PDA

View Full Version : A Few Book Reviews From Ed:



Ed Rotondaro
09-14-2011, 11:21 PM
Hi all:

I have a couple of book reviews for you. If any of these books have already been reviewed please feel free to ignore my musings. Most of these books were obtained by accident since I belonged to a book club that shall not be mentioned and it had a practice to send me stuff I didn’t want. I dropped them and had to make a decision. What to do with these books? Get rid of them on line? Read them?
Well I opted to read them. First up is a rather short but interesting book “The Bomber Boys” by Travis Ayres (NAL Caliber 2005). It is a collection of the recollections of five members of the US Army Air Force who served in WWII and served on B-17s, mainly based in England. The bulk of these men were very young 19 to 20 years in age and served later in the war from 1944 onward.
Three of the veterans were navigators, one was a waist gunner and the other was a belly turret gunner. Two of the aircraft were shot down, but the rest managed to finish their tours. Probably the most amazing story is that the waist gunner. He was on the October 1943 raid against the ball bearing factories at Schweinfurt where the USAAF lost 60 bombers and their crews either as POWs or dead. This man’s bomber was hit but amazingly all the crew was able to bail out safely and make it the ground. The gunner was separated from the rest of his crew who captured almost immediately. He managed to make his way across Germany by sleeping and hiding during the day and traveling at night. He ate what he could find in farm fields. He managed to get to France where people offered him food and even money. Finally he reached neutral Spain, only to be arrested by Spanish soldiers. Placed in a small jail he was aided by a British RAF major who had made contact with his embassy. The major got him out a few days later and the British provided with badly needed cloths and food. He was returned to England once his health improved He received the Silver Star for his accomplishment.
The other four stories are good but not quite as compelling. Overall the book is another fine example of first hand accounts of wartime experiences. I give it an A-.

Next up is “Fire and Fury, The Allied Bombing of Germany 1942-1945” by Randall Hansen. The author’s credentials are quite impressive. He is currently a professor at the University of Toronto. He has a doctorate from Oxford and was a visiting fellow in UCLA’s history department. The fact that he is a Commonwealth scholar lends a lot of credence to his arguments about the bombing campaign. The book opens up with the destruction of Hamburg on July 24, 1943. This sets the tone of what the author’s basic premise is “When does war end and slaughter begin?” He then jumps back to the Blitz of London and the affect that had on British aerial strategy. They found their daylight bombing skills to be less than effective. Enter Air Chief Marshal Sir Arthur “Bomber” Harris who was the commander-in-chief of RAF Bomber Command. He and a group of like minded officers pushed to use area tactics at night to destroy cities. This was totally at odds with the American concept of trying to limit civilian casualties and hit strategic targets such as factories, power plants, rail yards, oil production, etc. The bulk of the book accounts the successes and failures of both strategies.
What Bomber Harris never got was that as long Germany could build weapons, produce fuel, and transport it to either front, destroying cities was futile. In fact it was plain murder. Professor Hansen gives some notable examples of when the RAF went after strategic targets like famous dam buster raid. They were quite effective and should have coincided with American efforts at strategic targets. The greatest mistake the British made according to the author was not participating in the direct campaign against the Luftwaffe prior to the D-Day invasion. The USAAF had worked a concerted plan to hit airfields, aircraft factories and to directly engage the German fighters. Equipped with long ranged P-51 Mustangs and P-47 fighters, the war was taken directly against the vaunted Luftwaffe and the attrition was something Germany could not sustain. Yet despite this, Harris would not commit to this campaign. He kept destroying cities and achieving nothing but a body count. His own superiors questioned his course but he managed to brush them aside with Churchill’s support. It is not surprising that post war an embarrassed Britain pretty much ignored him. Fire and Fury may well be the single best account of the bombing campaign over Germany available. It is highly recommended. I give it an A+.

