The Stain of defeat @ Savo - Bode and Crutchley.

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

The Stain of defeat @ Savo - Bode and Crutchley.

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 >> The Stain of defeat @ Savo - Bode and Crutchley.

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

The Stain of defeat @ Savo - Bode and Crutchley. - 1/17/2005 9:34:06 AM

stubby331

Posts: 268
Joined: 10/24/2001
From: Perth, Western Australia
Status: offline

I don�t get some of the ratings in the Leaders Database.

Can someone explain to me why Captain H. Bode (of Savo Island / Chicago) fame is one of the highest rating US Ship Commanders? With an overall rating of 70.
FYI (for those who didn�t know, Bode was partly blamed for Savo and, as a result topped himself in 43).

While were at it, could someone also explain to me why Rear Admiral VAC Crutchley (VC, KCB, DSC, Croix de Guerre) has an overall rating of 31. After Savo, Crutchley was also partly blamed but went on to serve the rest of the war with the RAN eventually retiring as a Full Admiral.

FYI, Crutchley was British and part of the RN. He was serving with the RAN as head of the Australian Squadron. He earned his Victoria Cross at the end of WW1.

Seems to be a bit rich that both of these guys took a part in the same failure and yet Bode is rated as the best thing since sliced bread while Crutchley is rated as a total Joke.

Go Figure?

_____________________________

In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.
- Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968)

Post #: 1

RE: The Stain of defeat @ Savo - Bode and Crutchley. - 1/17/2005 9:52:45 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, In WITP terms Savo was the result of placing a TF under command of a ship Capt and not a flag officer.
Result, A TF that does not fight, ships that don't fire their guns, go in wrong directions.
You can't say "A good TF commander would have done this......." because poor Bode was busy running his ship and ignored the TF. ()He appears to have been a decent ship CO but TF leader was beyond him in the circumstance Criuchly left him in.
The real blame has to go to Turner and Crutchely and not Bode.

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to stubby331)

Post #: 2

RE: The Stain of defeat @ Savo - Bode and Crutchley. - 1/17/2005 9:55:14 AM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: stubby331

I don�t get some of the ratings in the Leaders Database.

Can someone explain to me why Captain H. Bode (of Savo Island / Chicago) fame is one of the highest rating US Ship Commanders? With an overall rating of 70.
FYI (for those who didn�t know, Bode was partly blamed for Savo and, as a result topped himself in 43).

While were at it, could someone also explain to me why Rear Admiral VAC Crutchley (VC, KCB, DSC, Croix de Guerre) has an overall rating of 31. After Savo, Crutchley was also partly blamed but went on to serve the rest of the war with the RAN eventually retiring as a Full Admiral.

FYI, Crutchley was British and part of the RN. He was serving with the RAN as head of the Australian Squadron. He earned his Victoria Cross at the end of WW1.

Seems to be a bit rich that both of these guys took a part in the same failure and yet Bode is rated as the best thing since sliced bread while Crutchley is rated as a total Joke.

Go Figure?

I don't get it either...

Crutchley rammed Warspite down the Kriegsmarine's throat as her CO at 2nd Narvik. One deployment booboo and he get's pegged a loser. Bode fails utterly in combat and is still given a high rating?

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to stubby331)

Post #: 3

RE: The Stain of defeat @ Savo - Bode and Crutchley. - 1/17/2005 10:09:14 AM

stubby331

Posts: 268
Joined: 10/24/2001
From: Perth, Western Australia
Status: offline

I'll take your comments on Board Mogs I do agree that ultimately the buck stops at the top. (Even if Bode was the Southern task force commander.)

But it still doesnt explain the leader ratings.

_____________________________

In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.
- Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968)

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 4

RE: The Stain of defeat @ Savo - Bode and Crutchley. - 1/17/2005 10:37:49 AM

forranger

Posts: 96
Joined: 9/15/2004
From: Switzerland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami
In WITP terms Savo was the result of placing a TF under command of a ship Capt and not a flag officer.
Result, A TF that does not fight, ships that don't fire their guns, go in wrong directions. ........

Hi. Does WitP really punish sending out TF's without dedicated TF leaders (only commanded by one of it's ship captains)? I'd have to revise my policy, as I quit assigning admirals to save them for later use when the leader bugs have been eliminated.....

