I'd like your opinion on a debate I've been having...

[Saffron]

I thought I would turn to the best experts I know on military history. I've been having frequent debates with someone I know online ... but I would like to know what your opinions are on the following statement. Obviously I'm just looking for an analysis from a strictly military point of view:



So we fought Japan. A nation with no Armored Forces. A nation that couldn't make a decent tank. A nation that couldn't make a decent truck. When the Soviets finally turned around to fight the Japanese, they cut through their non tank army like a hot knife through butter.

We had problems with the Japanese due to MASSIVE MASSIVE incompetence surrounding the 13 naval battles around Guadalcanal. Read about how we messed up at the Battle of Savo Island. As late as 1943 at the Battle of Tassafaronga, the U.S. Navy still couldn't find its butt in the dark with both hands. The U.S. Navy was incompetent. We didn't have torpedoes that worked until 1943 because the Ordinance Board REFUSED TO TEST THE TORPEDOES. Modern historians now consider the Naval Battles of Guadalcanal to be the turning point of the war, not Midway. And you had a Navy (ours) that had the advantage of RADAR, and still was getting jumped and surprised by a Navy that had little or no radar technology. We had trouble with the Japanese, because we had just about the most incompetent Navy on Earth, from Ghormly the Timid Mouse, to Halsey, the only Admiral in history to lead a fleet twice through the same hurricane. My father was on a troopship when ding a ling Halsey was tricked into taking off chasing Japanese shadows. My Dad saw a Japanese heavy cruiser closing on his troop ship, and he was trying to decide what to take with him when he jumped in the water, when Admiral Arleigh Burke showed up with a squadron of Destroyers and faked a torpedo attack that drove off the Japanese. Needless to say, my father thought Halsey was a moron.

MacArthur, a real general had HALF the casualties the Marines had taking islands. He was a real general. He realized the Japanese were short on supplies, and he simply bypassed most Japanese Island Fortresses. He let them starve on the vine. Not so the Marines and the Navy. They insisted on direct frontal attacks on heavily fortified islands. My father was a soldier in the Army. He was at Okinawa, which was a joint Army-Marine operation. My father saw the stupid way Marines fought, and how their generalship was terrible. My father served under MacArthur in the Philippines, and appreciated how that great man did everything he could to provent casualties. Not so the Navy-Marines. American human life meant nothing to them. And Marine Corps Generals were always real careful to stay away from the fighting. By contrast, Three Star Army General Simon Bolivar Buckner was killed on Okinawa. The Marines and Navy? Total incompetence.

[Warship NWS]

I thought I would turn to the best experts I know on military history. I've been having frequent debates with someone I know online ... but I would like to know what your opinions are on the following statement. Obviously I'm just looking for an analysis from a strictly military point of view:

Boy.. there is so much to argue against regarding that very biased poster you are debating with I am not even sure where to begin. I will say this though.. we sure as heck did NOT lose every battle with the Japanese, even in the night engagements. Incompetence is one thing.. not as well trained at night combat or underestimating the abilities of the Japanese is another. Few of the Japanese night surface engagements accomplished their intended missions and the ones that did accomplished little in the strategic sense of the entire campaign. They still lost Guadalcanal and suffered losses they could not afford in land, air, and naval forces trying to kick us out. I would also beg to differ on the fact that the USN NEVER lost a strategic CV battle. At every battle we stopped the Japanese from accomplishing their goals... and we were going up against the most powerful CV naval force in the world at the time -- so how is the USN "incompetant".. especially the submarine forces even with their torpedo issues. When you think about it.. the best navy in the world in 1941 took on the USN and never won a strategic victory at sea.. NOT ONE TIME. The most they ever accomplished were minor tactical victories.. even at Pearl Harbor.

As to the Marines.. maybe that person should meet a few of them and say that face to face that served during the war. I am sure they would re-educate their thinking pretty quick. If anything the Marines took on the fiercest jungle fighters in the world with a no surrender attitude and won virtually every major battle. I will simply leave it at that, and I will not get into the entire McCarthur side of it who would not have landed on a single damned island if not for the valiant and massive efforts of the USN that supported his troops.

