“Combat Damage”

January 2nd, 2009

From Wed Dec 10 15:41:38 1997
>X-Sender: msmall@roanoke.infi.net
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32)
>Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 17:40:45 -0500
>To: mahan@microworks.net
>From: Marc James Small
>Subject: “Combat Damage”
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>Reply-To: mahan@microworks.net
>
>At 04:48 PM 12/10/97 -0500, Eric Bergerund wrote:
> >No doubt wiser heads can fill in this one better than I, but US CVs were
> >most certainly sunk in fleet exercises of the 1930’s. The lessons that the
> >USN drew was that a carrier engagement would be chaotic, fast and very
> >violent for carriers. Not a bad description of 1942 I’d say. The admirals
> >didn’t get it all right prior to Pearl Harbor, but I think they earned their
> >supper during the 1930’s.
>
>
>Well, there was a significant bias in the way damage was assessed in the
>1930’s. BB’s were almost never sunk or even significantly damaged.
>Submarines were sunk with ease. CV’s were blown away by a single shell or
>torpedo. ZR’s just fell out of the sky.
>
>The results were good in one regard, and bad in others:
>
>– Battleship fans were convinced their ships remained invulnerable, a
>feeling not really disposed of until Leyte Gulf
>– HTA advocates were made to feel like distant cousins from an unsavory
>branch of the family, but were allowed to remain at the table and were
>ignored sufficiently to allow them to develop both some >senior admirals
>(King and Halsey, among others) and some fine doctrine which >proved itself
>at Coral Sea, Midway, and on a few occasions thereafter
>– LTA was never given a fair trial
>– Submarines were discounted as unimportant, a factor which did not
>encourage young hard-chargers to volunteer and which did not >cause a fair
>test of the torpedo’s faults. Both of these resulted in a hard time for
>the Silent Service when the strike on Pearl Harbor left our subs as the
>only effective force available in quantity. (Fortunately, the IJN had
>reached the same conclusions, and never gave its submarines >the emphasis
>it should have.)
>
>The lessons of the 1930’s exercizes, fortunately, were not to damn the USN
>into losing the War, as, ultimately, they caused the IJN to lose. But, I
>still wish we’d had a squadron of ZRS’s based at Pearl and patrolling out a
>couple of thousand miles in early December, 1941. It would have been the
>swan song for lighter-than-air, but, how sweet a song it would have been!
>
>Marc
>
>
>msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315
>Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!

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