: Tactical Loss, Strategic Victory – Station ...
Fitch, Fletcher's air admiral, made a BAD call of his own based on bum MacArthur intelligence that lost track of the Japanese Strike Force and made his own confused estimate of where the Japanese covering force was, based on what he thought they should do. Fitch could have picked northeast or south and southwest like Hara and he sent a search northwest. Same reasoning as Hara, plus Shoho was previously positively I.Ded. as a target and engaged up northwest.

Actually he, Fitch, should have followed USN doctrine and searched the compass.
d3de2dc2db562b45bc8852c170940fbf.gif
Battle of the Coral Sea (With images) | Wwii maps, Wwii ...
Target fever and trusting the MacArthur's fliers to watch his behind?

Post battle, Hara and Fitch were both beached. But in mid battle, Braindead relieved his air admiral, Hara, and launched his own bungled air ops. Fletcher caught him and had some bad luck with his strike ordnance load-outs (Actually no such thing as bad luck, the goddamned torpedoes failed, the SBD bomb aiming gear packed it in and the bomb fuses did not work. Who to blame? Ever hear of Harold Stark and John Tower?)

At least Fitch was allowed to redeem partially himself. He did predict where Braindead would be on his, Fitch's, second try.

Lessons learned. Run a 360 recon, never trust the Army Air Farce (Or MacArthur or his goons to get anything right.) and don't let a dumbass LT(j.g.) ventilate the flight deck of your burning aircraft carrier, turning your flattop into a giant fuel air BOMB waiting for the inevitable ignition event to happen.

Three things had to go right for Fletcher. One of the fish that clanged Shōkaku had to explode. One of his search planes could have buzzed Braindead's ships in that lousy weather front that Braindead was covered in (Sort of a Stanhope Ring type mistake, with GOOD results.) or the dive bombers that missed Zuikaku astern could have been more on the money.

Any of those three missed chances or Shōkaku sinking post battle as she almost did, and Coral Sea would not be considered a Japanese "tactical" victory.

All three of them happen? It would have been a death blow that would have made the IJN recoil from the MO operation. The Japanese rolled 7s and were lucky to get out of there alive.

Ozawa would have been DEADLY at Coral Sea.
Now Coral Sea happened because the Singapore Bastion Defense failed and then the Japanese trounced British Eastern Command again. This was predictable and a good admiral should have foreseen it and planned for it; instead of having to cobble together a defense plan based on emergent events as a reaction to the enemy initiatives.

And it was noted...
You really hate Harold Stark, don't you?
And of course I answered that remark; using the famous PLAN DOG memo, Stark prepared. What does that scrap of garbage really say about Harold Stark, the admiral?

You really hate Harold Stark, don't you?
As much as the British should hate Tom Phillips, Dudley Pound, and Charles Portal. And for rather much the same reasons; Gross preventable negligence and malfeasance in service. In Stark's case since he was instrumental in fucking up US navy torpedoes, and other ordnance when he was Bu-Ord, and again since as CNO he fucked up the Battle of the Atlantic by not putting the US eastern sea frontier on a war footing when and before the "Neutrality Patrol", there is a special place in naval hell, reserved just for him. He also misread the USN mission and the goals, means and objectives... specifically he junked PLAN ORANGE and PLAN BLACK.

And the nail and proof for that one, was that he drew up Plan Dog as the US naval component to the Singapore Bastion Defense. It was never Germany First as is claimed. That was MARSHAL, the army and the Victory Program. Plan Dog was Harold Stark's stupid buy-in into the Backhouse plan of 1935 to fight Japan, which Pound and Phillips, those two complete idiots, updated to substitute LANTFLT in place of the Toulon Armament after France fell, as the naval replacement for Force H, which they intended to send to the South China Sea to join up with PACFLT to fight the Combined Fleet; all under BRITISH leadership of course.

Note PAGE 2 of the memorandum?

Specifically B AS IN BAKER? (Quoted from here.)