Thanks.

[Warship NWS]

To Saffron, to be honest.. arguing with an in individual like the one your debating with accomplishes nothing except waisting your time on a keyboard. So if I were you I would consider not even bothering with that person. If they cannot show enough respect so as to do proper research to back up their biased opinions then your just wasting your time. That person would not last 5 minutes on our forums here at NWS.. for one thing I would not put up with their derogatory, unprofessional, and inflammatory comments.

Thanks.

[asnrobert]

He said that Tassafaronga was in 1943, when in fact it was 1942. As for his worship of MacArthur, it was "Bugout Dug" (as a poster on another forum calls him) who bungled the defense of the Phillippines, and I believe the island-hopping strategy was something decided by a number of military leaders. not just MacArthur.

[Saffron]

NWS:

What you posted is pretty much what I told him as well.



To Saffron, to be honest.. arguing with an in individual like the one your debating with accomplishes nothing except waisting your time on a keyboard.


I do agree with you that it's generally a waste of time to debate with him. He's very bitter and very anti-America. However, the teacher in me can't leave it alone. I argue with him for the sake of everyone else reading that forum as much as to correct him. When I see lots of inaccuracies, I can't help but say something. He can come across as extremely knowledgeable to the uninitiated.



He said that Tassafaronga was in 1943, when in fact it was 1942.


Usually he's fairly accurate with his facts. It's his interpretation of those facts that leaves a lot to be desired.

[bridav58]

some things to ask that poster...
1. Ask the Australians what they thought of MacArthur then ask them what they thought of Fletcher.
2. Who took the fight to the Japanese on the Papuan Camapaign and in that regard even a large part of the New Guinea campaign? The answer to this is that MacArthur achieved alot using Australian troops.
3. The USN dished out as much as they recieved in & around Guadalcanal. Ask him to Name one other navy that could have done better.
4. On torpedoes ..well the USN did screw up but at least they didn't mount torpedoes on thier cruisers while the Japanese lost more cruisers because they mounted torpdoes then they sank because thier cruisers had them . Those oxygen rich Long Lances provided an oxygen rich accelerant for fires or explosions.
5. The USMC suffered alot more casualties because they had to make frontal attacks on small, heavily fortified islands where there was no real chance of "outflanking" like MacArthur did say in leap-frogging past Wewak by conducting the Hollandia operation. New Guinea was large enough to do that. However the USN/USMC was able to bypass say Kolombagarra,Rabaul,Truk(the Carolines chain for that matter) and other islands to thier credit.In other words the USN/USMC did bypass the toughest nuts but the ones they had to take were sure tough enough.

I've had trouble with posters being anti-american on other boards too but that's why I've started posting here more. Then I've seen US posters being abusive too on those same boards and you then have flame wars .

[old_pop2000]

I thought I would turn to the best experts I know on military history. I've been having frequent debates with someone I know online ... but I would like to know what your opinions are on the following statement. Obviously I'm just looking for an analysis from a strictly military point of view:

From your quote, it is obvious that we have someone who has read much and understands little. If you are desiring to attack his ideas, then you must do so with facts and numbers. Some ideas to pursue with him.

1. The whole Southwest Pacific operation from MacArthur to Guadalcanal was initially a holding action designed to stop further Japanese advance, while the Allies rebuilt their combined naval, air and land forces.

2. That Port Moresby was saved, by the Navy carrier battle at Coral Sea. Port Moresby was the jumping off point for MacArthur's offensive to retake the SW Pacific.

3. That the real naval battle's that were strategically and tactically important were the carrier battles, all of which we won, destroying the bulk of the Japanese first striking fleet, its carriers and best leaders along with over 400 aircraft. This effectively removed the offensive air threat from the Japanese fleet.

