Raymond Spruance

[fdewaele]

Could someone tell me why Halsey was promoted to Admiral of the Fleet but Spruance never?

Spruance was a far better tactician then Halsey and was the victor of Midway and the Phillipine Sea. He never plunged in the fight without realzing his mission whch Halsey did and which could have lead to a catastrophy at Leyte but always realized what his mission was and accomplished it.

Could the American members write to their senators and ask them to posthumously promote Spruance to a five star admiral...

[Sam H.]

Spruance and Halsey were both considered for five star rank. Halsey was more senior (and more flamboyant) and got the fifth star in December 1945. Ironically, it was Spruance that took over for Nimitz in November of 1945.

[Tiornu]

It should be remembered that Hasley was FOLLOWING ORDERS when he turned north to confront Ozawa.
There's plenty of blame to go around for the Leyte situation, but the real culprit was well up the chain of command. Who ever thought it would be a good idea to undertake an operation with two commanders? Warfare 101, Lesson 3: Unity of Command.

[gabriel pagliarani]

Spruance and Halsey were both considered for five star rank. Halsey was more senior (and more flamboyant) and got the fifth star in December 1945. Ironically, it was Spruance that took over for Nimitz in November of 1945.

Navy HQ never considered Spruance a carrier commander of the same level and rank of Halsey: Halsey was higly quoted for fast airborne tactical manouvres with carriers in the while Spruance was higly quoted only for tasking escort AA destroyers. Only a sudden Halsey's skin desease changed the roles between them. Consequently luck took large part in Midway struggle at the very beginning because the same intrepid Halsey promoted the quiet Spruance to his own previous carrier commander role. And the Halsey's too much courageous leadership held during Coral Sea was too much expensive for the decimated USNavy in spring 1942... the honest and low-profiled line of command held by Spruance was decisive to lowering the USA vs. Japan losses ratio from 1:1 suffered in Coral Sea to 1:4 at Midway. At Midway Spruance was the best carrier commander USNavy could displace: a lucky reserve substitution leaded to such a massive victory.

[Sam H.]

Navy HQ never considered Spruance a carrier commander of the same level and rank of Halsey

But they held the same rank and alternated commands of the principle US battle fleet in the Pacific. Spruance was not as flamboyant as Halsey and started out as his subordinate, but he eventually rose to the same rank and command stature. Both were considered for the fifth star, Halsey got the rank, but this does not mean that Spruance was not considered a carrier admiral, he certainly performed as one for three years.

[Takao]

I'll put my two bits in.

Raymond Spruance never was a "Carrier admiral." While, technically in overall command, he often left tactical control of TF58 to it's commanding officer, usually Mitscher. Spruance only exercised tactical control over the "fast carriers" twice: he held rear admiral Pownall to the beaches in the Gilberts and held Mitscher to the beaches at Saipan. These two actions resulted in a total misuse of the carriers. After the war, when he was President of the Naval War College, he continued to study gunnery tactics and ignored naval aviation. Also, he was a quiet and reserved man who, despite his accomplishments, was relativly unknown to the general public. After WW2, His star quickly faded just like all other big-gun and amphibious staff officers, as their positions were eclipsed by airpower.

However, Spruance was an excellent strategist, but not a tactician. He knew how to coordinate large naval forces and commanded all the amphibious operations in the Central Pacific. For his actions in the Pacific during WW2, he deserved much more than he recieved.

From what I have read, Halsey's promotion to Fleet Admiral was in recognition for his achievements early in the war. The decision for selection began with Admiral King, he did not want to choose between Halsey or Spruance. So, he passed the decision off to Secretary Forrestal. Forrestal could not decide either so it went to President Truman. Truman, good to his motto, "the buck stops here.", decided upon Halsey for the promotion.

[fdewaele]

I disagree with Takao. At Midway he was in command after Fletcher's was forced to abandon the Yorktown. His retreat was very wise because it prvented the night combat Yammamoto yearned for.

At Saipan, he also made the right decision. His task was to guard the beaches and that he did. Halsey would have stormed after the Japanese leaving the beaches unguarded. Halsey would have simultaniously attacked the Japanese. This would mean that the fighter cap would be much less strong as both sides would be at eachothers throat the same moment. This in turn would mean that the American casualties (both planes and ships) would have been higher. I consider Spruance strategy at Saipan as a textbook example as to how an amphibious assault/carrier operations needs to be run. With a minimum of losses he achhieved a maximum result.

If Spruance had commanded at Leyte he would never have ended up in the predicament Halsey found himself in when Kurita steamed on and he was on a merry goose chase after the bait Ozawa.

Spruance might originally have been a cruiser admiral but he quickly adapted to carriers. The fact that left tactical control with Mitchener from time to time reveals that he knew his boundaries. Also as you said, he was on the strategical level probably the best the Americans had to offer whereas Halsey new zip of strategy. In fact, Halsey wasn't a good tactician as well because - although a very inspiring mlan - he only new attack.

