Debunking some myths about Patton, Rommel, Yamamoto, etc.

[wulfie]

I used to get paid to research this stuff. I've had the opportunity to look over files, and reports, etc. that most people who actually have lives don't really have the time or inclination to search out.

I don't have a ton of free time right now, so I'm going to start with Yamamoto. If you like what you read and want to see more then let me know and I'll move on to Patton and then Rommel and maybe some others...

===

Yamamoto (I can post alot more in a week or so when I have more time):

A big name with the IJN in the history books. But *did you know?*

A few years after the end of WW2, U.S. Naval Intelligence undertook a very ambitious task - they rounded up all surviving (which was alot, due to copies routed up to fleet HQ) IJN surface warfare AARs, and translated them all, and compared them to USN and all available Allied surface warfare AARs.

The result, compiled by Paul S. Dull, is maybe the best book ever written on surface warfare actions in the Pacific during WW2. It is titled 'A Battle History of the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1941-1945' (by Paul S. Dull, Naval Institute Press, ISBN 0 87021 097 1).

Anyone interested in the history of surface warfare engagements in the Pacific in WW2 should have a copy of this book. It is one of the rare cases where a single book can be considered a 'bible' for an entire 'realm' of warfare history.

The level of detail is astonishing - charts showing the exact time, direction, and spread of torpedoes fired by individual destroyers in a surface engagement where there was 20+ suface combatants on each side.

The book also goes a long way towards 'debunking' the 'myth' of Yamamoto - as a fleet commander he really wasn't very impressive. He actually made several very crucial mistakes. He had a tendency to divide his forces where there was no reason to do so, and this allowed the Allies to fight the IJN at much better odds in several crucial engagements in 1942 and early 1943.

For a truly amazing example of superb command of surface warfare elements, get this book and read about the surface warfare actions conducted by the IJN during the battle for Guadalcanal.

Did you know that due to superior optics and a large disparity in night engagement exercises/training (in the favor of the IJN in both cases) that IJN 'lookouts' actually outperformed USN radar equipped ships on a fairly regular basis in 1942 and 1943 (i.e. IJN lookouts were spotting USN warships at night *before* USN radar equipped warships were picking up those same IJN warships on radar?).

===

Coming soon...

1. There was a very specific reason that German operational commanders held Patton's units in much higher regard than any other U.S. Army units...anyone have an idea about what I am talking about?

1A. U.S. Army units took very heavy casualties in NWE during WW2 when they should not have (according to several DoD studies). The reasons for this don't involve 'Patton attacking too much' (more on this later).

2. Rommel isn't on the 'top 20 list' for German operational/strategic commanders in WW2 according to a very detailed DoD study conducted in the 1950s and 1960s that involved the interviewing of many WW2 German operational/strategic commanders. More on this later.

Mike/wulfie

[wsnpr]

Wulfie, please do continue. Interesting. Thanks  

[Duedel]

Great wulfie

BTW why not post this in the History forum?

[Hangtime]

who the hell reads the history forum?

Carry on, Wulfie, I'd like to know more. If anybody else gripes about this subject being inappropriate in the 'O' Club, just stick a picture of HiTech in a bikini driving a 67 malibu up in here.

[rogwar]

Very excellect work and you are correct that book is awesome. I mean like I almost totally flipped out it was so cool.

[lord dolf vader]

cool cant wait for the rest!

[LePaul]

Damn teaser...  

On the next exciting episode of "WW2 History with Wulfie...."

[Sikboy]

Very cool Wulfie, but I have one question, which I shouldn't even ask until I've read the book, but since it's just conversation, I'll ask it anyhow.

In his book "Fleet Tactics: Theory and Pracitce" Capt. Wayne Hughes mentions that "[the] Modern decision to mass [naval units] depends on defensive considerations... When defenses are weak, then a dispersed force indicated." (248).

With this in mind, it would seem to me (especially if coupled with what you have said about Japanese Detection ranges compared to the US) that split forces would have been a sound tactical choice for a surface night engagement.  It sounds (without knowing the details) like good tactics but bad results.

On the other hand, Hughs is talking about an offensive/defensive disparity of like 3/1 (as in each ship has the offensive capability to destroy 3 of the enemy ships, if given the first strike) I believe this is more analogous to WWII Carriers than to surface combatans. I don't know, what do you think?

-Sikboy

[midnight Target]

Picture all of us sitting around in a circle, cross legged and mouths agape in wonder.

Tell us more Uncle Wolfie!!!!!

[Frodo]

Yes would love to read all you have.

Be nice and "Uncle Wulfie" might tell you the story of the big bad "Butcher Bird"!:D

Frodo

[Animal]

Hi Wulfie, thank you. Do you have any idea where I can order this book?

[Horn]

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0870210971/qid=1030725611/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/104-2781109-9927948?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

dh

[Dune]

Originally posted by wulfie

1. There was a very specific reason that German operational commanders held Patton's units in much higher regard than any other U.S. Army units...anyone have an idea about what I am talking about?

1A. U.S. Army units took very heavy casualties in NWE during WW2 when they should not have (according to several DoD studies). The reasons for this don't involve 'Patton attacking too much' (more on this later).

Mike/wulfie

Without taking the time to do any research (I'm at work with no books at hand), I'll take a WAG at these two.

1. Because Patton managed to finagle better equipment?  And perhaps due to the quality of his engineers and arty.

2. Lack of proper cold weather gear and their tanks sucked.

Both answers are WAG I'd like to point out.

[Maverick]

Originally posted by Dune


Without taking the time to do any research (I'm at work with no books at hand), I'll take a WAG at these two.

1. Because Patton managed to finagle better equipment?  And perhaps due to the quality of his engineers and arty.

2. Lack of proper cold weather gear and their tanks sucked.

Both answers are WAG I'd like to point out.

Dune,

You're way off base in number one. The equipment was the same. Patton did require that it be maintained. The more likely cause is that he kept the Germans moving and didn't let them set up a creditable defense. AS soon as the presure was relieved, IE Pattons suppies were stretched to the breaking point and he HAD to stop, The Germans were able to consolidate positions and reform a defensive posture. When you keep the enemy running he can't stop to set up a prepared position. Paton covered in 6 weeks what had been estimated would take 6 months. The lagging offensives by Monti held up the front leaving Patton dangerously exposed.

In all fairness, supplies were stretched very thin as the transportation infrastructure (read rail roads) wasn't there to get the supplies to the rapidly moving front lines.

The cold weather gear was a factor, but that was also due to the supply and logistics situation that progressed far beyond what anyone expected during the push forward.

The tank situation WAS a major problem We had numbers but until the guns got to the high velocity 90 mm size, penetration of the German tanks was very iffy at any but close range frontally and more reliably from the sides and rear. That is one of the reasons Patton didn't want heavy stuff like sandbags on the tanks as it would slow them down. Speed and numbers were the greates advantages American armor had then. We also didn't have the diesel experiance the Germans had. Patton wanted diesels as he realised gas powered tanks were far more likely to burn from hot shrapnel than diesel tanks were.

Keep this stuff coming. This is great material!

[GtoRA2]

Mav
 The TIger one, two and Panther all had gas engines I think? Did the Panzer IV?