# Best Or Most Competent WWII Admiral - By Nationality



## parsifal (Nov 29, 2012)

This is a list I have compiled of the various Officers of higher flag rank (Admiral and above for the British, American, German and Japanese Navies. I have tried to be as complete as possible for Vice Admirals and above, but have included some of the more famous Rear Admirals that I can think of.

The purpose of the list is to assist people in selecting the best, for each nationality or most competent admiral of the war. Notice I am not looking for the most successful. The war at sea was anything but a level playing field.

Having said that, I would think it appropriate to judge each nationality according to doctrinal limitations that that navy.

Basically, this is what I would ask people to do…..for each nationality, I would like each participating forum member to select whom they consider to be the best officer of flag rank or above (ie admirals) for that nationality

Eg 

A Britain: Cunningham

B USA : Nimitz

C Japan Tanaka

D Germany Donitz

You can nominate for other Navies if you want, but I don’t have a complete or comprehensive list of Admirals for these other navies. 

At the end of 30 days I then intend to tally up the numbers and shortlist the top two admirals for each nationality and run a poll in a new thread. We will then have what this forum considers to be the most competent admirals for each nationality and also the most competent overall.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 29, 2012)

To help people consider, I have tried to list the main admirals of each nationality. Here they are

Japan: 

Admirals Of the Fleet Prince Fushimi Hiroyasu Osami Nagano Isoroku Yamamoto (posthumous), Mineichi Koga (posthumous) Admirals Ryokitsu Arima Shigeyoshi Inoue Seiichi Itō (posthumous) Saitō Makoto Chūichi Nagumo (posthumous) Keisuke Okada Mineo Ōsumi Uryū Sotokichi Dewa Shigetō Shigetarō Shimada, Kantarō Suzuki Takeo Takagi (posthumous) Isamu Takeshita Soemu Toyoda Nishizō Tsukahara Mitsumasa Yonai Matome Ugaki Vice Admirals Hiroaki Abe Teruo Akiyama (posthumous) Masafumi Arima (posthumous) Kōsaku Aruga (posthumous) Masami Ban (posthumous) Tadashige Daigo Shigeru Fukudome Aritomo Gotō Chūichi Hara Kiyoshi Hara Kiichi Hasegawa (posthumous) Shintarō Hashimoto Sueto Hirose Boshirō Hosogaya Toshihira Inoguchi (posthumous) Shunji Isaki Takeo Kaizuka (posthumous) Kakuji Kakuta Masami Kobayashi Nobutake Kondō Tomiji Koyanagi Takeo Kurita Kiyoshi Kusagawa (posthumous) Jinichi Kusaka Ryūnosuke Kusaka Hajime Matsushita Gunichi Mikawa Shigeyoshi Miwa Giichiro Nakahara (posthumous) Shōji Nishimura Sentarō Ōmori Takijirō Ōnishi Miki Otsuka (posthumous) Jisaburō Ozawa Tomoshige Samejima Kiyohide Shima Shigetarō Shimada Toshio Shimazaki (posthumous) Katsukiyo Shinoda (posthumous) Kaju Sugiura (posthumous) Ibō Takahashi Enomoto Takeaki Raizō Tanaka Nashiba Tokioki Tamon Yamaguchi (posthumous) Rear Admiorals (incomplete) Kōsō Abe Toshio Abe (posthumous) Tsutau Araki Kaoru Arima Bunji Asakura Ruitaro Fujita Kenzaburo Hara Kaku Harada Shinzaburo Hase Mikio Hayakawa Kouichiro Hatakeyama Masamichi Ikeguchi Keishi Ishii Kenzo Ito Takatsugu Jojima Eiichiro Jyo Tomeo Kaku (posthumous) Ikuzo Kimura Yoshiyuki Kishi Yuji Kobe Gunji Kogure Keizo Komura Kaname Konishi Kyuji Kubo Toshi Kubota (posthumous) Chiaki Matsuda Takamatsu Matsuda (posthumous) Shutoku Miyazato Teruhiko Miyoshi (posthumous) Nobuei Morishita Kakuro Mutaguchi (posthumous) Ko Nakagawa Nobuki Nakaoka (posthumous) Noboro Nakase Tomekichi Nomura Sueo Obayashi Jisaku Okada (posthumous) Tametsugu Okada Tomesaburo Okura Ichiro Ono Takeji Ono Masao Sawa (posthumous) Kazue Shigenaga Kiichiro Shoji (posthumous) Michio Sumikawa Tamotsu Takama Gihachi Takayanagi Jo Tanaka (posthumous) Yoshioki Tawara Nobumichi Tsuruoka Kamenosuke Yamamori Iwata Yamamoto (posthumous) Ryusaku Yanagimoto (posthumous)

Selected USN Flag Admirals
Bernard L. Austin David W. Bagley Donald B. Beary Wilson Brown (admiral) Daniel J. Callaghan Charles M. Cooke, Jr. Arthur C. Davis Aubrey Fitch Frank Jack Fletcher Robert L. Ghormley Robert C. Giffen William Halsey, Jr. Henry Kent Hewitt John H. Hoover Olaf M. Hustvedt Royal E. Ingersoll Isaac C. Kidd Husband E. Kimmel Ernest King Thomas C. Kinkaid William D. Leahy Herbert F. Leary Willis Augustus Lee Charles A. Lockwood John S. McCain, Sr. Charles McMorris Marc Mitscher William R. Munroe George D. Murray Chester W. Nimitz Jesse B. Oldendorf Charles Alan Pownall William S. Pye S Norman Scott (Medal of Honor) Clifton Sprague Thomas L. Sprague Raymond A. Spruance Harold Rainsford Stark Mahlon Tisdale John Henry Towers Richmond K. Turner WJohn W. Wilcox, Jr. Russell Willson Carleton H. Wright

