Naval History Forums

Hi Steve
It is my understanding that If a two group action is to be carried out-fine but where a group at sea comes under attack-no- because a detachment is usually picked up and sunk.

Its worth considering how different Barents Sea could have turned out if Kummetz had combined the Hipper and Luetzow groups, instead of operating them separately. This could have allowed him to send in his destroyers in force, supported by long range radar controlled artillery from both cruisers, instead of sending only 1/2 his total force of destroyers at a time, and then to be forced to recall them, once his flagship's IFF system was disabled. So there is a time not to dilute forces and a time to unleash your most effective weapons for the situation. It depends on the situation. The British did not usually leave destroyers teathered to the big ships.

On the otherhand, it's likely that Scharnhorst would not have been lost if Bey had not lost contact with his own destroyers.

Thanks Dave for your intervention-the order to keep formations together came to a head in the Mediterranean during the Evacuation of Crete-An Adm King sent a destroyer from his formation to sink a small steamer- it was pounced upon by the Luftwaffe and sunk.This Adm then sentnot one but two light cruisers to pick up survivors -they too were sunk.The Warspite was left without full AA cover and she was damaged.Cunningham was furious and had the Admiral taken off active service and chained to a desk


"The British did not usually leave destroyers tethered to the big ships".IMHO this had to be the rule when attack was imminent-eg VADM Holland sent his destroyers on a wild goose chase pre engaging the Bismarck force; and left his cruisers doing nothing- instead of ordering them into battle-I appreciate that this is over simplification; but it does illustrate what I am saying.

aurora wrote:Hi Steve
It is my understanding that If a two group action is to be carried out-fine but where a group at sea comes under attack-no- because a detachment is usually picked up and sunk.

No. No such doctrine.

(By the way, I presume you think the Battle of the River Plate was against this mythical doctrine)

You gave an example at Crete where NO doctrine was invoked or broken. What was shown that "penny packet" employment could be dangerous.

pgollin wrote:

aurora wrote:Hi Steve
It is my understanding that If a two group action is to be carried out-fine but where a group at sea comes under attack-no- because a detachment is usually picked up and sunk.

No. No such doctrine.

(By the way, I presume you think the Battle of the River Plate was against this mythical doctrine)

You gave an example at Crete where NO doctrine was invoked or broken. What was shown that "penny packet" employment could be dangerous.

Doctrine-Admiral Cunningham thought so
Battle of the River Plate-what has that got to do with this- got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning ??
Admiral King was relieved of command via Cunningham- because he had broken the Golden Rule according to Cunningham

At River Platt the British commander divided his force.

Perhaps we need to make a distinction between tactical and operational division of forces. It is one thing to divide one's force into independently maneuvering tactical elements. It is quite another thing to detach a fraction of your force and send it off over the horizon or out of sight/contact.

B

aurora wrote:
Doctrine-Admiral Cunningham thought so
Battle of the River Plate-what has that got to do with this- got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning ??
Admiral King was relieved of command via Cunningham- because he had broken the Golden Rule according to Cunningham

NO. Nothing you have quoted says it was "doctrine".

The RN did NOT have "doctrine" as such they had B.R.s, C.B.s, etc...... but the over ruling policy is that these were guides only. A commander was expected to use his judgement, not just follow generalised paperwork. This is spelt out in such documents as "The Fighting Instructions".

Alright Phil- I accept and I take your point-no doctrine but RN Fighting Instructions.

aurora wrote:
Alright Phil- I accept and I take your point-no doctrine but RN Fighting Instructions.

Silly.

Have you read "The Fighting Instructions" and its injunction for commanders to act in accordance with their own ideas and NOT just to follow paperwork ?

Have you read the "Signalling Manual", or "the Firing Manual", or the "Destroyer Tactics", etc .......

Do NOT try to impose modern ideas of doctrine on the WW2-era Royal Navy.

.

I see that you have reverted to type Mr Gollin-bullying and rudeness-probably right for a silly cantankerous old man;who just has to have the last word .

.

Would you like to do some reading and research so that you do not make silly statements.