(b) War with Japan in which we have the British Empire, or the British Empire and Netherlands East Indies, as allies. This might be precipitated by one of the causes mentioned in (a), by our movement of a naval reinforcement to Singapore, or by Japanese attack on British or Netherlands territory.

Then one reads PAGE 5 in utter astonishment.

Should Britain lose the war, the military consequences to the United States would be serious.

If we are to prevent the disruption of the British Empire, we must support its vital needs.

Obviously, the British Isles, the "Heart of the Empire", must remain intact.

But even if the British Isles are held, this does not mean that Britain can win the war. To win, she must finally be able to effect the complete, or, at least, the partial collapse of the German Reich.

This result might, conceivably, be accomplished by bombing and by economic starvation through the agency of the blockade. It surely can be accomplished only by military successes on shore, facilitated possibly by over-extension and by internal antagonisms developed by the Axis conquests.

Alone, the British Empire lacks the man power and the material means to master Germany. Assistance by powerful allies is necessary both with respect to men and with respect to munitions and supplies. If such assistance is to function effectively, Britain must not only continue to maintain the blockade, but she must also retain intact geographical positions from which successful land action can later be launched.

Provided England continues to sustain its present successful resistance at home, the area of next concern to the British Empire ought to be the Egyptian Theater.

Should Egypt be lost, the Eastern Mediterranean would be opened to Germany and Italy, the effectiveness of the sea blockade would be largely nullified; Turkey's military position would be fully compromised; and all hope of favorable Russian action would vanish.

Now to be clear, that is MAHAN so far; but Stark presents the US war options, as he sees them, as British centered, and not US-centric.

Page 6 is where we get to the meat.

This brief discussion naturally brings into question the value to Britain of the Mediterranean relative to that of Hong Kong, Singapore and India. Were the Mediterranean lost, Britain's strength in the Far East could be augmented without weakening home territory.

Japan probably wants the British out of Hong Kong and Singapore; and wants economic control, and ultimately military control, of Malaysia.

It is very questionable if Japan has territorial ambitions in Australia and New Zealand.

But does she now wish the British out of India, thus exposing that region and Western China to early Russian penetration or influence? I doubt it.

It would seem more probable that Japan, devoted to the Axis alliance only so far as her own immediate interests are involved, would prefer not to move military forces against Britain, and possibly not against the Netherlands East Indies, because, if she can obtain a high degree of economic control over Malaysia, she will then be in a position to improve her financial structure by increased trade with Britain and America. Her economic offensive power will be increased. Her military dominance will follow rapidly or slowly, as seems best at the time.

The Netherlands East Indies has 60,000,000 people, under the rule of 80,000 Dutchmen, including women and children. This political situation can not be viewed as in permanent equilibrium. The rulers are unsupported by a home country or by an alliance. Native rebellions have occurred in the past, and may recur in the future. These Dutchmen will act in what they believe is their owm selfish best interests.

Will they alone resist aggression, or will they accept an accommodation with the Japanese?

Will they resist, if supported only by the British Empire?

Will they firmly resist, if supported by the British Empire and the United States?

Will the British resist Japanese aggression directed only against the Netherlands East Indies?

Should both firmly resist, what local military assistance will they require from the United States to ensure success?

No light on these questions has been thrown by the report of the proceedings of the recent Singapore Conference.

The basic character of a war against Japan by the British and Dutch would be the fixed defense of the Malay Peninsula, Sumatra and Java. The allied army, naval, and air forces now in position are considerable, and some future reenforcement may be expected from Australia and New Zealand. Borneo and the islands to the East are vulnerable. There is little chance for an allied offensive. Without Dutch assistance, the external effectiveness of the British bases at Hong Kong and Singapore would soon disappear.
What a misread of the situation!
This brings us to a consideration of the strategy of an American war against Japan, that is, either the so-called "Orange Plan", or a modification. It must be understood that the Orange Plan was drawn up to govern our operations when the United States and Japan are at war, and no other nations are involved.

