Sharpest naval engagement of WW II...

searat12 wrote:

Yup.... And you know, the situation is not that much different right now, and there is no draft to get the warm bodies!  I got out as an E7 back at the end of 1996, even though I was offered promotion to E8 with a fast-track to SGM, but after almost 13 years, I had had enough.  Shortly after we seized Afghanistan, and were gearing up for Iraq, I ran into some recruiters in the supermarket, and just on a whim, I thought I'd see what they were offering at the time.... And even though I had been out on beat street for like six years, and was well into my 40's, they said they would give me my old rank back, a bonus of $30K, and promotion to E8 within a year if I didn't get killed or screw up!  By this time, I coulda made about $90K in bonuses, on top of combat pay, etc......!  That was my first clue just how hard-up the current Army is.  I have since found out they will take just about anyone these days, while I recall you had to have at least a high-school diploma or equivalent and no criminal record, and in fact, they were really looking for people with college, and I recall a PFC with a Doctorate in an ADA Battalion I was assigned to back in the 80's!  The PT test minimum requirements kept going up, and I recall when I got out in 1996, that my PT requirements for age were the same as what they were when I joined up in 1984!  Boy, has THAT all been thrown out the window! My guess is that when all the current wars are done, it will take about six-ten years for the Army to get back to anything like the standards we had back in the '80's..... Just like after Vietnam!

there is an Army Reserve training center about twenty minutes south of me, and this is one of the major training spots for all people going to Iraq and Afganistan. Some are going, and some are returning, but it's steady. There's also a SEAL team posted out in the middle of now where down there, and we happen upon them from time to time. Otherwise the place is dead. Used to be very busy place every weekend, and really busy during the summer months. Now the most activity during the week is bombing runs from F16's. Miss the A10's. Three years ago there was a waiting line to get in the National Guard and Reserves here, but with all of them heading overseas I doubt there still is. Still I see alot of upper NCO's getting their ticket punched.

    When Carter was president (I guess that's what some folks called him anyway, but count me out) the place was completely dead. And this was the same on most regular Army bases as well. Then Reagan had to ramp up military spending just to make an attempt to catch up. Then we went into Kuwait and Iraq, and of course everbody knows what happened. The Bush Sr. promptly went to work on the military budgit, only to be followed by Clinton. Now you see a lot of canibalized equipment everywhere due to the lack of money for spares. I often wonder how well the Army would be equiped if those clowns in congress had one of their kids in and SPG! In 1997 there wasn't enough deisel to fuel each and every truck up at Ft.Bragg. There was less that two rounds per tube (155mm). There were canibalized choppers and C130s everywhere. Are you ready for that situation again? Or better said is your kid ready for that scenero again?

gary

I don't recall what PT stands for, but I know it's the physical test.  Sit ups, push ups, pull ups (do they do those anymore?), running, ect.

 

what is PT test?

Yup.... And you know, the situation is not that much different right now, and there is no draft to get the warm bodies!  I got out as an E7 back at the end of 1996, even though I was offered promotion to E8 with a fast-track to SGM, but after almost 13 years, I had had enough.  Shortly after we seized Afghanistan, and were gearing up for Iraq, I ran into some recruiters in the supermarket, and just on a whim, I thought I'd see what they were offering at the time.... And even though I had been out on beat street for like six years, and was well into my 40's, they said they would give me my old rank back, a bonus of $30K, and promotion to E8 within a year if I didn't get killed or screw up!  By this time, I coulda made about $90K in bonuses, on top of combat pay, etc......!  That was my first clue just how hard-up the current Army is.  I have since found out they will take just about anyone these days, while I recall you had to have at least a high-school diploma or equivalent and no criminal record, and in fact, they were really looking for people with college, and I recall a PFC with a Doctorate in an ADA Battalion I was assigned to back in the 80's!  The PT test minimum requirements kept going up, and I recall when I got out in 1996, that my PT requirements for age were the same as what they were when I joined up in 1984!  Boy, has THAT all been thrown out the window!

My guess is that when all the current wars are done, it will take about six-ten years for the Army to get back to anything like the standards we had back in the '80's..... Just like after Vietnam!

sfcmac wrote:

Well in the Army it was kinda MOS driven, wasn't it? I mean I made SGT in a year. Never wore E-4 as they had Acting Jack in those days. I was a 19 year old hard stripe SGT. Not because I was some sort of hero mind you, but because the drug testing came into being and I was a good little boy. Made E-6 before the end of my 1st term. 4 years and E-7 in about 7-8. Slowed down after that. Really it was because of the Combat Arms specialty. A SSG was a squad leader. So there would be 25 slots per company for SSG. As oppossed to say a Supply SSG may only have 1 or 2 per Battalian. I do remember those promotion points being very high in a lot of MOS for a long time though.

