Question about Fletcher V Spruance (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message

RevRick -> Question about Fletcher V Spruance (11/21/2012 5:31:29 PM)

I just read this post on an alternative history message board:

quote:

In terms of Fletcher's search to the north east at Midway, this move is indicative of why he may have been the best American carrier commander of the war. Understand that Fletcher had no idea Spruance didn't have proper control of his own TF, hence no clue that Hornet was going to squander nearly its entire strength on a mission to nowhere. He cooly calculated that 4 dive bomber squadrons, TF-16 could handle the target detected. In the meantime he knew that with the previous day's storm front and air search dispositions, the only danger of an ambush came from the northeast. (If Fletcher had been spotted by a submarine on the 3rd, Nagumo's logical counter-move was to steam to the east and bushwack him from the northeast on the 4th, just like had nearly happened in the Coral Sea). So a quick search, perfectly timed to allow the searchers to return and remain the general reserve - a classic example of force optimalisation and contingency planning.


I have no idea where any of this originates. My reading for a long time has indicated exactly the opposite, yet this type of stuff shows up with 'authoritative voice' and firmly convinced that the above is a correct evaluation of Midway.

What say you?



Natali -> RE: Question about Fletcher V Spruance (11/21/2012 8:14:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RevRick
What say you?

I say who cares.

Thousands of people write millions of words about things they know nothing about. They were not there. They were not trained then. They did not know the people. They would have pooped their trou and hid crying in the commode if they had to face even one of the thousands of decisions these men had to. They “know” nothing but will say anything to up their post hits (successfully, I guess).

Why should anyone pay attention to an underwashed and overweight fanboi fruitcake on an internet forum? Real historians have done this to death, and the jury is still out. Fletcher and Spruance were both cool within their areas, but **** happens to people and an ultimate result is more because of circumstance than some stupid “guiding genius” crap.

Don’t care who you think is better. Or even why. Because it’s completely irrelevant. And so is the opinions of the internet. I totally hate this Leader “stats” crap because that’s what it is. Fanboi opinions on the internet should not inform your opinions, so long as those opinions are gathered from real researchers.

Just MHO. Sam



AW1Steve -> RE: Question about Fletcher V Spruance (11/21/2012 8:21:21 PM)

Opinions are like rear-ends. Everybody has at least one, and everybodies stink but yours! [:D] Consider , question, debate it, and kick it around, but I wouldn't take this line too seriously. I've heard and read many historians debate this , and spoken to more than a few Naval senior officers (current and from that era) and come to the conclusion that "we just don't know". And we won't unless some one unearths journals that each man kept that say "I screwed up". Or "I shoulda done this and that". But it is fun to speculate. [:)]



danlongman -> RE: Question about Fletcher V Spruance (11/21/2012 8:52:31 PM)

Why do some people with controversial opinions demand that others
take them seriously? In the end what I think is all about me and what
you think is all about you. If you have a problem with that no doubt
you also have problems with some other bigger closer things which
warrant slightly more attention. Discussion and dialog on points of
mutual interest are usually rewarding on many levels but usually
not on the right/wrong plane. Denigrating some one who has the nerve
to not share your opinion is one height of arrogant ignorance that many
are unafraid to reach. It just shows they are as Steve said "rear-ends".
There is so much to be learned by observing a dispute between experts.
Other disputes explain the popularity of things like WWF or NASCAR.
I used to love midget wrestling when I was a kid. Analogies anyone?
Just my opinion today.



AW1Steve -> RE: Question about Fletcher V Spruance (11/21/2012 9:06:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RevRick

I just read this post on an alternative history message board:

quote:

In terms of Fletcher's search to the north east at Midway, this move is indicative of why he may have been the best American carrier commander of the war. Understand that Fletcher had no idea Spruance didn't have proper control of his own TF, hence no clue that Hornet was going to squander nearly its entire strength on a mission to nowhere. He cooly calculated that 4 dive bomber squadrons, TF-16 could handle the target detected. In the meantime he knew that with the previous day's storm front and air search dispositions, the only danger of an ambush came from the northeast. (If Fletcher had been spotted by a submarine on the 3rd, Nagumo's logical counter-move was to steam to the east and bushwack him from the northeast on the 4th, just like had nearly happened in the Coral Sea). So a quick search, perfectly timed to allow the searchers to return and remain the general reserve - a classic example of force optimalisation and contingency planning.


