US, UK cooperation

US, UK cooperation (Full Version)

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

Message

niceguy2005 -> US, UK cooperation (5/26/2007 12:03:37 AM)
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?

Andy Mac -> RE: US, UK cooperation (5/26/2007 12:12:15 AM)
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

pauk -> RE: US, UK cooperation (5/26/2007 12:19:32 AM)
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)

Andy Mac -> RE: US, UK cooperation (5/26/2007 12:22:55 AM)
Grrrr and what a turn to wait on [:D][:D][:D]

Dixie -> RE: US, UK cooperation (5/26/2007 12:23:04 AM)
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.

niceguy2005 -> RE: US, UK cooperation (5/26/2007 12:40:02 AM)
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.

rockmedic109 -> RE: US, UK cooperation (5/26/2007 1:36:34 AM)
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.

saj42 -> RE: US, UK cooperation (5/26/2007 2:00:38 AM)
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.

tsimmonds -> RE: US, UK cooperation (5/26/2007 2:01:38 AM)
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[;)]

Kadrin -> RE: US, UK cooperation (5/26/2007 11:17:54 AM)
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".

Alfred -> RE: US, UK cooperation (5/28/2007 10:22:29 AM)
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

ctangus -> RE: US, UK cooperation (5/28/2007 9:03:57 PM)
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.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.890625