Selected Royal Navy Admirals

Conolly Abel Smith Albert Addison William Gladstone Agnew Geoffrey Arbuthnot Ernest Archer (Royal Navy officer) Claud Barry Henry Blagrove Geoffrey Blake Denis Boyd Patrick Brind Harold Burrough C William Scott Chalmers William Boyle, 12th Earl of Cork and Orrery John Gregory Crace George Creasy Victor Crutchley Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope John Cunningham Alban Curteis Berwick Curtis Frederick Dalrymple-Hamilton Charles Daniel Richard Bell-Davies Gerald Charles Dickens Percy Douglas Cyril Douglas-Pennant Martin Dunbar-Nasmith John Edelsten Douglas Fisher Charles Forbes Wilbraham Ford Bruce Fraser, 1st Baron Fraser of North Cape, Wilfred French Irvine Glennie John Henry Godfrey Louis Keppel Hamilton Henry Harwood Lancelot Holland Henry Horan Max Kennedy Horton William Milbourne James Howard Kelly Charles Kennedy-Purvis Roger Keyes, 1st Baron Keyes Charles Lambe Richard Lane-Poole Geoffrey Layton Ralph Leatham Charles Little Hubert Lynes George Hamilton D'Oyly Lyon Lumley Lyster Philip Mack Loben Maund Desmond McCarthy Rhoderick McGrigor Sidney Meyrick Henry Ruthven Moore Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma Edward Evans, 1st Baron Mountevans Gerard Muirhead-Gould Gresham Nicholson Percy Noble Dudley Burton Napier North Herbert Annesley Packer Arthur Palliser Tom Phillips Dudley Pound Arthur Power Lionel Preston Henry Pridham-Wippell Robert Raikes Bertram Ramsay Charles Ramsey Bernard Rawlings Eric Gascoigne Robinson Guy Royle Guy Russell James Somerville Ernest John Spooner Gilbert Stephenson Charles Gage Stuart George Swabey Edward Neville Syfret William Tennant Bertram Thesiger John Tovey, 1st Baron Tovey Thomas Hope Troubridge Hugh Tweedie Philip Vian Frederic Wake-Walker Fischer Watson William Whitworth Algernon Willis Norman Wodehouse


Selected KM Admirals 

Conrad Albrecht Lothar von Arnauld de la Perière Hans Benda Kurt Böhmer Helmuth Brinkmann Theodor Burchardi Hans Bütow Wilhelm Canaris Otto Ciliax Karl Dönitz Robert Eyssen Kurt Fricke Friedrich Frisius Eberhard Godt Walter Hennecke Hellmuth Heye Kurt-Caesar Hoffmann Rolf Johannesson Otto Kähler Gustav Kieseritzky Theodor Krancke Werner Lange Ernst Lucht Günther Lütjens Wilhelm Meendsen-Bohlken Wilhelm Meisel Hans Michahelles Karl-Jesco von Puttkamer Bernhard Rogge Friedrich Ruge Ernst Schirlitz Hubert Schmundt Otto Schulz Hans Stohwasser August Thiele Hans-Erich Voss Paul Wenneker Kurt Weyher Eberhard Wolfram Adalbert Zuckschwerdt

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 29, 2012)

Going to have to do some research here. Navies have always been an interest of mine, but certainly a weaker point for me.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Nov 29, 2012)

I could complicate the thread and poll by dividing into categories and times. For example Tanaka seems to me to be an excellent overall IJN choice but I don't believe he ever commanded a major task force. In that category, I'd nominate Ozawa, although between those two (in terms of major commands), is Mikawa, who had major type commands (CA BB) and won some significant battles (Savo Island and the bombardment of Henderson between the first and second naval battles of Guadalcanal). He was saddled with sole responsibility for losing the Solomons, which seems to me to be more a Yamamoto failure than Mikawa's. 

In terms of catelgores:

I Light to medium forces (SS, DD CL, CA CVE), (A: early: 41-43) (B: late: 44-45)
II Heavy forces (CV, CB, BB Theater) early, late

That's 4 categories. 2 based on size and 2 based on time. 

On second thought this is just too da*ned complicated. 

USN: Anyone but Halsey. Probably Nimitz with honorable mentions to Scott, Spruance, Mitscher (ignoring Midway where he was borderline competent) and Lee.
RN: Cunningham and Somerville 
IJN: Tanaka, Ozawa and Yamaguichi (If he had been commanding Kido Butai at Midway or had Nagumo taken his advice to launch immediately, the battle would probably have been more damaging to the USN and probably lasted longer, fought more savagely the IJN might have won.) 
KM: Doenitz and Raeder 

For RN and KM, they are really the only ones I know.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 29, 2012)

Its also complicated by the doctrine of that nationality.For amphibious operations, the most significant element in terms of the skill set needed might be a grasp of logistics. What you need, and in what order. For surface combat there is a different skill set required. Convoy escort yet another, guerre De Course another, submarine operations altogether different. So, people are going to have to think about what was most important to that Navy and whether the person they have in mind was really good in that regard. Its difficult to base that assessment on results, because at different times differnt Navies and different personalities were confronted with different challenges.

