Map and chart for U.S and Canada cost,with nets and mines update!

[ryanglavin]

Originally Posted by irish1958

Admiral King didn't think the U-Boats were a threat, and the US Nave really didn't get serious about ASWF until 1943,
I don't think there was much in the way of mine fields and/or nets on the US coasts. The cities remained lighted (?lit), outlining the ships for attack by the subs. Air support for the Navy and Coast Guard remained a very low priority and hunter-killer groups non existent.
The US Navy refused to listen the the British about the U-Boat threat and ignored their experience and tactics (until about 1943).
Admiral Kimmel was unfairly blamed for Pearl Harbor, but Admiral King's failures were magnitudes greater and he was considered a war hero.
Anyway, the US Coasts were mainly unprotected.

Yes, unprotected, but you really can't blame King. For a really good support argument, Clay Blair goes on on pretty much a 5 page rant supporting King. It actually makes sense, which is the cool part.

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by ryanglavin

Yes, unprotected, but you really can't blame King. For a really good support argument, Clay Blair goes on on pretty much a 5 page rant supporting King. It actually makes sense, which is the cool part.

About historical argument,can you be more specific in your speech,I refer to your last part of Clay Blair and his title-role under the War.

[ryanglavin]

Originally Posted by Vendor

About historical argument,can you be more specific in your speech,I refer to your last part of Clay Blair and his title-role under the War.

I'll find it in the book for you, but for a quick reference, its the last 1/4th of the first volume, which was drumbeat.
If I can recall correctly, Blair made the claim that, King wanted to build more escorts for coastal waters, but the British and convoys took priority.


Edit: great, can't find the book.

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by ryanglavin

I'll find it in the book for you, but for a quick reference, its the last 1/4th of the first volume, which was drumbeat.
If I can recall correctly, Blair made the claim that, King wanted to build more escorts for coastal waters, but the British and convoys took priority.


Edit: great, can't find the book.

If you find more about the book,let me be notify if there are some supplementary or link.....

[irish1958]

Originally Posted by ryanglavin

I'll find it in the book for you, but for a quick reference, its the last 1/4th of the first volume, which was drumbeat.
If I can recall correctly, Blair made the claim that, King wanted to build more escorts for coastal waters, but the British and convoys took priority.


Edit: great, can't find the book.

That is quite true; all admirals wanted more of everything and they had to make do with what was available. The war dept stripped the Pacific fleet of most of their destroyers and sent them to the British. Because of Republican resistance in the Congress, no effort to gear up for war occurred before 1942 and decisions to concentrate on building the Army (and Marines), the Pacific fleet, and the Manhattan project took precedence.
However, the Navy department did nothing to limit merchant losses until 1943.
No coastal blackouts, no air patrols, no arming of merchant vessels, no formation of convoys to make use of the limited resources, no effort to seek out and eliminate the milk cow supply subs, without which the patrols to the East and Gulf coasts of the USA would be severely limited or impossible.
Admiral King was responsible for all of the above omissions.

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by irish1958

That is quite true; all admirals wanted more of everything and they had to make do with what was available. The war dept stripped the Pacific fleet of most of their destroyers and sent them to the British. Because of Republican resistance in the Congress, no effort to gear up for war occurred before 1942 and decisions to concentrate on building the Army (and Marines), the Pacific fleet, and the Manhattan project took precedence.
However, the Navy department did nothing to limit merchant losses until 1943.
No coastal blackouts, no air patrols, no arming of merchant vessels, no formation of convoys to make use of the limited resources, no effort to seek out and eliminate the milk cow supply subs, without which the patrols to the East and Gulf coasts of the USA would be severely limited or impossible.
Admiral King was responsible for all of the above omissions.

what more can I ask for,true and hard info.
-Thank you!

[irish1958]

And Admiral King's greatest sin was to totally ignore the 2 and 1/2 years of British experience with anti-sub warfare (ASW).

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by irish1958

And Admiral King's greatest sin was to totally ignore the 2 and 1/2 years of British experience with anti-sub warfare (ASW).

He probable be hard controversial also.many people suffer with his denial of innovation in new technological,or was he despotic?

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by irish1958

That is quite true; all admirals wanted more of everything and they had to make do with what was available. The war dept stripped the Pacific fleet of most of their destroyers and sent them to the British. Because of Republican resistance in the Congress, no effort to gear up for war occurred before 1942 and decisions to concentrate on building the Army (and Marines), the Pacific fleet, and the Manhattan project took precedence.
However, the Navy department did nothing to limit merchant losses until 1943.
No coastal blackouts, no air patrols, no arming of merchant vessels, no formation of convoys to make use of the limited resources, no effort to seek out and eliminate the milk cow supply subs, without which the patrols to the East and Gulf coasts of the USA would be severely limited or impossible.
Admiral King was responsible for all of the above omissions.

Sadly, that was the case

[Gerald]

Now I`ts time to go South ,Gulf of Mexico,and see what they can offer me,but the trip is long and to have much torps i`ts good (IXC) but I need avoid convoy and only take singel ships,so after the relevant info from Mr jim,about the ports in the Gulf, I can sit and relaxing.

[ryanglavin]

King employed coastal convoying in May 1942, using small coastal vessels and private vessels.

Found this also: Professor Robert W. Love has stated that "Operation Drumbeat (or Paukenschlag) off the Atlantic Coast in early 1942 succeeded largely because the U.S. Navy was already committed to other tasks: transatlantic escort-of-convoy operations, defending troop transports, and maintaining powerful, forward-deployed Atlantic Fleet striking forces to prevent a breakout of heavy German surface forces. Navy leaders, especially Admiral King, were unwilling to risk troop shipping to provide escorts for coastal merchant shipping. Unscheduled, emergency deployments of Army units also created disruptions to navy plans, as did other occasional unexpected tasks. Contrary to the traditional historiography, neither Admiral King’s unproven yet widely alleged Anglophobia, an equally undocumented navy reluctance to accept British advice, nor a preference for another strategy caused the delay in the inauguration of costal escort-of-convoy operations. The delay was due to a shortage of escorts, and that resulted from understandably conflicting priorities, a state of affairs that dictated all Allied strategy until 1944."

Originally Posted by ryanglavin

Yes, unprotected, but you really can't blame King. For a really good support argument, Clay Blair goes on on pretty much a 5 page rant supporting King. It actually makes sense, which is the cool part.

King overturned the favorable findings of the Naval Court of Inquiry regarding Kimmel. The unjustness of this is fully revealed by Professor Michael Gannon--see my website for details at:
http://www.pearlharbor911attacks.com.
Regards,
Tom Kimmel

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by TOM KIMMEL

King overturned the favorable findings of the Naval Court of Inquiry regarding Kimmel. The unjustness of this is fully revealed by Professor Michael Gannon--see my website for details at:
http://www.pearlharbor911attacks.com.
Regards,
Tom Kimmel

Originally Posted by Vendor

This was an exellent post, Vendor. Thank you.

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by Snestorm

This was an exellent post, Vendor. Thank you.

For praise and independent enjoy!