Now we come to one of the best of the books. I did purchase this one at the recommendation of a fellow lover of history. It is “Neptune’s Inferno, The US Navy at Guadalcanal” by James Hornfischer, Bantam Books. Mr. Hornfischer has already established his credentials as a naval historian with his previous books “Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors” and “Ship of Ghosts”. He hits the mark perfectly with this one. Neptune’s Inferno marks the coming of age of the USN in WWII in the Pacific. Every battle that was fought from the August 1942 invasion of Guadalcanal is detailed. The issues of fire control are covered in detail with ability for the lay person to understand. I was most impressed by the way Admiral Norman Scott prepared his task force for battle. Constant gunnery exercises were held with ships shooting deflection against their own.
The description of the Savo Island battle is the best short account of this complex and in many cases one of the most controversial surface actions of the war in the Pacific. Many years ago, not long after I had joined the NWS forums, we had a long and at times heated debate over the battle and what could have been done differently on the Allied side. Hornfischer’s analysis is stark. Nothing could have helped unless the spotting message of the Australian pilot had reached Admiral Ghormley and been acted on. Then perhaps Admiral Fletcher would not have departed and could have launched an airstrike that might have deterred Admiral Mikawa’s strike force. But none of this happened. The IJN came in and despite USN radar achieved total surprise and nailed four cruisers. What is interesting is the fact that most of damage done was by accurate 8” gunfire rather than the vaunted “Long Lance” torpedoes.
The succeeding battles and the change in command structure are well detailed. The very detailed descriptions of the two nights of battle that are collectively referred to as the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal are especially good. One comes away with the impression that Admiral Ghormley made a bad decision by appointing his subordinate Admiral Daniel Callaghan as commander of the ad hoc US cruiser and destroyer task force that had the hapless job of trying to stop an IJN task force with two battleships (actually battlecruisers as the USS Washington would demonstrate to Kirishima a night later). Callaghan did little tactical briefing or planning with his captains. One can readily contrast this with how Admiral Norman Scott had trained and briefed his people a month earlier for Cape Esperance. This is also true of how Admiral Willis Lee had drilled the crew of the USS Washington in radar, gunnery and possible damage control problems unlike Capt. Gatch of the USS South Dakota.
The carrier battles are not neglected either with the two sides still struggling to find a way to strike the decisive blows that eliminate the others air power. Instead they pretty much negated their carrier arms. The problem for Japan was that the Essex class and Independence class carriers were on they way. The IJN could not ever contemplate a carrier battle until mid-1944 at Saipan with disastrous results.
My only real complaint is that the battle of Tassafaronga that marked the end of the surface naval actions of the Guadalcanal campaign is not given as much attention as the earlier battles. An IJN task force bent on reinforcing the Japanese on Guadalcanal takes on a powerful US task force of four heavy cruisers, a light cruiser and six destroyers with only 8 destroyers and manages to savage the USN sinking one heavy cruiser and putting three others while losing one destroyer. Now much of the battle really concerns the torpedo attacks by the IJN, but the author really seemed to be in a hurry to move on to other issues. The book finishes up the Hepburn Commission’s investigation into Savo Island and the subsequent suicide of Captain Howard Bode of the USS Chicago for the perceived blame for the defeat. Sometimes one can still be a casualty of war even if not killed in battle.
In conclusion, “Neptune’s Inferno” is a superb account of the role of the USN at Gaudalcanal and is required reading by anyone wishing to gain deeper understanding of the steep learning curve that the navy went through in the first full year of the war.

Well to continue on our nautical theme we have one of our own, Mr. Vincent O’Hara joined by a diverse team to produce on “Seas Contested; The Seven Great Navies of the Second World War”; Naval Institute Press, 2010. His fellow editors include the admirable (no pun intended) Richard Worth and W. David Dickson.
This is a most interesting and informative work. Don’t go looking for warships histories or naval battles here. Don’t go looking for biographies. Go looking for insights into how a nation decides on the navy it builds and how it operates it. Using a brilliant “template” format, the editors succeed in harnessing the talents of experts in each navy and follow a format that covers a background history of each navy along with its command structure, ship types, and use of intelligence, air assets and overall performance in accomplishing its mission. The real gems are the navies that are not covered as well in the English language such as the French, Russian and Italian navies. In general each navy seems to have been designed for the war it was intended to fight, although one can get the picture that the IJN was really not thinking clearly. With all the weapons it had at its disposal coupled with the USN’s need to fight two wars, it could have done better. Also the RN comes off as thank god Churchill convinced Roosevelt to beef up the Atlantic fleet. Britain would never have been able to deal with the IJN on its own. It was better to let the USN break the IJN and then join in late 1944.
“On Seas Contested” is a superb book that belongs on the bookshelves of any naval enthusiast who wants to understand why a particular navy succeeded or failed at its missions in WWII. I give it an A+ grade.