These are some of the ideas to pursue. However, I will be candid. You are arguing against an important figure in his life-his father. He has been brainwashed, for want of a better word, by his father into believing ideas that are not supported by the facts. He has read books which support that notion. He is not receptive to any new facts or ideas. He has to be over 50 years old, if his father fought in WWII with MacArthur. This is also a mitigating factor. So, to put it bluntly, you are beating a dead horse. You do not have the bone fides to put together enough detailed information and facts to convince him, despite your obvious knowledge and abilities. Even if you did, he would simply stop posting.

Don't waste your time. Ensure that you know the facts and leave it at that.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I thought I would turn to the best experts I know on military history. I've been having frequent debates with someone I know online ... but I would like to know what your opinions are on the following statement. Obviously I'm just looking for an analysis from a strictly military point of view:

Hi Saffron:

Sidebar: Where do you teach and at what grade level? If that is personal don't reply and no problem there.

Chris, Dennis and Robert have all done a good job of clarifying the situation, but the historian in me can't let this sort of rubbish go unpunished:)

As Dennis and Robert have shown, the individual you are arguing with misinterprets the facts and "cherry picks" them to support his viewpoint. I will go on record that MacArthur is the most overrated general in history. If one examines his record with a critical eye, you will find as many mistakes as successes. He skillfully manipulated the press to spin his record and cover his mistakes. He was also fortunate to have good subordinates working for him such as his airforce general Kenney and his primary army commander Krueger.

Having recently finished an account of Arleigh Burke's service, I can tell you he only fought as a commander in two battles, Empress Augusta bay and Cape St. George, both in 1943. No US troopships were involved. His account of Halsey chasing decoys sounds like he is confusing what happened at Leyte Gulf. At this time Burke was chief of staff for Admiral Mitscher who commanded the fasts carriers of Task Force 38. In no way did he intervene to save this person's father.

One thing this individual doesn't seem to get is the entire nature of the war in the Pacific. With the exception of China and Australia and maybe India, there was no way to fight a war of manuever. The islands that most of the battles took place on were too small, too heavily jungled and usually only had one decent area to land troops on. Face it, any decent commander could inflict horrendous losses on the attacker under those terms. It is somewhat reminiscent to the Italian campaign or the Korean War. There were very few places for tanks to make an impact other than as direct fire support which in turn made them vulnerable to anti-tank guns. The only time the US was able to conduct an airborne attack was in the Philippines on Corregidor.

MacArthur looks brilliant because his war was conducted mainly on larger land masses with massive land based air support. Yet the entire war in the South West Pacific was conducted mainly out of desperation rather than design. The US had planned for a war with Japan codenamed War Plan Orange which I am sure you have heard of. It did not envision any operations in the Solomons. It was the drive thru the Central Pacific that this individual criticizes. The only reason the US fought in the area that MacArthur commanded was due to the fact that Australia who was now an ally was threatened. Hence Coral Sea and Guadalcanal. Also with the attrition of carriers on both sides, the war could only reasonably be fought within range of land based air until both sides built up the carrier strength. Once the new carriers came on line, it was more productive to drive thru the Central Pacific rather than the South West. Look at how far the USN advanced from late 1943 to late 1944 compared to MacArthur still struggling up New Guinea.

I agree with Chris that the USN was not in any way incompetent, but rather inexperienced at least in night operations. You certainly can't fault their performance in daylight carrier operations once the war began. And as Chris has mentioned, there are only two or three night battles were you can say the Japanese won a decisive tactical victory. They never won a strategic victory, as in a victory that could have altered the course of the war. Once the USN got up to speed and fixed their torpedo problems, suddenly the war goes very badly for Japan. One can argue that the USN's destroyers and improved torpedoes were more important to victory at Surigao Strait than the battleships were.

Feel free to quote me in any reply you make to this person. Better yet, ask him to step up to bat on this forum and post his nonsense. We play nine innings up here in the majors and it is hardball all the way, but we never knock the batter down. In closing, remember, at NWS, we always have your back covered.

