History Club
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Hosted by Frank Amato
Most Decisive Victory
210cav
Visit this Community
Virginia, United States
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Friday, June 20, 2003 - 05:22 AM UTC
James--nice topic for a follow-on. Most effective military strategy used......
DJ
210cav
Visit this Community
Virginia, United States
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Saturday, June 21, 2003 - 03:02 PM UTC

Quoted Text

210 cav,

i appreciate your comments and yes i agree it would be a good follow on subject matter, however just because we know the military history not everyone will understand the strategy as this can be a complex item to deal with, hell i don't even fully understand it othe than the basics, but it would be interesting all the same i feel.



My Friend--therein always lies the problem. What is strategy? Simply the employment of ways and means to attain an end. How much is a nation willing to put on the table, using which method(s) to get what it wants. Try that on for size and start the topic.
DJ
brandydoguk
Visit this Community
England - North, United Kingdom
Member Since: October 04, 2002
entire network: 1,495 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Sunday, June 22, 2003 - 12:55 AM UTC
Hi guys, I read all your posts with interest. I would like to nominate the Batttle of Midway. My reason is that it was won by the American navy when they were probably at their weakest against the Japanese when they were probably at their strongest. After that the Americans would expand their strength whilst the Japanese would become comparitively weaker.
I would have nominated the Battle of Britain for similar reasons but it wasn't really a victory as such, more the avoidance of defeat.
brandydoguk
Visit this Community
England - North, United Kingdom
Member Since: October 04, 2002
entire network: 1,495 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Sunday, June 22, 2003 - 05:00 AM UTC
PhantomMajor I remember reading about the vulcan bomber strikes on Stanley runway, Black Buck strikes I think they were called. If the fuel used was totalled up for the vulcans and tanker aircraft for each strike I wonder how much it cost to get one bomb onto the runway? A week or two before the vulcan raids I twice saw a vulcan bomber fly over the city I live at quite low level, a rarety since I can count on one hand the number of front line RAF aircraft that have been low enough to recognise from the ground. Either the aircraft were on practice missions or there were airshows going on that I hadn't heard about.
210cav
Visit this Community
Virginia, United States
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Monday, June 23, 2003 - 01:25 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Hi guys, I read all your posts with interest. I would like to nominate the Batttle of Midway. My reason is that it was won by the American navy when they were probably at their weakest against the Japanese when they were probably at their strongest. After that the Americans would expand their strength whilst the Japanese would become comparitively weaker.
I would have nominated the Battle of Britain for similar reasons but it wasn't really a victory as such, more the avoidance of defeat.



Good call on the Battle of Midway. Man, if we had lost that one we would have been in deep doggie pooh. Napoleon says a general must always be lucky in addition to being skilled in his profession. Certainly the miraculous appearance of the dive bombers after the slaughter of the torpedo bombers was a stroke of luck. Interesting sequence of events follow this battle in June of 1942 - - Guadalcanal, sea engagements around the Solomon Islands and expansion of the campaign in New Guinea. Nice call.
DJ
brandydoguk
Visit this Community
England - North, United Kingdom
Member Since: October 04, 2002
entire network: 1,495 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Monday, June 23, 2003 - 03:29 AM UTC
Hi 210cav, I suppose you could add to the lucky events the fact that the American carriers were not at Pearl Harbour when the Japanese disabled and sank so many of the major units of the pacific fleet. If they had been then the pacific war could have taken so much longer to win.
210cav
Visit this Community
Virginia, United States
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Monday, June 23, 2003 - 03:58 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Hi 210cav, I suppose you could add to the lucky events the fact that the American carriers were not at Pearl Harbour when the Japanese disabled and sank so many of the major units of the pacific fleet. If they had been then the pacific war could have taken so much longer to win.