Just thinking aloud for a minute, you cannot really compare say Scott to say Donitz. they each had different jobs and differnt national doctrines. Neither could you say that Germany was lacking in effective leaders because the performance of their surface fleet was poor. The failure of the KM surface forces arose from poor doctrine and the heavy odds against them. still within those nasty restrictions, the commanders on the spot still managed to achieve quite good results. I was particularly impressed with fleet commander Marschall.

I weould tend to think the primary British objectives were the convoys and sea control, the Germans submarines and coastal defence, the USN was carrier warfare, strategic organizatiopn and force projection (incorporating amphibious warfare) and the japanese Force Projection, and "the decisive battle". who did these various things the best. Is my meandering thoughts close to what was important for each of the nationalities?


----------



## davebender (Nov 30, 2012)

IJN 11th Air Fleet was in a class by itself. No other nation had a maritime attack air force anywhere near this capable.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 30, 2012)

My choices would be

IJN - Ozawa (Tanaka a very close second)
USN - Nimitz (Mitscher a close second. I also like Spruance and Turner)
Britain - Cunningham (Vian Ramsay Horton all honourably mentioned with Fraser mentioned because of his sheer doggedness and determination in the face of an extremely hostile ally)
Germany - Donitz (with Marschall as their best fleet or surface admiral)


----------



## VBF-13 (Nov 30, 2012)

parsifal said:


> Best Or Most Competent WWII Admiral - By Nationality


Pars, look at the title of this forum you have this question in. Did you notice it's supposed to be about WWII Generals, not Admirals? 

Actually, that's my rather crude way of saying, there are too many Admirals, they're all decorated like Christmas trees, and I'm stymied.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Dec 1, 2012)

parsifal said:


> My choices would be
> 
> IJN - Ozawa (Tanaka a very close second)
> USN - Nimitz (Mitscher a close second. I also like Spruance and Turner)
> ...



In general agreement, with my only exception to your list being Turner... He was a perfectionist who developed amphibious ops to a high art but was also quick to blame others for his own arrogance-based blunders. e.g. Savo Island; he blamed Fletcher who had little to do with the night action, for Pearl Harbor, he blamed Kimmel for the lack of intel he had a hand in withholding (read Layton: "and I was there" is both the title of his book and a rebuttal to Turner when he attempted to blame Kimmel for PH. Meaning he knew the real story. I am not sure of his hand in the Tarawa debacle but I suspect it was at least in part due to Turner's decisions, made in some cases in direct contradiction to the wise cautious counsel of Fletcher regarding the use of carriers when supporting an amphibious op. I am not saying he didn't make a valuable contribution, but that the negatives balanced the positive.


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 1, 2012)

For the Number 1 Admiral of the war I would go with Max Horton he might not have been the best but he was in charge of the Battle of the Atlantic the longest most deadly naval battle of the war. Without ultimate victory over the u Boats you have no D-Day and therefore a good chance the Red Flag flies over all mainland Europe in early 46. 

With all due respect to the US and its brave boys (not forgetting the Commonwealth boys) the Pacific war though brutal and deadly didnt have such long term strategic importance. Against Japan the US was always going to prevail by weight of numbers it was just a matter of how long. Though of course that is with 20/20 hindsight a useful product not readily available.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 2, 2012)

Im going to count "honourable mentions or "second choices" only as one vote. If one member mentions an admiral as "worth mentioning" and then other members also mention them, then all the subsequest "mentions" dont count as a vote. An admiral gains a maximum of one vote for honourable mention, thereafter they have to get primary votes. 

A member can only vote once.....

At this stage the tally is 

USN: Nimitz (2), Scott, Mitscher, Turner, Spruance, Lee
IJN: Tanaka, Ozawa(2) Yamaguchi , Tsukuhara
RN Cunningham (2), Horton (2), Somerville, Vian, Ramsay, Fraser
KM Donitz (2), Raeder, Marschall


----------



## Readie (Dec 2, 2012)

I would suggest: 

One of the most important fronts of the war, success in the Atlantic was critical for the Allied cause. Citing its importance, Prime Minister Winston Churchill later stated: "The Battle of the Atlantic was the dominating factor all through the war. Never for one moment could we forget that everything happening elsewhere, on land, at sea or in the air depended ultimately on its outcome..."

Admiral Sir Percy Noble, RN
Admiral Sir Max Horton, RN

On his return to Britain, Admiral Noble was appointed Commander-in-Chief, Western Approaches Admiral Noble commanded Western Approaches from his headquarters at Derby House, Liverpool, during a period stretching from early 1941 to November 1942. His work in reorganising escort groups, and revamping escort training methods are widely regarded as having been crucial foundational elements of the eventual success of the Allied navies in the Atlantic theatre. Noble was remembered by those who worked with him at Derby House as an easygoing commander, and an easy person to work with. Always conciliatory, Noble was an expert at building consensus around his chosen courses of action. Noble was, although not forced, certainly pushed out of Western Approaches to make room for Admiral Max Horton, whose combative personality and experience in the submarine service made him the ideal candidate in the eyes of some to take the war to the U-boats.

Cheers
John


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Dec 2, 2012)

Readie said:


> I would suggest:
> 
> One of the most important fronts of the war, success in the Atlantic was critical for the Allied cause. Citing its importance, Prime Minister Winston Churchill later stated: "The Battle of the Atlantic was the dominating factor all through the war. Never for one moment could we forget that everything happening elsewhere, on land, at sea or in the air depended ultimately on its outcome..."
> 
> ...



John, 

Do you mean that Horton (who I know little about except what has been written here) was combative in the sense of confrontational with colleagues and subordinates or with the Kriegsmarine? Or both?