I have no idea where any of this originates. My reading for a long time has indicated exactly the opposite, yet this type of stuff shows up with 'authoritative voice' and firmly convinced that the above is a correct evaluation of Midway.

What say you?

OK, let go along with you in this discussion just for "kicks and grins". I see a couple of problems. 1) Who is this paragon of intellect? Does he have any qualifications? It doesn't matter on the opionion it'self, but it does allow us to judge it on the individual's background. 2) in his discussion of "reserves" it sounds like he's land tactics, not Naval. Again , not a big thing , but it gives us a frame of referrence. 3) His judgement of Fletcher holding his forces back as a brilliant employment of reserves, could also be used as an indictement of cowardice. I don't belive EITHER judgement to be correct (Especially as Fletcher had been awardwed the Medal of Honor for his actions as an Ensign at Veracruz in 1914).

I'm just sayin'......[:D]

My personal feeling from readings on the subject: Fletcher was an insecure individual. He never had enough fuel, forces, or information. He had launched a number of his scouting units SBD's because he didn't want to rely entirely on Midways PBY's, or his shorter ranged float planes SOC's. His SBD's were just recovering when the enemy forces were discovered , leading him to hold his SBD's till they were fueled , armed,organized and briefed. To me he always seemed more cautious then brilliant. But that's just my thought. But then again , one needs to keep in mind that Fletcher , nor Spruance were avaitors. Brash action didn't fit in their mind set. [:)]



Blackhorse -> RE: Question about Fletcher V Spruance (11/21/2012 11:28:05 PM)

Shattered Sword certainly gives Frank Jack Fletcher more credit than history, led by Morrison, has to-date. Shattered Sword contrasts Fletcher's training and handling of his air groups -- sending them in in a coordinated attack -- to the alleged mis-handling by Spruance / Browning that caused the Hornet and Enterprise strikes to trickle in in dribs and drabs.

I'm still of the mindset that Frank Jack was too cautious ("always refueling" in Morrison's damning phrase) but I'm open to arguments to the contrary, from famous authors and anonymous bloggers both.



gradenko2k -> RE: Question about Fletcher V Spruance (11/22/2012 12:28:32 AM)

You can at least say that Fletcher's conservative/cautious approach was not a one-time thing, as he practiced the same restraint at Santa Cruz (and it ended up costing him the Hornet)



msieving1 -> RE: Question about Fletcher V Spruance (11/22/2012 10:08:33 AM)

quote:

He had launched a number of his scouting units SBD's because he didn't want to rely entirely on Midways PBY's, or his shorter ranged float planes SOC's.


No US carrier commander relied on cruiser floatplanes for scouting. The SOC was used primarily for gunnery spotting, rather than scouting, and were often removed from cruisers later in the war because they were not very useful.

No competent carrier commander relied solely on land based scouting. Communications were not that reliable, and land based scouting reports were often hours late.

The SBD was called a Scout Bomber for a reason, and the VS squadrons were called Scouting Squadrons for a reason. US doctrine relied on using scout bombers to find the enemy. Planning before Midway called for Yorktown to handle the scouting role while Enterprise and Hornet concentrated on strikes. Fletcher wasn't being overly cautious in launching scouts, he was doing hs job.




AW1Steve -> RE: Question about Fletcher V Spruance (11/22/2012 3:28:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: msieving1

quote:

He had launched a number of his scouting units SBD's because he didn't want to rely entirely on Midways PBY's, or his shorter ranged float planes SOC's.


No US carrier commander relied on cruiser floatplanes for scouting. The SOC was used primarily for gunnery spotting, rather than scouting, and were often removed from cruisers later in the war because they were not very useful.

No competent carrier commander relied solely on land based scouting. Communications were not that reliable, and land based scouting reports were often hours late.

The SBD was called a Scout Bomber for a reason, and the VS squadrons were called Scouting Squadrons for a reason. US doctrine relied on using scout bombers to find the enemy. Planning before Midway called for Yorktown to handle the scouting role while Enterprise and Hornet concentrated on strikes. Fletcher wasn't being overly cautious in launching scouts, he was doing hs job.




