Barbarossa is well planned & executed, much like the sickle cut was.

Guys, don't waste your time at the Mediterranean, Moscow is northeast from Crete and you are dangerously running out of time.

 

You really know nothing about nothing...The HMS Illustrious was "high and dry" undergoing repairs and modernization in the United States. He hardly spent time aboard ship, as he was mostly touring around the United States promoting the British cause(remember this was before the US entered WW2). His entire command of Illustrious lasted some two months, during which the Illustrious never left dock.

 

Wasn't it Churchill's comment that Mountbatten, having been sunk in HMS Kelly at Crete, now wanted a more valuable ship to get sunk in?

 

Mountbatten was put in charge of Illustrious in August, he was recalled in Oct only to be given an even better position than Illustrious. Otherwise, he would certainly had taken her to see when see finnished repairs.
After the fiasco-debacle in Dieppe, he was promoted even more rapidly. The worse Pound, Wavell, Monty, Mountbatten and Harris did, the more power they got. In contrast the better O'Connor and Slim did, the more rapidly they were relieved.
Repairing her was itself an act of insanity. the USN and the shipyards knew that they could build a better carrier in less time and at a lower cost than repairing her.
She could only launch 12 Swordfish in a wave! In Taranto she did so and nearly an hour later another 9. She was pierced, twisted, the cast iron base of a turbine was cracked, etc, they had to boost AAA considerably. Most remarkably, at a time when there were few carriers, when seh was finally repaired, she was sent with an another carrier and they colladed, so she had to be repaired again.

 

Illustrious was in US hands for five months, May-October 1941, so I doubt we could build a new fleet carrier in that time; if we could, the US Navy would have been delighted! It was agreed in February that the US would repair her (we did have a rather remarkable concept of neutrality); if at that point it was decided to build the RN a new carrier instead, we'd have a whole nine months.

I would agree that our current design, the Essex class, was better overall, but it's just silly to suggest that we could build one in less time and at less cost than repairing Illustrious.

The considerable boost to AAA consisted of ten Oerlikons. Her aviation capacity was also improved by levelling off the aft round-down and modifying the catapult to accommodate American aircraft types.

 

Since Carronade took on the Illustrious idiocy I will confine myself to this idiocy.

Pond was promoted to 1st Sea Lord and Admiral of the Fleet BEFORE THE WAR BEGAN. Whatever "worse" he may have done - I caan hardly wait for the expert analysis on that - it was rather difficult for him to get "more power".

Wavell swapped jobs with Auchinleck, so I am unclear again as to either what "worse" he did or what additional "power" he got. He did become Viceroy of India, but that was a political appointment and not military.

Monty was successful and so was promoted. QED.

Mountbatten was problematic and impulsive. He was also politically connected. Sole examples do not prove rules.

Harris was appointed C-in-C Bomber Command in February 1942. It steadily increased in effectiveness during the war. It was successful and he stayed in command. Yet again, how did he get "more power" and why was it unjustified?

O'Connor was captured in April 1941 and when released from Italian custody was given a corps command equivalent to his earlier experience. He was promoted to General and C-in-C Eastern Command India in November 1944. Not a demotion, not a relief. And, frankly, given the sometimes indifferent performance of VIII Corps, perhaps justified, albeit Monty played a role as well.

Slim was a brigadier in East Africa and wounded, then promoted to major general and division commander in Iraq, then promoted to corps commander in Burma, then promoted lieutenant general and army commander. How was a relieved?

You would do yourself a huge favor if you bothered to engage your brain before typing scream of consciousness posts devoid of any real content or meaning.

 

Construction and repair time are a matter of how many resurces you put into a ship. For example, repair estimates for Yorktown after Coral Sea far exceeded the few days it took by large criews frantically working 24 h a day.

Both Britain and the US would have been better off, had ilustrious been sunk at port in Malta.
Repairs started in Alexandria, continued in Durban and finally in the US, in total costing a fortune (including fuel and crew time just sailing those distances), taking very long and ending up with a much inferior ship to Ranger, which the US could have provided to Britain after greatly improving its AAA. Ranger could carry twice as many and better planes, making her formidable to ferry fighters to Malta, escort PoW & Repulse to Malaya, etc, repairing very thick, warped, pierced steel decks, hull and bulkheads, removing and replacing many parts (some requiring extensive changes) took enormous effort. Just the enginering required to determine damage, plan and organize repairs, design improvements, etc, was wasted, given that excellent designs and manufacturing procedures were already in place for a much better carrier, which could be reapired much more easily if damaged.

After all the trouble and expense of repairing Illustrious, she sailed back with a few Swordfish! completely outdated and inadequate for an expensive, fleet carrier in 1942.
Ranger could have entered service in the RN much faster than Illustrious would, making a big difference also.