In Vietnam 90% of the squad leaders were E-5's unless there was somekind of an emergency. I was in a squad that for awhile the ranking man was a Spec Four that had about two years time & grade. The next two were also Spec Fours that had about three months. The bottom guy was a PFC. They started snatching folks from all walks of life to fill it back up. We got a well seasoned E-6 that voluntered to step down to give a helping hand. The other three replacements were light infantrymen and one clerk that were waiting for orders in the replacement depot in Chu Lai. That gave us nine men with three still learning. I knew of several infantrymen that made six after 18 months in country, and a couple arty guys as well. I also know of one guy that made first shirt midway thru his third tour after making E-7 and E-8 with waivers for time. Myself I was locked on one track, and that was get to the state of Washington as fast that bird could get me there.

   Back in the seventies the really fast rank came thru the Reserve units. I was offered E-8 slots in four different units with one putting me on a fast track to First Sargent (M110 / M107 unit). I had the one thing they were in dire need of; combat experience.

gary

 Well in the Army it was kinda MOS driven, wasn't it? I mean I made SGT in a year. Never wore E-4 as they had Acting Jack in those days. I was a 19 year old hard stripe SGT. Not because I was some sort of hero mind you, but because the drug testing came into being and I was a good little boy. Made E-6 before the end of my 1st term. 4 years and E-7 in about 7-8. Slowed down after that. Really it was because of the Combat Arms specialty. A SSG was a squad leader. So there would be 25 slots per company for SSG. As oppossed to say a Supply SSG may only have 1 or 2 per Battalian.

I do remember those promotion points being very high in a lot of MOS for a long time though.

Well there is certainly plenty of that quick advancement again today. Wartime Army = faster promotion. My point is that a guy can do lots of years as an E-5 and not be a "dummy". Back in the 80's fast rank was out. 14 years and an E-7 was "fast". But not anymore.

stikpusher wrote:

I saw quite a few of those high mileage E-5's in the LRS community. Not a "dummy" among them. Many took reductions in rank to get into LRS. and guys who tunred down promotion so they wold not have to leave. Now on the other hand a few years ago in '05 when they decided every EM over 2 years in service was qualified to make E-5 to make up a shortage in retention of NCOs, I saw many appear overnight. It all depends on time and place.

my how things change! When I was in the Army it was almost always expected to be a buck sargent at the end of 24 months, and then he'd reup for E-6 and six years with the bonus. If you were pretty good at what you did, and were in the "big four", you could make first sargent by ten or eleven years. I've seen that done so many times it'd make your head spin.

gary

I saw quite a few of those high mileage E-5's in the LRS community. Not a "dummy" among them. Many took reductions in rank to get into LRS. and guys who tunred down promotion so they wold not have to leave. Now on the other hand a few years ago in '05 when they decided every EM over 2 years in service was qualified to make E-5 to make up a shortage in retention of NCOs, I saw many appear overnight. It all depends on time and place.

Well.... If you spend 20 years and only come out an E5, sounds like a dummy to me!

My old man was an Army brat, joined the Navy in WWII, went OCS afer the war and retired  with the Air Force (made me an Air Force brat). He told me that if I was interested in the military that I should join the Navy if I thought I would only join up for one enlistment but join the Air Force if I was going to make it a career. In the Navy you will certainly "see the world" in a short time, but the Air Force has the better life style. He was correct of course, but the enlisted guys in the Air Force have a tougher time going up in the ranks than the Navy does. After your first four years in the Navy, you have to be a real screwup not to be at least an E-6 by your second enlistment. I know guys that spent their entire career in the Air Force as E-5s and they were no dummies.

stikpusher wrote:

Yes, the Air Force certaily has far differant mentality when it comes to the welfare of its' people. I have heard from airmen I ran into over the years that they recieve "hardship" pay when having to stay in Army billeting as opposed to Air Force ones.