We will have to agree to disagree. When you have 36 long range PBY's to do your scouting , and your aware that that your opponent out numbers you 4 to 3 , you use all the striking power you can. Diluting your strength is giving the enemy the advantage. So tell me again about "competancy"? There's cautious and there is over cautious. And when your orders from Nimitz say to "utilize the principal of calculated risk" , I don't see that as complying. [8|]



msieving1 -> RE: Question about Fletcher V Spruance (11/22/2012 6:18:32 PM)

quote:

And when your orders from Nimitz say to "utilize the principal of calculated risk" , I don't see that as complying.


Recall that Nimitz defined "calculated risk" to mean "the avoidance of exposure of your force to attack by superior enemy forces without the prospect of inflicting, as a result of such exposure, greater damage to the enemy." That's a counsel of caution. And the first step in either avoiding exposure to, or inflicting damage on, the enemy, is to know where they are.



AW1Steve -> RE: Question about Fletcher V Spruance (11/22/2012 8:52:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: msieving1

quote:

And when your orders from Nimitz say to "utilize the principal of calculated risk" , I don't see that as complying.


Recall that Nimitz defined "calculated risk" to mean "the avoidance of exposure of your force to attack by superior enemy forces without the prospect of inflicting, as a result of such exposure, greater damage to the enemy." That's a counsel of caution. And the first step in either avoiding exposure to, or inflicting damage on, the enemy, is to know where they are.



36 PBY's searching within a known strike box is plenty. The addition of 18 or so SBD's is minute by comparrison. An aviator, or even a simple experinced Naval Patrol aircrewman (as I was for 23 years) would know that. Fletcher had several highly experinced aviators (such as his chief of staff) to advise him. The SBD's were a security blanket. Like excessive refueling concerns, OVERKILL on scouting at the EXPENSE of his strike force REEKS of timidity. I'm not saying Fletcher was a coward. No one who has the MOH is , in my opionon. But I belive he was timid in his ignorance. And wasted his resources. Had there been SIX squadrons of SBD's over Nagumo's head at the cruicial moment , instead of FIVE , would it have been FOUR burning Japanese CV's instead of THREE? I don't know. But it's as valid a possibility as your "Reserve" force indicating brilliance.

We are NOT going to prove this or that today. But as I said, the same example you sight as battle field brilliance , can be seen as "battle field cowardice" or "battlefield incompetance". You and I were not there , we should not judge. Period. [8D]



AW1Steve -> RE: Question about Fletcher V Spruance (11/22/2012 8:54:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: msieving1

quote:

And when your orders from Nimitz say to "utilize the principal of calculated risk" , I don't see that as complying.


Recall that Nimitz defined "calculated risk" to mean "the avoidance of exposure of your force to attack by superior enemy forces without the prospect of inflicting, as a result of such exposure, greater damage to the enemy." That's a counsel of caution. And the first step in either avoiding exposure to, or inflicting damage on, the enemy, is to know where they are.




In YOUR interpretation. In mine it means, STRIKE if you can gain an advantage. DON'T strike in a "half-assed" measure. That's just wasting the lives of your aircrew.
[:(]



ckammp -> RE: Question about Fletcher V Spruance (11/22/2012 9:26:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

You can at least say that Fletcher's conservative/cautious approach was not a one-time thing, as he practiced the same restraint at Santa Cruz (and it ended up costing him the Hornet)



Fletcher was not in command at Santa Cruz; Halsey was in overall command with Kincaid at sea in command of TF61.



Hotschi -> RE: Question about Fletcher V Spruance (11/22/2012 9:52:53 PM)

And in the end, 4 japanese carriers were at the bottom of the sea at the prize of one US carrier (which was patched up in a frenzy just to join the party). Success for the United States, a colossal loss for Japan.



gradenko2k -> RE: Question about Fletcher V Spruance (11/23/2012 2:26:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp
Fletcher was not in command at Santa Cruz; Halsey was in overall command with Kincaid at sea in command of TF61.

Mea culpa. It appears I got Fletcher and Kinkaid mixed up. I stand corrected.



msieving1 -> RE: Question about Fletcher V Spruance (11/23/2012 2:32:33 AM)

quote:

You and I were not there , we should not judge. Period.