A Sangamon or similar class carrier could have replaced Ranger for pilot trials in the US, etc, while a better fleet cariier was built.

 

O'Connor was captured after Churchill took away his experienced and very successful troops, sent them to IEA and Greece and put O'Connor on the cooler. The latter was then ordered to advise (without authority) his successor, after he was trounced by Rommel and both were captured. Isn't is moronic to separate troops and leader of the only successful British army contingent, which had kicked butt in WW II to date?
O´Connor had kicked butt with a much inferior force to the enemy's and in record time, without much plans and having only been ordered by Churchill to expell the enemy from Egypt and set up a defensive line. He then was among the very few high ranking British officers to escape from prison and saw little action until Normandy, where he was placed under incompetent Monty.

In contrast, Monty did not take a step, unless he had at least twice the enemy's force (and in many cases 3 or 4 times) and ridiculously huge supplies and then he crawled at turtle's pace. For a long time he absorbed by far the bulk of British shipping to the front and industrial capacity,British troops deployment, etc, he also required huge RN and RAF forces and casualties just to deprive Rommel of supplies for long months. All that just to stop a small, very poorly supplied axis force at el Alamein. Incredibly after he stopped Rommel (his huge air force, artillery and armor trounced Rommel), he allowed Rommel to excape an extremely long distance with a few dozen, worn tanks, almost without water, spares, fuel or munitions, instead of promptly wiping him out with his 500, new tanks with mountains of trucks, fuel, munitions, spares and replacement tanks.

Incredibly, Winnie had sacked Auchinleck for allowing a trounced Rommel (which had been trounced by a much smaller force than Monty's) to escape from el Alamein I. In contrast, Winnie made Monty into a hero and a field marshal, after doing exactly the same, but with a much stronger, more modern force.
Monty's stupid mistale allowed Rommel to move into Tunisia, where he could be supplied and reinforced much better. So Churchill talekd Roosevelt into invading French Afrioca and attackling Rommel, just because Monty had failed to wipe him out, despite the huge British force and the ridiculous axis force after el Alamein II.

There was nothing political about being Viceroy of India. War with Japan was imminent and India provided millions of service men to the Empire (who fought in the Med, IEA, the far and middle east. All the far east was completely ill prepared for war, so there was a lot to do. Of course, Wavell did not do his job. He appointed other incompetent generals in Malaya-Singapore (and did not oversee them), who did not prepare defensive positions. Wavell also prepared Burma, Ceylon, British Borneo and HK extremely poorly either for defense or for evacuation, he under estimated Japan completely.

Harris admitted lousy performance bombing Britain in 1941, so he was given a much stronger force, which continued performing poorly and getting stronger, absorbing even more resorces than Monty just to blow up houses, which the allies knew had a minor effect. Americans had to bomb industry during the day with heavy losses, until they developed long range escorts, which in 1944 devastated the LW. The US and Britain wasted billions and many years balsting civilians, with negligible military benefits.
Harris wasted billions of dollars and tens of thousands of men (more every yeasr) bombing ruins and thousands of men just bombing ruins and non military targets for years.

Pound lost a battleship in Scapa and a carrier on AS patrol sunk by a U-boat early in the war, yet he continued in command and receiving more resources every day. He and Cunningham were allowed to block Keys plan to invade minute Pantelleria in 1940, which would have doomed Italian forces in Libya and kept Malta reinforced and supplied and the Med open for allied shipping throuout the war. Pound performed poorly in Norway (he lost a carrier full of evacuated pilots to naval guns), etc,. He performed even worse, over riding all his officers (which he summoned for consultation!) during PQ-17 (which incurred terrible losses, only because of Pound's stupid order to deprive it of escort vessels), yet he was not replaced, until a brain tumor incapacitated and killed him.

Slim was removed by moronic Mountbatten immediately after he broke through in Burma. In contrast the nutcase who absorbed a lot of USAAF resources supplying a small guerilla force (Chindits) for a long time, with insignificant results and heavy losses to disease inthe jungle was kept in command much too long and received a lot of publicity.

 

Ranger laid down 26 September 1931, commissioned 4 June 1934
Yorktown laid down 21 May 1934, commissioned 230 September 1937
Enterprise laid down 16 July 1934, commissioned 12 May 1938
Wasp laid down 1 April 1936, commissioned 25 April 1940
Hornet laid down 25 September 1939, commissioned 20 October 1941
Essex laid down 28 April 1941, commissioned 31 December 1942
Yorktown (II) laid down 1 December 1941, commissioned 15 April 1943
Intrepid laid down 1 December 1941, commissioned 16 August 1943

 

Ah, so "build a better carrier" actually means "give them one we already have"? That could at least be done in the time suggested, and Ranger actually did have her AA armament augmented with six quad 1.1" in September 1941. It would still leave the Allies with one less flight deck though. Illustrious was patched up enough to serve through the war, though in increasingly poor condition.

