Hersey is about to be posted here - I hope this doesn’t cost me my Forum log in… (Full Version)

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



Message

Hornblower -> Hersey is about to be posted here - I hope this doesn’t cost me my Forum log in… (4/26/2009 3:51:26 PM)


No this isn’t a Mac or a Pirate posting….
At Midway the Yorktown is credited with taking out the Soryu anh helping with the Hiryu. After the Sara was Torpedoed and the Yorktown’s heavy air losses at Coral sea, VB-3, VF-3, and VT-3 we’re transferred from the Sara and Shipped on the Yorktown.. That’s Massey, Leslie and Jimmy Thach’s squadrons - see where I am going?

Should perhaps the Sara at least get an “Assist”???
I know, I know… The USN carrier squadron/air groups were designed/trained so that they were interchangeable from carrier to carrier, and not a part of the ship complement as in the IJN. Etc, etc..

This post is to more start a discussion rather then to convert followers to this line of thought…



Terminus -> RE: Hersey is about to be posted here - I hope this doesn’t cost me my Forum log in… (4/26/2009 3:53:18 PM)

I say no, because the USN didn't link their carrier air groups directly to a given ship, like the IJN did.



stuman -> RE: Hersey is about to be posted here - I hope this doesn’t cost me my Forum log in… (4/26/2009 4:02:15 PM)

In the same vein, what do you think are the pluses and minuses of the two systems ?



Mike Scholl -> RE: Hersey is about to be posted here - I hope this doesn’t cost me my Forum log in… (4/26/2009 4:15:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: stuman
In the same vein, what do you think are the pluses and minuses of the two systems ?



US system is far more flexible, as you don't lose the use of a CV if her airgroup is beaten up. Only advantage to the Japanese system is possibly "esprit de corps" from being selected to join the few remaining veteran heros in a CV's airgroup. The Japs weren't big on rotating veterans to train new aircrew and units, so it was the only way the vets had to pass on their knowledge.



Terminus -> RE: Hersey is about to be posted here - I hope this doesn’t cost me my Forum log in… (4/26/2009 4:36:59 PM)

US system was INFINITELY better.



JWE -> RE: Hersey is about to be posted here - I hope this doesn’t cost me my Forum log in… (4/26/2009 6:42:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus
US system was INFINITELY better.

I agree, it was much better. “Sara” as a ship need not get an ‘assist’. If another carrier is out of action, and a really shoot-hot air group becomes available, thereby, for reassignment, the ‘experience’ of that air group should provide all the ‘assist’ that is required.

Perhaps the only downside to this might be a particular working relationship between squadrons and specific controllers, but that ought to be minimal, once doctrine was stabilized.



vettim89 -> RE: Hersey is about to be posted here - I hope this doesn’t cost me my Forum log in… (4/26/2009 6:54:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus
US system was INFINITELY better.

I agree, it was much better. “Sara” as a ship need not get an ‘assist’. If another carrier is out of action, and a really shoot-hot air group becomes available, thereby, for reassignment, the ‘experience’ of that air group should provide all the ‘assist’ that is required.

Perhaps the only downside to this might be a particular working relationship between squadrons and specific controllers, but that ought to be minimal, once doctrine was stabilized.


One thing that I feel is missig from WITP is that the fleet HQ's are support assets vice combat. I feel that the use of fleet HQ's was another asset in the USN doctrine where the fleet HQ directed the TF's vice relying on the TF commanders. This lead to better cohesion and better information processing. Of course a lot could be said about 3rd fleet's command performance but that's for another thread. I wish that the fleet HQ's would be ship bound and could have a positive effect on things like Ops points, strike coordination, etc

While the Sara air group certainly was a major impact on Midway, I feel command and control won the battle. The USN performed very well in that area and the IJN failed miserably



Hornblower -> RE: Hersey is about to be posted here - I hope this doesn’t cost me my Forum log in… (4/26/2009 7:21:22 PM)

USN system is better.  in '45 some Marine squadrons were posted on CV's as well, which i think adds substance to the point



tocaff -> RE: Hersey is about to be posted here - I hope this doesn’t cost me my Forum log in… (4/26/2009 7:27:20 PM)

Not only was USN command & control better than the IJN's, but the IJN seemed to love plans that the more complex the better.  KISS is something that should always be paid attention to.  More complex more to go wrong hence Keep It Simple Stupid.