----------



## parsifal (Dec 2, 2012)

Hi John

To maximize your voting effect, I will interpret your answer as Horton being your primary vote, and Noble as your "number 2". if I do that, both guys would get a vote from you. If I take Noble as your primary vote, I cannot add a vote for Horton, since I have already used his "honourable mention" vote.

Let me know if you have any objection to the way I interpreted your submission.

On the assumption you accept what I have done, the votiung tally changes to the following

USN: Nimitz (2), Scott, Mitscher, Turner, Spruance, Lee
IJN: Tanaka, Ozawa(2) Yamaguchi , Tsukuhara
RN Cunningham (2), Horton (3), Somerville, Vian, Ramsay, Fraser, Noble
KM Donitz (2), Raeder, Marschall 

On that basis, Horton is the admiral currently in the lead


----------



## Readie (Dec 3, 2012)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> John,
> 
> Do you mean that Horton (who I know little about except what has been written here) was combative in the sense of confrontational with colleagues and subordinates or with the Kriegsmarine? Or both?



Mal,

Having been promoted to full Admiral on 9 January 1941, Horton was appointed Commander-in-Chief, Western Approaches Command on 17 November 1942. Here he instituted a series of tactical changes in the way the escort ships were to be used. In addition to the existing escort group system, in which groups of ships were assigned to defend the perimeter of convoy boxes, Horton instituted a system of support groups, who would also travel with the convoys, but have much more freedom in terms of pursuing submarines to the death, even if such action necessitated leaving the convoy for longer periods of time than were considered acceptable for escort groups. Horton's support groups proved to be decisive in the crucial spring of 1943, taking the battle to the U-boats and crushing the morale of the U-boat arm with persistent and successful counterattacks. Horton is widely credited, along with his predecessor, Admiral Sir Percy Noble, as being one of the most crucial figures in the Allied victory in the Atlantic. In August 1945, Max Horton, at his own request, was placed on the retired list in order to facilitate the promotion of younger officers. He was made a Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath.

Combative in the sense 'if they want a fight I'll fight harder' sense.
His role is often over looked I feel as is the whole NA battle.
Regards
John


----------



## Readie (Dec 3, 2012)

parsifal said:


> Hi John
> 
> To maximize your voting effect, I will interpret your answer as Horton being your primary vote, and Noble as your "number 2". if I do that, both guys would get a vote from you. If I take Noble as your primary vote, I cannot add a vote for Horton, since I have already used his "honourable mention" vote.
> 
> ...




Horton first. Noble second please Glen.

If Horton wins your poll that would be a good reflection on his work.

Cheers

John


----------



## parsifal (Dec 3, 2012)

The guys running the convoys probably did more to win the war than any other soldiers. without them, nothing else was possible.

Similalry, on the other side, donitz was perhaps the single warlord on the german side with a shot at bring the allies to the peace table, or doing so much damage to their economic power as to make them incapable of victory.

High stakes. Often forgotten, because the battle is not "sexy". o


----------



## vinnye (Dec 5, 2012)

Max Horton would get my vote for the reasons given in prior posts.
If I were allowed a second choice it would be Cunningham - he had a big job in the Med with limited resources and often no air cover. Some of the missions were near suicidal jobs - evacuating troops from Grece ans Crete spring to mind! But, if the Battle of the Atlantic had been lost - so would the War.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Dec 5, 2012)

Readie said:


> Combative in the sense 'if they want a fight I'll fight harder' sense.
> His role is often over looked I feel as is the whole NA battle.
> Regards
> John



The North Atlantic was indeed the one critical battle that had to have been won (and could have been lost) for an Axis defeat. USN mythology suggests, without denying the critical role of effective ASW as practiced by the RN you describe above, that three other factors came into play with the US coming in to the war. 1. The eventual use of the Azores Air Base (1943?) to close the _black hole_ by B-24/PB4Y, 2. the advent of large numbers of escort carriers with H-K teams of radar equipped A/C to suppress U-Boat surface time and last but not least, the implementation of lighter than air escort. My understanding is the battle reached its peak with significant Nazi successes during the winter/spring of 1942 but U-boat effectiveness declined fairly dramatically thereafter. How does that play out on your end? This is not to suggest the RN didn't do the heavy lifting in the NA, just some additional factors that contributed to the campaign.


----------



## Readie (Dec 5, 2012)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> The North Atlantic was indeed the one critical battle that had to have been won (and could have been lost) for an Axis defeat. USN mythology suggests, without denying the critical role of effective ASW as practiced by the RN you describe above, that three other factors came into play with the US coming in to the war. 1. The eventual use of the Azores Air Base (1943?) to close the _black hole_ by B-24/PB4Y, 2. the advent of large numbers of escort carriers with H-K teams of radar equipped A/C to suppress U-Boat surface time and last but not least, the implementation of lighter than air escort. My understanding is the battle reached its peak with significant Nazi successes during the winter/spring of 1942 but U-boat effectiveness declined fairly dramatically thereafter. How does that play out on your end? This is not to suggest the RN didn't do the heavy lifting in the NA, just some additional factors that contributed to the campaign.