You have heard enough of the Orange Plan to know that, in a nutshell, it envisages our Fleet's proceeding westward through the Marshalls and the Carolines, consolidating as it goes, and then on to the recapture of the Philippines. Once there, the Orange Plan contemplates the eventual economic starvation of Japan, and, finally, the complete destruction of her external military power. Its accomplishment would require several years, and the absorption of the full military, naval, and economic energy of the American people.

In proceeding through these Mid-Pacific islands, we have several subsidiary objectives in mind. First, we hope that our attack will induce the Japanese to expose their fleet in action against our fleet, and lead to their naval defeat. Second, we wish to destroy the ability of the Japanese to use these positions as air and submarine bases from which project attacks on our lines of communication to the mainland and Hawaii. Third, we would use the captured positions for supporting our further advance westward.
PLAN ORANGE... abandon it.
We should, therefore, examine other plans which involve a war having a more limited objective than the complete defeat of Japan, and in which we would undertake hostilities only in cooperation with the British and Dutch, and in which these undertake to provide an effective and continued resistance in Malaysia.

Our involvement in war in the Pacific might well make us also an ally of Britain in the Atlantic. The naval forces remaining in the Atlantic, for helping our ally and for defending ourselves, would, byjust so much, reduce the power which the United States Fleet could put forth in the Pacific.

The objective in a limited war against Japan would be the reduction of Japanese offensive power chiefly through economic blockade. Under one concept, allied strategy would comprise holding the Malay Barrier, denying access to other sources of supply in Malaysia, severing her lines of communication with the Western Hemisphere, and raiding communications to the Mid-Pacific, the Philippines, China, and Indo-China. United States defensive strategy would also require army reenforcement of Alaska and the Hawaiian Islands, the establishment of naval bases in the Fiji - Samoan and Gilbert Islands areas, and denial to Japan/of the use of the Marshalls as light force bases. We might be able to re-enforce the Philippine garrison, particularly with aircraft. I do not believe that the British and Dutch alone could hold the Malay Barrier without direct military assistance by the United States. In addition to help from our Asiatic Fleet, I am convinced that they would need further reenforcement by ships and aircraft drawn from our Fleet in Hawaii, and possibly even by troops.
It is quite apparent that Stark has drunk the British kool-aid.
Let us now look eastward, and examine our possible action in the Atlantic.

In the first place, if we avoid serious commitment in the Pacific, the purely American Atlantic problem, envisaging defense of our coasts, the Caribbean, Canada, and South America, plus giving strong naval assistance to Britain, is not difficult so long as the British are able to maintain their present naval activity. Should the British Isles then fall we would find ourselves acting alone, and at war with the world. To repeat, we would be thrown back on our haunches.

Should we enter the war as an ally of Great Britain, and not then be at war with Japan, we envisage the British asking us for widespread naval assistance. Roughly, they would want us, in the Western Atlantic Ocean from Cape Sable to Cape Horn, to protect shipping against raiders and submarine activities. They would also need strong reenforcements for their escort and minesweeping forces in their home waters; and strong flying boat reconnaissance from Scotland, the Atlantic Islands, and Capetown. They might ask us to capture the Azores the Cape Verde Islands. To their home waters they would have us send submarines and small craft, and to the Mediterranean assistance of any character which we may be able to provide. They would expect us to take charge of allied interests in the Pacific, and to send a naval detachment to Singapore.
Stark continues...
Were we to enter the war against Germany and Italy as an ally of Great Britain, I do not necessarily anticipate immediate hostile action by Japan, whatever may be her Axis obligation. She may fear eventual consequences and do nothing. We might be faced with demands for concessions as the price of her neutrality. She might agree to defer her aggressions in the Netherlands East Indies for the time being by a guarantee of ample economic access to the Western Hemisphere and to British and Dutch possessions. But she might even demand complete cessation of British and American assistance to China.
And here we see Stark's incompetence on display...
"Where should we fight the war, and for what objective?" With the answer to this question to guide me, I can make a more logical plan, can more appropriately distribute the naval forces, can better coordinate the future material preparation of the Navy, and can more usefully advise as to whether or not proposed diplomatic measures can adequately be supported by available naval strength.
It gets worse.
That is to say, until the question concerning our final military objective is authoritatively answered, I can not determine the scale and the nature of the effort which the Navy may be called upon to exert in the Far East, the Pacific, and the Atlantic.
One of the "political" requirements of a senior professional military man in a democracy or republic is to be AWARE of national strategic objectives, the national means provided and to plan to meet those objectives with those means. Here Stark states that he has not done so and requires precise guidance?

