US, UK cooperation

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

US, UK cooperation

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> US, UK cooperation

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

US, UK cooperation - 5/26/2007 12:03:37 AM

niceguy2005

Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline

I have a question for the forum. In my PBEM with Graycompany I have now mixed, to some extent the US and UK navies. When the game started I tried to a large extent to keep the nationalities seperate, reflecting different chains of command and operational goals.

However, as the game progressed I sent Lady Lex with a few escorts to the Indian Ocean to bolster the defense of India, as I greatly feared a seaborne invasion, which did eventually happen at Trimcomalee. Then the RN was supporting operations off Northern Oz and one of the RN CVs, with escorts got assigned to essentially South Pac operations.

All this is leading up to the question. How common was it for ships to from one nations navy to get sucked up into operations with another? Was it on a ship by ship basis or did entire groups of ships get transferred? In such cases what would the chain of command be like? Also, particularly regarding Austalia and New Zealand, did these navies ever really operate seperately or were they always under South Pac or Southwest Pac command?

_____________________________

Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

Post #: 1

RE: US, UK cooperation - 5/26/2007 12:12:15 AM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

Well HMS Victorious operated as part of the US Fleet off of Solomons

Saratoga was sent to assist RN in Palembang raids

and in Atlantic mixed TF's were the norm I think certainly US BB's operated with RN Home fleet and were escorted by RN DD's and vice versa

It wasnt common but nor was it impossible

(in reply to niceguy2005)

Post #: 2

RE: US, UK cooperation - 5/26/2007 12:19:32 AM

pauk

Posts: 4162
Joined: 10/21/2001
From: Zagreb,Croatia
Status: offline

no problem with that.... if game doesn't support IJA/IJN "cooperation" i don't see why the Allies should be penaltized for US/UK cooperation...

Of course, if both player wants totally historical game that should be agreed mutually (sp?)

btw Andy, you will have to wait for turn (again, i know that i always says that but i have a looot work to do and not much spare time tomorrow)

_____________________________

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 3

RE: US, UK cooperation - 5/26/2007 12:22:55 AM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

Grrrr and what a turn to wait on

(in reply to pauk)

Post #: 4

RE: US, UK cooperation - 5/26/2007 12:23:04 AM

Dixie

Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline

It was common for the Commonwealth navies to be integrated with other nations. RAN and RNZN ships frequently served in mixed 'RN' TFs. The commonwealth navies were not really viewed as seperate forces by the UK at the start of the war. Also, RAN ships were pretty much integrated into the US fleet as the war progressed. IIRC At the end of the war the major RAN ships and several DD were operating with the US 7th (?) fleet and HMNZS Achilles was operating with the BPF. I seem to recall that the RAN and RNZN came under US control until the BPF became operational, because of their experience operationg with the USN the RAN stayed with USN
I think that USN/RN ships operating with the other navy was done more on an individual ship basis. USS Saratoga and HMS Victorious are the most obvious examples of this in the Pacific. I don't see any reason why US ships can't operate with the RN and vice versa.

_____________________________

Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to niceguy2005)

Post #: 5

RE: US, UK cooperation - 5/26/2007 12:40:02 AM

niceguy2005

Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline

Good to know...in my game sending Lex to the IO was absolutely necessary...3 RN CV (with Fulmars) were not going to be able to stand up to even a small IJN carrier force...I needed a full strength CV with some firepower (SBDs and Wildcats)...my hope was that if I ever did have to go to battle the mixed force could at least damage the IJN CVs enough to force their retreat (similar to Coral Sea) leaving the RN BBs to slug it out with the IJN BBs.

I find India to be particularly vulnerable to invasion...lots of coastline to defend and not enough naval assets.

