|
Post by jodak on Jul 26, 2016 6:25:40 GMT -6
July 26, 1942
Carriers Enterprise, Saratoga, and Wasp rendezvous with the Guadalcanal invasion force, forming the most powerful U.S. naval force yet assembled in the war in preparation for the first large scale U.S. offensive action of the war.
|
|
|
Post by jodak on Aug 2, 2016 6:05:32 GMT -6
August 2, 1943
JFK's PT-109 is rammed and sunk by HIJMS Amagiri in Blackett Strait Solomon Islands
|
|
|
Post by jodak on Aug 2, 2016 6:18:35 GMT -6
August 2, 1945
During the night (August 1-2), 820 US B-29 Superfortress bombers drop a record total of 6632 tons of bombs on five Japanese cities - Hachioji, Nagaoka, Mito, Toyama and Kawasaki. Toyama is 99.5% destroyed, as compared to 70% of Hiroshima with the fist atomic bomb 4 days later.
|
|
|
Post by jodak on Aug 5, 2016 6:12:46 GMT -6
August 5, 1945
On Tinian, at about 0210 hours, seven American aircraft take off for Japan. One is carrying the “Little Boy” atomic bomb that will be dropped on Hiroshima. The others are support planes for monitoring the weather, taking photos, etc.
|
|
|
Post by jodak on Aug 8, 2016 6:30:25 GMT -6
August 7, 1942
In the first American offensive of the Pacific War, the invasions of Guadalcanal and Tulagi take place. Elements of the 1st Marine Division land on both islands, against fierce resistance on Tulagi but negligible resistance on Guadalcanal. Over the next several months Guadalcanal itself and the waters surrounding it will become the sites of intense land and naval fighting.
Links to Battle Animations
Battle of Guadalcanal
Battle of Savo Island
Battle of Eastern Solomons
Battle of Santa Cruz Islands
|
|
|
Post by jodak on Aug 9, 2016 10:49:17 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by edavids on Aug 10, 2016 6:31:31 GMT -6
jodak, Where does Pearl Harbor rank as a naval disaster? Just asking. Pequod Jodak is the expert by leaps and bounds but I can think of several greater disasters such as Leyte Gulf which virtually ended Japanese Naval Power, Midway and the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot should be up there. Salamis and Britain's battle with the Spanish Armada. Trafalgar was probably up there as well. Remember as well that outside of the Arizona and Oklahoma our ships wete salvaged as the Japanese fsiled to destroy maintenance facilities and fuel storage. Carriers at sea., etc. I will rsnk it 7th of these 7 mentioned and I am sure Jodak can add more. The long term result of Pearl was the permanent loss of 2 WWI vintage battleships, aircraft and the irreplaceable 2000-3000 Lives lost one of whom was a distant relative entombed in the Arizona. Best, David
|
|
|
Post by edavids on Aug 10, 2016 6:51:49 GMT -6
Probably not a stretch to add Operation Ten Go for Japan and the Battle of the Atlantic in WWIi for Germany..
|
|
|
Post by dave on Aug 10, 2016 8:52:33 GMT -6
jodak Following up in a sense to Pequod's question, why would you classify Savo as the worst naval disaster in US history? Is is it because: 1) It occurred at sea and we were at war and supposedly prepared for combat? 2) The strategic and tactical errors by the Allies as well as the US? 3) The poor command structure? 4) The poor communications between ships and captains?
Am I making sense or just drifting away? Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by jodak on Aug 10, 2016 10:03:31 GMT -6
David,
Maybe I should have used some other term than "disaster', but, since I did, I suppose that all of the engagements that you mentioned, plus many more, could be considered as disasters for the losing side. In that sense, I would think that that the material loses do not necessarily need to be large in order to qualify, but just such as to materially impact the course of future events. Suppose, for example, the Indianapolis had been sunk prior to, rather than after, delivering the uranium for the first atomic bomb, with the result that it had not been dropped, Japan had not surrendered, and we had been forced to invade with tremendous losses. In that instance we might consider the loss of one ship as being a disaster.
However, we tend to consider battle results from a strictly bean counter perspective of how many assets of whatever type were lost, with the more lost the greater the perceived disaster, and I think that, in that sense, Robb was questioning whether Savo was really a greater disaster than Pearl Harbor. I don't know that I personally think that it was, but many do, and I understand their arguments for it. As you correctly pointed out, only two outdated battleships were permanently lost as a result of Pearl Harbor, and I don't think that their loss had much impact on the course of the war, either immediately after the attack or long term. Immediately after taking command Admiral Nimitz returned the remaining battleships to the west coast, as he saw little near term use for them and they placed a tremendous drain on the Pearl Harbor fuel stores that were needed for other purposes. Had the other two survived, that would only have resulted in two more battleships biding their time on the west coast until they could be put to use later in the war. Also, the disaster of Pearl Harbor could somewhat be explained away as being the result of sneak attack, for which we were not responsible. On the other hand, through our ineptness, we were purely responsible for Savo, with its catastrophic losses. In that sense, it could be argued that the loss of four fairly modern heavy cruisers was a greater loss than the permanent or temporary loss of a number of old battleships. That is especially true when it is considered that, unlike the battleships that were not initially of much use, the cruisers in question were performing a function on the front line, and their loss had significant impacts. The immediate effect was that, with their cruiser protection destroyed, the cargo ships carrying much of the Marines' equipment that had not yet been unloaded at Guadalcanal pulled out and left the area, leaving the Marines in the lurch. From a longer term perspective the cruisers might have significantly impacted any of the later surface actions fought around Guadalcanal, had they been available. In both respects the loss of the cruisers might have served to significantly prolong the Guadalcanal and Solomons campaigns.