Well, I tend to agree, but I have to point out that the only one doing any judging here is you. I've made no comment one whether Fletcher's actions were right or wrong, only that he followed SOP.



SuluSea -> RE: Question about Fletcher V Spruance (11/23/2012 2:41:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hotschi

And in the end, 4 japanese carriers were at the bottom of the sea at the prize of one US carrier (which was patched up in a frenzy just to join the party). Success for the United States, a colossal loss for Japan.




This is how I feel about this battle although I'd classify it as overwhelming victory.

It's fun to debate how things could have been different the morning after but who knows what would have happened if Stanhope Ring wouldn't have led his group in the wrong direction or if LCDR Waldron decided to follow him and IJN Cap would have been at height when the Dauntless's pushed over. I know the Torpedo 8 book absolutely demonizes Ring.

From what I've read Admiral Mitscher pushed for LCDR Waldron to get the Medal of Honor but for whatever reason he didn't. A discussion for a different day but it's a travesty that both men, Ring and Waldron recieved the same award for their actions that day being the Navy Cross.
Not taking away from anyones effort during the battle but I've long believed Waldron's Torpedo 8 was the lynchpin that carried the day.


Not all things went according to plan but what do they say is the first casualty of war?

Another what if but a case could be made that Yorktown may not of sunk if it was given more than a 3 day patch job or would have been fixed and at sea again if it weren't for the efforts of I-168 the following day.







AW1Steve -> RE: Question about Fletcher V Spruance (11/23/2012 5:18:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: msieving1

quote:

You and I were not there , we should not judge. Period.


Well, I tend to agree, but I have to point out that the only one doing any judging here is you. I've made no comment one whether Fletcher's actions were right or wrong, only that he followed SOP.


And I have only said that I disagree with you. That's not a judgement. [8|]



JeffroK -> RE: Question about Fletcher V Spruance (11/23/2012 6:36:39 AM)

Spruance wins hands down:

Spruance Class
Type: Destroyer
Displacement: 8,040 (long) tons full load
Length: 529 ft (161 m) waterline; 563 ft (172 m) overall
Beam: 55 ft (16.8 m)
Draft: 29 ft (8.8 m)
Propulsion: 4 × General Electric LM2500 gas turbines, 2 shafts, 80,000 shp (60 MW)
Speed: 32.5 knots (60 km/h)
Range: 6,000 nautical miles (11,000 km; 6,900 mi) at 20 knots (37 km/h; 23 mph)
3,300 nautical miles (6,100 km; 3,800 mi) at 30 knots (56 km/h; 35 mph)
Complement: 19 officers, 315 enlisted
Sensors and
processing systems: AN/SPS-40 air search radar
AN/SPG-60 fire control radar
AN/SPS-55 surface search radar
AN/SPQ-9 gun fire control radar
Mk 23 TAS automatic detection and tracking radar
AN/SPS-65 Missile fire control radar
AN/SQS-53 bow mounted Active sonar
AN/SQR-19 TACTAS towed array Passive sonar
Electronic warfare
& decoys: • AN/SLQ-32 Electronic Warfare System
• AN/SLQ-25 Nixie Torpedo Countermeasures
• Mark 36 SRBOC Decoy Launching System
• AN/SLQ-49 Inflatable Decoys
AN/WLR 1 in DD-971 & DD-975.
Armament: • 2 × 5-inch (127mm) 54 calibre Mark 45 dual purpose guns
• 2 × 20 mm Phalanx CIWS Mark 15 guns
• 1 × 8 cell ASROC launcher
• 1 × 8 cell NATO Sea Sparrow Mark 29 missile launcher
• 2× quadruple Harpoon missile canisters
• 2 × Mark 32 triple 12.75 in (324 mm) torpedo tubes (Mk 46 torpedoes)
• 2 × quadruple ABL Mark 43 Tomahawk missile launchers (some ships of the class)
• 1 × 21 cell Rolling Airframe Missile launcher in some ships.
A 61-cell Mark 41 VLS launcher for Tomahawk/ASROC missiles was fitted to 24 ships in place of the 8-cell ASROC launcher.
Aircraft carried: 2 x Sikorsky SH-60 Seahawk LAMPS III helicopters.
Aviation facilities: Flight deck and enclosed hangar for up to two medium-lift helicopters

