Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
Greatest Admiral or Air Marshal of WWII
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Lord Ball (U1767246) on Tuesday, 22nd November 2005
Everything seems to be focused on the Generals of WWII, so I thought it would be only fair to give the Navies and Air Forces a look in on their greatest commanders during the war.
Navy, I have to say that I think Admiral Cunningham was the best Admiral in the war and for the Air Forces, probably Keith Park. Park defended Britain during the Battle of Britain 11 Group's sector. He was later posted to Malta to conduct the successful air defence there. -
Message 2
Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Tuesday, 22nd November 2005
Lord Ball: IMO there were two very different naval wars. In Europe the Axis never were a serious naval threat.
In Asia, whoever had the superior naval forces in place always won the battle. While I am not very familiar with Admiral Cunningham, I would like to say that, IMO, Admiral Halsey was the best of the allied naval leaders.
As for air power. IMO there has NEVER been a more overrated armed force. Any nations airforce is basically long range artillary, reconnisance, and rapid but very expensive transportation. I have always felt that way too much importance was placed on strategic bombing in WWII. If those resources, lives, and money had been allotted to other branches of the military, we would have received a much better return on investment -
Message 3
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Wednesday, 23rd November 2005
I know it's the obvious one from the air perspective but it has to Dowding for me.
His pre-war preparation for the integrated air-defence system on the UK coast was not only thorough and effective, but visionary to the point of genius. It can be said that his actual knowledge of air combat tactics was flawed, but the groundwork he did in setting up the sector station/chain home/fighter command communications network was a work of excellent planning and foresight, and the framework that allowed Fighter Command to win the Battle of Britain. Secondly, his treatment after the battle was appalling. He was simply shunted off into retirement, and pushed aside.
That is why Dowding gets my vote.
Cheers
DL -
Message 4
Posted by Mark (U1347077) on Wednesday, 23rd November 2005
I agree with DL: Dowding wins my vote, too.
During the Battle of Britain, was the 'V' formation the RAF used at the start changed to the tactically superior 'finger four'?
Probably Cunningham for the admirals, although Nimitz is in with a shout too. -
Message 5
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Wednesday, 23rd November 2005
Mahros,
Yes they did change to the "four" formation as it was working out quite well for the Germans. Another introduction was the "big wing" which took even more organisation but I think was Leigh-Mallory's idea (basically shed loads of fighters in a concentrated attack, I forget how many squadrons) and a damn good one. You can imagine the effect on German morale after being told that the British only had 50 fighters left, then all of a sudden they get attacked by a swarm of em! I think I read somewhere of a German bomber crewman commenting "Here come the last 50 British fighters....again."
Cheers -
Message 6
Posted by Lord Ball (U1767246) on Wednesday, 23rd November 2005
The Vic was dropped in favour of the Finger Four because of the foolishness of the all the commands that were needed when attacking in the vic formation. However, DL, it was Leigh-Mallory who made Dowding disappear. Dowding was always oppposed big wings and Leigh Mallory backstabbed him and Keith Park throughout the Battle of Britain until the air ministry forced Dowding to force Park to accept 12 Group's Duxford Wing. And the big wing was rendered completely useless by the end of the war too. It only survived for a couple of years before being placed in history.
-
Message 7
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
Dowding had som evisionary idea but he was also responsible for a couple of bad ideas. The "Dowding spread" of gun harmonisation was designed so that pilots who coul dnot shoot very well had some chance of hitting their target with some bullets. The harmonisation was set at, I think, 150 yards. Many pilots took it upon themselves to reduce that to around 60 or 70 yards. They re-learned the lessons of WW1 - get in close an dhit the enemy with everything, not stand off and hope to hit with a few bullets.
A lot of imnprovements were down to pilots, not to RAF high command. It was No. 1 squadron in France who took armour plating from crashed Fairey Battle bombers and put it in their Hurricanes.
Th eifnger four ws adopted by th epilots because the Vic was a recipe for disaster. Douglas Bader's biographer claimed it was Bader's squadron who came up with the idea, although others have cliamned the credit.
