Halsey at Leyte Gulf 1944

Discussions on WW2 in the Pacific and the Sino-Japanese War.
glenn239
Member
Posts: 5868
Joined: 29 Apr 2005 01:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Halsey at Leyte Gulf 1944

Post by glenn239 » 10 Nov 2014 20:34

Takao wrote:
As to the sentence in question, it is poorly written...I see it a 7 carriers damaged, 7 other ships were sunk and 23 damaged.
Eight, technically Macksey is correct with his seven - Intrepid was hit on two different dates, fleet carriers(CVs and CVLs) were hit
In order by date:
Intrepid
Belleau Wood
Franklin
Lexington
Essex
Intrepid
Hancock
Cabot
Enterprise was hit by a Kamikaze on May 14, 1945. Is the list pertaining to only one campaign, Luzon?
There were five "other" ships, sunk by airborne kamikazes, that were destroyer sized or larger, 6 smaller vessels; a PT, SC, 2 LSMs, a LCI(L), and an ATO. Depending on Macksey's definition of "kamikaze", he added the tanker Mississinewa, sunk by a Kaiten, to his list.
CVE's St. Lo and Bismarck Sea both come to mind as sunk by kamikaze attack.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Halsey at Leyte Gulf 1944

Post by Takao » 10 Nov 2014 22:39

Pertains only to the opening of the Philippines Campaign: Late October to 12 December, 1944. See the first post, the Macksey quote was
At far lower cost in machines and men, they had, by 12 December, hit and damaged seven heavy carriers and sunk seven and damaged 23 other ships-with more to come.
The Bismarck Sea was sunk by kamikaze, as was the Ommaney Bay, but their sinking dates are outside of the given time frame.

Delta Tank
Member
Posts: 2512
Joined: 16 Aug 2004 01:51
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Halsey at Leyte Gulf 1944

Post by Delta Tank » 11 Nov 2014 02:18

To all.

Since we are discussing things, let me throw this out and see what you think. I believe the following is not true and every source I checked did not agree with the following passage.

From the book, "A War To Be won, Fighting The Second World War" by Williamson Murray and Allan R. Millett ISBN 0-674-00163-x Page 346:
Since the Liscome Bay had a Makin mission that kept it in local waters, the army's critics did not admit that the carrier went down more than a month after the island fell.
No footnote, in fact no footnotes in the whole book, and if I would of known that before I bought the book I would not of bought it. So, is this true??? I believe it is not true.

This book got great coverage on TV shows and everyone was raving about it. . .but I think it stinks because, no footnotes.

Mike

steverodgers801
Member
Posts: 1147
Joined: 13 Aug 2011 18:02

Re: Halsey at Leyte Gulf 1944

Post by steverodgers801 » 11 Nov 2014 04:37

Only the Franklin was knocked out of the war. The Belleau wood was a light carrier

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Halsey at Leyte Gulf 1944

Post by Takao » 11 Nov 2014 14:14

Since the Liscome Bay had a Makin mission that kept it in local waters, the army's critics did not admit that the carrier went down more than a month after the island fell.
Is not true, and I have no idea as to what the authors were thinking. The Liscome Bay went down about 24 hours after Makin fell. The island was declared taken on the morning of the 23rd and the Liscome Bay was torpedoed and sunk on the morning of the 24th.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Halsey at Leyte Gulf 1944

Post by Takao » 11 Nov 2014 14:35

steverodgers801 wrote:Only the Franklin was knocked out of the war.
She was knocked out of the war, but not by the Kamikaze on October 30th. Nor was she the only one.

The USS Saratoga was knocked out of the war by the Kamikaze attacks that hit her on February 21, 1945. She was repaired, but only as a permanent training carrier.

The USS Bunker Hill was knocked out of the war, by the kamikaze attack on May 11, 1945.

The USS Enterprise was knocked out of the war by the kamikaze attack on May 14, 1945.

Although, to be fair, all but the Saratoga were knocked out of the war, because the war ended sooner than expected. As the Franklin, Bunker Hill, and Enterprise were all fully repaired shortly after the war ended.