Yorktown was given essential repairs because of the urgency with which she was needed at Midway. No one from Nimitz to the most junior shipfitter thought they had gotten 90 days' worth of work done in two. Had she survived that battle, even with no additional damage, she would have gone right back to the shipyard for a proper refit.

All four Sangamons were used, along with Ranger, to support the Torch landings; neither the USN nor the RN had any excess of flight decks. The Sangamons were hastily converted from Cimarron class oilers in 1942. Their eight sister ships were considered essential in their original role; fast fleet oilers were in as short supply as carriers.

CVE-30, Charger, originally intended for transfer to Britain, was retained by the USN for training duties. The next CVE to enter US service was Bogue, commissioned September 1942 and operational February 1943.

We do seem to have wandered away from Barbarossa a bit......

 

No it doesn't. The illustrious was never much use. Like I said, the allies would have been better off, had she sunk in Malta and that crew were deployed in a better carrier. The allies are making a new and much better carrier, instead of repairing a riddled, warped inferior one. The RN has a much better carrier and much earlier in the war. The USN has a slightly larger, better and brand new carrier in time for war.

The point is that you only mentioned the months involved repairing Illustrious in the US, not the time and extremely intense labor in the US and in Alexandria and Durban, which could have built a new carrier. Likewise, the crew of Illustrious would not have been idle for months, but fighting and in a much more effective vessel.

The Sangammons and a new and improved Ranger would be available for Torch. Moreover, the new Illustrious (old Ranger) would have been available for Torch, instead of weaker Victorious, which could have been used where Illustrious was in Nov 1942.

The new Illustrious (old ranger) could have ferried Spitfires to Malta much earlier than Wasp did (mid 1941, instead of 1942), so Malta would not have been the most bombed area in the world and a lot fewer RAF and a lot more axis pilots would have perished there.

Brand new Ohio, an excellent, large, fast oiler was lost supplying Malta in Pedestal in Aug 1942 (along with many other large, fast cargo ships), precisely because of insufficient, good carrier planes in the area. King knew that the British would probably lose her, so he removed the American crew, before lending her to the British. The loss of several carriers, oilers, cargo ships, cruisers, destroyers, planes, etc, and the massive damage to Illustrious would have been avoided, had Keyes' plan for Pantelleria been impemented in 1940, when there were no LW or WM in the Med and Italians surrendered after a few bombs, shells and casualties..

 

I covered earlier the possibility of the decision made in February being to replace rather than repair Illustrious. It still wouldn't allow your "better carrier" to be built in less time than it would take to restore Illustrious to service. Nor would it if Illustrious had sunk in January. And of course labor in Alexandria or Durban is irrelvant to building a carrier in the United States.

 

Umm...The US is still down one aircraft carrier no matter how you cut it. Just because the US would hand over Ranger, does not mean that an Essex class suddenly springs...Poof!...into it's place.

Please give examples and sources for this "extremely intense labor" in Alexandria, Durban, and the US. As nothing I have read shows any "extremely intense labor" taking place at either Alexandria or Durban. And I am certain that the labor performed at Norfolk was hardly "extremely intense."

Did the Illustrious even sail to the US with her full crew complement?

Proof please?

None of the inferior Independence Class CVLs, laid down around the time you "junked" Illustrious were available for Operation Torch.

As a matter of fact, given the first CVL, USS Independence, she would have been available just in time for Operation Husky! You are, of course, not considering the time it took for trials and working up the ship.

Thus, your opinion falls flat on it's face.

Sure it would have. You think Illustrious was the be all and end all of supplying Malta with aircraft.

In May, 1941, Ark Royal and Furious delivered aircraft. In June, 1941, Ark Royal and Victorious delivered aircraft. In September, 1941, Ark Royal and Furious again delivered aircraft. In November, 1941, Ark Royal delivered aircraft and was sunk on her return.

Then again, given Ranger's vulnerabilities, the British probably would not have used her in the Med unless absolutely necessary.

All it seems that you are doing is replacing Malta with Pantelleria. Except a British occupied Pantelleria would be less militarily prepared than Malta was.

 

Between being laid down and being comissioned, 4 years and a few weeks lapsed for Wasp, 2 y and a month for Hornet, 1 y and 8 months for Essex, 1 y and 7 weeks for Franklin, etc,
Had Ranger II been laid down as a copy of Hornet when Illustrious was damaged and undergone construction by large, 24 h a day crews (lets say that Illustrious is left in Malta for the axis to sink at great cost), then Ranger II would probably have been commissioned by late March 1942.

