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

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by 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."

and his engagement,so back in time as shore duty at Annapolis in 1912 and there are plenty of txt and history as well His career was resurrected by one of his few friends in the Navy, CNO Admiral Harold "Betty" Stark, who realized that King's talent for command was being wasted on the General Board. Stark appointed King as Commander-in-Chief, Atlantic Fleet in the fall of 1940, and he was promoted to Admiral in February 1941. On 30 December 1941 he became Commander-in-Chief, United States Fleet. On 18 March 1942, he was appointed Chief of Naval Operations, relieving Admiral Stark. He is the only person to hold this combined command / Some of the text is from Wikipedia) but still relevant!

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 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.

1: One must remmember that Admiral King was not "just" Commander and Chief Atlantic, but Commander and Chief Navy. The whole US Navy. Worldwide.
2: Transatlantic convoys continued to recieve USN & USCG escort.
3: Japan was the major threat to USA at the time. Hawaii, Phillipines, Wake Island, Alaska.
(Yes. Japan actualy had ground forces on US territory).
4: There weren't enough assets to go around, and The Pacific had to be priorty #!.
5: King personaly held responsability over The Atlantic so he, and he alone, was accountable.
6: Although there were a great number of ships sunk along USA's East Coast, those losses effected England's war effort much more so than they did USA's.

Is it better to have unprotected convoys, or no convoys?
It remains "the million dollar question" in NATO today.
And there are many intellegent pros and cons on both sides.

Remmember also, the germans feasted very well on Englands unescorted convoys early in the war.

On Admiral Kimmel, I'll have to agree with you but, that's a political discussion that would go way beyond the boundaries of SH3. Very hot topic.

Originally Posted by Vendor

This was an exellent post, Vendor. Thank you.

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

Reading up from the bottom of the page, I missed the original source.
Thank you, sir. Good luck, and best wishes for your deserved victory, and justice.

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by Snestorm

Reading up from the bottom of the page, I missed the original source.
Thank you, sir. Good luck, and best wishes for your deserved victory, and justice.

engaging and substantial simplicity,this thing are pleasant,

Self edit.
Removed as off topic.

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by Snestorm

While I have you here, may I ask a question?
Not SH3 related.

When a swede posts a video, on youtube, is it better for me to post a reply in danish, or english?

Some of the videos are in swedish, and some in english.
I'm always at a loss for which language to reply in.
Your help will be greatly appreciated.

english? I`ts more likely at the person can handle,any of your reply,so some mess,can be determine.

Self edit.
Removed as off topic.

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by Snestorm

This was an exellent post, Vendor. Thank you.

For praise and independent enjoy!

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by Snestorm

When she posts the video in swedish, I post my reply in danish.

When she posts a video in english, this is where I am unsure whether to reply in danish or english. I support her videos, and wish to do whats best for her, not me.

Fashionable excelience to carry out!

[nemchenk]

Originally Posted by Snestorm

3: Japan was the major threat to USA at the time. Hawaii, Phillipines, Wake Island, Alaska.
(Yes. Japan actualy had ground forces on US territory).
4: There weren't enough assets to go around, and The Pacific had to be priorty #!.
6: Although there were a great number of ships sunk along USA's East Coast, those losses effected England's war effort much more so than they did USA's.

I believe this point is discussed very well in "Why the Allies Won", an excellent somewhat-unorthodox look at WWII. I don't have the book on me at the moment, but I'll look up the relevant figures and post them here as soon as I can. The gist of it, however, is that the Pacific was NOT the US top priority. Many more men and much more materiel was used by the US against Germany than Japan at every point in the war.

There was however a major split in the US military and political circles on this issue, which continuously tried to push the Pacific theater as top priority over the Atlantic/European one, very much against Roosevelt's personal beliefs and direct orders. This whole question might very well be a manifestation of that struggle.

Anyway, if you like 20th Century and Military history, I definitely recommend "Why the Allies Won" -- it is a very informative and challenging read

[Gerald]

I find this...


$288,000,000,000 — cost to U.S.
$212,336,000,000 — cost to Germany
$111,272,000,000 — cost to France
$93,012,000,000 — cost to Soviet Union
$49,786,000,000 — cost to Britain
$41,272,000,000 — cost to Japan
$1,600,000,000,000 — direct economic costs of WWII

http://www.google.se/imgres?imgurl=h...26tbs%3Disch:1

Originally Posted by Vendor

Fashionable excelience to carry out!

Yes. Your new avatar is also fashionable. Congrats.