Because Trump 2.0

[Stuart Galbraith]

On 9/30/2024 at 10:52 PM, R011 said:

The US started those convoys once they had at least some escorts to convoy them.  It's still not entirely a given that unescorted convoys would have necessarily been better in that situation.

Yeah, that doesnt work as an explanation. As the RN found, even a poorly escorted convoy took fewer losses than free sailing. The RN pointed this out several times, and King wasnt listening.

The idea that the USN had no escorts to support futher convoys is to my mind disputed by the idea they were ALREADY escorting convoys in the North Atlantic, and had already taken losses doing it.

[Rick]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yeah, that doesnt work as an explanation. As the RN found, even a poorly escorted convoy took fewer losses than free sailing. The RN pointed this out several times, and King wasnt listening.

The idea that the USN had no escorts to support futher convoys is to my mind disputed by the idea they were ALREADY escorting convoys in the North Atlantic, and had already taken losses doing it.

A great podcast on the Pacific War which I first found on this Grate Site. I apologize to the person who mentioned it as I can't remember who posted it.  Some information about Admiral King.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgDsCqjgB7k

[Ol Paint]

On 10/6/2024 at 3:32 AM, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yeah, that doesnt work as an explanation. As the RN found, even a poorly escorted convoy took fewer losses than free sailing. The RN pointed this out several times, and King wasnt listening.

The idea that the USN had no escorts to support futher convoys is to my mind disputed by the idea they were ALREADY escorting convoys in the North Atlantic, and had already taken losses doing it.

The US escorts were already occupied in the North Atlantic. That's why they couldn't provide escort for the coastal shipping routes.

See previous post on ship numbers.  

Doug 

[R011]

On 10/6/2024 at 4:32 AM, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yeah, that doesnt work as an explanation. As the RN found, even a poorly escorted convoy took fewer losses than free sailing. The RN pointed this out several times, and King wasnt listening.

The idea that the USN had no escorts to support futher convoys is to my mind disputed by the idea they were ALREADY escorting convoys in the North Atlantic, and had already taken losses doing it.

What Ol Paint said.  As well, it seems to have been thought that unlike the open ocean, coastal and Caribbean convoys would be easy to find giving the Germans a target rich environment.  There were other issues as well.  For instance, the USN had no authority to declare a blackout along the coast and the Army who were supposed to provide air cover wasn't very interested in the job and wasn't very cooperative.

In hindsight, though, King probably should have overruled the admiral responsible for that traffic and its protection.  Losses likely would not have been worse had they tried unescorted convoys.

[Stuart Galbraith]

4 hours ago, R011 said:

What Ol Paint said.  As well, it seems to have been thought that unlike the open ocean, coastal and Caribbean convoys would be easy to find giving the Germans a target rich environment.  There were other issues as well.  For instance, the USN had no authority to declare a blackout along the coast and the Army who were supposed to provide air cover wasn't very interested in the job and wasn't very cooperative.

In hindsight, though, King probably should have overruled the admiral responsible for that traffic and its protection.  Losses likely would not have been worse had they tried unescorted convoys.

I think history proved that even poorly escorted convoys did better than free sailing, simply because you are removing ships from large tracts of ocean where they can be seen, and putting them in a confined space where they are less likely to be located. As they were on the other side of the atlantic, the ability of the Kriegsmarine to form wolfpacks was  extremely limited. Against that, yes, they were operating inshore. Athough if they had moved them offshore into deeper ocean, the chances of the Germans locating them (Not least because a condor couldnt reach that far) was limited.

And Ive just read, there 25 destroyers on the East coast, of which 7 were anchored in new york harbor. And as soon as losses started, instead of slating them all for escort duty, they had them running down offensive patrols, something the British had tried in 1940 and given up because they didnt work. That isnt enough for good escorts of outgoing convoys. But Its surely at least enough to put together at least one or 2 ships per convoy, and that probably was all that was needed. Badly escorted convoys did better than free sailing.

Alright, lets try this crazy idea out of left field. We had all these ships in the UK, 30 of them, fully crewed. So what was stopping the USN saying 'gee, we really need those ships back, could you send at least some of them to guard our coast whilst we get our ships from the West coast to help us here?' Yes, it would leave us less ships to patrol our waters. But as the bulk of the losses were then happening off the US East coast at that point, and as it was academic where the losses were occuring and the only importance was the material was safely coming here,I think we would have played ball. if not from those ships, then perhaps from Canadian ones which we would then replace.