Delta Tank
Member
Posts: 2512
Joined: 16 Aug 2004 01:51
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Halsey at Leyte Gulf 1944

Post by Delta Tank » 11 Nov 2014 16:10

Takao wrote:
Since the Liscome Bay had a Makin mission that kept it in local waters, the army's critics did not admit that the carrier went down more than a month after the island fell.
Is not true, and I have no idea as to what the authors were thinking. The Liscome Bay went down about 24 hours after Makin fell. The island was declared taken on the morning of the 23rd and the Liscome Bay was torpedoed and sunk on the morning of the 24th.
I believe you are correct, but since there is no footnote on where the authors found this new information we can not evaluate it for ourselves.

Mike

OpanaPointer
Financial supporter
Posts: 5658
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Halsey at Leyte Gulf 1944

Post by OpanaPointer » 11 Nov 2014 18:33

Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

steverodgers801
Member
Posts: 1147
Joined: 13 Aug 2011 18:02

Re: Halsey at Leyte Gulf 1944

Post by steverodgers801 » 12 Nov 2014 19:29

I assume the Saratoga was an older model so it wouldn't make sense to bring it back as an active carrier

OpanaPointer
Financial supporter
Posts: 5658
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Halsey at Leyte Gulf 1944

Post by OpanaPointer » 12 Nov 2014 19:39

steverodgers801 wrote:I assume the Saratoga was an older model so it wouldn't make sense to bring it back as an active carrier
Yep, she was one of two battlecruiser conversions allowed under the Washington Naval Limitations Treaty of 1923. The other was Lexington, sunk at the Battle of the Coral Sea.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10062
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: Halsey at Leyte Gulf 1944

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 14 Nov 2014 03:19

steverodgers801 wrote:I assume the Saratoga was an older model so it wouldn't make sense to bring it back as an active carrier
Also it had been torpedoed twice, January 1942 & September 1942, so it was one of the most repaired ships afloat

Mil-tech Bard
Member
Posts: 678
Joined: 06 Jan 2010 15:50

Re: Halsey at Leyte Gulf 1944

Post by Mil-tech Bard » 21 Nov 2014 04:31

>>I assume the Saratoga was an older model so it wouldn't
>>make sense to bring it back as an active carrier

The Saratoga could not be fitted with the state of the art combat information center (CIC) that the Late Essex class CV's had due to it's battle cruiser armored heritage. Nothing short of a months long naval yard overhaul could get a compartment big enough for an Advanced CIC.

The advanced CIC was both necessary and desperately needed in a saturation Kamikaze attack environment.

The Saratoga was also less maneuverable than an Essex class in terms of turn radius and speed with which it responded to the helm.

Carrier less able to defend itself, more likely to get hit, with a special parts supply chain as an older one-of-a-kind ship and thus takes longer to get repaired simply works better as a training ship.

User avatar
clifford13
Member
Posts: 94
Joined: 02 Oct 2013 21:56
Location: Summersville, West Virginia

Re: Halsey at Leyte Gulf 1944

Post by clifford13 » 13 Jun 2016 06:46

Ok so Why was the Sarah operational off Iwo ?

User avatar
clifford13
Member
Posts: 94
Joined: 02 Oct 2013 21:56
Location: Summersville, West Virginia

Re: Halsey at Leyte Gulf 1944

Post by clifford13 » 13 Jun 2016 07:55

There , too , Was Ozawa's orders concerning attacking the fleet oilers and other supply ships [ TG 30.8] , which, with 108 planes, was a viable objective. [Hoyt, battle for Leyte Gulf]. Ozawa's force was NOT PURELY a decoy. They had learned , by this time, the value of trying for the supply ships...
Amazing how close Ozawa's orders were to Halsey's : "Also, in case the movements of the enemy's supply force can be ascertained, and there appeared to be a chance of a successful attack on this force, the main body was to make such an attack." pg . 33 pp 1

User avatar
clifford13
Member
Posts: 94
Joined: 02 Oct 2013 21:56
Location: Summersville, West Virginia

Re: Halsey at Leyte Gulf 1944

Post by clifford13 » 13 Jun 2016 08:00

3 rd. Fleet was just being asked to multi-task WAY too much. And it ended up a mirror image of Midway...

https://www.facebook.com/notes/clifford ... 8908246423

Return to “WW2 in the Pacific & Asia”