Halsey and Ultra/Magic

January 2nd, 2009

From Thu Aug 21 13:50:51 1997
>X-Authentication-Warning: ecom4.ecn.bgu.edu: mslrc owned process doing -bs
>Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 15:50:11 -0500 (CDT)
>From: “Louis R. Coatney”
>X-Sender: mslrc@ecom4.ecn.bgu.edu
>To: mahan@microwrks.com, consim-l@listserv.uni-c.dk
>cc: “Louis R. Coatney”
>Subject: Re: Halsey and Ultra/Magic
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>
>On Thu, 21 Aug 1997 salvin@ocslink.com wrote:
> > I think no one has addressed the real reason why the Japanese > feints usually
> > failed to work (Leyte Gulf is an exception)–thanks to Magic and Ultra the
> > U. S. *knew* what were feints and what was the main attack. Midway is a
> > perfect example. Why would Halsey go “charging off to the north” to the
> > Aleutians when he and the American high command knew that it was > a diversion
> > and the main thrust was to be at Midway?
>
>I (still) disagree. 🙂
>
>Halsey was Halsey and very probably would have gone “charging off,” no
> matter what the situation or how much he knew.
>
>Look how he ordered (Kinkaid in) ENTERPRISE and HORNET “Attack! Repeat,
> ATTACK!” … which K. dutifully did, only to over-expose his TF and lose
> HORNET … and leave us with one carrier, hampered by a damaged elevator
> about which was said that even “Bull” Halsey wouldn’t dare to push the
> “Down” button, for fear it wouldn’t come back up!
>
>Don’t get me wrong: Halsey was the kind of tiger we NEEDED … *for
> Guadalcanal* … when/where we finally decided to turn and fight … but
> he could be an overaggressive disaster at critical moments, elsewhere.
>
>William Halsey fully deserved his 5 stars, but he was entirely human …
> and how fallibly/*dangerously* impulsive he could be must not be
> forgotten.
>
> > I do agree, however that after Midway and the Solomons the Japanese should
> have
> > learned that more often than not, thier eleborate plans were not working.
>
>And yet … again … a “Kamikaze” Imperial Navy massacre of the invasion
> fleet/anchorage might have caused significant/decisive domestic
> disillusionment in the U.S. … with the competence of our commanders
> as much as the size of the casualty lists … although the two were/are
> directly related. The Japanese HAD us … thanks to their “overly
> complex” planning.
>
>And Kurita certainly didn’t “save” the Imperial Fleet by his (exhausted)
> withdrawal from Samar: The only significant subsequent action by
> it was YAMATO’s pointless “Kamikaze” attack at Okinawa.
>
>Lou Coatney, mslrc@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu
>
>Incidentally, Robert didn’t lose 1 carrier, last night, … although he
> did lose N. CAROLINA, S. DAKOTA, INDIANA, COLORADO!, and MARYLAND! …
> among others … in a nocturnal Ironbottom Bay slug-out that left me
> with useless eleventh-hour possession of the Slot.
>
>OK … so I *did* happen to drop NAGATO, MUTSU, HYUGA, all 4 KONGOs,
> and assorted significant others (including 5 out of my 6 carriers)
> in my valiant (more than brilliant) resistance, but Hey! … I
> *didn’t* lose YAMATO or MUSASHI … 🙂 … barely. :-I
>
>I made a very small but significant rule adjustment which does WONDERS
> for realistic night combat results.
>
>AND there were couple of seismic tremors during the game to report.
> 😮 ??

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

Purpose
The Mahan Naval Discussion List hosted here at NavalStrategy.org is to foster discussion and debate on the relevance of Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan's ideas on the importance of sea power influenced navies around the world.
Links