Your humble servant,

[Saffron]

Sidebar: Where do you teach and at what grade level? If that is personal don't reply and no problem there.

I teach in a little town in NC called Boone, and I teach social studies (which, unfortunately, comprises way too many subjects).



Better yet, ask him to step up to bat on this forum and post his nonsense.



Well, I wasn't going to, but I offered him the challenge to post here. I used a lot of information you posted here and in the defective torpedo thread to argue that the defective torpedoes were not necessarily USN incompetence. The response I received was, well ... you can see for yourself:



There is a constant problem here. This is something I have studied for years and years. You do a rush rush job of trying to find something, anything that will back up your thesis and give an answer that demonstrates to me you have a very superficial understanding of the topic. You are extremely intelligent, but this is quite clearly not your topic. This is something that fascinated me from childhood, and truly I cannot edcuate you about it.


This is in response to me giving him information taken directly from the posts here, which means he's calling your information superficial.

I did not give him a link to this forum yet, however, because I wanted to get permission to do so.

To all of you here at NWS, I thank you for the things I've learned from you over the years. On a teacher's salary, I can't afford to buy the books I want, so you folks are the next best thing. :)

To NWS:

You're probably right about it being a waste of time, but he and I have been locked in "mortal combat" over various topics concerning WWII for the better part of a year. It's hard to let it go now, but maybe I should.

[Rick]

Condescending and dumb, thats quite a combination. With responses like that I bet he believes in the Moon Landing and 9/11 conspiracy theories too.


I teach in a little town in NC called Boone

Hey cool, I live in Winston-Salem :D

[old_pop2000]

I teach in a little town in NC called Boone, and I teach social studies (which, unfortunately, comprises way too many subjects).



Well, I wasn't going to, but I offered him the challenge to post here. I used a lot of information you posted here and in the defective torpedo thread to argue that the defective torpedoes were not necessarily USN incompetence. The response I received was, well ... you can see for yourself:



This is in response to me giving him information taken directly from the posts here, which means he's calling your information superficial.

I did not give him a link to this forum yet, however, because I wanted to get permission to do so.

To all of you here at NWS, I thank you for the things I've learned from you over the years. On a teacher's salary, I can't afford to buy the books I want, so you folks are the next best thing. :)

To NWS:

You're probably right about it being a waste of time, but he and I have been locked in "mortal combat" over various topics concerning WWII for the better part of a year. It's hard to let it go now, but maybe I should.
Saffron:
The one question that needs to be asked of him, is his bone fides. What, besides the answer that "I have studied for years and years" qualifies him to speak with authority about torpedoes and the problems in WWII. Was he a submariner with detailed knowledge of submarines and torpedoes as weapons? Is he a Naval engineer or architect? Just what is his qualifications.

Call his bluff, Saffron. Because, a true historian or engineer or analyst, would not answer you in the way he did. I am not suggesting an argumentum ad hominum. However, his reply demands more detailed information about what he perceives to be his qualifications to speak as an expert.

As the song says,IIRC, "know when to hold'em, know when to fold'em". This is not a conversation that can further learning on your part. He is not interesting in discussing or educating, he simply wants to show how smart he is. You can't win in those situations.

[Saffron]

Okay, I've decided not to bring him here. His response to your challenge was a lot of name-calling and ignorance, so chances are, you'd be forced to boot him after his first post. He's really not the type for a serious discussion unless he feels he has the upper hand. Oh well ... truthfully, I was really looking forward to him pitting his knowledge against yours, but the peace of these forums is more important. My apologies for disrupting that peace with his quotes.



Hey cool, I live in Winston-Salem :D


Nifty ... you're just down the road from me, then. Nice to know there's someone around here in the local vicinity. :)

[Saffron]

The one question that needs to be asked of him, is his bone fides. What, besides the answer that "I have studied for years and years" qualifies him to speak with authority about torpedoes and the problems in WWII. Was he a submariner with detailed knowledge of submarines and torpedoes as weapons? Is he a Naval engineer or architect? Just what is his qualifications.