_____________________________

Don't fight a battle if you don't gain anything by winning. (Rommel)

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 5

RE: The Stain of defeat @ Savo - Bode and Crutchley. - 1/17/2005 11:49:45 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, I'd just edit the ratings if they bothered me.
I think TF with leaders do better then TF without them.

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to forranger)

Post #: 6

RE: The Stain of defeat @ Savo - Bode and Crutchley. - 1/17/2005 12:04:04 PM

forranger

Posts: 96
Joined: 9/15/2004
From: Switzerland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami
I think TF with leaders do better then TF without them.

I had hoped you might know something how it's programmed. It would make sense that TF's with additional and decently qualified higher ranking officers fight better. I have the impression that subs with good skippers perform better in WitP (I seem to have a lower loss rate and more offensive attacks), but I'd like to know if TF leader influence is implemented or in the "nice to have" category...... Thanks anyway.

_____________________________

Don't fight a battle if you don't gain anything by winning. (Rommel)

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 7

RE: The Stain of defeat @ Savo - Bode and Crutchley. - 1/17/2005 12:33:28 PM

Halsey

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline

It was said in a previous thread that rank had no bearing on effectiveness. So are we being told now that it does? Which is the correct answer?

_____________________________

(in reply to forranger)

Post #: 8

RE: The Stain of defeat @ Savo - Bode and Crutchley. - 1/17/2005 2:40:16 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, It is not a question of rank per say.
A TF leader is in command of the TF
A ship CO is in charge of a ship
When you use 1 man to do both jobs is what I am refering to.
A leader assigned just to command the TF is better in my mind then 1 doing both jobs.

The more ships in the TF the less able to control the TF a ship CO becomes.

I posted in response to Howard Bode being "over rated" based on results of Savo Island battle. In the actual event it was clearly his being a ship CO and TF commander that produced bad results. While commanding his ship he lost control of the TF and it basicly fought without a leader. I don't think he got to command a CA by not being able to command a ship. (I assume he had prior ship commands)
In WITP (and UV) I find TF do better with an assigned TF commander who is not also in command of a ship. If this were not the case aircombat TF would not require a leader but examine the results you get when you don't assign a carrier TF leader.
Chicago fights better when Crutchly is in Command of the TF compared to where Bode does both jobs.
Bode does have higher numbers but I think there must be a reduction when you use ship CO to command TF. The larger the TF the poorer the results have been in my experiance. I might just be imagining it but I always assign a TF leader to surface combat and air combat TF. I leave ASW TF under the command of the senior ship CO but these TF never have more then 6 small ships in them.

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Halsey)

Post #: 9

RE: The Stain of defeat @ Savo - Bode and Crutchley. - 1/17/2005 3:05:48 PM

RevRick

Posts: 2617
Joined: 9/16/2000
From: Thomasville, GA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, In WITP terms Savo was the result of placing a TF under command of a ship Capt and not a flag officer.
Result, A TF that does not fight, ships that don't fire their guns, go in wrong directions.
You can't say "A good TF commander would have done this......." because poor Bode was busy running his ship and ignored the TF. ()He appears to have been a decent ship CO but TF leader was beyond him in the circumstance Criuchly left him in.
The real blame has to go to Turner and Crutchely and not Bode.

If I recall correctly - again, a dubious proposition - Wasn't Crutchley called to confer with Turner because Turner was getting ready to haul keister - er.. retire? The only suggestion I have seen is that Crutchley made a mistake by taking Australia to confer with Turner rather than a DD, or whatever. But than again, they were not expecting an attack that night because of the intel foul-up. Besides that, the next foul up was the doctrine of tieing the DD's to the CA's and not letting them scout ahead or picket the east and west passages around Savo.

You are right in that Bode was left to run a TF with no staff and no real knowledge of what was going on - and it's not his fault he was put in that situation. Turner is not one of the best admirals of WWII, IMO, in spite of his well earned reputation with the Gator Freighters. Morrison had guarded praise of him for that skill, but he lacked other qualities.