And finally, yes the Bog Wing was Leigh-Mallory's idea and he did the dirty on Park. What he failed to realise was that Park's squadrons did not have time to form a Big Wing before the Luftwaffe arrived. Leigh-Mallory thought it was OK to catch the bombers on their way home. Park wanted to catch them before they reached their targets. In practice, of course, the combination of the two tactics worked well but Leigh-Mallory managed to claim the glory.
As for the greatest Air Marshal - Adolf Galland, Germany's General of Fighters could have been the best had he not been hamstrung by Goering and Hitler. -
Message 8
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
Guys,
Any thoughts on Kammhuber? Working off memory as usual, so may be wrong, but wasn't he the man who planned the night air defence system over Germany? Although he did lose the battle in spectacular fashion, he managed to inflict almost unsustainable losses against Bomber Command, with innovations such as radar predicted flak, night fighter radar control and what was known as the Kammhuber Line. Whilst he was continually fighting a losing battle, does he deserve any credit for a job well done?
Cheers -
Message 9
Posted by wyn8126 (U2577714) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
In Europe, the Axis was never a threat, come come! What about the Battle of the Atlantic, the seminal conflict of WW2 in Europe?? Lord Ball: IMO there were two very different naval wars. In Europe the Axis never were a serious naval threat.
In Asia, whoever had the superior naval forces in place always won the battle. While I am not very familiar with Admiral Cunningham, I would like to say that, IMO, Admiral Halsey was the best of the allied naval leaders.
As for air power. IMO there has NEVER been a more overrated armed force. Any nations airforce is basically long range artillary, reconnisance, and rapid but very expensive transportation. I have always felt that way too much importance was placed on strategic bombing in WWII. If those resources, lives, and money had been allotted to other branches of the military, we would have received a much better return on investmentΒ -
Message 10
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
Rather an anglo-centric discussion so far, so from a naval point of view I'll throw into the pot the names of Yamamoto and Nimitz (he of the Battle of Midway).
-
Message 11
Posted by faran1 (U2570961) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
Hi Stoggler
Yamamoto wasnt a good naval admiral to japan because he somehow ensured that japan lost its entire war.
But Nimitz was real naval admiral who defeated Yamamoto in the coral sea [if I'm not mistaken]
and midway.
And these victories were so effective to the american war effort.
And dont forget that america searched for revenge
and did it on the first famous attack on Tokyo but this ataack has no effect on the ameicans -
Message 12
Posted by faran1 (U2570961) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
If I have some mistakes so please correct me
-
Message 13
Posted by Lord Ball (U1767246) on Friday, 25th November 2005
Yammamoto was one of the few in the Military of Japan who realised that attacking the US would be suicidal. His plans of attack were flawless, but when there was a slight deviation by the Admiral commanding the fleets in his attacks they soon ended up going wrong.
I never thought Nimitz was so great an Admiral. He was an able administrator, but I always had Halsey and Hart in more high esteem. As for the worst US admiral, it had to be Ernest King. The guy had to be a fool because he was the American admiral not wanting to use the most powerful navy in the world at the time, the Royal Navy, in operations. -
Message 14
Posted by faran1 (U2570961) on Friday, 25th November 2005
Hi lord ball reply to your last meesege.
I dont think that in some part nimitz needed the royal navy because he had enough power that the amrican navy had.
Pearl harbor was a real surprise attack I would never say that it wasnt but Pearl harbors target was fail because japan fails to remove the american fleet from the pacific.
I also think that because the american carriers were safe on the day of the attack that also helped the amricans.
So yamamoto planed the attack but only got one target,the surprise on of the day.He built his attack on depending the element of surprise,that all his secret of strategy. -
Message 15
Posted by Lord Ball (U1767246) on Friday, 25th November 2005
I was referring to King, not Nimitz. Nimitz never had to liase with the Royal Navy, only the Royal Australian and New Zealand Navies.
-
Message 16
Posted by George1507 (U2607963) on Sunday, 27th November 2005
Admiral Yamamoto was probably the leading naval commander of WW2. After the US intercepted his plane at Bougainville, the Japanese struggled to have the same impact as before.