“The Day of the Panzer” by Jeff Danby, Casemate 2008. This book is one I bought based on a review by Robert Forczyk, a prolific Osprey author whose works I respect. Turns out he was right all the way.
Mr. Danby is not a credentialed historian and proves in this book that one doesn’t need a few letters after one’s name to be a good historian. One merely needs a desire to find out what happened and to present it correctly. Jeff Danby succeeds here.
Initially the author set out to find out his grandfather had died in battle. After several years and many trips to Europe, he was able to turn his quest into a fine account of soldiers in battle.
The book covers a classic small unit engagement in South France not long after the landings in August from Operation Dragoon. I had recently read the Osprey Campaign title by Steven Zaloga which covered the advance of the unheralded 6th Army Group, a mixed formation of mainly US and Free French divisions plus a small British contingent up the so-called “Champagne Coast to link up with Patton’s Third Army. The American component was primarily an infantry formation consisting of three divisions plus a cavalry task force of brigade size. Each US division had a tank and tank destroyer battalion attached to give them a decent armor force. The German forces were primarily second line divisions that lacked full strength and had very little armor.
The author’s grand father was a 1st. Lt commanding a platoon of Sherman tanks. He was a replacement for a veteran officer who had been killed in an artillery barrage. The US forces advanced rapidly after their August 15th landing and were in position to totally isolate the Germans and then link up with Patton’s Third Army. Unfortunately the 15th Regiment of the 3rd Infantry Division had the bad luck to stumble upon the corps headquarters of the German Army in Southern France. A daylong battle ensued as L company supported by the author’s grandfather’s tank platoon shot it out in narrow streets and wooded terrain. A Panther tank annihilated the author’s grandfather’s tank killing him and most of the crew. L Company lost 13 dead but managed to hold on. By grim irony, the next day a Sherman tank crew noticed a long barreled gun poking out of the woods and assumed it was an anti-tank gun. They fired and smashed the barrel. Their follow up shot torn the barrel off of the Panther tank’s mantlet and the crew had to surrender. So there was some payback in this small unit action for the slain tankers. The book concludes with liberation of most of Southern France and the capture of Lyon in early September. General Alexander Patch commanding the US 7th armor was attempting to encircle and capture or destroy the German forces, but like his counterparts in Normandy at the Falaise Gap, he was not able to close the noose with the force3s available to him. The campaign was largely a brilliant success with much less loss of Allied life and more importantly the capture of the two vital ports of Toulon and Marseille during the period of August 19th thru August 25th. When compared to the failure of General Montgomery’s forces to seize Cherbourg, these two ports would for a considerable time be the main source of re-supply for the Allied drive in the fall of 1944.
“Day of the Panzer” succeeds more as an easily readable overview of the campaign in Southern France then anything else. Since Mr. Danby’s grandfather played a minor and abruptly short in the campaign, he wisely concentrates on the rest of the company and the battalion and how the battles played out. I do recommend reading it in conjunction with Steven Zaloga’s Osprey Campaign book “Operation Dragoon” for a fuller picture of a sadly neglected part of WWII history. Jeff Danby is to be congratulated on good research, a vivid and detailed style of writing and for bringing to light a very successful Allied campaign. My Danby is working on another book covering a US Armor battalion and I for one look forward to reading it. A+ in my book folks.

old_pop2000
09-16-2011, 04:29 PM
One of the most contentious issues of Operation Watchtower, was the movement of the air support in form of the three carriers from the area near Guadalcanal on D+2. It has been said by many that had Fletcher stayed, he could have intercepted Mikawa in the slot and possibly repulsed his foray. I wonder if Fletcher was just a scapegoat for Ghormley, the JCS and Richmond Kelly Turner for their poor decisions.

Operation Watchtower was the first, large scale, expeditionary operation ever attempted by the Allies. It involved naval ships, aircraft, transports and cargo ships all heading to one point from different locations. It depended on speed and surprise because the operational objectives were to take Guadalcanal and Florida island before the airstrip was completed by the Japs and aircraft were flying out of the area. Although the fleet could not count on surprise, it was a necessary element. With the frequent fly overs by US recon planes, the Japs had have some idea that their progress was being monitored.

A key element in the operation was air support for the landings and air cover for the transports unloading troops and supplies. In the prelim meetings, it was estimated to take about three days. Based on those estimates, Fletcher informed the commanders that the carriers would stay nearby and provide cover for three days; DDay, D+1 and D+2. After that, they would depart for refueling and protection. Keep in mind, that air cover for the transport area and the fleet was provided by fighters. While the dive bombers could provide some torpedo bomber coverage at low altitudes, they would be limited to just the approximately ninety nine fighters on the three carriers. Due to reservations by Ghormley and MacArthur, they recommended a postponment but the JCS refused and King ordered the operation to proceed as scheduled. There would be no land based air support, a fact which bothered Nimitz. This was a race against time to prevent a consolidation by the Japanese of the Solomons positions. Three carriers were committed to the operation; Wasp, Enterprise and Saratoga.

As for threats, They would come in the form of Japanese submarines, surface forces including the two remaining Japanese fleet carriers along with Ryujo and possibly Junyo and Zuiho, land based air forces at the two airfields in Rabaul and Bougainville. Of those three threats, Land based aircraft would almost certainly be a priority with surface ships and carriers being the next. Submarines would be a third threat but really an unknown quantity.

One of the problems for Fletcher is that in order to provide the air support, TF-61 would have to stay about 60 miles from Tulagi in a southward arc. That severely limited that forces mobility and increased the risk of attack by land based aircraft and submarines. Turner had estimate that the almost the entire amphibious force would retire by D+1 except for five cargo ship. Fletcher felt that risking his carriers for five cargo ships was foolhardy and announced his intention to leave the area on D+3. This was announced on the July 27th meeting on board Saratoga. Nothing Turner could say would change Fletcher's mind about staying in the area.

So what actually happened to cause the furor over his leaving? Well, he left one day early. However, he had no actionable intelligence to cause him to stay. He had no information from Turner that the transports and cargo ships were behind schedule and the only actionable intelligence on Mikawa arrived at 1845 or after dark on the night of the Savo Island battle. This was far too late for him to do anything. But the real question that I’ve never seen explored by anyone, is whether he could have repelled Mikawa had intelligence been available by 1100 on 9 August. No one has explored this what-if scenario using the techniques of operations research analysis.