Mal, Here's a wiki overview. Battle of the Atlantic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You mention the RN but, we should not forget all the self sacrificial allied nations that endured the NA runs. 
This was the only campaign that really worried Churchill...had we ( using the royal 'we') lost then WW2 was lost.
Its another national disgrace that the merchant marine role has taken so long to be commemorated.
It is another irony with the revisionist version of the bombing campaign and the allied 'guilt' that we forget that U-30 sank the liner SS Athenia within hours of the declaration of war, Brave U boat boys eh....
The BoA was 'won' ( if that is the right word) by air power, the American economy gearing to produce Liberty ships at the rate only you could,the long range patrols with Catalina's. Sunderland's etc, better convey systems and better naval protection.
If you want a vision of hell..then for me it would be a 6 knot convey in a NA storm.
Cheers
John


----------



## parsifal (Dec 5, 2012)

> The BoA was 'won' ( if that is the right word) by air power, the American economy gearing to produce Liberty ships at the rate only you could,the long range patrols with Catalina's. Sunderland's etc, better convey systems and better naval protection




Hi john

I realize you are summarizing, but i have to say the victory in the Atlantic (and yes, its a victor because allied losses were reduced to manageable proportions whilst german U-Boat losses became prohibitive) was far more complex than that.

At the beginning of the war, there was a chronic shortage of escorts...the so called escort famine. by the beginning of 1942, this was largely solved, yet losses continued to dangerously high. Tactics and t5raining were found to be deficient, and team work in the escort groups was poor. These were addressed throughout 1942-3, to the extent that the level of teamwork had reached extraordinary levels by mid 1943.

Technology in weapons, and detection gear increased the lethality of the escorts markedly. Weapons like Hedgehog, mousetrap, the deep diving heavy DC throwers and charges, improvements SONAR gear and the fitting of HF/DF and radars were all of immense help. By 1945 the allies were beginning to use airborne MAD which had great potential.

The statisitcal mathematics applied to the convoys ensured that convoy sizes were optimized. The breaking of the U-Boat Codes was perhaps the greatest advantage. The introduction of CVEs enmasse, the formation of Hunter Killer Groups, use of VLR patrols all contributed greatly to the allied victories. The Germans also introduced new technologies, to the extent that if the level of advantage derived was merely linked to new technology, the germans probably would have had greater advatage at wars end, than they enjoyed at the beginning. But the allied advantage was only partly affected by new technologies. It was as much about application of those new technologies....the training, tactics and technique, that tipped the balance, as it was about the technology. Similarly, US merchant shipping production was critical to victory, yet, that alone did not win the war. If the U-Boats had proceeded unchecked even US production would not have kept pace with losses. .


----------



## Readie (Dec 6, 2012)

parsifal said:


> Hi john
> 
> I realize you are summarizing, but i have to say the victory in the Atlantic (and yes, its a victor because allied losses were reduced to manageable proportions whilst german U-Boat losses became prohibitive) was far more complex than that.
> 
> ...



Hi Glen,
My summary was brief ( to say the least) and I realise that the BoA deserves a more thorough analysis.
Perhaps it would be fair to say that victory was made up of lots of little victories. The U boats could have so easily won, and if Hitler had not been mad enough to attack everywhere at the same time and just concentrated on the BoA and taking Britain out of WW2 the Nazi's may well have prevailed.
The U boat and german tactics lessons from WW1 were not really learnt by the allies were they?
Regards
John


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 6, 2012)

Readie said:


> The U boat and german tactics lessons from WW1 were not really learnt by the allies were they?
> Regards
> John



The lessons were learnt and tactics were adopted but 20 financially parsimonious years is a long time for what was a new and unfashionable branch to survive. The RN had the best vessels, weapons and tactics for convoy escort just not enough of anything particulary the Merchant Aircraft Carriers they had planned for. Also the defeat of France and the U Boats gaining access to Atlantic ports threw a huge spanner in the works, no one probably not even Hitler thought the French would fall so comprehensively. That doesnt exonerate the Admiralty but the RN was trying to get a quart out of a pint pot in the late 1930s and with hindsight fewer shiny battlewagons and more escorts was the way to go.


----------



## Readie (Dec 6, 2012)

fastmongrel said:


> The lessons were learnt and tactics were adopted but 20 financially parsimonious years is a long time for what was a new and unfashionable branch to survive. The RN had the best vessels, weapons and tactics for convoy escort just not enough of anything particulary the Merchant Aircraft Carriers they had planned for. Also the defeat of France and the U Boats gaining access to Atlantic ports threw a huge spanner in the works, no one probably not even Hitler thought the French would fall so comprehensively. That doesnt exonerate the Admiralty but the RN was trying to get a quart out of a pint pot in the late 1930s and with hindsight fewer shiny battlewagons and more escorts was the way to go.



To be fair to the RN it was the Politicians that held the purse strings not the Admiralty.
There were lots of parsimonious decisions made in the inter war depression years that would be regretted in WW2. But, as with so many things that is said with hindsight.
What do you do when the country is on its knees? Spin forward to 2012 and we have cuts galore. I wonder what will be regretted now?
Hey ho
Cheers
John


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 6, 2012)

Readie said:


> Spin forward to 2012 and we have cuts galore. I wonder what will be regretted now?
> Hey ho
> Cheers
> John



Lets cut the Inland Revenue all those nice big multinationals wont dodge paying their taxes. Lets cut the Probation Service all those nice people we just let out of our privatised prisons wont go straight back to crime will they. Lets cut Child Protection Services all those nice Paedophiles wont......Oh Crap


----------



## Readie (Dec 6, 2012)

fastmongrel said:


> Lets cut the Inland Revenue all those nice big multinationals wont dodge paying their taxes. Lets cut the Probation Service all those nice people we just let out of our privatised prisons wont go straight back to crime will they. Lets cut Child Protection Services all those nice Paedophiles wont......Oh Crap



lets cut the armed forces too....no one will attack us will they...