They oughta give the Army guys hardship pay just for having to share the same fine accommodations with the Chair Force.....  LOL!

    after my first flight in the back of a C130, I knew I had been given the correct direction by the man upstairs. What with all that moaning and creaking and just plain loud scraping noises going on I knew that I'd either gotten in the back of somekind of a haunted airplane or I'd best be praying that it lands in one piece (we all here now know the C130 is one of the very best airplanes to ever grace this planet, but the noise just scared me to death.

    But alas it only gets better from there. My second flight was to a place called Phu Bai, and once again in the back end of one of those haunted boxes. We landed in one piece and the new local reception committee came out to greet us in a duce and a half. Well evidently these guys on the plane must have made them mad while I was back there just praying that it didn't fall apart before it landed. Cause they came out shooting a fifty at us. Holes creating windows everywhere, and I can't find the head to puke in. (I didn't know I was riding in a bullet magnet!) We get outta there and go back home with plenty of ventalation inside. I told "top" that "I ain't ever gonna ride in a plane again ever!!!!!" He thought it was funny.

    My third ride was much better. This time I got to ride in an antique DC-3 that was very quiet and smooth (was not haunted). Besides me and the crew, there were two or three pigs, a cow, and a bunch of chickens in there to mask any odors caused by fumes from the engines.

    after those first three flights I knew upfront that I didn't belong inside or around anything that wasn't glued to the ground. And while on the subject let me also tell you that those whirley birds were not anybetter, but at least the had a better window seat (on the floor of course to get you closer to the ground).

gary

Yes, the Air Force certaily has far differant mentality when it comes to the welfare of its' people. I have heard from airmen I ran into over the years that they recieve "hardship" pay when having to stay in Army billeting as opposed to Air Force ones. And while the Air Force ahs their people who also do the sneaky pete/snake eater routine, most of them do not. They do not need the spartan conditions because their likelyhood of encountering such is slim.

All that aside, casualty rates in all our combats since Vietnam and before have been on the decline. In all services. While US forces have taken occasional "bloody noses" in combat since then, they are proportionally far lighter than in past combats. Even when modern Navy ships have been hit such as USS Stark or USS Cole, the casualty count has been smaller than when comparable WWII era ships took hits from similar sized weapons. I would venture that this is due to the greater automation and smaller crews of modern vessels.

Does the possibility for great loss of life still exist? Of course. Against a determined, competent foe, who has effective weapons, it is still posbile to cause those casualties. We are just quite lucky that it has not happened in awhile. Our country became used to "bloodless" (at least for our side) quick easy victories.

The old story goes like this...... Congress gives the Army a big wedge of money to build a base somewhere.  The first thing to go in will be training areas, firing ranges, motorpools, mess halls and barracks.  When they run out of money, and then ask Congress for more to build things like a PX, a movie theater, commissary, family housing and the like, Congress will ask 'Do you have training areas?  Firing ranges?  Motorpools?  Barracks?  Mess halls?'  If the answer to that is 'Yes sir,' then Congress won't cough up any more dough because you have a functional Army base.  

Now we look at the Airforce.  Same scenario, Congress gives them a bunch of money to build a base.  The first thing to go in will be the golf course, then the 'dining facilities,' then the clubs (officers, NCO's and enlisted), an 'all-ranks disco,' theater, then landscaping, a shopping mall, 'dormitories,' and family housing.  At this point, the Airforce runs out of money and goes back to Congress for more... 'Do you have hangars and an airstrip?' No? Then you are not functional as an airbase, so here, have a bunch more money!!'

The best lifestyle is with the Airforce by far.  Hardly anyone in the Airforce actually flies around in a plane, and about 80% or more stay on the ground doing logistics, maintenance, intelligence, Radars, etc, etc, etc.  You might also note that virtually every airbase is in a lovely location, like Hawaii, Florida, the UK, Guam, Samoa, Japan, Germany, Italy, etc, etc.  Yes, they have a couple 'hardship posts,' buit they are nothing compared with the places the Army is stationed, not to mentione the constant field training (and by that I mean out in the middle of some horrible jungle, Death Valley, and any number of other charming places), exercises, etc.  In comparison with the Navy, sure, a lot of people are likely to die if your ship sinks, but last time I checked, the Navy hasn't lost any ships lately (20 years?  30 years? More?), while the Army and Marines have been taking casualties in the thousands over the past seven years.  It just biols down to one thing.  If you are an infantryman in the Army, or the Marines, every single weapon system on the battlefield can kill you!  If you are on some big ship somewhere, it is going to take a lot of effort on the part of someone somewhere just to get at you, let alone hurt you!  And of course, if you are like 80% of the people in the Airforce, you might never leave 'home,' and even if you are a flier, you fly your mission, and then go home.  So what are you in danger of?  A nuke maybe, but nothing less.......