If Fletcher had received the intel and launched a strike, could he have dealt Mikawa a death blow or repelled him? Studies performed on Pacific war battles shows that it took 9 x 1000 lb SAP bombs to effect a Firepower kill on a 15,000 ton ship. It took 2.5 torpedoes to accomplish the same results. There were four heavy cruisers in the force, so that is 36 x 1000 lb bombs. The carrier force of three carriers had 18 SBD’s capable of carrying 1000 lb bombs. The VS squadrons on board, were only equipped to carry 500 lb bombs and they were usually allocated to the scout function for which they were trained. So, 18 x 3 is 54 bombs. This means it would have taken 36/54 or a hit rate of .66. In Coral Sea and Midway, the hit rate was never above 9%. As to the torpedoes, there were only 12 torpedo bombers per carrier, that’s about 36 total. It would have taken 10 torpedoes to accomplish the same level of destruction or a hit rate of .27. Again, this level was never accomplished in any battle during the war. This means, that one strike probably would not have accomplished the purpose. However, it might have caused panic in Mikawa and he might have turned around and headed home. This psychological effect is more likely than physical damage. It would have certainly put Turner on alert, allowing him to move the cargo and transport out of the area and allow the cruisers in the sound some time to prepare.

Although this crude analysis is not complete, it does show that had McCain and MacArthur’s search plans been more complete and the pilots more diligent in reporting their sightings, Fletcher and Turner might have been able to adapt to the movement of Mikawa and possibly get in one strike on him that probably would have been enough to shake up Mikawa and force him to return to base.

This type of analysis needs to be done, and Hornfischer isn't really equipped to perform it. Neither was Richard Frank, John Lundstrom and many others. It is the kind of analysis that only an Admiral Bates or Dr. Alan Zimm can perform.

Sorry, just my opinion. I suspect that William Miller could do a much more credible job of presenting this kind of analysis, but hopefully mine is complete enough to convey the idea.

old_pop2000
09-16-2011, 07:50 PM
Just some more thoughts on a possible air strike against the Mikawa force. The hit probabilities most likely would be cumulative because the dive bombers would be attacking at the same time as the torpedo bombers. I don't know how to perform that addition, but maybe one of the math wizards can do that. Hit probabilities for Midway were 77 DB launched with 1000 lb bombs and 12 hits for a 15.5% hit rate. Other factors such as AA fire, speed of forward movement of the ships, zig zagging and cooperative fire between ships would enter into the equation. Mikawa had to adopt the line astern formation due to the narrowness of the strait, however, when an air attack occurred, he might adopt a two by two formation to make it difficult for TB to attack and to provide mutual AA support. Remember that these were cruisers with narrow beams, not wide beams like carriers. They would make difficult targets.

Ed Rotondaro
09-17-2011, 01:11 AM
One of the most contentious issues of Operation Watchtower, was the movement of the air support in form of the three carriers from the area near Guadalcanal on D+2. It has been said by many that had Fletcher stayed, he could have intercepted Mikawa in the slot and possibly repulsed his foray. I wonder if Fletcher was just a scapegoat for Ghormley, the JCS and Richmond Kelly Turner for their poor decisions.

Operation Watchtower was the first, large scale, expeditionary operation ever attempted by the Allies. It involved naval ships, aircraft, transports and cargo ships all heading to one point from different locations. It depended on speed and surprise because the operational objectives were to take Guadalcanal and Florida island before the airstrip was completed by the Japs and aircraft were flying out of the area. Although the fleet could not count on surprise, it was a necessary element. With the frequent fly overs by US recon planes, the Japs had have some idea that their progress was being monitored.

A key element in the operation was air support for the landings and air cover for the transports unloading troops and supplies. In the prelim meetings, it was estimated to take about three days. Based on those estimates, Fletcher informed the commanders that the carriers would stay nearby and provide cover for three days; DDay, D+1 and D+2. After that, they would depart for refueling and protection. Keep in mind, that air cover for the transport area and the fleet was provided by fighters. While the dive bombers could provide some torpedo bomber coverage at low altitudes, they would be limited to just the approximately ninety nine fighters on the three carriers. Due to reservations by Ghormley and MacArthur, they recommended a postponment but the JCS refused and King ordered the operation to proceed as scheduled. There would be no land based air support, a fact which bothered Nimitz. This was a race against time to prevent a consolidation by the Japanese of the Solomons positions. Three carriers were committed to the operation; Wasp, Enterprise and Saratoga.

As for threats, They would come in the form of Japanese submarines, surface forces including the two remaining Japanese fleet carriers along with Ryujo and possibly Junyo and Zuiho, land based air forces at the two airfields in Rabaul and Bougainville. Of those three threats, Land based aircraft would almost certainly be a priority with surface ships and carriers being the next. Submarines would be a third threat but really an unknown quantity.

