Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Failures in leaderhip


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Failures in leaderhip Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Failures in leaderhip - 7/16/2008 9:18:29 AM   
Alumbrado


Posts: 5560
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

Follow up to the earlier 'using tanks for 'nation building' is getting troops killed needlessly' article....

Looks like 'lessons learned' aren't...and not just in the White House.

quote:

Why would any commander stick a unit in a poorly defended arena? It did not work at Dak To, Dak Pek, Dak Seang, Lang Vei, Roberts Ridge or with any other isolated unit. The dead soldiers of these actions would cry from their grave to know the same needless sacrifices are being made today, sacrifices that will never lead to anything remotely associated with a military success.


http://rangeragainstwar.blogspot.com/2008/07/dak-to-redux.html


I have little respect for the "Ranger" who posted this mess of bullshit. I've been to his website before, and nothing has changed.

There is not enough information to make any type of rational decision on this particular action, much less to use it as a springboard to defame the entire military officer corp.

What "Ranger's" article does show me is the vein of faulty and dangerous reasoning that American political and military leaders have fallen into often enough in the past i.e. that taking any risk in war is something to be avoided at all costs.

Risk analysis is one thing.  The drive to remove all risk before taking any action leads to nothing but defeat.

"De l'audace, encore de l'audace, toujours de l'audace!"

Firm



Nobody particularly cares if you profess to respect people who have accomplished what you haven't.

That aside, do you have anything to add in the way of relevant discourse on the issues posited?
Or is it your position that it is OK to deploy troops and equipment in the suicidal manner described, and end up with dead soldiers to achieve no military objective?

Do you  have so little regard for those who wear the uniform that you think they are expendable like movie extras in a make-it-up-as-you-go-along stunt called 'nation building'?

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: Failures in leaderhip - 7/16/2008 11:34:38 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

Agreed.

I would also suggest that the actual casualty numbers show that something was learned somewhere.  They are much lower than any other war/conflict we have been involved in.  That doesn't make it any easier to read about Marines and soldiers dying, but it puts things in perspective.

I would also point out I haven't heard or read about a single officer being fragged during these engagements.



I'd suggest you look into the figures a little more deeply.

KIA numbers are way down not overall casualties. The reality, which can be verified by a visit to any major VA hospital, is that better body armor and medical care saves lives that in any previous conflict would have been KIA. That translates into unprecedented levels of amputations and permanently incapacitating traumatic brain injuries.



Well even going by what antiwar.com lists as official numbers  we have had a total of 4,119 deaths, and 30,349 total wounded. (They already included the numbers from the 14th of July).  Just to put those numbers in perspective, there were 37,000 allied killed in the battle of Normandy, or to use a more recent comparison one that was fought exactly where we are now...


I don't know where you got your numbers but here are the official ones:
Normandy Campaign (there was no battle of normandy so Operation Overlord is what I think you're refering to) 6/6/44 to 8/25/44:
(Allies)
Total strength 1,452,000
Total casualties 219,000
Dead 46,000

The Iraqi invasion and occupation
3/19/03 to 7/14/08 (last date available)
(coalition only other figures are far too sketchy)
Total maximum strength 400,000
total casualties 34,530 (official, evidence exists that the DoD is under reporting casualties by about 75%)
Dead 4121

So in your cherry picked short intense conflict the casualty rate equaled roughly 15% of troops deployed. In Iraq using the maximum force size rather than the average force size gives a casualty rate of 8.6% with strong evidence indicating the actual rate is closer to 14%.

Or as I said KIA's are way down but casualties rates aren't.

(in reply to Thadius)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: Failures in leaderhip - 7/16/2008 11:57:04 AM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

Follow up to the earlier 'using tanks for 'nation building' is getting troops killed needlessly' article....

Looks like 'lessons learned' aren't...and not just in the White House.

quote:

Why would any commander stick a unit in a poorly defended arena? It did not work at Dak To, Dak Pek, Dak Seang, Lang Vei, Roberts Ridge or with any other isolated unit. The dead soldiers of these actions would cry from their grave to know the same needless sacrifices are being made today, sacrifices that will never lead to anything remotely associated with a military success.


http://rangeragainstwar.blogspot.com/2008/07/dak-to-redux.html


I have little respect for the "Ranger" who posted this mess of bullshit. I've been to his website before, and nothing has changed.

There is not enough information to make any type of rational decision on this particular action, much less to use it as a springboard to defame the entire military officer corp.