Good point. Speaking of incredible "luck" in WW II Naval Engagement, I reflect on the Battle of Samar during the Leyete Gulf battles in 1944. The Japanese had us over a barrel and then some when they decided to withdraw. They would have made the landings a bloddy shambles if they continued on. God favors the brave and bold.
DJ
brandydoguk
Visit this Community
England - North, United Kingdom
Member Since: October 04, 2002
entire network: 1,495 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Monday, June 23, 2003 - 09:28 AM UTC
You are right 210cav, there are many occasions in history when commanders have managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. I guess it is all about the perceptions of the commanders involved. Only with hindsight is the true picture of any battle obvious.
keenan
Visit this Community
Indiana, United States
Member Since: October 16, 2002
entire network: 5,272 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,192 Posts
Posted: Monday, June 23, 2003 - 10:48 AM UTC
210Cav,

Come now. If the USN had lost the Battle of Midway we would have been in deep pooh? What would have been the worst case scenario? Development of Fat Man and Little Boy would have continued on schedule unless the hypothetical loss at Midway would have enabled the Japanese to invade New Mexico. I would submit that the war in the Pacific, hell, the whole war, was over as soon as the first bomb dropped on Pearl. No one had the manufacturing capability to lick the US. Just a thought.
210cav
Visit this Community
Virginia, United States
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Monday, June 23, 2003 - 11:34 PM UTC

Quoted Text

210Cav,

Come now. If the USN had lost the Battle of Midway we would have been in deep pooh? What would have been the worst case scenario? Development of Fat Man and Little Boy would have continued on schedule unless the hypothetical loss at Midway would have enabled the Japanese to invade New Mexico. I would submit that the war in the Pacific, hell, the whole war, was over as soon as the first bomb dropped on Pearl. No one had the manufacturing capability to lick the US. Just a thought.



I beg to differ with several of your observations. Morale is an essential to victory. Getting your teeth kicked in as happened to us from Pearl Harbor to about mid 1943 in the Pacific was no fun. If morale took a nose dive because three aircraft carriers were sunk by the Japanese (Enterprise, Yorktown and Hornet), the Pacific war might never have gone our way. I say it was luck, courage and great team work that made any victory possible. Victory was not assured, it was won by the pain staking, bloody conflicts of the Battle of the Coral Sea, the invasion of Guadalcanal, the step by step movement across the Pacific and the strategy that said "we have to work hard and focus" to win. Never assume you'll win, work for victory.
War_Machine
Visit this Community
Washington, United States
Member Since: February 11, 2003
entire network: 702 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 02:43 AM UTC
The loss of the three carriers would have been a bad blow, but there were still a few others in service and the keels for the first Essex class carriers had already been laid. The US would still have won, it just would have taken longer.
210cav
Visit this Community
Virginia, United States
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 08:02 AM UTC

Quoted Text

The loss of the three carriers would have been a bad blow, but there were still a few others in service and the keels for the first Essex class carriers had already been laid. The US would still have won, it just would have taken longer.



Well, the remaining carriers(Hornet, Wasp) were subsequently lost at Guadalcanal if memory serves me correctly. Lexington went at the Battle of the Coral Sea in May of 42 and Yorktown went in June at the Battle of Midway. Seems to me that Enterprise was the only remaining carrier in the Pacific for a while. Our inevitable victory was hardly an assurance in those dark days.
DJ

