PDA

View Full Version : Admiral Chester Nimitz.


Stan.J
03-06-2008, 22:03
When Chester Nimitz took over command of the battered Pacific Fleet shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbour, There was not much left for him to command.
Only four carriers had escaped the Pearl Harbour raid because that had been at sea on maneuvers. Virtually every other ship at the naval base had been either sunk or damaged during the Japanese raid. In short, the Pacific Fleet was almost out for the count.
Yet within six months it would be a fighting force once again with Nimitz leading the way.
Chester Nimitz was born in 1885 in Fredericksburg,Texas. He graduated from Minniapolis in 1905 and was commisioned an Ensign. His first command was a former Spanish gunboat in the Philippines. In 1908, he commanded a destroyer that, unfortunately, became grounded. He was court-marshalled, but because of an excellent record he was let off with a reprimand.
Nimitz was assigned to the submarine service in 1909 and within three years was heading the submarine fleet in the Atlantic. It would be his sole assignment during World War 1. After a number of commands and promotions, Nimitz became assistant chief of the Bureau of Navigation, which dealt with naval personnel. In 1939, he was put in charge of the bureau. Two years later, following the attack on Pearl Harbour, the newly named Admiral was chosen commander in chief of the crippled Pacific Fleet.Nimitz faced two daunting tasks. First, he had to rebuild, refit, and replace virtually the entire Pacific Fleet. Second, he had to find ways to keep the Japanese off balance with the limited resources he had at his command. Small task forces were sent out to the Marshalls, Gilberts, and other Japanese-held islands to hit and harass. Army Lieutenant-Colonel Jimmy Doolittle and his raiders were taken aboard carriers to within a few hundred miles of the Japanese home islands to bomb Tokyo and other cities. The damage caused by these raids was slight, but it dealt a psychological blow to the Japanese: The American fleet was still very much alive.

In May and June 1942, there were two major naval battles with the Japanese. One took place in the Coral Sea, and the other off Midway Island.

At the time, The United States held one big advantage. It had broken the Japanese code so that planned enemy attacks were known in advance. Early in May, a Japanese force seized one of the Solomon Islands north of Australia.
Nimitz learned that the immediate Japanese target was Port Moresby, New Guinea. The ultimate target was Australia itself. A major sea battle took place in the Coral Sea off the Solomon Islands in May 1942. Each side had approximately 120 carrier-based planes. There were losses on both sides; the Japanese lost more than 1,000 men and the Americans approximately 300. But the bottom line was that the Japanese fleet had been repelled.
In June 1942 an even more important battle took place near the island of Midway. The Japanese plan was to fake a major attack on Dutch Harbour, Alaska, draw the American Pacific Fleet there and then have the main Japanese force invade and occupy Midway Island, Nimitz, heavily outnumbered, knew of the attack plans because of the breaking of the Japanese code. Yet it was a savage battle, with dive bombers and torpedo planes versus the big battlewagons. When it was over, the Japanese had to withdraw, having lost all four of their aircraft carriers, and other vessels, as well as 250 aircraft. The United States lost one carrier, a destroyer and 147 airplanes. Thousands of lives were lost. But the superior Japanese navy had suffered its first decisive defeat of the war.

Nimitz, using Marine and Army forces, started Island hopping across the Pacific. He would avoid the most heavily fortified Islands and attack those less well-defended. Cut off from provisions, the heavily defended strongholds were left to rot on the vine.

The last great naval battle took place in October 1944, when the Japanese attempted to stop the Allied landings at Leyte in the Philippines by using a diversionary force as bait. The ploy worked and drew away William Halsey and his forces. But the navy put up such a good fight that the Japanese never followed up on getting into Leyte and wiping out the troop transports. It was the last gasp of the Japanese navy, Savage fighting would go on for many months., But Japan`s hopes for victory lay crushed amid the wreckage of rusting warships at the bottom of the Pacific.
The atomic bomb is often credited with the American victory in the Pacific. But it was Nimitz and his admirals who met, staved off, and overcame the Japanese navy. The war in the Pacific was won before the atomic bombs were dropped, even though the Japanese refused to surrender.