searat12 wrote:

Yup, but of course, these days naval battles are pretty much things of the past.... Hasn't been one since WW2, though there was a bit of a dustup at the Falklands.  Doesn't mean there won't be one in the future, but my guess is such time as it does occur, it will be on such an alien basis it will be almost unrecognizable from what has occured in the past (except for the swimming sailors part!).  Back in the day when I was deciding which branch of the service to join, my first inclination was towards the Navy, but then I started thinking about all that time at sea, while an Army base was usually near things like booze and women, and of course, if there was going to be another war, it would be WW3, and it wouldn't matter where you were, or what branch, as everyone would be looking at Armageddon (civilians too).  So in the end, I tossed a coin, and the Army won (of course, Armageddon never came, but three other wars in jungles, deserts, and the Balkans instead!  Go figger!).

I think the main reason that loss of life is so great in naval warfare is that the troops are so concentrated, and weaponry is usually bigger in one form or another. Then even if 90% of the crew gets off safely; then they have to deal with the elements (cold water, sharks, etc.). I sorta looked at it this way when I was kinda young; "how long can you swim boy?" That plus I always knew they wasn't ever gonna be foolish enough to let me drive the thing!

   Back to loss of life a second. There is weaponry that can cause a catastropic loss of life without ever going to a nuke. Most of it wasn't there in WWII, but the ideas were there. A 2,000 lb. bomb in the right place is gonna dispatch a lot of people just like a 16" round from a battleship. But the guys in an infantry unit at least have the ability to spread out a little bit. I came within a hair's breath of joining the Navy more than once, and the only reason I didn't was because of the ocean itself. At the sametime I was offered a place in the Air National Guard, and the same basic thought came up again; "just how well can I fly?" Still I liked the idea of flying inside a plane at the time, but just not having to leave against my own will! Lastly; I think I'd have never fit into the Navy lifestyle. Even in a combat unit it was too much like stateside. I just can't see me fitting into that regime, and know I'd have never made it in the regular Army as well. I too much of a missfit all the way around (that and nothing I hate todo worse than swinging a paint brush). But on the otherhand I think Navy life was a better lifestyle.

gary

Yup, but of course, these days naval battles are pretty much things of the past.... Hasn't been one since WW2, though there was a bit of a dustup at the Falklands.  Doesn't mean there won't be one in the future, but my guess is such time as it does occur, it will be on such an alien basis it will be almost unrecognizable from what has occured in the past (except for the swimming sailors part!).  Back in the day when I was deciding which branch of the service to join, my first inclination was towards the Navy, but then I started thinking about all that time at sea, while an Army base was usually near things like booze and women, and of course, if there was going to be another war, it would be WW3, and it wouldn't matter where you were, or what branch, as everyone would be looking at Armageddon (civilians too).  So in the end, I tossed a coin, and the Army won (of course, Armageddon never came, but three other wars in jungles, deserts, and the Balkans instead!  Go figger!).

Mansteins revenge wrote:

eatthis wrote: sharpest engagement is a little bit vague tbh. if you mean brutal you could argue the hood vs bismark and the resulting hunt for bismark was borderline tragic. hood exploded killing all but 3 of her crew! over 1400 men gone and when bismark sunk we only rescued 100 or so of her 2200 crew so between the 2 ships around 3500 men were lost which is horrific when you think about ith even spetember 11 wasnt that high Great nomination...I always cringe when I think of guys going into the cold waters of the North Sea in WW2...at least in warmer waters, men knew if the were sunk they had a fighting chance to survive long enough to be picked up...in most of the Atlantic and North Sea, they knew if they lost their ship they would die of exposure in minutes...