[Tiornu]

I won't put myself in the position of being an apologist for Halsey, but most of the points raised against him are in fact raised not against him but against the stereotype of Halsey. The idea that his concept of war consisted entirely of blind attack is just not true.
It may also profit us to remember that the reason Halsey was ordered to venture away from the Leyte beachhead was the dissatisfaction with Spruance's performance at Saipan. It was well known that he had forfeited a chance to eliminate the Japanese fleet.

[gabriel pagliarani]

I won't put myself in the position of being an apologist for Halsey, but most of the points raised against him are in fact raised not against him but against the stereotype of Halsey. The idea that his concept of war consisted entirely of blind attack is just not true.
It may also profit us to remember that the reason Halsey was ordered to venture away from the Leyte beachhead was the dissatisfaction with Spruance's performance at Saipan. It was well known that he had forfeited a chance to eliminate the Japanese fleet.

Exactly. Spruance always made the best use was possible of recce units: he was afraid of the better authonomy of jap carried wings. Halsey at Leyte was extremely lucky: he esposed CVEs to the fire of jap dreadnoughts but the piercing bullets crossed those armorless carriers without exploding. If those exploded, now Leyte had to be considered the worst disaster in US Navy story and WW2 had to be closed in 1946 or 1947.

[Tiornu]

I do not know how the official displeasure with Spruance segues into Spruance doing something well, but that's just me.

[Galahad]

Tiornu writes "It may also profit us to remember that the reason Halsey was ordered to venture away from the Leyte beachhead was the dissatisfaction with Spruance's performance at Saipan. It was well known that he had forfeited a chance to eliminate the Japanese fleet."

And when Halsey ventured away, what happened was exactly what Spruance was worried could happen at Saipan.....the Japanese got between Halsey and the landing force. It was only Taffy 3's amazing and gallant fight--plus Kurita's misuse of his force--that prevented a US disaster.

Had Kurita been as competent a commander as Spruance, the results would have gotten Halsey relieved of command and court-martialed for negligence--the same as nearly happened as a result of the two typhoons he managed to sail into. And rightly so.

At the least, Halsey should have ensured that the San Bernadino Strait was covered by a force strong enough to at least slow Kurita.

[Royal Navy]

Well as bieing a new member to this forum, I a usually to late with my replies..
Anyway, one influencing fact way Halsey got the fifth star and not Spruance might be the SouthEast Pacific Area. Ghormely commanded in the beginning, but eventually broke down under stress. Then Halsey stepped in and revitalised the Theatre. And since being a theater commander it put him in the same position as Nimitz and MacArthur
Then when it comes to the ultimate question of life, universe and the best carrier admiral. There is no answer, there are (in my opinion) no great men, only important situations, and the best man to command in that situation. Halsey would PROBABLY had failed at Midway, because his talents did not suit the situation. Just like it was for Dowding (BoB), Gort (France 40), Eisenhower (after Overlord) and so on. So in the end, the answer to that question, is, both were good. I like both Halsey and Spruance, and I do belive that Spruance should have had his fifth star.

[Michael Emrys]

Then Halsey stepped in and revitalised the Theatre. And since being a theater commander it put him in the same position as Nimitz and MacArthur

Not exactly. The South Pacific Area of Operations was a sub-theater to the Pacific Ocean Area of Operations. Halsey as commander there was still subordinate to Nimitz. Nimitz and MacArthur were only answerable to their respective CoS and to the Combined Chiefs of Staff. Whether or not Halsey's spell as ComSoPac had anything to do with his getting a fifth star, I do not know. I've never seen it mentioned in any of the histories that discuss this controversial subject, but I keep an open mind.

Michael

[Royal Navy]

Hello Michael
It is true that South Pacific Area of Operations was under Nimitz overall command. However, as I see it, it was a Theater of Operations. First, Halsey had direct command over both Ground, Air and Naval forces without any interference from either MacArthur nor Nimitz. He also conducted almost all planning and execution of operations without interference. That there was a command level between him and the CoS is not in my opinion something that excludes the South Pacific Area of Operations from being a "Theater".
About the fifth star, I might have expressed myself somewhat unclear, but I wrote "might" so it was only some kind of proposal to why, not a definite argument why Halsey got his fifth star.
And by the way, there were some discussions among the CoS and in congress whether Nimitz should be promoted to Admiral of the Navy (ie six star admiral) when he succeeded King as CNO. I did not happen and as we are, only George Dewey have ever held that rank in USN.

My regards

Royal navy

[Michael Emrys]

It is true that South Pacific Area of Operations was under Nimitz overall command. However, as I see it, it was a Theater of Operations. First, Halsey had direct command over both Ground, Air and Naval forces without any interference from either MacArthur nor Nimitz. He also conducted almost all planning and execution of operations without interference.

True enough. I can't say how much that weighed in the question of whether he got a fifth star or not. From what I've read, the decisive factor was that Halsey had simply got better press than Spruance. He was a "colorful character" and is remembered as such. Such figures are beloved by the American public and their politicians, a fact not lost on the naval high command. Spruance, by contrast, was more intellectual, a type not usually beloved by the American public. Take that for what it's worth.



Michael