A couple of statistics

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by roqf77:

especialy as the british held out in north afrika against odds also in early north africa, as well as giving a very good acount of themselves in 1940 considering about 1/3 of there ammo was plastic "dummy" rounds.

Eh? "Plastic 'dummy' rounds"? Where did you hear that?

BTW, it would help a lot if you could exert yourself to write in coherent sentences and paragraphs instead of this stream of semi-consciousness that you seem to have taken up.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Becket:

Ernest King certainly isn't given enough credit for finding a way to prosecute the war in the pacific despite the country's decision to put Europe first. King, Vandegrift, Spruance, Nimitz - these men do not, I believe, get enough credit even in their own country.

I have mixed feelings about King, but mostly negative I'm afraid. I think his obsession with Japan and the Pacific may have actually prolonged the war, although for how long it's hard to say.

He certainly blundered in not getting escorts for merchant shipping organized faster on the East Coast. The Brits and Canadians offered to help, but apparently he was such an Anglo-phobe that he flatly refused. Ships sank, men died, and German submariners had their "Happy Times." It also made the USN look like rank amateurs, which under the circumstances may have been only just.

He also connived to send amphibious shipping that had originally designated for the ETO to the Pacific instead. This caused a one month delay in Neptune and meant that Anvil could not be a simutaneous operation. How that may have effected the war in that theater can only be imagined.

But as far as Nimitz and Spruance are concerned, I couldn't agree with you more. All in all, Nimitz was probably the finest theater commander we had. And Spruance came, I think, about as close to fighting a flawless war as is humanly possible. Vandegrift I don't know enough about to make much of a judgement, but he seems to have done all right under the most trying circumstances. I might add that Halsey as ComSoWesPac looks pretty good too. Unfortunately he spoiled his reputation once he got afloat again.

Michael

[Tero]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

I do not find that the Allied soldier was greatly deficient in it compared to his German enemy, if at all.

What does personal deficiency have to do with the issue at hand ?

It would not be had that performance not been so hugely overblown for so long.

Perhaps one of the reasons for the bloating is the fact that by overblowing the German performance the Allied historians could overblow the performance of their side ?

So if Soviet military excellence is a little exaggerated at the present time, it has a lot of catching up to do to match the exaggerated reputation of the Germans. This is made abundantly clear every time one of these discussions breaks out in groups such as this one.

Granted. Then again the Finnish take on the Red Army performance has been much more favourable (even more realistic) than the German or Western assesment. Hanging out in the fringes does have its advantages.

Given the number of books I've read in the English language that do precisely that, it doesn't seem hard at all.

There is a certain differences in the tone though if you read books by Ambrose for example as opposed to (whats his name who wrote Training in the British army).

[JonS]

Harrison-Place?

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by JonS:

[snips]

* and that assumes that all fd regts were on the new 3-bty, 24-gun org. Which they weren't.

Acting temporary lance-bombardier Picky wants to know what difference it would make to the number of pieces if they were the old, 2-bty, 24-gun establishment.

All the best,

John.

[Panzeh]

The Danish casualty ratio was better than 1:10000 if you just use statistics.

[Becket]

Michael, I hadn't ever thought about it from the impact on European operations, but, to my mind, diversion of resources to support the Guadalcanal & South Pacific operations was absolutely critical to the victory in the Pacific. I am convinced by the evidence Frank presents deeming the events around Guadalcanal from the Battle of the Coral Sea to the final Japanese retreat from the island to be the turning point of the Pacific War.

So while it may be that diverting those resources prolonged the war in Europe, it's impossible to calculate the negative impact from *not* pursuing King's Pacific agenda. First, the public needed and demanded a Pacific victory, and would not, I believe, have tolerated the failure to do anything (or worse, do something half-hearted and continue a string of defeats). Second, without Guadalcanal, it is impossible to predict how the war would have turned out. It is true that US material superiority would overwhelm Japanese strength by 1945. What is not clear is whether the US and British public would have tolerated a war that extended for several years after German defeat with a continuing casualty roll (Truman appears to have felt very strongly that the American tolerance for further casualties was around the 100,000 mark).