What "Ranger's" article does show me is the vein of faulty and dangerous reasoning that American political and military leaders have fallen into often enough in the past i.e. that taking any risk in war is something to be avoided at all costs.

Risk analysis is one thing.  The drive to remove all risk before taking any action leads to nothing but defeat.

"De l'audace, encore de l'audace, toujours de l'audace!"

Firm



Nobody particularly cares if you profess to respect people who have accomplished what you haven't.

That aside, do you have anything to add in the way of relevant discourse on the issues posited?

Or is it your position that it is OK to deploy troops and equipment in the suicidal manner described, and end up with dead soldiers to achieve no military objective?

Do you  have so little regard for those who wear the uniform that you think they are expendable like movie extras in a make-it-up-as-you-go-along stunt called 'nation building'?



Just because you don't agree with my point of view doesn't mean it's invalid, or not "relevant" to the discourse.

But I'll simplify matters for you.

Your thoughts have more than two degrees of separation from reality.  First, they are based on "Ranger's" beliefs and shallow thinking, not reality, plus your own nonsensical and idealistic beliefs about conflict and war.

This is not intended to be insulting, just a statement of fact, although I'm sure you'll come out with your usual bluster and bullshit.

Bullshit such as your attempt to straw-man insult me about not caring for soldiers.  What you don't know about me and the military could fill volumes.

My point is still that you do not have any evidence to make the claims about the particular action that "Ranger" cites.  You claim there was no object to having the soldiers where they were, when they were attacked.  Do you have a more detailed source of the operation, other than "I heard someone who knows someone who had a cousin who's girlfriend heard about this crazy shit in Afghanistan ..."?  If you do, then haul it out and we can do an AAR on the operation.

If not, then you are simply guilty of selective perception or confirmatory bias.

Firm


_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to Alumbrado)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: Failures in leaderhip - 7/16/2008 12:08:15 PM   
Thadius


Posts: 5091
Joined: 10/11/2005
Status: offline
I shared the link to where I got the stats... even your number of dead is higher than TOTAL casualties in Iraq.
Care to share your source for this official fact that they are under reporting casualties by 75%?

quote:

source: http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/
Casualties in Iraq
The Human Cost of Occupation
Edited by Margaret Griffis :: Contact




American Military Casualties in Iraq


Date

Total

In Combat







.casualties { font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; width: 100%; } .casualties-title { text-align: center; font-size: 25px; } .casualties-total-header { text-align: center; white-space: nowrap; } .casualties-total-label { text-align: left; white-space: nowrap; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; } .casualties-total-value { text-align: center; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; } .casualties-since-label { text-align: left; white-space: nowrap; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; } .casualties-since-value { text-align: center; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; } .casualties-combat-wounded {text-align: left; white-space: nowrap; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; } .casualties-combat-label { text-align: center; white-space: nowrap; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; } .casualties-combat-value { text-align: center; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; }




American Deaths



Since war began (3/19/03):
4121
3357

Since "Mission Accomplished" (5/1/03) (the list)


3982


3249


Since Capture of Saddam (12/13/03):
3660
3051

Since Handover (6/29/04):
3262
2724

Since Election (1/31/05):
2684
2461

American Wounded
Official
Estimated

Total Wounded:
30409
23000 - 100000

Latest Fatality July 14, 2008



Page last updated 07/16/08 12:12 pm EDT


I would dare say this is not a site run by somebody that favors my position.  If you look at thier big RED numbers and see where they are pulling them from they are basing it on the total number of disability claims filed with the VA, which includes folks that had pre existing conditions, disabilities not related to the war, and things that may have happened after returning home.  Hardly conclusive evidence of a 75% under reporting of casualties.  Hell this site even says:
quote:


Between 8 and 10 percent of nearly 12,000 soldiers from the war on terror, mostly from Iraq, treated at the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany had "psychiatric or behavioral health issues," according to the commander of the hospital, Col. Rhonda Cornum.

 
Which could be anything from PTSD  to not wanting to keep themselves clean.
 
I am in no way making light of the deaths or injuries (mental and or physical).  I don't feel a need to "cherry pick numbers" to make my point, I will simply let those that see it the same way you do to provide the numbers.
 
P.S. If I really wanted to cherry pick a particular battle, I could have easily went with the numbers of Antietam.

Edited to clarify the chart (damned table formatting)... the second number in each category is what they titled "In Combat"

< Message edited by Thadius -- 7/16/2008 12:13:06 PM >


_____________________________

When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends." ~ Japanese Proverb

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: Failures in leaderhip - 7/16/2008 12:18:04 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

I shared the link to where I got the stats... even your number of dead is higher than TOTAL casualties in Iraq.
Care to share your source for this official fact that they are under reporting casualties by 75%?