I can see that giving up the ships created problems. I dont accept they were insoluable problems. To me it still looks like politics, and an inability to recognise the British had already faced exactly the same problems 3 years before and found a solution.  Yes, one can point to Roosevelt letting the ships go causing issues. But I can point to King and the USN leadership using that as an easy excuse for not recognising they had a potential problem (something they could have seen at least 6 months in advance, if not over a year in advance) and having the solution in place, rather than flailing around for several months trying to rediscover tactical solutions that were already evident.

 

 

[Ol Paint]

7 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I think history proved that even poorly escorted convoys did better than free sailing, simply because you are removing ships from large tracts of ocean where they can be seen, and putting them in a confined space where they are less likely to be located. As they were on the other side of the atlantic, the ability of the Kriegsmarine to form wolfpacks was  extremely limited. Against that, yes, they were operating inshore. Athough if they had moved them offshore into deeper ocean, the chances of the Germans locating them (Not least because a condor couldnt reach that far) was limited.

And Ive just read, there 25 destroyers on the East coast, of which 7 were anchored in new york harbor. And as soon as losses started, instead of slating them all for escort duty, they had them running down offensive patrols, something the British had tried in 1940 and given up because they didnt work. That isnt enough for good escorts of outgoing convoys. But Its surely at least enough to put together at least one or 2 ships per convoy, and that probably was all that was needed. Badly escorted convoys did better than free sailing.

Alright, lets try this crazy idea out of left field. We had all these ships in the UK, 30 of them, fully crewed. So what was stopping the USN saying 'gee, we really need those ships back, could you send at least some of them to guard our coast whilst we get our ships from the West coast to help us here?' Yes, it would leave us less ships to patrol our waters. But as the bulk of the losses were then happening off the US East coast at that point, and as it was academic where the losses were occuring and the only importance was the material was safely coming here,I think we would have played ball. if not from those ships, then perhaps from Canadian ones which we would then replace.

I can see that giving up the ships created problems. I dont accept they were insoluable problems. To me it still looks like politics, and an inability to recognise the British had already faced exactly the same problems 3 years before and found a solution.  Yes, one can point to Roosevelt letting the ships go causing issues. But I can point to King and the USN leadership using that as an easy excuse for not recognising they had a potential problem (something they could have seen at least 6 months in advance, if not over a year in advance) and having the solution in place, rather than flailing around for several months trying to rediscover tactical solutions that were already evident.

 

 

Pulling destroyers from the west coast?  Really?  From where?  Guadalcanal? Coral Sea?  Pearl Harbor?  Escorting the fleet carriers?

Run the numbers, instead of speculating.  The convoy routes, voyage time and intervals are as follows:

Convoy	Minim.	Interval	Cycle	Days Under Way			Days in Port
System	Escort	(days)	days
	Groups
				Out	Back	Total	Home	Away	Total
NG/BN	5	6	25	7	7	14	6	5	11
NK/KN	4	5	20	6	5	11	7	2	9
KG/GK	3	5	15	3	3	6	6	3	9
KH/HK	3	5	15	2.5	2.5	5	4	6	10
GAT/TAG	4	5	20	6	5	11	5	4	9
ZG/GZ	3	5	15	4	4	8	5	2	7
JT/TJc	12	5	60	16	20	36	16	8	24

The number of escort groups needed for this commitment is 34.  So the 25 east coast destroyers you say you found isn't even enough to send one escort per convoy.  Two escorts per convoy would be 68 DDs.  With no allocation for maintenance or other duties.

*JT/TJ includes an undisclosed number of Brazilian escorts.

Unfortunately, the number of independent sailings is not reported in the Navy's assessment.  While the report states that 512 ships were lost in 1942, we don't know what percentage of the fleet that represents.  The report does state that the effect of convoying is a 33% reduction in shipping efficiency--instituting convoying immediately is no different than U-boats sinking 1/3rd of the fleet.  The unanswered question is whether the 512 vessels lost in the four Sea Frontiers, Canadian Coastal Zone, and Brazilian Area is more or less than 33%.