So, that's my defense of King.

As for Nimitz, I concur wholeheartedly, and add in his remarkable character (as exemplified in his order post-Japanese surrender that no member of Navy was to use racial slurs or otherwise degrade the Japanese, and that he expected each officer to enforce that order).

[ March 03, 2005, 09:03 AM: Message edited by: Becket ]

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

*sigh*

The problem arises when people try to equate German early war superiority with their late war performance, when that superiority had in fact faded or even vanished altogether.

Why is that so hard to grasp?

it's not hard to grasp at all. why is that so hard to grasp?

[Becket]

Oh - about Vandegrift. He found himself tasked with holding the airfield without enough troops to set up a proper defense. So, he employed a single line perimeter defense (in contravention of existing doctrines) that allowed him to cover all of the approaches to the base. The tactic worked spectacularly well when the IJA attacked from multiple points early in the campaign. But I'm a poor teller of the story. Richard Frank's Guadalcanal is the definitive work in this area (besides, who can pass up hearing about the early events in Chesty Puller's career, which are covered in the book in detail).

[roqf77]

Eh? "Plastic 'dummy' rounds"? Where did you hear that?

BTW, it would help a lot if you could exert yourself to write in coherent sentences and paragraphs instead of this stream of semi-consciousness that you seem to have taken up.

Michael

ive heard it on, the discovery channel, the history channel and the war walk documentry series on the bbc. although that was in france in 1940.

as far as incoherent sentences go, people have understood them. And "semi-consciousness" goes, the very fact i posted on a wargaming websites message board more than once and very deliberatly means i cannot be anything other than fully conscious or i would not be able to do so.

My advice to you michael is to think about what you are going to say before you say it next time.

Perhaps taking a class as i have in philosophy then maybe you may truly appreciate the term "semi-consciousness".

Then you may understand how truly insulting and arrogant that allegation is.

or you could just grow up.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Becket:

Michael, I hadn't ever thought about it from the impact on European operations, but, to my mind, diversion of resources to support the Guadalcanal & South Pacific operations was absolutely critical to the victory in the Pacific. I am convinced by the evidence Frank presents deeming the events around Guadalcanal from the Battle of the Coral Sea to the final Japanese retreat from the island to be the turning point of the Pacific War.

I agree completely. What I had in mind was his pre-emptive reallocations after Guadalcanal. We're just going on speculation now, as you noted, because we have wandered into the land of the counter-factual, but suppose those reallocations had not occurred. Simultaneous Neptune and Anvil ops in May arguably put the Germans in the West in a greater bind. Is the Rhine reached before the autumn rains? Does Hitler transfer forces from the East to stanch the flow? Does the war in Europe end earlier? Do Allied forces then get transferred to the Pacific Theater sooner and in greater number?

Hard to say. I tend to think that supporting the war in Europe as originally intended would not have impeded matters in the Pacific. It might well have forced a harder look on which invasions should be proceeded with, but I am not sure that would necessarily have been a bad thing. The submarine campaign would have still proceeded apace, the fast carrier fleet would have still carried on its devastation. The atomic bomb still arrives on schedule and I expect that capture of the Mariannas would have still had a top priority.

In any event, the Allied leadership fully expected to fight well into 1946 and was preparing the public's expectations along those same lines.

Michael

[Philippe]

Roqf77,

While you are to be applauded for your choice of historical sources, I think you have misunderstood the point behind Michael's "stream of semi-consciousness" remark.

Michael was certainly not alluding to your mental state. He was paying you a compliment by suggesting that your writing style was more organized than the normal "stream of consciousness" approach. To get a handle on what I'm talking about, try reading the last chapter of Joyce's Ulysses in less than ten minutes some time.

The problem, however, is that being a bit fussy Michael likes his writing styles pure and undiluted. So his comment should probably be read as a suggestion that you dispense with capital letters and punctuation altogether, or model yourself after Lytton Strachey. One or the other.