I am open to correction for the names. Saratoga and Ranger were available, but I think they never saw combat because they were too small.
brandydoguk
Visit this Community
England - North, United Kingdom
Member Since: October 04, 2002
entire network: 1,495 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 09:30 AM UTC
210cav, you are right that that in the loss of the carriers would have been a disaster in the early years of he pacific war. Although the Saratoga was one of the largest carriers afloat there was a shortage of carriers at one point and the British even "loaned" one their fleet carriers to the Americans for six months. I believe it was the Victorious ans she was refitted with American equipment and trained in American opperating techniques. The greater experience of the British in handling defensive opperations (gained from the mediterranean war) lead to the fighters tending to opperate from Victorious whilst the attack aircraft were opperated from Saratoga. In later years the Americans reciprocated by assigning the Saratoga to aid British opperations against the Japanese.
210cav
Visit this Community
Virginia, United States
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 11:41 PM UTC
Saratoga I recall goes to work in the Indian Ocean late in the war (1944?). I thought she was too small as was Ranger for combat operations. Does anybody know if that is correct?
thanks
DJ
brandydoguk
Visit this Community
England - North, United Kingdom
Member Since: October 04, 2002
entire network: 1,495 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 01:15 AM UTC
Saratoga was a sister ship of the lexington. Both were conversions from battlecruisers and had larger aircraft capacity than most other carriers at the start of WW2
Martin
210cav
Visit this Community
Virginia, United States
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 04:16 AM UTC
Thanks. I did not know that they were large capacity vessels. Is there any resoin why the Saratoga does not deploy to the Pacific. I am unaware of any Pacific engagements she was in. Do you know?
m1garand
Visit this Community
Washington, United States
Member Since: February 08, 2002
entire network: 1,248 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 04:29 AM UTC
Hope this helps:


Quoted Text

Between 22 and 29 June 1942, Saratoga ferried Marine and Army aircraft to the garrison on Midway. On 7 July, she sailed for the southwest Pacific; and, from 28 to 30 July, she provided air cover for landing rehearsals in the Fiji Islands in preparation for landings on Guadalcanal. As flagship of Real Admiral F. J. Fletcher, Saratoga opened the Guadalcanal assault early on 7 August when she turned into the wind to launch aircraft. She provided air cover for the landings for the next two days. On the first day, a Japanese air attack was repelled before it reached the carriers, but since further attacks were expected, the carrier force withdrew on the afternoon of 8 August towards a fueling rendezvous. As a result, it was too far away to retaliate after four Allied cruisers were sunk that night in the Battle of Savo Island. The carrier force continued to operate east of the Solomons, protecting the sea lanes to the beachhead and awaiting a Japanese naval counterattack.



There's more here:

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/histories/cv03-saratoga/cv03-saratoga.html

210cav
Visit this Community
Virginia, United States
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 06:39 AM UTC
BC--very nice. Thanks
DJ
brandydoguk
Visit this Community
England - North, United Kingdom
Member Since: October 04, 2002
entire network: 1,495 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 07:28 AM UTC
great site M1, thanks, I'm fascinated by carrier operations WW2 to present day, they're the ultimate form of power projection
Martin
210cav
Visit this Community
Virginia, United States
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 01:19 AM UTC

Quoted Text

great site M1, thanks, I'm fascinated by carrier operations WW2 to present day, they're the ultimate form of power projection
Martin



Marty---why don't you frame a question or topic up "best aircraft carrier" or "most important carrier operation" up for everyone to learn more.
DJ
warlock0322
Visit this Community
North Carolina, United States
Member Since: January 13, 2003
entire network: 1,036 Posts
KitMaker Network: 152 Posts
Posted: Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 08:39 PM UTC
DJ:
You mentioned victories in the Korean war. I would say just to throw this out. Inchon. Due to the fact that McArther was right. This then started the ego war between him and Truman. Eventually leading to his resignation. Maybe the battle itself wasn't very decisive, but was the riff itself decisive enough to effect the way the war was run??? Just a thought..
210cav
Visit this Community
Virginia, United States
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Friday, June 27, 2003 - 03:39 AM UTC

Quoted Text

DJ:
You mentioned victories in the Korean war. I would say just to throw this out. Inchon. Due to the fact that McArther was right. This then started the ego war between him and Truman. Eventually leading to his resignation. Maybe the battle itself wasn't very decisive, but was the riff itself decisive enough to effect the way the war was run??? Just a thought..



Amigo--given what you know, if you were President during the Korean War would you have fired MacArthur?
DJ