Chester Nimitz, along with Douglass Macarthur winessed the surrender of Japan on board the U.S.S.Missouri in Tokyo bay on September 2nd 1945. The Admiral died in 1966.

astraltrader
03-06-2008, 22:46
Stan TBF I dont think many people say that dropping the Bomb won the war in the Pacific. The big claim for dropping it which I happen to agree with was it avoided the Allies having to actually invade Japan - and suffer all the massive casualties that would have certainly caused us...

herakles
03-06-2008, 23:15
Unquestionably, the naval campaign in the Pacific was of huge importance. The brilliant victories of the USN and RAN at Coral Sea, Midway and Leyte destroyed an extraordinarily competent navy. Personally, I regard Midway as one of the most significant battles in history.

But the land fighting successes was the crucial thing - as it always is and has been. I don't think many people realise just how dreadful the land fighting was. To face an enemy that literally fought to the last man - and fought very well - is something very rare in battle.

It took years to claw up through the Pacific. Just about every battle was on a huge scale, such as Burma just to mention one.

Without these successes, the war would never have been concluded.

Japan would have eventually been defeated when the troops attacked and won the Japanese mainland. It seems certain that the Japanese would have fought tooth and nail had the Allies had to land in Japan. The two A bombs at least circumvented that. I am sure the Japs thought that we had more of these to use and realised that the losses would have been catastrophic had we used them. It was a big gamble that paid off.

Does this mean that the A bombs ended the war? I guess it does. But as Stan rightly says, the war was won before the bombs went off. Just as the war in Europe was won when the Allies landed in June 1944.

The key to the question is the realise how significant our demand for unconditional surrender was in both theatres. We had to slog through to Berlin and beat it into submission with huge losses on the way. Just as we would have had to slog all the way to Tokyo.

astraltrader
03-06-2008, 23:40
I wasn`t arguing with any of that. Sure the war was won before the Bombs were dropped - but in one way only - Japan could not win.
In order to defeat Japan without the Bombs there would have had to be an Invasion of the homeland. The enormous casualties the Allies suffered to liberate each "stepping stone island" would have been a drop in the ocean compared to what would have been expended in order to invade and eventually defeat Japan...
Until Japan was defeated or surrendered, then the War was most certainly not won.

herakles
03-06-2008, 23:59
What is remarkable is that WW2 threw up some quite remarkable leaders - men such as Nimitz and Slim, without whom we would have been in a lot of trouble. Here it is interesting to contrast the two big wars, WW1 and WW2.

Logistics is very important but without men of that calibre wars can't be won.

BB60
04-06-2008, 02:58
I wasn`t arguing with any of that. Sure the war was won before the Bombs were dropped - but in one way only - Japan could not win.
In order to defeat Japan without the Bombs there would have had to be an Invasion of the homeland. The enormous casualties the Allies suffered to liberate each "stepping stone island" would have been a drop in the ocean compared to what would have been expended in order to invade and eventually defeat Japan...
Until Japan was defeated or surrendered, then the War was most certainly not won.
Not arguing the necessity of the island hopping, but the US submarine service has to figure heavily into the defeat of Japan. Fully 70% of Japanese ships, merchant and combat were lost to efforts of the Silent Service. They absolutely decimated the Japanese merchant marine, sinking Japanese ships far beyond what the Japanese had planned for and for what they could replace. It is the only successful anti-shipping submarine campaign in history plus the subs were responsible for sinking more Japanese combat surface ships than were USN ships.

I can provide numbers and my statements are backed by Brute Force, John Ellis.

herakles
04-06-2008, 03:44
Completely correct Jeff.

US subs working out of Fremantle and Brisbane sank many Japanese ships. Sometimes 4 or 5 a day. Their contribution to the war effort can hardly be measured. It was brilliant.

Here's on example that happened on this day in 1943: The Brisbane-based USS GATO, (submarine), laid a minefield in Steffan Strait between New Hanover and New Ireland.

I'll post more examples of this in future.

Stan.J
04-06-2008, 10:35
Glad my post has raised a few talking points...Throughout history there has been and always will be, debate as to what did or did not happen, or what may or may not have happened. Keeps the mind active. Good for us older bods.

Stan.J
04-06-2008, 11:28
By the way. I have just downloaded another Post in regard to Leyte Gulf on the Japanese Thread. Hope you discuss that one also? Cheers, Stan.

herakles
04-06-2008, 19:06
Glad my post has raised a few talking points...Throughout history there has been and always will be, debate as to what did or did not happen, or what may or may not have happened. Keeps the mind active. Good for us older bods.

This is true. But it really is mind flogging stuff.

It's worth remembering that the victor always writes the history.

I find it a little bit irritating that essential data is not released for many years. Often it's very nature provides a rather different explanation of events.