I see the problem now.
Casualty doesn't mean dead it means dead and wounded:
quote:

casualty
(plural casualties)
  1. A person suffering from injuries or who has been killed due to an accident or through an act of violence.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/casualty

So the official number is 4121 dead plus the 30,000+ reported injured.

As to a source for the under reporting of coalition injured:
http://www.democracynow.org/2004/11/10/the_forgotten_casualties_of_war_over
http://www.casualty-monitor.org/2006/03/under-reporting-of-british-casualties.html
http://www.birf.info/home/library/vet/vet-penta.html
http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/files/VFCS/VCS_Complete_Casualty_Report_07-04-2007.pdf


(in reply to Thadius)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: Failures in leaderhip - 7/16/2008 12:40:24 PM   
Thadius


Posts: 5091
Joined: 10/11/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen



So the official number is 4121 dead plus the 30,000+ reported injured.

As to a source for the under reporting of coalition injured:
http://www.democracynow.org/2004/11/10/the_forgotten_casualties_of_war_over
http://www.casualty-monitor.org/2006/03/under-reporting-of-british-casualties.html
http://www.birf.info/home/library/vet/vet-penta.html
http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/files/VFCS/VCS_Complete_Casualty_Report_07-04-2007.pdf



Those numbers seem pretty right on with what the official numbers say. Last available official numbers can be found here.
http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/OIF-Total.pdf 

They show at the time (Through July 5, 2008) 4106 dead and 30,349 total wounded.  Which averages out to about 18 casualties per day since March 19, 2003.  I can't think of a war/conflict that had that low of an average.  Again I say that every casualty hurts to read about, but it is the nature of war.  I am just glad that we are beyond the days of sending a few thousand men up a fortified hill, losing most of them, only to give the hill back a few days later.

_____________________________

When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends." ~ Japanese Proverb

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: Failures in leaderhip - 7/16/2008 12:50:35 PM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline
Thadius, unfortunately, we are moving troops into a city to pacify it, then after the insurgents are pushed out, we move out to another location.

As soon as our boots are off the ground in a particular area, insurgents move back in.

The same crap happened in Vietnam.

This is not something new, in the days after Pearl Harbor, a relief convoy was dispatched to Wake Island, which would have made it possible to hold Wake.  A day short it was ordered to turn around and return to Pearl Harbor.

But, then there is something else which we are not privy to, and that is the long range goal.  People die in combat, a good commander decides when and where that sacrifice is best used.


_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to Thadius)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: Failures in leaderhip - 7/16/2008 12:56:11 PM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline
Forgive the hijack,but that relief convoy might have prolonged the strugle....but Wake wasn't being held no way, no how...a realistic decision was made that more men and material would just have meant more loss...America needed to regroup and complete the rearming process ,not reinforce a tragically doomed outpost...end of hijack

_____________________________

If we want things to stay as they are,things will have to change...Tancredi from "the Leopard"

Forget Guns-----Ban the pools

Funny stuff....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwFf991d-4


(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: Failures in leaderhip - 7/16/2008 1:03:02 PM   
Thadius


Posts: 5091
Joined: 10/11/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Thadius, unfortunately, we are moving troops into a city to pacify it, then after the insurgents are pushed out, we move out to another location.

As soon as our boots are off the ground in a particular area, insurgents move back in.

The same crap happened in Vietnam.

This is not something new, in the days after Pearl Harbor, a relief convoy was dispatched to Wake Island, which would have made it possible to hold Wake.  A day short it was ordered to turn around and return to Pearl Harbor.

But, then there is something else which we are not privy to, and that is the long range goal.  People die in combat, a good commander decides when and where that sacrifice is best used.



I understand what you are saying and even agree with it.  There has been a shift in tactics though over the last few months, we aren't leaving villages unprotected like we were before, the Iraqis are stepping up and taking control, slowly but it is happening.

The same could be said for the Phillipines... with just a hint of supplies or support there may have never been a Bataan death march. 
quote:


"We're the Battling Bastards of Bataan, No mama, no papa, no Uncle Sam, No aunts, no uncles, no cousins, no nieces, No pills, no planes, no artillery pieces, And nobody gives a damn!"

-- Frank Hewlett, 1942.


For some it seems quite easy to Monday morning quarterback, without having been there to know what the particulars of an event (engagement) were.

Edited to change would to may.