 

Even if the RN provides the USN a carrier to replace Ranger, while Ranger II is commissioned (so the USN can continue training, etc,), the RN has greater carrier plane capacity during the 2nd half of 1941 and 1942 (when it gets back the carrier it provided). Ranger is in a different league from Illustrious, which is in the league of a CVL like USS Independence. It is interesting that Independence had 4 shafts, while the larger Ranger had 2.
It is also interesting that Wasp, Hornet, Independence and Princeton took longer between lay down and commissioning than Franklin did.

 

Would you care to rewrite that so it either a) makes sense or b) bears some relation to real events or C) both.

I assure you, the plans for COMPASS were carefully worked out and the assault on the Italian camps was well rehearsed.

So you're saying he was successful and accepted the trade off of time surety of success. You also might want to do some research in the reality of the pursuit after 2nd Alamein. Your ignorance of basic history is showing again. I can recommend a few research avenues if you like.

The Auk's relief was premature, but he wasn't the commander best suited to defeat and pursue Rommel. Winnie made the correct assessment on that.

Being Viceroy of India was strictly a a political job. You might want to look it up.

Harris did nothing of the sort in 1941. That was the Butt Reprort. Harris was appointed C-in-C Bomber Command in February 1942.

Do try to keep up. I know your fantasy life is taking over your reality, but please don't try to inflict it on us as well.

So the loss of Royal Oak six weeks into the war and Courageous two weeks into the war are only due to Pound's direct actions and have nothing to do with anything else? Fascinating. I wonder if your condition is documented in DSM-IV?

Slim was "removed by Mountbatten"? What date was that? BTW, in the real world it was Oliver Leese, C-in-C ALFSEA, who made the decision to lateral Slim from Fourteenth Army to Twelfth Army. It was Mountbatten who ordered Leese to rescind the order. It was also Slim who succeeded Leese as C-in-C ALFSEA, so yet again I see no way of reconciling your fantasy world with what really happened.

 

Oh good, you moved your responses to the correct thread.

Mind you, it would help if you read Friedman and had some understanding of why Wasp took longer. In any case, yes, five months for building a fleet carrier, which is what you claimed was possible, is silly nonsense. Thank goodness you are finally figuring things out.

 

Essex does not complete shakedown and training cruises until May '43, when she leaves for the Pacific.

Franklin was also, IIRC, the 7th Essex class to be laid down. However, the Franklin will spend 5 months on shakedown and training cruises.

Why? Oh, why? Would the USN copy what essentially is a Yorktown design, when they are building Essexs...

You also seem to think that funding is immediately approved, as well as slipspace available to begin immediate construction. Not forgetting to mention the months of preparation work that is done is completed instantaneously.

Poof! Poof! Poof!

This line is nothing but another of your pipe dreams devoid of reality.

 

Because it is faster to build an identical Hornet than the first Essex class carriers. Because having a Hornet-like, new Ranger II is much better than the old one and wasting a lot of resources repairing a CVL. Because Ranger performs better than two RN carriers and in mid 1941. Because Hornet is a proven design, whereas the Essex class may have problems which need to be ironed out.

If Roosevelt approves it, congress passes funding, With presidential and USN clout, lay out starts even before funding is approved

 

Rich,
Replace Isn't is moronic, with isn't it moronic (one letter shouldn't keep you from understanding), everything else is perfectly clear, though you may need to read it repeatedly.

As I stated, O'Connor was ordered to expell the italian force from Italy and to advance only if opportunity presents itself (with a ridiculous force), that is poor planning and completely different from the elaborate planning and slow, massive build up always required by Auckinleck and Monty, who appear to have made it a possily to waste every opportunity to crush the battered enemy with their massive forces.

I am saying that Monty was a moron who wasted huge resources and invaluable time, allowing the enemy to withdraw and regroup in Libya, Sicily, Nromandy, Belgium, Holland, etc, always taking huge losses from a weaker enemy. He cost billions of dollars to supply huge amounts through S Africa in Egypt and many ships, men, planes, etc, to deny Rommel supplies for months, instead of simply learning to attack and crush a much weaker foe, like Patton did repeatedly. It takes enormous talent to waste thousands of men, huge tonnage of munitions, equipment losses, etc, and many long weeks to capture Caen, despite the largest concentration of excellent allied planes, naval guns, artillery, armor, airborne troops, infantry, supply ships, etc, in history.
The Belgian resistance captured invaluable Antwerp intact, but Monty took a while to send a small Canbadian force. Patton would have rushed to take it, securing a desperately needed port close to Germany.

Perhaps you can explain why the Germans used the bocage so masterfully to hold back and inflict massive losses on Monty, while the latter did not use it to prevent Panzers from reinforcing the region. Despite the allies having excellent and very fast Hellcat tank destroyers, Fireflies, SP guns, a large airborne force, mines, Bazooka, Napalm, huge numbers of AT, naval and heavy field artillery guns, thousands of incredibly powerful fighter bombers, etc, In contrast, the Germans had to deal with a hell of fire and managed to trounce Monty for quite a while.