WHAT THE HELL!

This is what Stark suggested...
(D) Shall we direct our efforts toward an eventual strong offensive in the Atlantic as an ally of the British, and a defensive in the Pacific? Any strength that we might send to the Far East would, by just so much, reduce the force of our blows against Germany and Italy. About the least that we would do for our ally would be to send strong naval light forces and aircraft to Great Britain and the Mediterranean. Probably we could not stop with a purely naval effort. The plan might ultimately require capture of the Portuguese and Spanish Islands and military and naval bases in Africa and possibly Europe; and thereafter even involve undertaking a full scale land offensive. In consideration of a course that would require landing large numbers of troops abroad, account must be taken of the possible unwillingness of the people of the United States to support land operations of this character, and to incur the risk of heavy loss should Great Britain collapse. Under Plan (D) we would be unable to exert strong pressure against Japan, and would necessarily gradually reorient our policy in the Far East. The full national offensive strength would be exerted in a single direction, rather than be expended in areas far distant from each other. At the conclusion of the war, even if Britain should finally collapse, we might still find ourselves possessed of bases in Africa suitable for assisting in the defense of South America.

Under any of these plans, we must recognize the possibility of the involvement of France as an ally of Germany,

I believe that the continued existence of the British Empire, combined with building up a strong protection in our home areas, will do most to ensure the status quo in the Western Hemisphere, and to promote our principal national interests. As I have previously stated, I also believe that Great Britain requires from us very great help in the Atlantic, and possibly even on the continents of Europe or Africa, if she is to be enabled to survive. In my opinion Alternatives (A), (B), and (C) will most probably not provide the necessary degree of assistance, and, therefore, if we undertake war, that Alternative (D) is likely to be the most fruitful for the United States, particularly if we enter the war at an early date. Initially, the offensive measures adopted would, necessarily, be purely naval. Even should we intervene, final victory in Europe is not certain. I believe that the chances for success are in our favor, particularly if we insist upon full equality in the political and military direction of the war.
THIS (PLAN CHARLES read below.) is what King belatedly DID after Stark was fired for being the idiot he was..
(C) Shall we plan for sending the strongest possible military assistance both to the British in Europe, and to the British, Dutch and Chinese in the Far East? The naval and air detachments we would send to the British Isles would possibly ensure their continued resistance, but would not increase British power to conduct a land offensive. The strength we could send to the Far East might be enough to check the southward spread of Japanese rule for the duration of the war. The strength of naval forces remaining in Hawaii for the defense of the Eastern Pacific, and the strength of the forces in the Western Atlantic for the defense of that area, would be reduced to that barely sufficient for executing their tasks. Should Great Britain finally lose, or should Malaysia fall to Japan, our naval strength might then be found to have been seriously reduced, relative to that of the Axis powers. It should be understood that, under this plan, we would be operating under the handicap of fighting major wars on two fronts.

Should we adopt Plan (C), we must face the consequences that would ensue were we to start a war with one plan, and then, after becoming heavily engaged, be forced greatly to modify it or discard it altogether, as, for example, in case of a British fold up. On neither off. these distant fronts would it be possible to execute a really major offensive. Strategically, the situation might become disastrous should our effort on either front fail.
McP.

It is my understanding, that many historians, scholars and people still blame Ernest King for the disasters of Drumbeat and for pushing the PACIFIC WAR at the expense of Germany First. I do not see King in that light. I see ADM King as the heroic man, who not only retrieves the shambles of American naval strategy after Pearl Harbor, but as the admiral who clearly knew what Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to do for the United States and guided the United States Navy to that express purpose.