Your contention that the UK/Commonwealth would give up ships to provide escorts in the US Sea Frontiers flies in the face of reality:

• Of the 15 Flower-class corvettes purchased by the US under Reverse-Lend-Lease (from Canada, not the British Isles), only 8 were delivered, with the other 7 being diverted to the UK.  That's basic proof that the UK could not afford to give up vessels, even on such a small scale.
• The motivations for the UK to go through with the destroyers-for-bases deal included both the increase to the RN's escort fleet and the reduced RN commitment to the eastern Atlantic, Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico that allowed the RN to concentrate their fleet in other areas.  If you want to contend that the RN could have done without the 50 extra hulls and also effectively covered the entire Atlantic Ocean, by all means, please present that case.
• Reducing the escorts in the western Atlantic and UK coastal areas in order to beef up the North American seaboard would very likely increase losses in that area. 

History did NOT "prove" that unescorted convoys were better than independent sailing.  What it did prove is that convoying, regardless of escort, reduced the merchant fleet's shipping capacity by 33%.  What commanders and strategists had to assess was a risk-benefit equation of trading losses (in hulls and sailors) for the benefit of efficiency with the added factor of escort availability and the opportunity cost of dedicating escorts to convoys in one area vs. demands of other duties and theaters.

Doug

P.S. My previous post on the numbers of escort groups, I deliberately left out the Canadian and Brazilian areas, which is why this post calls for 34 groups and the earlier post called for 26.  I was also using the early-war convoy system, but that didn't have the voyage times, whereas the table in this post is the final convoy network.

P.P.S Are we going to be successful in hijacking a political current events thread from the FFZ to discuss WWII convoy logistics?

Edited October 8, 2024 by Ol Paint
Edited to further clarify the convoy network in the post script.

[Stuart Galbraith]

42 minutes ago, Ol Paint said:

Pulling destroyers from the west coast?  Really?  From where?  Guadalcanal? Coral Sea?  Pearl Harbor?  Escorting the fleet carriers?

Run the numbers, instead of speculating.  The convoy routes, voyage time and intervals are as follows:

Convoy	Minim.	Interval	Cycle	Days Under Way			Days in Port
System	Escort	(days)	days
	Groups
				Out	Back	Total	Home	Away	Total
NG/BN	5	6	25	7	7	14	6	5	11
NK/KN	4	5	20	6	5	11	7	2	9
KG/GK	3	5	15	3	3	6	6	3	9
KH/HK	3	5	15	2.5	2.5	5	4	6	10
GAT/TAG	4	5	20	6	5	11	5	4	9
ZG/GZ	3	5	15	4	4	8	5	2	7
JT/TJc	12	5	60	16	20	36	16	8	24

The number of escort groups needed for this commitment is 34.  So the 25 east coast destroyers you say you found isn't even enough to send one escort per convoy.  Two escorts per convoy would be 68 DDs.  With no allocation for maintenance or other duties.

*JT/TJ includes an undisclosed number of Brazilian escorts.

Unfortunately, the number of independent sailings is not reported in the Navy's assessment.  While the report states that 512 ships were lost in 1942, we don't know what percentage of the fleet that represents.  The report does state that the effect of convoying is a 33% reduction in shipping efficiency--instituting convoying immediately is no different than U-boats sinking 1/3rd of the fleet.  The unanswered question is whether the 512 vessels lost in the four Sea Frontiers, Canadian Coastal Zone, and Brazilian Area is more or less than 33%.

Your contention that the UK/Commonwealth would give up ships to provide escorts in the US Sea Frontiers flies in the face of reality:

• Of the 15 Flower-class corvettes purchased by the US under Reverse-Lend-Lease (from Canada, not the British Isles), only 8 were delivered, with the other 7 being diverted to the UK.  That's basic proof that the UK could not afford to give up vessels, even on such a small scale.
• The motivations for the UK to go through with the destroyers-for-bases deal included both the increase to the RN's escort fleet and the reduced RN commitment to the eastern Atlantic, Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico that allowed the RN to concentrate their fleet in other areas.  If you want to contend that the RN could have done without the 50 extra hulls and also effectively covered the entire Atlantic Ocean, by all means, please present that case.
• Reducing the escorts in the western Atlantic and UK coastal areas in order to beef up the North American seaboard would very likely increase losses in that area. 

History did NOT "prove" that unescorted convoys were better than independent sailing.  What it did prove is that convoying, regardless of escort, reduced the merchant fleet's shipping capacity by 33%.  What commanders and strategists had to assess was a risk-benefit equation of trading losses (in hulls and sailors) for the benefit of efficiency with the added factor of escort availability and the opportunity cost of dedicating escorts to convoys in one area vs. demands of other duties and theaters.

Doug

P.S. My previous post on the numbers of escort groups, I deliberately left out the Canadian and Brazilian areas, which is why this post calls for 34 groups and the earlier post called for 26.  I was also using the early-war convoy system, but that didn't have the voyage times, whereas the table in this post is the final convoy network.