Yamamoto and his strategist Minora Genda planned the successful Japanese naval campaigns in the early part of the war, including of course Pearl Harbor. -
Message 17
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231725) on Tuesday, 29th November 2005
Lord Ball: IMO there were two very different naval wars. In Europe the Axis never were a serious naval threat.
In Asia, whoever had the superior naval forces in place always won the battle. While I am not very familiar with Admiral Cunningham, I would like to say that, IMO, Admiral Halsey was the best of the allied naval leaders.
As for air power. IMO there has NEVER been a more overrated armed force. Any nations airforce is basically long range artillary, reconnisance, and rapid but very expensive transportation. I have always felt that way too much importance was placed on strategic bombing in WWII. If those resources, lives, and money had been allotted to other branches of the military, we would have received a much better return on investmentΒ
IMO Halsey was vastly overrated. He very nearly let Kurita destroy the entire American landing force at Leyte in the Phillipines because he unnecessarily took Lee's battle line away from the landing zone. Furthermore, he ran his fleet into two horrible typhoons which could easily have been avoided, resulting in terrible loss of life. He was a fighting admiral, but was too impulsive and too arrogant. IMO the finest of the American admirals was Raymond Spruance, the victor of Midway and Okinawa. The best of the British was, I think, Ramsay.
As for air leaders - Arnold was the best of the Americans and although Dowding was brushed aside during the war, IMO he saved Britain from defeat in 1940-41. -
Message 18
Posted by Pugwash Trouserpress (U1865008) on Tuesday, 29th November 2005
What about Admiral Bertram Ramsay? He masterminded the Dunkirk evacuation and the Naval part of the D Day landings.
-
Message 19
Posted by Lord Ball (U1767246) on Tuesday, 29th November 2005
Yes, but Ramsay never had to fight a naval battle. He was a brilliant co-ordinator and administrator, but Cunningham was not only these but also a fighting admiral who destroyed the Italian Regina Nautica.
-
Message 20
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231725) on Wednesday, 30th November 2005
Yes, but Ramsay never had to fight a naval battle. He was a brilliant co-ordinator and administrator, but Cunningham was not only these but also a fighting admiral who destroyed the Italian Regina Nautica.Β
I agree with your observations re Cunningham, and altho' Ramsay may not have been a good fighting admiral, we will never know because he never really got the chance to see what he could do in a combat command.
The Royal Navy didn't take part in many significant sea battles in WWII did they? Small engagements like Bismarck, Graf Spee, and Italian naval scraps -- but no fleet conflicts like Jutland. Most of the RN's efforts were devoted to keeping open the Atlantic lifeline and guarding convoys on the Murmansk and Archangel runs -- no small achievemens certainly, but not what would constitute a truly pitched naval battle.
The big fleet engagements took place in the Pacific and here the Americans showed that their navy was sliding into the spot occupied for so long by the RN and its predecessors. In the fleet engagements between the USN and the IJN, I have to say Spruance IMO was the best fighting admiral by far. Replacing Ghormley with Halsey during the Guadalcanal campaign was one of the best moves Nimitz made during the war because Halsey was an aggressive, hell-for-leather fighter, and he believed the marines could hold the island. Ghormley didn't, and had he been left in charge, I have a feeling that he'd have pulled out of Guadalcanal and left the Japanese in control of the area. However, had Halsey been in command at Midway, I suspect he would have walked right into Yamamoto's surface fleet after beating Nagumo's Carrier Strike Force and may well have lost the entire task force. Spruance had enough sense to realize that the Japanese still had an enormous fleet in the Pacific, and chasing the beaten Carrier Strike Force would have taken his ships right into Yamamoto's trap.
At Leyte, Halsey had no reason to take Rear Admiral 'Ching' Lee's modern battleships with him while he chased after the four Japanese carriers that were at sea to lure him away from Leyte. If Kurita had not suddenly turned away for reasons unknown, the US could have lost its entire landing force at Leyte and that could conceivably have cost the US its final unconditional victory. Halsey was too impulsive and too smug to be a truly great admiral. Spruance was the cool, level-headed master tactician.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.