PLAN CHARLES. And it was as RAINBOW FIVE that it was executed.

McP.
 
Last edited:

McPherson

Banned
Let's see how that submarine campaign is going just before we close out 1942? How ARE the Japanese doing?

Japanese-losses-ATL-1942-2.png


Prepared by McPherson, based on wargamed sinkings to date in this ATL

Not too good if you are LTCDR Oilil of the Grand Escort Fleet (^^^).
 

Attachments

  • 1612046457602.png
    1612046457602.png
    169.7 KB · Views: 182
Last edited:
Let's see how that submarine campaign is going just before we close out 1942? How ARE the Japanese doing?

View attachment 621104

Prepared by McPherson, based on wargamed sinkings to date in this ATL

Not too good if you are LTCDR Oilil of the Grand Escort Fleet (^^^).

I mean with the U.S. submarine and torpedo boat units able and willing to get much more intensely aggressive, things are bound to be less optimistic for the Japanese.

Let's see what happens next.
 
As in these are the number for ships sunk by the Japanese?

If I'm reading correctly, that is the tonnage of Japanese warships and merchant shipping sunk by US submarines.

That doesn't take into consideration Japanese ships lost to air attacks or surface gunfire and torpedo attacks.
 

McPherson

Banned
Not too good if you are LTCDR Oilil of the Grand Escort Fleet (^^^).
He is the one who tracks Japanese losses in the real time line for the naval section at Imperial General Headquarters.
As in these are the number for ships sunk by the Japanese?
The tonnages (orange and red) are Japanese shipping losses to the United States Navy submarines.

One of the things one should notice, since it reflects the real historical trends is how catastrophic for the Japanese the "surge rates" when US submarines were at sea fully deployed in force to support the surface fleet in offensive operations, was. The ATL sink rates are, based on the six torpedoes expended for each target engaged and destroyed as opposed to the historical rates of eleven torpedoes expended to reflect the more efficient Mark XIV and Mark 20 torpedoes hypothesized as well as the earlier application of a classic 1944 PACFLT flow strategy as opposed to the tonnage strategy as used by the British and the Germans.

If I'm reading correctly, that is the tonnage of Japanese warships and merchant shipping sunk by US submarines.

That doesn't take into consideration Japanese ships lost to air attacks or surface gunfire and torpedo attacks.

In rough terms, at this point, the Japanese have, in this alternate time line, lost 600,000 tonnes of warships and 2,300,000 tonnes of merchant shipping. That is catastrophic, I mean utterly catastrophic in terms of what this means for the Japanese war effort. One more year of this kind of slaughter and they are done.
 

McPherson

Banned
Flow-Strategy.png

(^^^) Chapter XI: Philippine Defense Plans (Modified by McPherson)

For the social historian: what is tonnage strategy and what is flow strategy?

Tonnage strategy is take the total sea lift a sea-power needs to support its economy (UK in WWII had 25,000,000 tonnes under its control and needed 15,000,000 to sustain its civil economy and sustain a war effort.) and sink enough of it to wreck that economy. In the UK example the Germans estimated they needed to sink 700,000 tonnes for about 6 months to achieve "starvation" of the UK economy in total imports or sink about 15,000,000 tonnes of all shipping to achieve "victory". They did achieve 14,000,000 tonnes out 20,000,000 tonnes lost. Problem? US and UK built 20,000,000 tonnes. Net result? Null result.

Now a flow strategy (^^^) is to pick a critical resource that is transported by ship... like OIL. Look at the traffic pattern for that resource and park submarines to pick off oil tankers traveling that route.

Now in the above example, the oil fields in Sumatra and Borneo are where the oil is, and Japan is where it has to go. The tankers have to flow along the routes past Taiwan and along the east China sea frontier to reach Japan and be used in the economy. And since at this time period, Ch'Uk (Truk) is the IJN Singapore and that is where the fleet oilers have to travel to deliver oil to the Combined Fleet so it can conduct operations?