According to him, he has a master's degree in electrical engineering and served as a self-propelled mortar commander during the Cold War. That's about the extent of his qualifications that I know of.



This is not a conversation that can further learning on your part. He is not interesting in discussing or educating, he simply wants to show how smart he is. You can't win in those situations.


You're absolutely right ... and he'd probably pull the same tactic here, as well, so I'm letting it go. Like I said, I think he'll just cause a lot of grief here, sorry to say.

[old_pop2000]

You're absolutely right ... and he'd probably pull the same tactic here, as well, so I'm letting it go. Like I said, I think he'll just cause a lot of grief here, sorry to say.
I believe that this is the best course. Stay with us, and ask many questions. His attitude is not tolerated on this forum.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I teach in a little town in NC called Boone, and I teach social studies (which, unfortunately, comprises way too many subjects).



Well, I wasn't going to, but I offered him the challenge to post here. I used a lot of information you posted here and in the defective torpedo thread to argue that the defective torpedoes were not necessarily USN incompetence. The response I received was, well ... you can see for yourself:



This is in response to me giving him information taken directly from the posts here, which means he's calling your information superficial.

I did not give him a link to this forum yet, however, because I wanted to get permission to do so.

To all of you here at NWS, I thank you for the things I've learned from you over the years. On a teacher's salary, I can't afford to buy the books I want, so you folks are the next best thing. :)

To NWS:

You're probably right about it being a waste of time, but he and I have been locked in "mortal combat" over various topics concerning WWII for the better part of a year. It's hard to let it go now, but maybe I should.

Saffron:

I would love to see this guy try and keep up with this group. Chris and Dennis would carve him into bloody shards before I could even post. Don't bother with him. Stay active, we love having you post. A teacher who deserves an award.;)

[old_pop2000]

The best course is to simply go over to one of our debates, read the posts and ask questions. My mother always said the dumbest question is the one you did not ask. So ask away, no one will laugh, we will simply give you the best answer we have or can locate.

Just beware of some of us and our senior moments.:eek:

[Saffron]

I'll try to be more active... but sheesh, guys, you usually answer my questions 5 posts before I think of it. :)

Though in a day or two, I have a list of books I'd like you to take a look at. I'm limited by what's available at our small local library, and I'd be interested to hear your opinions on the books available.

--> I posted a question in the military media thread.

[Scott Chisholm]

Saffron,

I will pass on some advice I (frequently) have to give my wife: Never argue with a Stupid Person. They will knock you down to their level, then beat you with experience. :p

By the way, the "incompetent" USN did not lose a fleet carrier after HORNET during Eastern Solomons (?) in 1943. How many did the Japanese lose from that time until the end of the war?

Not bad for a bunch of incompetents....

[Ed Rotondaro]

I'll try to be more active... but sheesh, guys, you usually answer my questions 5 posts before I think of it. :)

Though in a day or two, I have a list of books I'd like you to take a look at. I'm limited by what's available at our small local library, and I'd be interested to hear your opinions on the books available.

--> I posted a question in the military media thread.

Saffy:

We so love to give our opinions on reading material. Sometimes even Dennis gets it right.:p

[Warship NWS]

Saffron,

I will pass on some advice I (frequently) have to give my wife: Never argue with a Stupid Person. They will knock you down to their level, then beat you with experience. :p

By the way, the "incompetent" USN did not lose a fleet carrier after HORNET during Eastern Solomons (?) in 1943. How many did the Japanese lose from that time until the end of the war?

Not bad for a bunch of incompetents....

The USS Hornet was lost at the Battle of Santa Cruz, October 1942.

[Scott Chisholm]

The USS Hornet was lost at the Battle of Santa Cruz, October 1942.