_____________________________

"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.� ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 10

RE: The Stain of defeat @ Savo - Bode and Crutchley. - 1/17/2005 4:12:50 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RevRick

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, In WITP terms Savo was the result of placing a TF under command of a ship Capt and not a flag officer.
Result, A TF that does not fight, ships that don't fire their guns, go in wrong directions.
You can't say "A good TF commander would have done this......." because poor Bode was busy running his ship and ignored the TF. ()He appears to have been a decent ship CO but TF leader was beyond him in the circumstance Criuchly left him in.
The real blame has to go to Turner and Crutchely and not Bode.

If I recall correctly - again, a dubious proposition - Wasn't Crutchley called to confer with Turner because Turner was getting ready to haul keister - er.. retire? The only suggestion I have seen is that Crutchley made a mistake by taking Australia to confer with Turner rather than a DD, or whatever. But than again, they were not expecting an attack that night because of the intel foul-up. Besides that, the next foul up was the doctrine of tieing the DD's to the CA's and not letting them scout ahead or picket the east and west passages around Savo.

You are right in that Bode was left to run a TF with no staff and no real knowledge of what was going on - and it's not his fault he was put in that situation. Turner is not one of the best admirals of WWII, IMO, in spite of his well earned reputation with the Gator Freighters. Morrison had guarded praise of him for that skill, but he lacked other qualities.

Having studied the Battle of Savo Island on and off for 20+ years:
Not only was Bode left to run a TF with no staff and no real knowledge of what was going on, he probably didn't know he was in charge. Crutchley was supposed to have returned and taken over by midnight - he didn't and didn't inform Bode that he decided to stay the night in company with Turner.

As for Turner about to turn tail - don't know think he specifically had that as a priority plan, although with Fletcher's playing "Sir Robin" and abandoning the landing (against directives) it certainly had to be on his mind. After losing both his air coverage and surface coverage, Turner pretty much had to withdraw after Savo.

Personally, i rate the parties at fault as in order
1) Crutchley (set up the DD patrols, the cruiser coverage, etc., failed to communicate situation to subordinates)
2) Fletcher (he bravely ran away, taking his air patrols with him)
3) Ghormley (failure to supervise the operation, get more support from Washington, etc.)
4) Turner (failure to supervise the operation).
5) individual ship commanders, including the US DD that apparently torpedoed HMAS Canberra (shown in retrospect by forensic analysis) taking her out of battle just as she was effectively starting to fight back.

Ultimately, the Allies tried to do too much with too little - leading to overworked, exhausted men trying to make decisions in the dead of night.

< Message edited by rtrapasso -- 1/17/2005 11:19:12 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to RevRick)

Post #: 11

RE: The Stain of defeat @ Savo - Bode and Crutchley. - 1/17/2005 4:34:30 PM

spence

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline

Geez - never heard about a US DD torpedoing the Canberra. Who figured that out? Got a source handy?

(in reply to stubby331)

Post #: 12

RE: The Stain of defeat @ Savo - Bode and Crutchley. - 1/17/2005 7:00:36 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

Geez - never heard about a US DD torpedoing the Canberra. Who figured that out? Got a source handy?

There were a series of articles by various people and then a book by an Australian couple who reconstructed things. Most of these were by Australians, who were understandably upset by events, as well as Samuel Eliott Morison's acount of things, which they considered as slanderous. Alas, i got rid of most of my books before moving recently - i THINK it was (i can look it up if you'd like - but it was well out of print, however, Amazon still has copies) - Disaster in the Pacific: New Light on the Battle of Savo Island - Denis Ashton Warner, Peggy Warner, Sadao Seno, Sadao Senoo (Naval Institute Press, 1992 - ISBN: 0870212567

Here is another more accessible source:
http://www.ww2pacific.com/savoupdt.html

Also, there has been some underwater archeology done on the wrecks by Ballard - which i thought was inconclusive about the US torpedoes, but, IIRC - didn't support the idea that the IJN had torpedoed the Canberra. He has a book out called The Lost Ships of Guadalcanal: Exploring the Ghost Fleet of the South Pacific. He talks about it in there. Anyway, i don't things are ABSOLUTELY proved, but it seems like this was the most likely cause of Canberra's torpedoeing.