I despair

John


----------



## cherry blossom (Dec 7, 2012)

I am slightly surprised that Bertam Ramsay Bertram Ramsay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia hasn't received a mention so far. He seems to have done his various jobs relatively well.


----------



## vinnye (Dec 7, 2012)

One thing that occurred to me about the Battle of the Atlantic is that it seems to mirror the air war in Europe. At the start the KM had the advantage and used this to gain more experience and develop tactics.
Later on the Allies began to make break throughs that turned the tables - capturing an Enigma machine and developing the code breaking machine etc. This together with advances in radar and the Hedgehog etc meant that U boats were being detected and destroyed far more regularly. This meant that the KM was losing its best submariners and the Allies gaining experience and expertise. At the end of the Air War - there was limited resources available to the LW and hoardes of Allied fighters in the air.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 7, 2012)

Daniel E. Barbey.

One of the finest practitioners of amphibious warfare.

""Uncle Dan", as he was known, planned and conducted 56 amphibious operations, landing more than one million Australian and American soldiers and marines."


----------



## kettbo (Dec 8, 2012)

While Doenitz had the right idea of Wolfpacks, coordiated attacks etc....he failed
1..Did not clue into the fact his codes were being read...
2. Ever hear of an American troopship sunk? Troop convoy engaged? See #1. 
3. U-5xx to base: "Nothing out here but empty ocean" See #1, convoys routed away from the wolfpacks

Lost the Battle of the Atlantic, Tanks, planes, plane assemblies, trains, Marsden mat, FUEL, more fuel, bombs, ammo, all manner of equipment in sufficient quantity. Losing the Battle of the Atlantic cost the Germans the War


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 8, 2012)

I'd say Chester Nimitz And Erich Raeder get my vote


----------



## Milosh (Dec 8, 2012)

All this talk about the RN in the BoA and no word about the RCN. tut tut.

_The most important measure of its success was the safe passage during the war of over 25,000 merchant ships under Canadian escort. These cargo vessels delivered nearly 165 million tons of supplies to Britain and to the Allied forces that liberated Europe._


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 8, 2012)

Milosh said:


> All this talk about the RN in the BoA and no word about the RCN. tut tut.
> 
> _The most important measure of its success was the safe passage during the war of over 25,000 merchant ships under Canadian escort. These cargo vessels delivered nearly 165 million tons of supplies to Britain and to the Allied forces that liberated Europe._



We are talking about Admirals not navies. I dont know enough about the RCN to know wether there was a Canadian who reached flag rank whilst exclusively serving under a Canadian Ensign. Western Approaches was controlled from Liverpool by the RN it didnt matter what flag the ships flew they were controlled by the Admiral based at Derby House
Liverpool War Museum, Western Approaches, Battle of the Atlantic, Work War II


----------



## parsifal (Dec 8, 2012)

cherry blossom said:


> I am slightly surprised that Bertam Ramsay Bertram Ramsay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia hasn't received a mention so far. He seems to have done his various jobs relatively well.




Hi Cherry Blossom

Thanksd for posting a vote. Updating the running total so as to include your vote, the voting tally changes to the following

USN: Nimitz (2), Scott, Mitscher, Turner, Spruance, Lee
IJN: Tanaka, Ozawa(2) Yamaguchi , Tsukuhara
RN Cunningham (2), Horton (3), Somerville, Vian, Ramsay(2), Fraser, Noble
KM Donitz (2), Raeder, Marschall


----------



## parsifal (Dec 8, 2012)

syscom3 said:


> Daniel E. Barbey.
> 
> One of the finest practitioners of amphibious warfare.
> 
> ""Uncle Dan", as he was known, planned and conducted 56 amphibious operations, landing more than one million Australian and American soldiers and marines."



Thanks sys for posting a vote, unusual choice, but i like it.

Factoring in your vote to the running sheet makes the folowing changes to the list

USN: Nimitz (2), Scott, Mitscher, Turner, Spruance, Lee, Barbey
IJN: Tanaka, Ozawa(2) Yamaguchi , Tsukuhara
RN Cunningham (2), Horton (3), Somerville, Vian, Ramsay(2), Fraser, Noble
KM Donitz (2), Raeder, Marschall


----------



## parsifal (Dec 8, 2012)

GrauGeist said:


> I'd say Chester Nimitz And Erich Raeder get my vote



Thanks GG. Because both these guys have been voted for previously, I can only accept your "primary vote", according to the system I am using. Ive assumed that you want Nimitz as as your primary vote. Let me know if you would prefer raeder as your primary vote. 

The list is now as follows


USN: Nimitz (3), Scott, Mitscher, Turner, Spruance, Lee, Barbey
IJN: Tanaka, Ozawa(2) Yamaguchi , Tsukuhara
RN Cunningham (2), Horton (3), Somerville, Vian, Ramsay(2), Fraser, Noble
KM Donitz (2), Raeder, Marschall

Poll leaders are now tied for equal first place....Horton and Nimitz. Its gettingt intersting I think


----------



## parsifal (Dec 8, 2012)

Guys I should say that you can vote for more than one nationality if you want, But only one vote counts, except if the second choice has not previously been nominated


----------



## Milosh (Dec 9, 2012)

fastmongrel said:


> We are talking about Admirals not navies. I dont know enough about the RCN to know wether there was a Canadian who reached flag rank whilst exclusively serving under a Canadian Ensign. Western Approaches was controlled from Liverpool by the RN it didnt matter what flag the ships flew they were controlled by the Admiral based at Derby House
> Liverpool War Museum, Western Approaches, Battle of the Atlantic, Work War II



Here you go: Rear Admiral Leonard Warren Murray, CB, CBE (22 June 1896 – 25 November 1971) was an officer of the Royal Canadian Navy who played a significant role in the Battle of the Atlantic. He commanded the Newfoundland Escort Force from 1941–1943, and from 1943 to the end of the war was Commander-in-Chief, Canadian Northwest Atlantic.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 9, 2012)

parsifal said:


> Thanks GG. Because both these guys have been voted for previously, I can only accept your "primary vote", according to the system I am using. Ive assumed that you want Nimitz as as your primary vote. Let me know if you would prefer raeder as your primary vote.
> 
> The list is now as follows
> 
> ...