Hence the question mark....:o

[Warship NWS]

Guys.. lets keep it civil. We are talking about a person that is not here to defend themselves. If the individual wishes to join our forums he would be welcome to do so IF he abided by our rules of conduct, otherwise, he would not be allowed to post here. Remember, we lead by example. I think we have given Saffron plenty of thoughts on this matter.. lets all move on to more constructive topics.

Thanks.

[Saffron]

Unless you count the USS Franklin as a mission kill. :)

So the Hornet sank after the Wasp? I always thought it was the other way around. Maybe the "bee" motif confused me.

[Warship NWS]

Unless you count the USS Franklin as a mission kill. :)

So the Hornet sank after the Wasp? I always thought it was the other way around. Maybe the "bee" motif confused me.

USS Wasp was sunk by I-19 in September of 1942.

[old_pop2000]

Unless you count the USS Franklin as a mission kill. :)

So the Hornet sank after the Wasp? I always thought it was the other way around. Maybe the "bee" motif confused me.
USS Wasp was sunk on 16 September in company with the USS North Carolina and Hornet while escorting the 7th Marine Regiment to Guadalcanal.

Hornet was sunk during the Battle of Santa Cruz on 26 October, 1942.

[Warship NWS]

USS Wasp was sunk on 16 September in company with the USS North Carolina and Hornet while escorting the 7th Marine Regiment to Guadalcanal.

Hornet was sunk during the Battle of Santa Cruz on 26 October, 1942.

LOL!!.. Beat you to the punch this time old friend. ;)

[old_pop2000]

LOL!!.. Beat you to the punch this time old friend. ;)
True, but I gave the actual date with her mission. Same with Hornet. We strive for preciseness in our information, old friend.:rolleyes::p

[Mike Malanaphy]

Guys.. lets keep it civil. We are talking about a person that is not here to defend themselves. If the individual wishes to join our forums he would be welcome to do so IF he abided by our rules of conduct, otherwise, he would not be allowed to post here. Remember, we lead by example. I think we have given Saffron plenty of thoughts on this matter.. lets all move on to more constructive topics.

Thanks.

Hi Saffron,

Sorry to be late to the party. Next time he's talking about the no tank Japanese Army, ask him how they defeated a Comonwealth force in Malaya that was three times their size to take the impregnable fortress of Singapore. I was in the Army in the 70's in combat arms and I don't remember any self propelled mortar units to command. He might have been a platoon leader of a 4.2" mortar platoon in a mech battalion, but no commander. Sounds like too many rounds downrange without his earplugs. : )

I salute you for taking up the struggle against him, that takes real courage these days with so many uninformed running around. Virtually all of his facts are wrong and I assume he is unable to produce any references to support his arguments. No sources, no credibility, decibel levels do not count.

Reminds me of a comment on a book jacket I saw a few years back....."The irony of the information age is new credence given to uniformed opinion".

[Warship NWS]

True, but I gave the actual date with her mission. Same with Hornet. We strive for preciseness in our information, old friend.:rolleyes::p

Nah.. your just showing off. ;)

[old_pop2000]

Nah.. your just showing off. ;)
Moi!!!

Yup, you're right!:cool:

[john964]

I'll try to be more active... but sheesh, guys, you usually answer my questions 5 posts before I think of it. :)

Though in a day or two, I have a list of books I'd like you to take a look at. I'm limited by what's available at our small local library, and I'd be interested to hear your opinions on the books available.

--> I posted a question in the military media thread.

Saffron, Does your local libary have Inter Libary Loan program. Mine does and we can order just about any book that is in the state. Also is your libary affilited with a local Comm Coll or Collage or University if it is you should be able to get access to these books.

[Saffron]

Saffron, Does your local libary have Inter Libary Loan program. Mine does and we can order just about any book that is in the state. Also is your libary affilited with a local Comm Coll or Collage or University if it is you should be able to get access to these books.


I believe it does, which is why I always keep my eye out on these forums for books you folks like to talk about. When requesting a book for inter-library loan, it's always easier when you know precisely what you want.