< Message edited by rtrapasso -- 1/17/2005 2:02:50 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 13

RE: The Stain of defeat @ Savo - Bode and Crutchley. - 1/18/2005 12:51:16 AM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, In WITP terms Savo was the result of placing a TF under command of a ship Capt and not a flag officer.
Result, A TF that does not fight, ships that don't fire their guns, go in wrong directions.
You can't say "A good TF commander would have done this......." because poor Bode was busy running his ship and ignored the TF. ()He appears to have been a decent ship CO but TF leader was beyond him in the circumstance Criuchly left him in.
The real blame has to go to Turner and Crutchely and not Bode.

Bode was blamed as CO of his ship for chasing after a lone retiring IJN DD rather than fighting the IJN cruisers. Perhaps also for neglecting to warn the northern group of the force, which was then just as surprised as the southern group had been (no excuse for that even without warning, they saw indications of a battle in progress and assumed otherwise).

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 14

RE: The Stain of defeat @ Savo - Bode and Crutchley. - 1/18/2005 5:18:22 AM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

Probably the biggest single cause of Savo Island and some other humiliations that were to follow
was that with the exception of a few ships in the ABDA area, no one in the US Navy had fought
a surface action since 1898. .... There were problems from bottom to top, mostly of the nature of
"they won't really want to fight us" thinking that brought us Pearl Harbor..... After Savo, the US
Navy took a long hard look at a lot of things and began to implement changes.....Like scraping
years of inflamable paint down to bare metal and replacing it with one coat and removing the
linoleum from interior decks and launching float planes when action threatened so they wouldn't
burn on deck and light up the whole ship as a target.....Took about six months to shake out the
cobwebs and catch up to our own technology, and after that the Japs had no chance day or night.
By Leyte, they were the ones suffering the one-sided disasters.

_____________________________

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 15

RE: The Stain of defeat @ Savo - Bode and Crutchley. - 1/18/2005 5:31:46 AM

Lemurs!

Posts: 788
Joined: 6/1/2004
Status: offline

Doesn't help that the US was addicted to giving out medals and awards for virtualy anything. Thus, gunnery training and competians
were usually in broad daylight, often anchored, at non or slow moving targets at medium range.

Amazingly enough our crews were unprepared for a real navy.

Kind of like the British crews addicted to keeping their ships polished mirror bright before WW1. They took off the water tight doors and filed and sanded them to a shine. Of course, they were no longer water tight but, hey, whats important is that the ship looked good, right?

Mike

_____________________________

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 16

RE: The Stain of defeat @ Savo - Bode and Crutchley. - 1/19/2005 4:34:25 PM

LargeSlowTarget

Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

I posted in response to Howard Bode being "over rated" based on results of Savo Island battle. In the actual event it was clearly his being a ship CO and TF commander that produced bad results. While commanding his ship he lost control of the TF and it basicly fought without a leader. I don't think he got to command a CA by not being able to command a ship. (I assume he had prior ship commands)

I faintly remembered that prior to Chicago, Bode had skippered one of the BBs at PH, a command which usually isn't given to duds. Googled in vain for his bio but found this:

"The Bode Testament is unique in one respect. It closely examines the life and times of one Captain Howard D. Bode. From his diplomatic duties in the hottest capitals in Europe in the thirties --- London, Rome, Berlin, Paris etc. --- to his stint as head of the Foreign Intelligence division in the Office of Naval Intelligence, the Pentagon. This man was no fool. In September, 1941, while at ONI, he, along with his boss, Captain Alan Kirk, wanted to pass on a warning, the infamous Bomb Plot Message, to Admiral Kimmel in Hawaii. Admiral Richmond Kelly Turner said, "No," then both Bode and Kirk were "detached." Bode's next assignment was command of a battleship. This guy was a comer. Unfortunately, that ship was the Oklahoma, and Bode witnessed its destruction at Pearl Harbor with the Bomb Plot message impregnated on his soul. Attending to duties ashore, he was absent when his ship was attacked.."

The quote is from an interview with the author of a half-fictional book on Bode trying to exonerate him, and from what I can gather from this interview, the author might have a point (and the WitP ratings might be justifiable).
See http://www.microworks.net/pacific/library/shank_interview.htm

_____________________________

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 17

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The Stain of defeat @ Savo - Bode and Crutchley.

Page: [1]