Flexibility, especially in fluid environments, is a tremendous asset. The Soviet Air Force suffered because in flight aircraft were controlled from the ground and the system lacked flexibility. The US military seems to have learned and retained the lesson about flexibility as reflected in many of it's doctrines.



JWE -> RE: Hersey is about to be posted here - I hope this doesn’t cost me my Forum log in… (4/26/2009 7:27:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89
One thing that I feel is missig from WITP is that the fleet HQ's are support assets vice combat. I feel that the use of fleet HQ's was another asset in the USN doctrine where the fleet HQ directed the TF's vice relying on the TF commanders. This lead to better cohesion and better information processing. Of course a lot could be said about 3rd fleet's command performance but that's for another thread. I wish that the fleet HQ's would be ship bound and could have a positive effect on things like Ops points, strike coordination, etc

While the Sara air group certainly was a major impact on Midway, I feel command and control won the battle. The USN performed very well in that area and the IJN failed miserably

Yeah, me too. This was a biggie on my hit-list, but … Thing is that Fleets were both operational and administrative HQs. Halsey & Spruance spent a lot of time on-shore, planning the next op with their staff, and transferred their flags to an operational ship when it was time to rock, leaving a huge base staff back home to keep tabs on the “other” crap. Really wish we could have modeled this, but all we could do was have Halsey or Spruance command critical TFs, or stay at home and play REMF.

Game system offered no other options. Believe me, we tried, and tried, and tried, but absolutely no joy. Would have required a fundamental re-write of the HQ system.



Hornblower -> RE: Hersey is about to be posted here - I hope this doesn’t cost me my Forum log in… (4/26/2009 7:34:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

Not only was USN command & control better than the IJN's, but the IJN seemed to love plans that the more complex the better.  KISS is something that should always be paid attention to.  More complex more to go wrong hence Keep It Simple Stupid.
.


totally agree. in fact i think this statement warrents its own thread. look at how the ijn went about the coral sea and midway battles. faints and all the side objectives. They should have just formed one "big fist" with the forces available and advanced. but no, thats not the Japanese way [:-]



witpqs -> RE: Hersey is about to be posted here - I hope this doesn’t cost me my Forum log in… (4/26/2009 7:39:38 PM)

Agree with what you wrote. From the point of view of keeping ourselves honest about data (versus analysis), I have a question:


quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

The Soviet Air Force suffered because in flight aircraft were controlled from the ground and the system lacked flexibility.


"Soviet Air Force suffered..." When?



Dili -> RE: Hersey is about to be posted here - I hope this doesn’t cost me my Forum log in… (4/26/2009 7:54:11 PM)

Wouldn't US system have more operational losses while making better all around pilots?



vettim89 -> RE: Hersey is about to be posted here - I hope this doesn’t cost me my Forum log in… (4/26/2009 8:56:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

Wouldn't US system have more operational losses while making better all around pilots?


Perhaps not. I have read many accounts where combat units were pretty harsh as far as isolating replacement pilots. The veterans had seen too many good friends lost and too many "nuggets" lost almost imediately. New pilots entering a seasoned combat unit were often met with a very cold shoulder. Ergo, likely not as much combat experience was passed on as could be.

In the US system, the veterans were rotated out to train the neophytes at a rear area base. No pressure of combat and little fear of losing the new pilots. Butch O'Hare spent most of 1943 on Maui preparing the new VF's for deployment on the Indepence class CVL's. As the AE threads have brought up, the USN/USMC withdrew entire sq when their tour was over. That way a bunch of pilots out of flight school were not forced to mix into a combat unit with established relationships



Nikademus -> RE: Hersey is about to be posted here - I hope this doesn’t cost me my Forum log in… (4/26/2009 9:06:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: stuman

In the same vein, what do you think are the pluses and minuses of the two systems ?


The USN system was more flexible allowing a CV to remain or get back into action sooner.

The IJN system was more efficient when it came to carrier ops and coordination, especially at the divisional level (2 x CV's per division)

You have to bear in mind though that such a discussion goes well beyond the one factor of carrier squadrons being assigned to one carrier or more than one. It touches into carrier doctrine and organization. There were other factors involved. Transference of CAG's was only one aspect of a larger subject.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.625