< Message edited by Thadius -- 7/16/2008 1:04:23 PM >


_____________________________

When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends." ~ Japanese Proverb

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: Failures in leaderhip - 7/16/2008 2:43:55 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius
The same could be said for the Phillipines... with just a hint of supplies or support there may have never been a Bataan death march. 

Japan would still have captured Manila and the Bataan peninsula. We simply didn't have the ships, men and material it would have taken to reinforce the position. We couldn't even evacuate the survivors when MacArthur turned tail.

(in reply to Thadius)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: Failures in leaderhip - 7/16/2008 2:59:24 PM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline
Thadius not a case of Monday Morning quarterbacking,a cold hard decision made by the newly installed CNO of the Pacific theater Adm.Nimitiz.The relief force had been sent on its mission by his predecessor,Nimitz could have let it continue on ,would have been the "popular" thing to do as far as those involved and the public were concerned.Nimitz decided given the array of forces available(one serviceable carrier task force)it was niether prudent nor an acceptable risk....This decision caused Nimitz untold grief in the eyes of the press and the ranks of the Navy....Great men make tough not popular decisions...this was certainly the case in point here

_____________________________

If we want things to stay as they are,things will have to change...Tancredi from "the Leopard"

Forget Guns-----Ban the pools

Funny stuff....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwFf991d-4


(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: Failures in leaderhip - 7/16/2008 3:01:10 PM   
Real_Trouble


Posts: 471
Joined: 2/25/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Thadius, unfortunately, we are moving troops into a city to pacify it, then after the insurgents are pushed out, we move out to another location.

As soon as our boots are off the ground in a particular area, insurgents move back in.

The same crap happened in Vietnam.


I believe the very belief that we can "pacify" a city with our presence underlies the fundamental disconnect between our military strategy and reality.  For those who understand the terms, we're still fighting 2G / 3G wars in an environment already pushing the definition of a 4G war to the limit.

Most of our military infrastructure / thought / behavior is remarkably inflexible and disincentivizes both risk-taking and progress.  I am unsurprised by the way we are fighting in Iraq, but I am disappointed by it.

There's no simple solution, however; you have to be willing to change the overall structure of the beast to change this behavior, and I don't see anyone advocating that (certainly not the ranger in the links, and not most military officers).  The last person I recall who had it right was Boyd (and his 'disciples', if you will).


_____________________________

Send lawyers, guns, and money.

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: Failures in leaderhip - 7/16/2008 3:09:16 PM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline
Same story with the Phillipines and Bataan ,at the time the resoures just weren't there,and look at it this way if those resources had been expended,in what were most assuredly doomed to failure operations....The Battle of Midway might never have take place....pure speculation to be sure,but speculation based on the available resources at the time and those arrayed against them..

_____________________________

If we want things to stay as they are,things will have to change...Tancredi from "the Leopard"

Forget Guns-----Ban the pools

Funny stuff....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwFf991d-4


(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: Failures in leaderhip - 7/16/2008 3:12:21 PM   
Thadius


Posts: 5091
Joined: 10/11/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Thadius not a case of Monday Morning quarterbacking,a cold hard decision made by the newly installed CNO of the Pacific theater Adm.Nimitiz.The relief force had been sent on its mission by his predecessor,Nimitz could have let it continue on ,would have been the "popular" thing to do as far as those involved and the public were concerned.Nimitz decided given the array of forces available(one serviceable carrier task force)it was niether prudent nor an acceptable risk....This decision caused Nimitz untold grief in the eyes of the press and the ranks of the Navy....Great men make tough not popular decisions...this was certainly the case in point here


My comment about Monday morning qbing was directed at the assumptions made in the "article" provided.   Looking at something that happened 60 years ago is quite different than looking at something that happened in an ongoing war.  For example, we know what both sides were thinking, planning, and actual numbers of almost every engagement or at least battle that happened in WWII.  I would dare say we don't have close to that kind of knowledge of a particular battle or engagement in Iraq.  So judging whether 14 men were lost due to a brain dead CO or to other factors, is something we will have to review at a later date.  Like you say great men make tough not popular decisions.  I may be a bit naive, but I think those officers that are on the line deserve at least the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their ability to lead and make decisions.  I guess that is where my real issue is with the way the author of that particular site portrays things.