Fletcher Class
Type: Destroyer
Displacement: 2,050 tons (standard);
2,500 tons (full load)
Length: 376.5 ft (114.8 m)
Beam: 39.5 ft (12.0 m)
Draft: 12.5 ft (3.8 m)
Propulsion: 4 Babcock & Wilcox oil-fired boilers; 2 General Electric geared steam turbines; 2 screws; =60,000shp
Speed: 36.5 knots (67.6 km/h)
Range: 5,500 miles at 15 knots
(8,850 km at 28 km/h) [1]
Complement: 329 officers and men
Armament: • 5 × single 5 inch/38 caliber guns guided by a Mark 37 Gun Fire Control System with Mk25 fire control radar linked by a Mark 1A Fire Control Computer stabilized by a Mk6 8,500 rpm gyro.
• 6–10 × 40 mm Bofors AA guns (early ships carried 4 × 1.1 inch/75 caliber guns),
• 7–10 × 20 mm Oerlikon cannons,
• 10 × 21 inch torpedo tubes (2×5),
• 6 × K-guns,
• 2 × depth charge racks



Barb -> RE: Question about Fletcher V Spruance (11/23/2012 12:13:39 PM)

One of the principal "dos" in military is always to have some reserve force! Reserve can be used in various way and could tip the balance in your direction.

I doubt that any military commander ever had 100% confidence of military intelligence. If he had, he probably failed to carry out his mission because the intelligence was wrong (talk about Murphy's laws!!).

So having something in backup to be thrown against unexpected is not sign of weakness or caution, but of rationale.

What if two jap battleships showed unexpectedly over the horizon ? Or had Junyo and Ryujo be repositioned from Aleutians? Keeping a reserve of even dozen planes on hand is like having an Ace in hand to be played on most opportune moment.



ilovestrategy -> RE: Question about Fletcher V Spruance (11/23/2012 12:25:02 PM)

Fletcher's actions can be debated until the cows come home but regardless of how he did at Midway, one undisputed fact is that by the end of 1943 our number of fleet carriers dwarfed the original KB. And the US was just getting warmed up.



msieving1 -> RE: Question about Fletcher V Spruance (11/23/2012 5:13:00 PM)

quote:

And I have only said that I disagree with you. That's not a judgement.


I don't mean to be argumentative, but you said that Fletcher was insecure and timid. That is a judgement.



Hotschi -> RE: Question about Fletcher V Spruance (11/23/2012 6:36:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

This is how I feel about this battle although I'd classify it as overwhelming victory.



...which hits the nail on the head. This whole discussion here makes me think of reading Shattered Sword again. And there is another book about Fletcher at Coral Sea and Midway which sounds interesting too.

Bummer that Fletcher's personal papers were largely destroyed during the war, and, if wikipedia can be believed, he refused to reconstruct them after the war. Nor he gave Morison an interview for his 15 volume history of naval operations (maybe a reason for getting some flak by Morison in return ?).

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Spruance wins hands down:

Spruance Class
Type: Destroyer ...

Fletcher Class
Type: Destroyer



A landslide victory for Spruance here, the Fletcher Class was in fact named after Admiral Frank Friday Fletcher, Frank Jack's uncle.



AW1Steve -> RE: Question about Fletcher V Spruance (11/23/2012 6:39:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: msieving1

quote:

And I have only said that I disagree with you. That's not a judgement.


I don't mean to be argumentative, but you said that Fletcher was insecure and timid. That is a judgement.


I don't mean to be "judgemental". And you don't mean to be "argumentative". [:(] CRAP!
I do deeply regret trying to dignify your "Non-argumentative" statement and treat it with consideration. I SHOULD have either joined in with the 1st couple of posts , and dismissed it with scorn , or simply ignored it. My mistake. No good deed goes unpunished. [8|]

So OK, Fletcher was the greatest military and Naval Genius of the 20th century , maybe all times. And all the historians,Admiral , scholars and professionals who haven't agreed with you were obviously simply jealous of his brilliance. Ther..happy? [&:]

As far as I'm concerned , this issue is now equal to sunk vs, scuttled , zerovs wildcat , Ginger vs May-ann.