My apologies, I thought it was for top Admiral of thier respective navies!

So my vote will remain as Admiral Nimitz!

(Note to self: read the thread heading twice when I'm on here late at night!)


----------



## parsifal (Dec 9, 2012)

Milosh said:


> Here you go: Rear Admiral Leonard Warren Murray, CB, CBE (22 June 1896 – 25 November 1971) was an officer of the Royal Canadian Navy who played a significant role in the Battle of the Atlantic. He commanded the Newfoundland Escort Force from 1941–1943, and from 1943 to the end of the war was Commander-in-Chief, Canadian Northwest Atlantic.



Hi Milosh

Why not vote and include this guy as your "honourable mention" it would be very cool to have a dominion Admiral in the nominations.


----------



## Readie (Dec 10, 2012)

Hi Michael, 
I didn't think it was fair to separate allied commonwealth Admirals just as you cannot separate the RN and RCN ships and men in the BoA. 
One without the other was diminished.
Why not have a 'joint vote' for say Horton and Murray? 
Just a thought.
Regards
John


----------



## parsifal (Dec 10, 2012)

Hi John

I would include the CW as part of the RN , but people are free to vote for any nationality. The reason I didnt provide lists for the CW is because I dont have a substantial list for them. Same for the Italians, French and Soviets. 

I would very much like to hear about the admirals of the minor navies and their achievements. They may not have been able to as much, but that should not be seen as a measure of their competency

regards 


Michael


----------



## Readie (Dec 11, 2012)

parsifal said:


> Hi John
> 
> I would very much like to hear about the admirals of the minor navies and their achievements. They may not have been able to as much, but that should not be seen as a measure of their competency
> 
> ...




That is a good idea Michael. I'll do a bit of digging around.
Regards
John


----------



## Wavelength (Dec 12, 2012)

USN: Halsey
RN: Vian
IJN: Tanaka
KM: Marschall
RM: Kesselring (LOL)


----------



## cherry blossom (Dec 12, 2012)

I am going to suggest a new Japanese candidate. 

In August 1941, Onishi Takijiro argued “...we should avoid anything like the Hawaiian operation that would put America's back up too badly” (“The Reluctant Admiral: Yamamoto and the Imperial Navy” by Agawa Hiroyuki, page 229). 

He was reassigned as chief of staff of 11th Air Fleet just prior to the outbreak of the Pacific war and thus he may perhaps have been partly responsible for their performance which was recognised by Dave Bender's recommendation of Vice Admiral Tsukahara. I think that he was involved in the decision to fly the escort missions against the Philippines from Taiwan and give up the idea of using small carriers (but I have forgotten the reference if this is true).

In 1944, he was the main advocate of the Kamikaze method which we have been discussing in the anti-shipping weapon thread.

Lastly, he made a full apology for his failure.

The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia: Onishi Takijiro and Father of the Kamikaze


----------



## parsifal (Dec 12, 2012)

Wavelength said:


> USN: Halsey
> RN: Vian
> IJN: Tanaka
> KM: Marschall
> RM: Kesselring (LOL)



Thanks wavelength. I assume your primary vote will be for a previously mentioned admiral (which means you maximumize the numbers in your list getting into the shortliIve assumed Tanaka is your primary vote,that way Halsey gets in andd Tanaka gets a vote. If you want to allocate your primary vote another way, please advise. The way ive interpreted your vote, Marschall and Vian are not given another vote. Ive decided not to allow Kesselring, though I concede there is argument to support him being here....

USN: Nimitz (3), Scott, Mitscher, Turner, Spruance, Lee, Barbey, Halsey
IJN: Tanaka(2), Ozawa(2) Yamaguchi , Tsukuhara
RN Cunningham (2), Horton (3), Somerville, Vian, Ramsay(2), Fraser, Noble
KM Donitz (2), Raeder, Marschall

Poll leaders are now tied for equal first place....Horton and Nimitz. Its gettingt intersting I think


----------



## parsifal (Dec 12, 2012)

cherry blossom said:


> I am going to suggest a new Japanese candidate.
> 
> In August 1941, Onishi Takijiro argued “...we should avoid anything like the Hawaiian operation that would put America's back up too badly” (“The Reluctant Admiral: Yamamoto and the Imperial Navy” by Agawa Hiroyuki, page 229).
> 
> ...