One of the problems for Fletcher is that in order to provide the air support, TF-61 would have to stay about 60 miles from Tulagi in a southward arc. That severely limited that forces mobility and increased the risk of attack by land based aircraft and submarines. Turner had estimate that the almost the entire amphibious force would retire by D+1 except for five cargo ship. Fletcher felt that risking his carriers for five cargo ships was foolhardy and announced his intention to leave the area on D+3. This was announced on the July 27th meeting on board Saratoga. Nothing Turner could say would change Fletcher's mind about staying in the area.

So what actually happened to cause the furor over his leaving? Well, he left one day early. However, he had no actionable intelligence to cause him to stay. He had no information from Turner that the transports and cargo ships were behind schedule and the only actionable intelligence on Mikawa arrived at 1845 or after dark on the night of the Savo Island battle. This was far too late for him to do anything. But the real question that I’ve never seen explored by anyone, is whether he could have repelled Mikawa had intelligence been available by 1100 on 9 August. No one has explored this what-if scenario using the techniques of operations research analysis.

If Fletcher had received the intel and launched a strike, could he have dealt Mikawa a death blow or repelled him? Studies performed on Pacific war battles shows that it took 9 x 1000 lb SAP bombs to effect a Firepower kill on a 15,000 ton ship. It took 2.5 torpedoes to accomplish the same results. There were four heavy cruisers in the force, so that is 36 x 1000 lb bombs. The carrier force of three carriers had 18 SBD’s capable of carrying 1000 lb bombs. The VS squadrons on board, were only equipped to carry 500 lb bombs and they were usually allocated to the scout function for which they were trained. So, 18 x 3 is 54 bombs. This means it would have taken 36/54 or a hit rate of .66. In Coral Sea and Midway, the hit rate was never above 9%. As to the torpedoes, there were only 12 torpedo bombers per carrier, that’s about 36 total. It would have taken 10 torpedoes to accomplish the same level of destruction or a hit rate of .27. Again, this level was never accomplished in any battle during the war. This means, that one strike probably would not have accomplished the purpose. However, it might have caused panic in Mikawa and he might have turned around and headed home. This psychological effect is more likely than physical damage. It would have certainly put Turner on alert, allowing him to move the cargo and transport out of the area and allow the cruisers in the sound some time to prepare.

Although this crude analysis is not complete, it does show that had McCain and MacArthur’s search plans been more complete and the pilots more diligent in reporting their sightings, Fletcher and Turner might have been able to adapt to the movement of Mikawa and possibly get in one strike on him that probably would have been enough to shake up Mikawa and force him to return to base.

This type of analysis needs to be done, and Hornfischer isn't really equipped to perform it. Neither was Richard Frank, John Lundstrom and many others. It is the kind of analysis that only an Admiral Bates or Dr. Alan Zimm can perform.

Sorry, just my opinion. I suspect that William Miller could do a much more credible job of presenting this kind of analysis, but hopefully mine is complete enough to convey the idea.

Dennis:

I agree generally with you regarding Ghormley and Turner. John Lundstrom points out that Turner had vastly understimated the time to unload his transports and cargo carriers. Fletcher had already seen how quickly a carrier task force can burn thru its fuel. He was also to a degree hamstrung by both Nimitz and King's directive to only take risks if the chance of inflicting greater damage to the enemy was possible. In this instance the USN was screening an invasion and as you mention at the risk of land based air, carrier air and submarines. Fletcher in effective had more to lose than gain if he risked his carriers.

In defense of all involved, the USN was at the beginning of a very steep learning curve. The transports were loaded to maximize carrying capacity, not to deliver the most crucial supplies first. This was learned and corrected in succeeding amphib operations.

Better search procedures were learned, but still opportunities were missed even as late as 1944 both at Saipan and Leyte Gulf.

Regarding damages delivered by a possible airstrike, we are arguing theory. How many bomb hits did it take to wreck the IJN cruiser Mikuma at Midway? Even a couple of 1,000lb bombs could make a mission kill out of a IJN Treaty cruiser. Damage even two of Mikawa's cruisers and I doubt he would have pressed onward. At Leyte Gulf, two torpedo hits caused the cruiser Takao to withdraw from the Palawan Passage.

Operations research is a useful tool, but cannot fully explain the outcome of any battle whether on land air or sea. How does one quantify the lucky torpedo hit on Bismarck's rudder? How about the single torpedo hit that ruptures the IJN carrier Taiho's aviation fuel tanks and causes an eventual explosion that sinks her? I seriously doubt Captain Zim or Admiral Bates can provide a working model for this and I do respect Zim very much.

Just my thoughts, thanks for responding to this thread.

old_pop2000
09-17-2011, 03:40 AM
Hi Ed:
Just a couple of points. The Bismarck's stern was a defective design. If you go to the NavWeaps website and read Bill Jurens article he points this out. The sterns of all ships are a weak link in the chain, but there was no redundancy in the structure on Bismarck so that shot, severely damaged the stern and destroyed the steering gears. With a well designed stern, that would never have happened and Bismarck might have made it to St. Nazaire. As to Taiho, that torpedo actually did not cause the explosion, it was the poor damage control and failure to put concrete around the avgas tanks in the hole of the ship or at least some sort of non-flammable solid. This was added later to other Japanese ships, but the problem was predictable, it had happened to other Japanese carriers.