I wish you well,
Thadius

_____________________________

When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends." ~ Japanese Proverb

(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: Failures in leaderhip - 7/16/2008 3:19:28 PM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline
My apologies Thadius I misunderstood the reference to monday morning...my bad

_____________________________

If we want things to stay as they are,things will have to change...Tancredi from "the Leopard"

Forget Guns-----Ban the pools

Funny stuff....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwFf991d-4


(in reply to Thadius)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: Failures in leaderhip - 7/16/2008 3:31:00 PM   
Alumbrado


Posts: 5560
Status: offline
quote:

My comment about Monday morning qbing was directed at the assumptions made in the "article" provided.   Looking at something that happened 60 years ago is quite different than looking at something that happened in an ongoing war.  For example, we know what both sides were thinking, planning, and actual numbers of almost every engagement or at least battle that happened in WWII.  I would dare say we don't have close to that kind of knowledge of a particular battle or engagement in Iraq.  So judging whether 14 men were lost due to a brain dead CO or to other factors, is something we will have to review at a later date.  Like you say great men make tough not popular decisions.  I may be a bit naive, but I think those officers that are on the line deserve at least the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their ability to lead and make decisions.  I guess that is where my real issue is with the way the author of that particular site portrays things.


And exactly what assumptions would those be?

(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: Failures in leaderhip - 7/16/2008 3:44:41 PM   
Thadius


Posts: 5091
Joined: 10/11/2005
Status: offline
For one that American lives are being needlessly wasted by incompetent leaders in the field and their commanders.  I think that is a pretty big assumption to make.

quote:

Whether U.S. arms were successful is totally immaterial. These are meaningless battles that have only one consequence: U.S. soldiers die for nothing, and are wounded for more of the same.  Unless one wanted to take a particularly grim approach and say to give the hospital mega-industry more clientele.


I am a bit cynical...
Thadius

P.S. I am not saying that there aren't valid concerns, but to make judgements like this without knowing the particulars is only seeing part of the picture.

_____________________________

When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends." ~ Japanese Proverb

(in reply to Alumbrado)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: Failures in leaderhip - 7/16/2008 3:46:57 PM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline
Nimitz was NOT CincPac until 31 Dec 1941.

On December 22 at 21:00, after receiving information indicating the presence of two IJN carriers and two fast battleships near Wake Island Vice Admiral William S. Pye, the Acting Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, ordered TF-14 to return to Pearl Harbor  for fear of losses. {At the Battle of Midway Pye ordered battleships to patrol from the West Coast-in case of a Japanese attack; after Wake and Midway he never commanded forces in battle again}.

These ships were well within range to land the 4th Marine Coastal Defense Battalion, as well as supplies of ammunition and a squadren of F2A Brewster Buffalos during the night of 22 December/23 December, which would have given the Japanese a nasty surprise.

With the American carriers standing off shore between Wake and Midway, they would have been in position to cover and support Wake and force the Japanese to re-evaluate their opperations.

The force the Japanese had disignated to land on the island was equivalent to 3 reinforced Japanese Marine Companies, considerably smaller than a CDB.

Add to that the one thing that Yamamoto was not willing to do was to get into a battle that could cost him aircraft carrier assets.  He had no clue prior to Pearl Harbor where the 3 US carriers were, and should there be ANY indication of US carriers operating in the Wake atoll area, the operations pre-planned for the Pacific and South Pacific would become threatened had he suffered a loss or even damage.

Nimitz had made it clear that Wake should be supported, prior to receiving command of the pacific fleet, which earned him a lot of respect in Washington.   The citizens of the United States fully expected Wake to be supported, especially after they beat off the first invasion attempt.

The loss of Wake Island hampered operations in the central pacific area of operations for 2 years.  Wake would have provided a forward base for B24's, US submarines, recon patrols. 

The fact that Admiral Pye ordered those ships about, AND proved his  inability to react to enemy movements during the Midway crisis, was what effectively took him out of combat command.

The Philippines was untenable due to distance, and the disaster at Pearl, but Wake was not.


_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: Failures in leaderhip - 7/16/2008 4:04:41 PM   
Alumbrado


Posts: 5560
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

For one that American lives are being needlessly wasted by incompetent leaders in the field and their commanders.  I think that is a pretty big assumption to make.

quote:

Whether U.S. arms were successful is totally immaterial. These are meaningless battles that have only one consequence: U.S. soldiers die for nothing, and are wounded for more of the same.  Unless one wanted to take a particularly grim approach and say to give the hospital mega-industry more clientele.


I am a bit cynical...
Thadius

P.S. I am not saying that there aren't valid concerns, but to make judgements like this without knowing the particulars is only seeing part of the picture.