Thanks Cherry Blossom , and good choice (though including his second name stumped me for a minute...Ive always just known him a Admiral Onishi)

The list is now as follows

USN: Nimitz (3), Scott, Mitscher, Turner, Spruance, Lee, Barbey, Halsey
IJN: Tanaka(2), Ozawa(2) Yamaguchi , Tsukuhar, Onishi
RN Cunningham (2), Horton (3), Somerville, Vian, Ramsay(2), Fraser, Noble
KM Donitz (2), Raeder, Marschall


----------



## Wavelength (Dec 12, 2012)

parsifal said:


> Thanks wavelength. I assume your primary vote will be for a previously mentioned admiral (which means you maximumize the numbers in your list getting into the shortliIve assumed Tanaka is your primary vote,that way Halsey gets in andd Tanaka gets a vote. If you want to allocate your primary vote another way, please advise. The way ive interpreted your vote, Marschall and Vian are not given another vote. Ive decided not to allow Kesselring, though I concede there is argument to support him being here....



Score it how you think best. To explain my votes a little; I wanted to place more emphasis on the fighting admirals, rather than admistrative admirals. So it elimanates some good candidates such as Paul Weneker, but you get the likes of Vian thrown in. 

I voted for Tanaka over Mikawa simply because I felt that Mikawa didn't finish the job at Savo, loosing sight of the primary objective, which set a pattern for the Japanese admirals. Tanaka had a way of making something out of nothing, and he dealt the USN one of its most humilating defeats.

I know a lot of people don't like Halsey, but he made tough decisions and that was his job. In my opinion Guadalcanal was the decisive campaign of the Pacific war and he saved that campaign. 

Marschall was the best at sea admiral the Germans had, but they fired him because he didn't follow through with a plan that had been run over by real world events. Young guns like Johannessen did not really make Admiral before the fighting was already decided. Some captains like Krancke and Meisel showed inititive but then they got promoted to desk admiral jobs, so their combat experience and sea time was wasted.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Dec 12, 2012)

Wavelength said:


> Score it how you think best. To explain my votes a little; I wanted to place more emphasis on the fighting admirals, rather than admistrative admirals. So it elimanates some good candidates such as Paul Weneker, but you get the likes of Vian thrown in.
> 
> I voted for _Tanaka over Mikawa_ simply because I felt that Mikawa didn't finish the job at Savo, _loosing sight of the primary objective_, which set a pattern for the Japanese admirals. _*Tanaka had a way of making something out of nothing, and he dealt the USN one of its most humilating defeats.*_
> 
> ...



I agree with your assessment of Tanaka. He was brilliant. However, Mikawa deserves some slack for his decision at Savo, as he rightly considered the survival of his force as an important if unstated objective. He had every right to believe that had he tarried for the hours required to move south and finish off the transports his small force would have suffered grievously at the hands of USN aircraft during their retirement when the sun rose. He could not have known that the carriers were preparing to retire but unaware of what happened during the night due to poor radio comm with Turner.

as to Halsey, I have to agree that his fighting spirit energized his troops during the critical phase of the campaign. He did make some hard decisions but these included some absolute failures in judgement during that same period. Some because of his (IMO) reliance on the opinion of his chief of staff Miles Browning: 

1. Putting inexperienced and untested Callahan over Scott in charge of the cruiser force that confronted the Hiei and Krishima. Halsey's decision cost the life of Adm. Norman Scott, the USN's most experienced and successful battle commander, who was killed by friendly fire from Callahan's flagship San Francisco. F.J. Fletcher and Brown before him, faced with similar choices, chose experience over a small difference in time in grade. 
2. Relieving Gil Hoover, skipper of the Helena, probably one of the finest ship captains in the USN and on track for flag rank. Hoover was relieved for making one of the toughest decisions of the entire war, which Browning and Halsey arm-chaired and monday-morning quarterbacked with the worst example of second guessing of which I am aware.
3. Halsey's use of his carrier forces was over aggressive against superior enemy forces and resulted in the loss of the Hornet and significant damage to the Enterprise. 
4. Halsey and staff remained unaware of how his orders were being interpreted by his surface action group which resulted in the Washington and SoDac being out of position on November 13-14 when IJN cruisers bombarded Henderson Island.

yes, I admire Halsey for many qualities but his performance is IMO quite blemished. In his memoirs, he admits he made a mistake in the Hoover affair.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Dec 14, 2012)

I should have mentioned that at Savo, a lucky (for the USN) hit by the Quincy I think, took out the flagship's chartroom and so movement south through the narrow and poorly charted waters between Savo Island and of Sealark channel would have to have been done by a surrogate flagship, leaving Mikawa somewhat out of the direct control of the action. 

From wikipedia: Battle of Savo Island - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"At 02:16 Mikawa conferred with his staff about whether they should turn to continue the battle with the surviving Allied warships and try to sink the Allied transports in the two anchorages. Several factors influenced his ultimate decision. His ships were scattered and would take some time to regroup.[1]:115 His ships would need to reload their torpedo tubes, a labor-intensive task that would take some time. Mikawa also did not know the number and locations of any remaining Allied warships and his ships had expended much of their ammunition.[10]:201
More importantly, *Mikawa had no air cover and believed that U.S. aircraft carriers were in the area.* Mikawa was probably aware that the Japanese Navy had no more heavy cruisers in production, and thus would be unable to replace any he might lose to air attack the next day if he remained near Guadalcanal.[14]:362 _*He was unaware that the U.S. carriers had withdrawn from the battle area and would not be a threat the next day*_. Although several of Mikawa's staff urged an attack on the Allied transports, the consensus was to withdraw from the battle area.[6]:237–9 Therefore, at 02:20, Mikawa ordered his ships to retire.[5]:53"

My understanding is that Fletcher was preparing to leave in the morning but had not yet left. he received no clear word of the Savo disaster due to comm failures that day and departed ignorant of what had transpired during the early morning hours.


----------