_____________________________

Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to Dixie)

Post #: 6

RE: US, UK cooperation - 5/26/2007 1:36:34 AM

rockmedic109

Posts: 2390
Joined: 5/17/2005
From: Citrus Heights, CA
Status: offline

In my {admittedly AI} game, I keep nations apart, at least for a while. Dutch only task forces till Java falls. I keep USN/RN splitinitially. I try to keep ANZACs together for the most part, but I will let them team up with either RN or USN. I also keep NZ forces at or near NZ and the Aussies to defend the greater australia {Oz, New Guinea}.

I also pull the U.S. AKs from India and send them back to the U.S. I am thinking about sending a dozen British AKs to San Francisco, turning them into ARs and sending them back to the British.

(in reply to niceguy2005)

Post #: 7

RE: US, UK cooperation - 5/26/2007 2:00:38 AM

saj42

Posts: 1125
Joined: 4/19/2005
From: Somerset, England
Status: offline

Early in the war they operated together, but not very successfully. In the defence of DEI the joint ABDA navies had many problems - tactics, doctrine, experience and poor communications being the most obvious. Later in '42 in the Guadalcanal campaign, command and control made joint ops problematic, especially with IJN still having superiotity at this stage. Late war saw little in the way of joint TGs etc. The US saw the BPF (IMHO) as the poor relation and a bit of a liability (not able to sustain high tempo ops due to poor logistic support and equipment).
There were the obvious exceptions, the carrier exchange for one, but this (again in IMHO) had political involvement.

It could and did happen, but the game does not model the C3 problems at all - then again it in no way takes account to the IJA/IJN rivalry.

_____________________________

Banner by rogueusmc

(in reply to niceguy2005)

Post #: 8

RE: US, UK cooperation - 5/26/2007 2:01:38 AM

tsimmonds

Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline

If your IJ opponent escorts Sallys with Zeros, don't sweat your own US/UK cooperation. King and Cunningham were the Brokeback Mountain Boys compared with IJN and IJA

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to rockmedic109)

Post #: 9

RE: US, UK cooperation - 5/26/2007 11:17:54 AM

Kadrin

Posts: 183
Joined: 5/5/2005
From: Orange, California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tallyho!

Early in the war they operated together, but not very successfully. In the defence of DEI the joint ABDA navies had many problems - tactics, doctrine, experience and poor communications being the most obvious. Later in '42 in the Guadalcanal campaign, command and control made joint ops problematic, especially with IJN still having superiotity at this stage. Late war saw little in the way of joint TGs etc. The US saw the BPF (IMHO) as the poor relation and a bit of a liability (not able to sustain high tempo ops due to poor logistic support and equipment).
There were the obvious exceptions, the carrier exchange for one, but this (again in IMHO) had political involvement.

It could and did happen, but the game does not model the C3 problems at all - then again it in no way takes account to the IJA/IJN rivalry.

Hit the nail on the head.

A good book for those who want more info on this "Engage the enemy more closely".

_____________________________

(in reply to saj42)

Post #: 10

RE: US, UK cooperation - 5/28/2007 10:22:29 AM

Alfred

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

Coral Sea battle is a good example of an early joint USN/RAN force - Allied surface component under RAN leadership zig zagging IJN naval attack, carrier component under USN leadership delivering offensive air strikes.

Savo Island battle involved joint USN/RAN cruiser squadron.

ABDA of course aggregated all Allied naval assets although the final outcome in the Battle of the Java Sea was not good.

IIRC weren't some USN naval assets under operational control of HMAS Australia at Leyte?

Alfred

(in reply to Kadrin)

Post #: 11

RE: US, UK cooperation - 5/28/2007 9:03:57 PM

ctangus

Posts: 2153
Joined: 10/13/2005
From: Boston, Mass.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

IIRC weren't some USN naval assets under operational control of HMAS Australia at Leyte?

Alfred

According to this site, http://pacific.valka.cz/forces/index_frame.htm, Australia and Shropshire were in task group 77.3, under USN RAdm Russell Berkey who flew his flag in Phoenix. But it's clearly another mixed RAN/USN task group.

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 12