As for defective mental states, I doubt that anyone here seriously believes that you have abused yourself over a long enough period of time to be missing the brain cells to qualify. That is not the case with most of the rest of us, and I'm still blushing over my contretemps with Michael and asparagus brought on by my own well-advanced lack of wit.

[roqf77]

ohy okay well sorry if that is the case. And i will just one question? what is the significence in reading it in less than ten minutes?

[roqf77]

oh yeah also im dyslecsic(no joke sorry if thats the wrong spelling i just cant be bothered to look it up).

But like i said if that is the case, michael disregard my remarks about being arrogant it just sounded to me as an insult because from my education in philosophy(well it was religious education but we only picked up a bible 3 times in 2 years).

It seemed as if you were implying that my posting was some kind of involuntary reaction and i was being compared to some form of animal, with no higher brain functions like say a venus fly trap.

Dont worry i am also fussy.

[Becket]

Fair points all, Michael, though probably incapable of resolution either way. Fun to discuss.

Another point I must mention in King's favor, though, is his decision to have Nimitz withdraw support from Olympic after ULTRA intel revealed Japanese forces opposing the invasion that were (a) twice the level assumed by the Joint Chiefs when they approved the invasion, and ( equal to the number of troops allocated to conduct the invasion. MacArthur and the army would not acknowledge the intel, so I give him high marks for taking a stand to force a reconsideration of the invasion in light of all the circumstances. Talk about what-ifs, though....one can only imagine the inter-service dispute that would have resulted had the surrender not arrived first.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by roqf77:

oh yeah also im dyslecsic(no joke sorry if thats the wrong spelling i just cant be bothered to look it up).

You're right. Dislexia is no joke. Some of my friends suffer from it, so I am familiar with the symptoms. If I had known earlier, I would have tempered my remarks. In a situation such as this when all we have to go on is the written word, it's best to make such things known at the outset so allowances can be made. I have a physical handicap that means I would not be able to keep up with you on a ten mile hike most likely, unless you were willing to slow to my pace. See what I am driving at?

BTW, while I was in college I was a philosophy major. I also studied psychology and anthropology, so consciousness is familiar territory to me. So is unconsciousness, lol.

Michael

[Philippe]

Originally posted by roqf77:

ohy okay well sorry if that is the case. And i will just one question? what is the significence in reading it in less than ten minutes?

The text in question runs forty-odd pages without punctuation. To read it in less than ten minutes you would have to be skimming, and will make it seem like one long (lurid) blur. I suppose if I were to pick a 'significant' time-frame, do it in 7 1/2 minutes (the name of another famous woman's sexual memoir from the 'sixties).

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Becket:

Fair points all, Michael, though probably incapable of resolution either way. Fun to discuss.

I'll shake hands on that one.

As for King, obviously he wasn't a totally hopeless dolt. I think he made bad mistakes, but I have no idea who I would have put him in his place. Nimitz was pretty clearly exactly the right man to fill the job he had, and I can't think of anyone else of that seniority who would have been eligible. But that may be due to not knowing enough about who was in the line-up. It's too bad Kimmel was the sacrificial goat for PH, as he might have done.

Michael

[roqf77]

fair point michael, completely off topic but what is your opinion on the mind body desinction and the argument of freewill and determinism or the freewill argument(its the same thing but it was on the course twice for some reason)?

[JonS]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JonS:

[snips]

* and that assumes that all fd regts were on the new 3-bty, 24-gun org. Which they weren't.

Acting temporary lance-bombardier Picky wants to know what difference it would make to the number of pieces if they were the old, 2-bty, 24-gun establishment. </font>

[DrD]

This thread continues to be very interesting. I don't know much about the PTO so rather than hijack the thread I'll stay quiet.

But I'm still reading it.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by roqf77:

fair point michael, completely off topic but what is your opinion on the mind body desinction and the argument of freewill and determinism or the freewill argument(its the same thing but it was on the course twice for some reason)?

Ask me this question in the General Discussion Forum and I will put you to sleep with tedious discursions. But you are right, it is off-topic for this thread.

Michael