P.P.S Are we going to be successful in hijacking a political current events thread from the FFZ to discuss WWII convoy logistics?

Now come on, dont pretend for one moment you didnt enjoy this far more than talking about the Orange messiah.

 

[17thfabn]

Donald Trump didn't order the USN to provide convoy escorts to Hawaii.  Resulting in the tragic German attack on Pearl Harbor.

Who can forget the vision of Ju87 dive  bombers and Me109 fighters winging over Pearl Harbor.

Joe Biden's uncle was on the USS JFK when it was sunk by German Ju87s! He survived the sinking but was eaten by Hawaiian head hunters who kept the shrunken head as a trophy.

Curse you Orange Baron Trump! On top of everything else he shot down Snoopy using his Fokker tri plane fighter

[urbanoid]

Was this fokker a messerschmitt?

[sunday]

21 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

Was this fokker a messerschmitt?

You know, North American Aviation was the USian subsidiary of Fokker with another name...

[urbanoid]

I had no idea tbh.

[sunday]

40 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

I had no idea tbh.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Aircraft

[Mikel2]

1 hour ago, sunday said:

You know, North American Aviation was the USian subsidiary of Fokker with another name...

Chief designer of the P-51 was German too. Edgar Schmued.

 

 

[LT Ducky]

TankNet is known for exceptional thread drift.

This one is of galactic proportions.

[sunday]

6 minutes ago, LT Ducky said:

TankNet is known for exceptional thread drift.

This one is of galactic proportions.

Thank you very much, kind sir!

[rmgill]

3 hours ago, LT Ducky said:

TankNet is known for exceptional thread drift.

This one is of galactic proportions.

Thread Jacker 5000 kindly provided by Binford Tools. 

[Ol Paint]

So, about this cat that can clear a room...

Doug

[sunday]

4 hours ago, Ol Paint said:

So, about this cat that can clear a room...

Doug

It was a dog.

[Stuart Galbraith]

14 hours ago, 17thfabn said:

Donald Trump didn't order the USN to provide convoy escorts to Hawaii.  Resulting in the tragic German attack on Pearl Harbor.

Who can forget the vision of Ju87 dive  bombers and Me109 fighters winging over Pearl Harbor.

Joe Biden's uncle was on the USS JFK when it was sunk by German Ju87s! He survived the sinking but was eaten by Hawaiian head hunters who kept the shrunken head as a trophy.

Curse you Orange Baron Trump! On top of everything else he shot down Snoopy using his Fokker tri plane fighter

It was to ensure dezoned property. A Trump tower and Golf course is precisely what Pearl Harbor needed.

'Id I wouldnt have gotten away with it too, if it hadnt been for that meddling Nimitz!'

 

 

Edited October 9, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith

[Stefan Fredriksson]

Nimitz had low IQ, probably mentally impaired.

[Stuart Galbraith]

35 minutes ago, Stefan Fredriksson said:

Nimitz had low IQ, probably mentally impaired.

No not him, I meant the Supercarrier that stopped the Democrat attack on Pearl Harbor.

 

[Rick]

19 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

No not him, I meant the Supercarrier that stopped the Democrat attack on Pearl Harbor.

 

Stuart, IIRC, you did a "simulation" of the U.S.S. Nimitz against the Japanese fleet at Pearl Harbor?

[Stuart Galbraith]

No, that wasnt me, that was some guys on CMANO that managed to do it.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3421932#p3421932

One I did do was the 1973 naval standoff, wargaming it as if the Soviets got in a sneak attack (there was a random throw if they used nuclear tipped Shaddocks). It was genuinely interesting actually, , SLUFS ruled with Walleye bombs, until there was low cloud and they had to use high drag bombs. Against a Sverdlov it was almost like WW2 all over again. I probably ought to finish that off sometime, unfortunately they did some DLC that covered much the same ground and I didnt really see the point. A pity, I put about 6 months of work into it.

https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2265&context=nwc-review

[rmgill]

3 hours ago, Rick said:

Stuart, IIRC, you did a "simulation" of the U.S.S. Nimitz against the Japanese fleet at Pearl Harbor?

"Splash the Zeros, I say again, Splash the Zeros."

[Stuart Galbraith]

God that movie gives me the horn. Its where I fell in love with the F14, not the much vaunted Top Gun. Those Nazi's didnt know what hit them.