I'm going to go way out on a limb here and suspect that none of the people making ad hom attacks on Ranger are in fact Special Forces officers at the rank of Lt.Colonel or higher.
I highly doubt if anyone here has attended the War College as a senior officer, and studied (much less applied)  the manuals, and doctrine that Ranger cites in any official capacity.

Since he supports his point not merely by citing his rank and experience, but by quoting those command level strategic materials that say 'Do not do X, Y, and Z, or you will get your people killed', and then he asks why X, Y, and Z, were done in these cases, the criticism against him boils down to ' nobody should question anything any commander does', which I reject, as completely as I reject the notion that troops are just supposed to die needlessly.

Custer got people killed because he was an idiot who refused to follow rules and common sense.

The Big Muddy was an idiot getting people needlessly killed the same way.

Strolling up to tank after tank and dropping grenades inside is a preventable and forseeable occurence with a well known defense...which was ignored in Iraqi operations.


That Air Force general in Panama should never have been questioned?

Lt Calley should never have been questioned?


Anyone who knows that there is a right way and a wrong way to deploy troops and equipment to avoid forseeable and pointless losses that accomplish no military objective, and doesn't say anything, shouldn't be pointing fingers at those who do say something.

The theater is in fact, on fire.  

< Message edited by Alumbrado -- 7/16/2008 4:16:46 PM >

(in reply to Thadius)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: Failures in leaderhip - 7/16/2008 4:45:39 PM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Nimitz was NOT CincPac until 31 Dec 1941.

On December 22 at 21:00, after receiving information indicating the presence of two IJN carriers and two fast battleships near Wake Island Vice Admiral William S. Pye, the Acting Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, ordered TF-14 to return to Pearl Harbor  for fear of losses. {At the Battle of Midway Pye ordered battleships to patrol from the West Coast-in case of a Japanese attack; after Wake and Midway he never commanded forces in battle again}.

These ships were well within range to land the 4th Marine Coastal Defense Battalion, as well as supplies of ammunition and a squadren of F2A Brewster Buffalos during the night of 22 December/23 December, which would have given the Japanese a nasty surprise.

With the American carriers standing off shore between Wake and Midway, they would have been in position to cover and support Wake and force the Japanese to re-evaluate their opperations.

The force the Japanese had disignated to land on the island was equivalent to 3 reinforced Japanese Marine Companies, considerably smaller than a CDB.

Add to that the one thing that Yamamoto was not willing to do was to get into a battle that could cost him aircraft carrier assets.  He had no clue prior to Pearl Harbor where the 3 US carriers were, and should there be ANY indication of US carriers operating in the Wake atoll area, the operations pre-planned for the Pacific and South Pacific would become threatened had he suffered a loss or even damage.

Nimitz had made it clear that Wake should be supported, prior to receiving command of the pacific fleet, which earned him a lot of respect in Washington.   The citizens of the United States fully expected Wake to be supported, especially after they beat off the first invasion attempt.

The loss of Wake Island hampered operations in the central pacific area of operations for 2 years.  Wake would have provided a forward base for B24's, US submarines, recon patrols. 

The fact that Admiral Pye ordered those ships about, AND proved his  inability to react to enemy movements during the Midway crisis, was what effectively took him out of combat command.

The Philippines was untenable due to distance, and the disaster at Pearl, but Wake was not.

You are correct as to when Nimitz assumed command,the fact was the decision had already been made for him to assume command ,and it was with this in mind the TF was recalled.
Any assertion of the utility or usefullness of the Brewster Buffalos that you beleive would have given the Japaneese a "nasty surprise"totally ignores the actual capabilities of these lumbering outdated aircraft,The Englsh would not accept them during The Battle of Britain when their need for anything that flew was at is peak.One need only look at their performance at the Battle of Midway to guage how they would have done at Wake... at Midway they were simply disposed of by the far superior Zero...a lousy airplane off the assembly line ,an outdated and total death trap at the time of war
Was the TF in range,could the fighters have taken off and made Wake, the answer is yes to both questions...could we have held Wake given the material and manpower shortage ...The critical needs in other areas ,the woeful state of our readiness in a word ...no
  Please don't take my opinion ,the general accepted historical opinion is that while the failure to reinforce led to tragic consequences for the Marine garrison it was the correct decision at the time....if i could provide links i would,but i can't my apologies

_____________________________

If we want things to stay as they are,things will have to change...Tancredi from "the Leopard"

Forget Guns-----Ban the pools

Funny stuff....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwFf991d-4


(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Failures in leaderhip Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109