The historiography of the Pacific War needs to move beyond personalities and interesting narratives. It needs to be performed using present day models to determine what could have been done, and thus, understand where the mistake were made and why. What-if scenarios help us to understand the process of decision making and effects of those decisions better. Model's are not perfect and cannot duplicate reality but they can give us new insights in to why events occurred and how they could have been prevented. It's time to change how we approach history.

Christian Schwietzke
09-17-2011, 08:54 AM
Just some more thoughts on a possible air strike against the Mikawa force. The hit probabilities most likely would be cumulative because the dive bombers would be attacking at the same time as the torpedo bombers. I don't know how to perform that addition, but maybe one of the math wizards can do that. Hit probabilities for Midway were 77 DB launched with 1000 lb bombs and 12 hits for a 15.5% hit rate. Other factors such as AA fire, speed of forward movement of the ships, zig zagging and cooperative fire between ships would enter into the equation. Mikawa had to adopt the line astern formation due to the narrowness of the strait, however, when an air attack occurred, he might adopt a two by two formation to make it difficult for TB to attack and to provide mutual AA support. Remember that these were cruisers with narrow beams, not wide beams like carriers. They would make difficult targets.

Wouldn´t Mikawa, once hit by air attack, have to assume that the carriers would still be there the next day? I mean, even if the first attack doesn´t do much damage, he´ll have to assume that he´ll be hit again the next day, maybe even twice, if he presses on. Combined with battle damage taken from fighting the ships at Guadalcanal, he´d face the very real possibility of losing his entire command - which was the entirety of the naval forces available in the region at that time. We already know he turned back after engaging the guard forces historically, because he wanted to preserve his force, so I think it is reasonable to assume that receiving a multi-carrier airstrike on the way to Guadalcanal would have made him turn back immediately.

old_pop2000
09-17-2011, 12:34 PM
Wouldn´t Mikawa, once hit by air attack, have to assume that the carriers would still be there the next day? I mean, even if the first attack doesn´t do much damage, he´ll have to assume that he´ll be hit again the next day, maybe even twice, if he presses on. Combined with battle damage taken from fighting the ships at Guadalcanal, he´d face the very real possibility of losing his entire command - which was the entirety of the naval forces available in the region at that time. We already know he turned back after engaging the guard forces historically, because he wanted to preserve his force, so I think it is reasonable to assume that receiving a multi-carrier airstrike on the way to Guadalcanal would have made him turn back immediately.

Hi Christian:
Be careful of mirror-imaging, in any assessment of Mikawa's possible action if attacked by the air. What a US admiral might do, is entirely different than what a Japanese admiral might do. However, on the whole, retirement in the face of air attacks by an unknown force is the prudent step. Mikawa was monitoring our aircraft frequencies for traffic. It might really depend on just how much damage he sustains, where he sustains it and if he feels that he can still accomplish the mission with the remaining force. One air attack might not be enough to severely damage his force and our carriers might have run out of daylight. In this case, after three days of repelling air attacks and providing air support for the Marines, most likely Fletcher would have exited the area feeling he had done all he could do and now the problem was Crutchley's. Remember also, that an air attack now reveals Fletcher's position and submarines can now move in and in daylight Japanese bombers loaded with torpedoes could seek him out. This will also have to be factored into the equation. Mikawa also has the example of Admiral Goto after his invasion force turned around and went back to Rabaul during Operation MO. This after he was attack by the aircraft from our carrier force. Goto was severely reprimanded for lack of aggressiveness. Mikawa probably would remember that.

old_pop2000
09-17-2011, 12:59 PM
Just some more information to throw into the equation. Chokai and Yunagi were sighted at 2000 hrs on the 7th, entering Simpson Harbor at Rabaul. That, in and of itself probably wouldn't raise any eyebrows with Turner or Fletcher, had they known. However, if later recon's of the harbor show a collection of heavy cruisers, that might raise suspicions. The force was spotted again, now at see east of Bougainville at 1026 and 1101 on the 8th, headed SE but preparing to change course to S to move into the Slot. Aoba now sent out a scout plane to survey Tulagi. That would or should have raised eyebrows had it reached Turner and Fletcher in time. At 1620 hrs on the 8th, he was still in the passage between Bougainville and Choiseul, still out of of range for Fletcher unless he moved NW from his current position. Unfortunately, it is too late to launch a strike, even if he had known about them. After that, the problem was Crutchley's.

So, Fletcher would have had to have actionable intelligence at 0600 on the 8th, to be able to move NW to get within range to hit Mikawa in the passage, after that, it was too late. No contact was ever made prior to the 1026 contact by RAAF Hudson search planes. However, in point of fact, he would have had to have intelligence reports prior to the 7th, to be able to move NW to attack any force leaving Rabaul and heading south. But Mikawa headed east, not south so that might have deceived the Allies. It achieved its goal. But remember, any move NW puts the carriers in even more danger from land based torpedo carrying aircraft and submarines. It also means that the cruiser force in Simpson Harbor is a threat to Fletcher now. ..... and the plot thickens.

