Greatest Naval Commander of WW2?? - Page 4




View Poll Results :Who was the Greatest Naval Commander of World War II??
Admiral Karl Dönitz (Germany) 4 11.76%
Admiral, Erich Raeder (Germany) 0 0%
Admiral Andrew B. Cunningham (United Kingdom) 6 17.65%
Admiral William "Bull" Halsey (USA) 3 8.82%
Admiral Chester Nimitz (USA) 13 38.24%
Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto (Japan) 4 11.76%
Admiral Chuichi Nagumo (Japan) 0 0%
Admiral Frank Jack Fletcher (USA) 0 0%
Admiral Raymond A Spruance 2 5.88%
Admiral Raizo Tanaka 2 5.88%
Voters: 34. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
 
April 1st, 2005  
Young Winston
 
 
Bull Halsey!

He changed things around and was very aggressive in his approach during and after Guadacanal.
April 15th, 2005  
c/Commander
 
 
I voted for Nimitz, strictly because he had to deal with not only actual strategy and tactics on a large scale, but he had to manage all of the little bits and pieces (logistics, crews, ships, production and manufacturing, etc.) that have to come together to acheive a successful war effort.
April 17th, 2005  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by c/LCDR
I voted for Nimitz, strictly because he had to deal with not only actual strategy and tactics on a large scale, but he had to manage all of the little bits and pieces (logistics, crews, ships, production and manufacturing, etc.) that have to come together to acheive a successful war effort.
True, and keep all the subcommanders in line. Then again, Yamamoto did much the same with Japan.
--
April 17th, 2005  
c/Commander
 
 
Right, but Japan lost.
April 17th, 2005  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by c/LCDR
Right, but Japan lost.
In all honesty, do you think they could have actually won that war? The USA massively outproduced then in everything. Hey, I'm American and I'm glad we won, but with the numbers we had on production, how could we have actually lost??

If I lay my patiriotism aside, I have to go for Yamamoto. He did lot with very little. Every ship he lost was going to take a long time to replace. Every American ship was replaced very quickly. How do you win against that sort of thing?

The following is the Worldwide Rankings for World War II Naval Production
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Military production during World War II

Naval ships

Aircraft carriers
1. United States = 141
2. Japan = 16
3. United Kingdom = 14

Battleships
1. United States = 8
2. United Kingdom = 5
3. Italy = 3
4. Japan = 2

Cruisers
1. United States = 48
2. United Kingdom = 32
3. Japan = 9

4. Italy = 6
5. Soviet Union = 2

Destroyers
1. United States = 349
2. United Kingdom = 240
3. Japan = 63
4. Soviet Union = 25
5. Germany = 17
6. Italy = 6

Submarines
1. Germany = 1,141
2. United States = 203
3. Japan = 167
4. United Kingdom = 167
5. Soviet Union = 52
6. Italy = 28
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar...II#Naval_ships
April 18th, 2005  
c/Commander
 
 
That's the whole point. Didn't we say Nimitz (or his staff) had to handle all of the logistics of naval construction and manufacturing as well?
April 20th, 2005  
Farseer
 
My vote goes for Karl Dönitz, "The Sea Wolf".

Submarines under his leadership performed so excellently that the Allies put his into jail for ten years just because of that. And Hitler installed him as next president of Germany as his last act.
April 20th, 2005  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by c/LCDR
That's the whole point. Didn't we say Nimitz (or his staff) had to handle all of the logistics of naval construction and manufacturing as well?
Right, to a degree. The USA was already pretty much guaranteed to run Japan into the ground in terms of production. The Japanese had a lot less to work with accross the board. Nimitz did not cause the USA to be economically superior by such a gigantic margin. They already were. Yamamoto had many other things to work against that Nimitz did not.

But we're not discussing economics and production. We're discussing who was the most brilliant naval commander. The analysis is concerning how they performed as chessplayers (in effect). Who was the most skilled player? What they lacked or did not lack certainly merits consideration in the comparison. If I can consistently outduel skilled swordsmen with a rapiers, and me with nothing more than a dagger, that would be quite impressive, would it not? If a T72 crews were to manage to score 10 kills on M1A2's and not lose their own tank, would this not be quite impressive? Having less to work with does not make you the worse commander or warrior. Having more to work with does not make you the better commander or warrior.
April 20th, 2005  
Zucchini
 
Tanaka - not much to work with, big wins.

He was a brilliant fighter, and he was right there where the steel hit steel.
May 4th, 2005  
Jack_Mordino
 
 
I voted for Nimitz as he was the orchestrator of the winning side in the greatest (I think) naval campaign in the human history