|
witpqs -> RE: OT Blood on the Sea and Other Stuff (10/28/2017 12:40:46 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wdolson
A month or so back I finished a book that was definitely written for the history deep diver. It's entitled Blood on the Sea and chronicles the loss of every US destroyer sunk in WW II. I found it an interesting look into many different aspects of the naval war. Some were lost to accidents (most hit Allied mines), some hunting subs, some to aircraft, some to naval action, some to shore batteries.
I found some interesting patterns. One was three DDs named after naval personnel lost on Samoa on April 1, 1899. There was a small shore party of naval personnel, 4 of whom were killed trying to get back to their ship after one of them was wounded. Three destroyers were named after the two sailors and two officers killed, the Edsall, Monaghan, and Lansdale. All three were sunk during World War II.
Meredith was an unlucky name. The USN had two ships by that name and both were sunk during the war.
The last DD sunk during the war was named after a WW II admiral who got himself killed due to his own incompetence, the USS Callaghan.
Callaghan had been a desk admiral until he angled for a sea command. He became ranking admiral of the TF protecting Guadalcanal on the night of the First Naval Battle of Guadalcanal in November 1942. He had longer time in rank than Admiral Scott (who had the advantage of actually winning a surface engagement), so he became TF commander and Scott became a ride along. Callaghan didn't understand the capabilities of his ships and put the two ships with the best radar at the end of his column instead of at the front. He also didn't order TBS discipline so when the Helena did pick up the Japanese formation before anyone else, nobody could hear her and Callaghan dove headfirst into a CA fight vs BBs with less tactical information that he could have had.
I read Neptune's Inferno earlier this year. Some have criticized it here, but it did a good job of detailing what it set out to cover, the naval engagements around Guadalcanal. Frank's book on the Guadalcanal campaign is more complete, but it's also huge. I was thinking the other day what would have happened if the Washington and North Dakota had been broken loose a couple of days earlier?
I believe Admiral Lee would have become the ranking admiral and he would have made full use of the assets he had. He probably would have put Scott in the Helena and put her out front with the Fletcher. The Washington might have bagged both BBs before they knew what was happening. In the 2nd Battle, the Washington ended up running alone when the 4 DDs and South Dakota were put out of action early in the fight. Imagine what the Washington could have done backed up with several cruisers and more destroyers?
Lee was the first admiral to ride out a battle down in the CIC with the radar operators. He had been in charge of developing naval radar before the war and often knew more about it than the operators. Unlike Callaghan, he knew the capabilities of his radar intimately and knew how to best deploy it.
Bill
I also liked Neptune's Inferno but I understand the criticisms of it and agree it does not stand in competition to Guadalcanal. Frank's criticism of Callaghan is spot on IMO, but I also credit the slack that Hornfischer cut him. He could have communicated his plan better, had a better plan, and used his available radar better, but his basic premise of getting in close for a brawl where 8 inch guns could hurt the IJN battleships was the only viable basic choice the USN had that night. It was no timid plan. [sm=bow.gif]
|
|
|
|