One more idea. What if Fletcher, as a part of the plan, had moved NW up the western side of the Solomons, and launched a pre-invasion strike on the airfields of Rabaul in coordination with bomber strikes from Port Moresby. The ships in the harbor would have been the primary targets for the carrier aircraft and the airfields the primary target for the bombers.

old_pop2000
09-17-2011, 03:24 PM
I did some more research on Mikawa's movements using Paul Dull's "Battle History of the Imperial Japanese Navy". Dull uses Senshi Sosho, the Japanese post war official history of the Pacific war as a source. Mikawa left Rabaul, headed east to move down the eastern side of Bougainville and rendevous with the other four heavy cruisers and two light cruisers coming from Kavieng. This rendevous was effected at 1400 Hrs. on August 7th. The strike force then moved south through the Bougainville straits and into the slot. The slot was not covered by search planes, unfortunately. So, Mikawa had clear sailing. The only opportunity for Fletcher to hit the force was on the 8th, but only if the whole force had been spotted and tracked on the 7th. This would have allowed Fletcher time to move north by west up the western edge of the Solomons to get into attack range of about 150 miles. He was originally as far as 100 to 120 miles SE of Guadalcanal. This makes search patterns and timely reporting along with accuracy of sighting reports absolutely critical. Much of Savo Island and its failure rested on this.

Ed Rotondaro
09-17-2011, 04:14 PM
Dennis:

Regarding Bismarck I agree that her design had many flaws. Indeed Richard Worth maintains that the design was the most overrated of the war. I believe the use of three rudders was also a flaw. She paid the price of two decades of Germany not being able to build new warships due to the Treaty of Versailles. All German warships suffered from balky power plants and spent far more time in port being repaired than at sea.

Regarding the Pacific, I think we are seeing some steps in the direction of operational and strategic study of the naval conflict. In Vince O'Hara's book "On Seas Contested", contributing author Mark Peattie does a good job of examining the flaws in the IJN's operational approach to the war. A good deal of this due in fact to the IJN being the junior service and subordinate to the whims of the IJA. Many operations were undertaken that streched the resources of the IJN. I've noticed this trend to a degree in most of the modern books on the Pacific war. Facts about natural resources, transportation and logistics are factoring much more heavily into modern examinations of the Pacific war. H.P. Willmott
in his book on Leyte Gulf introduced me to the concept of strategic mobility, something that was barely alluded to by previous authors. Willmott correctly maintains that the USN had developed this concept and it allowed their fast carrier task forces to operate for months at time over vast reaches of the Pacific mainly because they had the fast fleet train of oilers and other supply ships to keep the fighting ships supplied. Ironically the IJN had to base its fleet in Singapore at Lingga Roads to be near the oil supplies that Japan had gone to war to obtain. The reason? The USN had made a concerted effort to target tankers in 1944 and they practically annihilated the IJN's fleet train. The Japanese lost the ability to re-fuel at sea while underway. They would have to seek out a sheltered bay to drop anchor and re-fuel. Contrast this with the USN's ability to refuel at speed while underway. So the IJN fleet that had a great port in Subic Bay in the Philippines had to be based days away from the battle. They had lost strategic mobility and it explains why Kurita was so reluctant to sacrifice his fleet to a battle that was already lost days before he could sail. I give kudos to Willmott for this insightful observation.

Ed Rotondaro
09-17-2011, 04:17 PM
Dennis:

Allied patrol patterns and sighting were not as good as they should have been. This persisted right up to the battle of the Phillipines Sea. Had Spruance been given a better fix on the IJN he might have been able to launch a series of air strikes that didin't risk his pilots trying to attempt landing at night on carriers. Mitscher has certainly skated on this one.

Christian Schwietzke
09-17-2011, 05:41 PM
Hi Christian:
Be careful of mirror-imaging, in any assessment of Mikawa's possible action if attacked by the air. What a US admiral might do, is entirely different than what a Japanese admiral might do. However, on the whole, retirement in the face of air attacks by an unknown force is the prudent step. Mikawa was monitoring our aircraft frequencies for traffic. It might really depend on just how much damage he sustains, where he sustains it and if he feels that he can still accomplish the mission with the remaining force. One air attack might not be enough to severely damage his force and our carriers might have run out of daylight. In this case, after three days of repelling air attacks and providing air support for the Marines, most likely Fletcher would have exited the area feeling he had done all he could do and now the problem was Crutchley's. Remember also, that an air attack now reveals Fletcher's position and submarines can now move in and in daylight Japanese bombers loaded with torpedoes could seek him out. This will also have to be factored into the equation. Mikawa also has the example of Admiral Goto after his invasion force turned around and went back to Rabaul during Operation MO. This after he was attack by the aircraft from our carrier force. Goto was severely reprimanded for lack of aggressiveness. Mikawa probably would remember that.