There is another point of difference between the risks of naval forces over land forces. One hit to a ship could possibly result in the loss of the entire crew of thousands of men all at once, where it is extremely unlikely that that type of situation could happen to an army unit. Nuclear weapons aside (which in either case would probably have the same catastrophic results), on a ship, you are literally "all in the same boat", in the field, you've got your own hole to hide in.

eatthis wrote:

sharpest engagement is a little bit vague tbh. if you mean brutal you could argue the hood vs bismark and the resulting hunt for bismark was borderline tragic. hood exploded killing all but 3 of her crew! over 1400 men gone and when bismark sunk we only rescued 100 or so of her 2200 crew so between the 2 ships around 3500 men were lost which is horrific when you think about ith even spetember 11 wasnt that high

Great nomination...I always cringe when I think of guys going into the cold waters of the North Sea in WW2...at least in warmer waters, men knew if the were sunk they had a fighting chance to survive long enough to be picked up...in most of the Atlantic and North Sea, they knew if they lost their ship they would die of exposure in minutes...

sharpest engagement is a little bit vague tbh. if you mean brutal you could argue the hood vs bismark and the resulting hunt for bismark was borderline tragic. hood exploded killing all but 3 of her crew! over 1400 men gone and when bismark sunk we only rescued 100 or so of her 2200 crew so between the 2 ships around 3500 men were lost which is horrific when you think about ith even spetember 11 wasnt that high

squeakie wrote:

Badger wrote: Truk.  The USN and USMC air crews kicked some royal butt.  The Japs had become too trusting of their "superiority" and didn't expect we'd hitting them like we did.  Truk Atoll was, I think, the equivalent to Pearl Harbor. Not a flame or anything, but I really do wish you'd have included the Army Aircorps as well as the other Allied airforces that contributed so heavilly to the final outcome of the events in the Pacific Theater of Operations.  gary

A great example of AAF achievment against the IJN would be the Battle of the Bismark Sea. 5th Air Force and the RAAF nearly annihilated a large Japanese convoy of reinforcements headed out of Rabaul. Skip bombing was introduced with devastating effect along with B-25 strafing gunships. All the transports and most of the escorting destroyers were sunk.

yes that is hms sydney of the modified leander class light cruiser.

Gerarddm wrote:

Sydney vs Kormoran. Evidently at point blank range, both sunk. That 'hard fought and vicious' enough for you?

Good one...wan't that between an Australian Cruiser and a German Raider...I think they just recently located the wreck of the "Sydney" and were able to finally determine what really happened...

Sydney vs Kormoran. Evidently at point blank range, both sunk. That 'hard fought and vicious' enough for you?

searat12 wrote:

Truk seems to me to be mostly a case of sitting ducks being sunk by airplanes, and not really much of 'naval engagement.'  You could say pretty much the same thing about Rabaul, Wake, and a number of other actions by the flyboys of both sides.  Valuable as these actions were (and make no mistake, they were vital to the defeat of the Japanese), I just don't see them as naval engagements, per se......

Ditto, what I was looking for was ship vs ship surface engagements with very little or no air support directly involved in the action...

Truk seems to me to be mostly a case of sitting ducks being sunk by airplanes, and not really much of 'naval engagement.'  You could say pretty much the same thing about Rabaul, Wake, and a number of other actions by the flyboys of both sides.  Valuable as these actions were (and make no mistake, they were vital to the defeat of the Japanese), I just don't see them as naval engagements, per se......

Badger wrote:

Truk.  The USN and USMC air crews kicked some royal butt.  The Japs had become too trusting of their "superiority" and didn't expect we'd hitting them like we did.  Truk Atoll was, I think, the equivalent to Pearl Harbor.

Not a flame or anything, but I really do wish you'd have included the Army Aircorps as well as the other Allied airforces that contributed so heavilly to the final outcome of the events in the Pacific Theater of Operations. 

gary 

Truk.  The USN and USMC air crews kicked some royal butt.  The Japs had become too trusting of their "superiority" and didn't expect we'd hitting them like we did.  Truk Atoll was, I think, the equivalent to Pearl Harbor.

That's true, and largely because the Japanese had so little intelligence (throughout the whole war, for that matter!).  They really had no idea of how many US troops were on Guadalcanal, and sacrificed themselves again and again in stupid 'banzai' charges against superior numbers of well dug-in US Marines and Infantry.  This is not to say by any means that the US troops had an easy time of it, as the Japanese soldiers fought to the last man in most engagements, and of course the Japanese aerial bombing during the day, and naval bombardments most nights must have been absolute Hell!  I think in many ways, the US Navy (and the Army and Marines too) got their true 'baptism by fire' at Guadalcanal, learned HOW to fight the Japanese and win, and mostly because the Japanese could not seem to recognise, or get organized enough to really concentrate their forces at the 'point of decision' that was the battle for Guadalcanal..... If ever Yamamoto wanted to fight 'the decisive battle,' Guadalcanal was the place to do it!