Congratualations! MSIEVING 1. ! [:D] And welcome to my GBF list. [:D]



witpqs -> RE: Question about Fletcher V Spruance (11/23/2012 6:57:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RevRick

I just read this post on an alternative history message board:

quote:

In terms of Fletcher's search to the north east at Midway, this move is indicative of why he may have been the best American carrier commander of the war. Understand that Fletcher had no idea Spruance didn't have proper control of his own TF, hence no clue that Hornet was going to squander nearly its entire strength on a mission to nowhere. He cooly calculated that 4 dive bomber squadrons, TF-16 could handle the target detected. In the meantime he knew that with the previous day's storm front and air search dispositions, the only danger of an ambush came from the northeast. (If Fletcher had been spotted by a submarine on the 3rd, Nagumo's logical counter-move was to steam to the east and bushwack him from the northeast on the 4th, just like had nearly happened in the Coral Sea). So a quick search, perfectly timed to allow the searchers to return and remain the general reserve - a classic example of force optimalisation and contingency planning.


I have no idea where any of this originates. My reading for a long time has indicated exactly the opposite, yet this type of stuff shows up with 'authoritative voice' and firmly convinced that the above is a correct evaluation of Midway.

What say you?


Lot's of good comments already before mine (not that I agree with every one of them).

The part that I put in bold face is what leaps out at me - it's pure BS. The implication is that Spruance could/should have had computer-game or board-game like control over his assets. Shattered Sword gave a great account of the realities involved.

The second item is the "perfectly timed" quick search. The search might have been a good idea, or not. Opinions in this thread obviously vary on that. The perfect timing bit is just as unrealistic as the "control" Spruance should have had.



msieving1 -> RE: Question about Fletcher V Spruance (11/23/2012 8:56:11 PM)

Would someone kindly point out what I said that Steve found so offensive? I'd really like to know.



msieving1 -> RE: Question about Fletcher V Spruance (11/23/2012 10:27:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: RevRick

I just read this post on an alternative history message board:

quote:

In terms of Fletcher's search to the north east at Midway, this move is indicative of why he may have been the best American carrier commander of the war. Understand that Fletcher had no idea Spruance didn't have proper control of his own TF, hence no clue that Hornet was going to squander nearly its entire strength on a mission to nowhere. He cooly calculated that 4 dive bomber squadrons, TF-16 could handle the target detected. In the meantime he knew that with the previous day's storm front and air search dispositions, the only danger of an ambush came from the northeast. (If Fletcher had been spotted by a submarine on the 3rd, Nagumo's logical counter-move was to steam to the east and bushwack him from the northeast on the 4th, just like had nearly happened in the Coral Sea). So a quick search, perfectly timed to allow the searchers to return and remain the general reserve - a classic example of force optimalisation and contingency planning.


I have no idea where any of this originates. My reading for a long time has indicated exactly the opposite, yet this type of stuff shows up with 'authoritative voice' and firmly convinced that the above is a correct evaluation of Midway.

What say you?


Lot's of good comments already before mine (not that I agree with every one of them).

The part that I put in bold face is what leaps out at me - it's pure BS. The implication is that Spruance could/should have had computer-game or board-game like control over his assets. Shattered Sword gave a great account of the realities involved.

The second item is the "perfectly timed" quick search. The search might have been a good idea, or not. Opinions in this thread obviously vary on that. The perfect timing bit is just as unrealistic as the "control" Spruance should have had.


I'm not sure what sort of control the author of the original quote thought Spruance should have had. Navigation in the air of the Hornet's strike force was the responsibility of the airgroup commander, Stanhope Ring. Communication between Enterprise and Hornet was limited and not entirely reliable, so Mitscher was generally operating independently. Both Mitscher and Ring have come in for criticism about the Hornet airgroup's course, but there wasn't much Spruance could reasonably have done about it.

I don't understand why the search that Fletcher ordered should generate so much emotion. Fletcher sent out a dawn patrol of 10 SBDs to guard against a potential surprise attack. That's neither a sign of weakness nor a sign of genius, but simply a routine precaution. From my reading of the history, I'm sure any other carrier TF commander in the US Navy would have done the same.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.828125