I don´t think I was mirror-imaging. We already know that, historically, after defeated the guard forces he turned back without engaging the transports, most likely out of concern for the preservation of his force.
Had he been under air attack during the approach to Guadalcanal, certainly he would have realized that this made the prospects for the preservation of his force even worse, right? At the very least, any ship slowed down by battle damage during the night would be sunk by US carrier aircraft, just like Mikuma had been at Midway.
Mikawa also couldn´t rely on the US carriers withdrawing during the night - land-based bombers hadn´t managed to sink them or scare them off so far, after all, and the US commander would know that an important target would be around for him to hit on the next day.

Nihon Kaigun makes a good case for why Mikawa withdrew, IMHO, and I think the same thoughts would lead him to withdraw on the 8th if he came under air attack that day.
http://www.combinedfleet.com/battles/Guadalcanal_Campaign

old_pop2000
09-17-2011, 07:12 PM
I don´t think I was mirror-imaging. We already know that, historically, after defeated the guard forces he turned back without engaging the transports, most likely out of concern for the preservation of his force.

Had he been under air attack during the approach to Guadalcanal, certainly he would have realized that this made the prospects for the preservation of his force even worse, right? At the very least, any ship slowed down by battle damage during the night would be sunk by US carrier aircraft, just like Mikuma had been at Midway.

Mikawa also couldn´t rely on the US carriers withdrawing during the night - land-based bombers hadn´t managed to sink them or scare them off so far, after all, and the US commander would know that an important target would be around for him to hit on the next day.

Hi Christian:

Mirror-imaging is a problem for all of us including some excellent authors and historians. The conclusions in your article; where is the source? Did Mikawa ever explain why he left the area without attacking the transports? Was it because of the approaching daylight? Lack of torpedoes? or the unknown quantity of US carriers? Who is the staff officer who made the claim, no name is given. It is entirely possible that, as a Japanese naval officer, he was battle oriented, not logistics oriented. Possibly, having fought and won the naval battle, he simply decided to leave the transports and cargo ships to the land based aircraft. Frank mentions this on page 116. After consulting with his staff and reasoning that it would take two hours to recombine and launch a fresh attack, he and his staff were confident that a great victory had been won, and they had been assured by the Army that driving out the stranded Americans would pose no great problem. At 0220 Mikawa ordered a retirement. Japanese staffs had a lot of influence and once a course of action was set, the commanders on scene tended to leave the operation to the staffs. Was this really Mikawa's decision or is Frank mirror-imaging US commanders and their tendency to be the final arbiter, not their staffs. We know how CinC Yamamoto felt, he sent Mikawa a message of congratulations on his victory. Apparently, western historian's and naval officers predilection with logistics could have mirror-imaged our concerns for that aspect of the operation, on to the Japanese. Failure to strike the transports might have bothered some of his captains, but not the force commander or his boss.

On the whole, I am certain that Mikawa would attempt to protect his force from both surface and air threats, because at the present, it is all he had to defend the area including the rest of the Solomons and New Britain and New Ireland. I am reasonably certain, as you are, that had he been attacked by carrier based air, no matter how effective the attack, he would probably not have continued his foray, hoping to return to Simpson and Kavieng to wait out the carriers when they finally depart.

On the other hand, as a westerner, I might be mirror-imaging also, a Japanese officer might think entirely different.

old_pop2000
09-18-2011, 04:17 PM
Dennis:

Allied patrol patterns and sighting were not as good as they should have been. This persisted right up to the battle of the Phillipines Sea. Had Spruance been given a better fix on the IJN he might have been able to launch a series of air strikes that didin't risk his pilots trying to attempt landing at night on carriers. Mitscher has certainly skated on this one.

Hi Ed:
Search and patrol information in a timely manner is absolutely vital. It can and has been proven that in the Pacific war, the side who discovered the opponent and launched first, usually won the battle. However, carrier based search has an approximately 150 mile limit, early in the war when air wings were limited. Our advantage of the VS squadrons on board worked well, but nothing replaced the PBY range of 600 miles with external tanks on the outbound leg. Altitude is important. Patrol altitudes need to be near 5000 feet depending on the cloud ceiling. Other factors such as precise navigation, excellent radios and good ship recognition skills all contribute to timely information. The Japanese emily flying boat crews were abysmal at ship recognition and their radios were poor. Their pilots were never the best of lot and navigation was poor. All in all, it left big holes.

At Guadalcanal, McCains search patterns left the slot empty of search aircraft, which is hard to understand as this was the primary path for any surface force heading towards Savo and the passage between Florida island and Guadalcanal. He skated on this one, although is boss, Ghormley paid the ultimate price in being relieved. In all this, Fletcher was really at McCain and Turners mercy. He had to have coastwatcher and air recon information to be able to plan any attacks, he never got anything like that. But he still paid the ultimate price two months later, when relieved.