On a final note, I think an argument could be made that the greatest U.S. naval disasters of WW2 were as a result of the two typhoons that struck the fleet in 1944 and 1945, where the losses were significantly greater than either Pearl Harbor or Savo. However, although those losses were also largely due to ineptness, the facts that they were not the result of enemy action and, by that point in the war, not critical, causes them to be largely overlooked and forgotten.
|
|
|
Post by edavids on Aug 10, 2016 11:55:32 GMT -6
Jodak-as always well put. I understand that my posts were a bit like a laundry list but I agree with your comment about bean counting a la Jutland with German tactical victory vs. British strategic.
It is not just ships and humans lost but the aftermath & long term effect on the loser that counts in my estimation. The Greeks dealt a devastating blow at Salamis to Persian attempts to conquer Greece and possibly expand their empire further into Europe due. The Battle of the Atlantic saw the u-boats down graded from Menace to Problem per Churchill. Japan ceased to be a Naval power after Leyte.
Interesting assessment on Indianapolis timing. Getting back to Pequod's original question, while temporarily crippling and the loss of life humbling, there are numerous Naval battles that can be considered more devastating to the battle loser than Pearl Harbor IMHO.
Best,
David
|
|
|
Post by jodak on Aug 10, 2016 13:44:23 GMT -6
David,
Two comments re your last post. The first has to do with semantics and my use of the word disaster in my original post. In my mind that term would relate primarily only to those things that are devastating losses that are often difficult or impossible to overcome, at least in the short term, or are of such magnitude or significance that we cannot shake them from our consciousness. The BLBH is a great example of that. It was a small affair, in the total scope of things, and was quickly recovered from by the use of other troops and even the quick reconstitution of the 7th Cavalry for the further prosecution of the war. Yet most everyone would accord it disaster status on the basis of the overwhelming defeat suffered. Context also comes into play. For example, many of the battles of the Civil War resulted in heavy losses for both the Union and Confederacy, but what were often disastrous losses for the Confederacy were not necessarily so for the Union, as it could much more readily make good its losses.
My second comment relates to your comment about tactical victories but strategic defeats. The BLBH can also serve as an example of that, from the Indian perspective. They achieved a tactical victory but, in doing so, assured a strategic defeat by shaking the army out of its complacency and motivating it to go to all ends to crush them. In that it was very similar to the Japanese at Pearl Harbor, where they achieved a tactical victory but incurred the wrath of the U.S. to such an extent that nothing less than the total crushing of Japan would suffice - a strategic defeat. However, in both of these examples the strategic defeat was remote from the tactical victory. A good example of when they happened concurrently was he Battle of the Rosebud. In that battle the army performed well, drove off the attackers and held the field afterwards - a tactical victory. However, in the process it incurred casualties and depleted its ammunition to such an extent that it was necessary to withdraw in order to obtain aid for the casualties and to re-supply. As such, even thought they suffered a tactical defeat, the Indians achieved a strategic victory by causing the army to do what they wanted it to do.
|
|
|
Post by jodak on Aug 13, 2016 17:24:32 GMT -6
August 14, 1945
1) Hirohito's surrender message is broadcast to the Japanese people.
2) Japanese aircraft raid Task Force 38, 12 hours after Hirohito's surrender order
3) Soviet aircraft sink 860 ton frigate 'Kenju' off Hokkaido; last Japanese warship lost during World War II
4) US ends wartime rationing of gasoline & fuel oil
|
|
|
Post by edavids on Aug 18, 2016 22:49:36 GMT -6
Just completed Escape From The Deep by Alex Kershaw about the sinking of the USS Tang by her own faulty torpedo in Oct 1944. Harrowing stuff and tragic that there were only 9 survivors as there was little training on use of the Momsen Lung and the escape trunks in both fore and aft torpedo rooms. The general consensus seemed to be that if your sub sank you died no matter what. I had not known that using these trunks could be excruciating as the pressure in the trunk had to be greater than the sea outside the hull. Several men could not take the pain, got out of the trunk and refused to try again.
Successful skipper, successful boat and first time men were able to escape from a sunken sub using the Momsen Lung and no assistance from the surface. One survived even though his device failed. Brit Navy asked him a lot of questions postwar and liked his method so much it became SOP.
Good read and a page turner.
Best,
David
|
|
|
Post by edavids on Aug 18, 2016 22:56:45 GMT -6
Should mention that The 10 months of captivity sounds like it was as harrowing as the sinking and surviving ordeals.
|
|