The Japanese had 100 tankers or about 500,000 tonnes liquid fuel lift at the start in 1941. The USN went ahead and during WWII sank all of it, plus about 40 more that the Japanese built. The IJN needed 20 tankers just to operate at 80% capacity. Right in the RTL during 1942-1944 they had to operate at 50% capacity with 10-12 tankers. The USN took 2 years to figure that out and in the murder year of 1944, tankers became their naval target # 1 and the subs were posted along the tanker routes and sank tankers. That is why one reads about the epic submarine fights in the South and East China seas and around Taiwan or along the Japanese eastern coasts or around Truk or Palau.

Naval geography and economics never changes. But to understand that naval geography and economics whether Napoleonic War or WWII, one has to know "whale oil" in the 19th Century or petroleum in the 20th century. Now I hope one understands why I look at the German U-boat campaign with derision and scratch my head at the RN sub campaign in the Mediterranean.

The ONLY submarine campaign that ever made sense or was successful was the American one, and that was because the submarine was used to starve an economy and IMMOBILIZE an enemy fleet, so that their (American) own fleet could operate offensively during a period when the enemy had numerical and technical superiority.

THAT submarine campaign even as early as 1942 actually hobbled the IJN tactically, because the American subs went after enough tankers early to starve Yamamoto's fleet of fuel, so he could only use 1/2 of it during the Solomon Islands campaign.

McP.
 
My understanding was that the UK and German uboat services lacked the capacity to analyse, pre-position, identify, or target specific economic assets in that manner.

My additional understanding is that Admiralty level figures failed to develop such capacities to a sufficient extent.

p.p.s: ball bearings.
 

McPherson

Banned
My understanding was that the UK and German uboat services lacked the capacity to analyse, pre-position, identify, or target specific economic assets in that manner.

My additional understanding is that Admiralty level figures failed to develop such capacities to a sufficient extent.

p.p.s: ball bearings.
The United States Navy had a general staff, a genuine general staff, that had two successful wars under its belt. Spanish American War and World War I. It contained an operations section which set naval policy (a political section), a communications section (as in how trade works in commerce and in traffic.), and a war-fighting section. That was the General Board, the "planning staff", and the fleet commands.

This is the difference between the RN, the KM, the IJN and practically most other navies of the era. The USN had gone PRUSSIAN general staff to the extent that they did the economic intelligence and planning for their war-fighting doctrine. Though when you read a piece of trash like Stark's Plan Dog Memo, you would not know Op-20 actually existed and was trying to push PLAN CHARLES while he sponsored his idiotic PLAN DOG.
 
Last edited:

McPherson

Banned
Operation-Merry-Christmas-You-Bastards.png


Still trying to find the escorts for that lineup, squeeze out some of the tanker support and of course the assault shipping and the troops, but "if" I can timeline it correctly, it looks like Operation Merry Christmas You Bastards is kind of doable. Question is ALWAYS the troop lift and the troops.

Have to check on the available stuff up north in Alaska and whether Theobald's circus can be diverted and whether there are any "spare Canadians".

But Wake Island might be a go.
 

McPherson

Banned
Well.... RADM Dewitt Ramsey USN

HMS Victorious
USS Hornet
USS Saratoga

HMS Royal Sovereign
USS Colorado

USS Houston
USS Salt Lake City
HMS Devonshire
HMS Hawkins
HMS Carodoc
USS Boise
HNMS Jacob van Heemskerck

USS Bailey
USS Coughlin
USS Monaghan
USS Dale

HMS Anthony
HMS Arrow
HMS Foxhound
HMS Fortune

1st Marine Raider Battalion
2nd Marine Raider Battalion
7th US Infantry 17 Regiment
6th Canadian, 13 Brigade

And the 40 attack transports, 2 ammunition ships and the 1 hospital ship for the assault elements.

I can do that thing! I can actually scrape it together.
 
Top