Greatest Naval Commander in History

[germanicus12]

From what I understood of Spruance was that he is not the genius everyone thinks he is... from my research into the Pacific War of WWII, Spruance had intelligent fleet commanders, such as Mitcher who commanded the carrier force, and Lee who commanded the Battle Line (Battleship fleet), both of whom proved instrumental in the battles that the 5th fleet was a part of.

Midway, Spruance (under Fletcher) listened to Mitcher's and Halsey's plan and allowed his carriers to launch an ambush on Japanese forces that saw the sinking of 4 carriers. (Halsey was supposed to lead this attack, and actually formulated the plan with Mitcher before Halsey was stricken with an irritating skin disease and forced to stay at Pearl and watch his fleet sail to destiny without him.)

Battle of Phillipine Sea, the only instance in which Spruance made a costly mistake, ignoring Mitcher's advice to chase the Japanese carriers and Battle Line after destroying most of their air power in the Marianas Turkey Shoot, had Spruance chased the Japanese fleet, Japan would have lost her entire navy in 1 decisive battle and ended the war sooner. (This decision is still discussed/argued among Naval historians.)


Several higher ups, including the Secretary of War wanted Halsey in command of the fleet during fleet engagements, since he was a fighting sailor, the one who led the Doolittle raid, the one who tried to request permission to chase the Japanese fleet with his lone carrier force, the Enterprise, when his scouts finally found the Japanese fleet when they turned for home after Pearl Harbor but was denied. It was only on the insistance of King, who used Midway as an example, that Spruance was finally given a command of his own. (Originally they had planned to keep Spruance under Halsey since Spruance could keep the fleet paperwork and administration duties under control while Halsey commanded the fleet in engagements.)

In summary, it was Spruance's subordinates who are the genius's, not Spruance, but the fact that he listened and accepted their plans (with one exception) shows that Spruance is an able, if not good, leader and commander. Unlike Halsey who just demanded that everyone follows his orders.

Of the two, I would pick Halsey over Spruance, because Halsey inspired the troops, Marines, Infantry, Sailors, and Airmen all cheered when Halsey was appointed to their fleet, or chosen to watch over their landings, etc... President Roosevelt himself admitted that without Halsey to boost the morale of the troops, the War in the Pacific would have been longer and more costly.


But for overall Greatest Naval Commander I would choose Admiral Horatio Nelson of the British Royal Navy.

 

[LightSpectra]

Both of those traits are pretty important to any great military commander.

I guess this is a subjective matter altogether, but if it's the case that Spruance was a decent or poor tactician whose impossible luck allowed him to sink four carriers at Midway, then I don't think it would be consistent to therefore call him a great commander. It's generally recognized that people like Joseph E. Johnston and Archduke Karl of Austria-Teschen were competent commanders who failed almost constantly due to poor luck and impossible odds; but if you were to say that you can call Spruance great solely based on his fortune, then one should say the opposite about the commanders of the reverse fortunes.

 

[Dachs]

I guess this is a subjective matter altogether, but if it's the case that Spruance was a decent or poor tactician whose impossible luck allowed him to sink four carriers at Midway, then I don't think it would be consistent to therefore call him a great commander. It's generally recognized that people like Joseph E. Johnston and Archduke Karl of Austria-Teschen were competent commanders who failed almost constantly due to poor luck and impossible odds; but if you were to say that you can call Spruance great solely based on his fortune, then one should say the opposite about the commanders of the reverse fortunes.

I'd rather have a general who was lucky than good, dunno about you. I personally don't give a rat's ass about Second World War naval leadership, even if Spruance was an American, so I couldn't even try to evaluate his "actual" competence or how "great" he was. But if he won consistently, better him than some competent-but-unlucky dude. And luck isn't just about opportunities falling into your lap, no matter whether you're a Great Admiral or some poor bastard in the Lower Ninth Ward. You have to take advantage of those opportunities too, and apparently Spruance had that capability.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Themosticles' brilliance was in his politics, not his commanding.

Themistocles' plan at Salamis was a good one. Sure, his political maneuvering (both in Athens and among the Poleis) was his key contribution, but I won't downplay his naval ability.

I feel there were others in the ancient world, but I'm drawing blanks at the moment. Lysander certainly comes to mind (although I feel the Athenians had to have had a noteworthy Admiral during that war too). I'm also trying to think of a good Roman admiral during the first Punic War (generally, the underdog admirals get praised in the ancient world).

 

[vogtmurr]

I just wanted to add something to what vogtmurr pointed out on this remark:

It would be rather difficult to pin the blame for the bombardment of Copenhagen on Nelson given that it took place two years after he was killed at Trafalgar. Bear in mind that there are two battles of Copenhagen during the Napoleonic wars (1801 and 1807) and the bombardment followed the second, not the first.

thank you, it was 1807.. I knew there was another battle of Copenhagen and I was wondering if it was before, so maybe Nelson did bombard Copenhagen. I guess you are lucky to get one reprieve in war; to get two you have to be full of horsesh**, er horseshoes.

Well the comment came after a crew member quoted him: "Forget the maneuvers, just sail straight at them!" so I think they were probably referring to his lack of tactical finesse, not his sensitive stomach.

Can't really comment, its from a fictional account, but probably has some basis in reality. On some occasions he probably dispensed with any subtlety, if the opportunity was there.

Thomas Cochrane...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Cochrane

A hero of Britain, Chile, Brazil, Peru and Greece for his naval exploits and a champion of defeating corruption in British politics and the Admiralty.

I've read plenty about him and it is just amazing, puts Hornblower to shame

I don't know about greatest commander, but as a captain he was pretty balsy. He nearly pulled off one more stunt that would have been interesting:

Cochrane is alleged to have made plans to free Napoleon from his exile on Saint Helena and make him ruler of a unified South American state.[citation needed] Before he could carry out his plan, Napoleon died in 1821.

 

[Dachs]

I feel there were others in the ancient world, but I'm drawing blanks at the moment. Lysander certainly comes to mind (although I feel the Athenians had to have had a noteworthy Admiral during that war too).

Phormion (Rhion, Naupaktos) and Thrasyboulos (Kynossema, Abydos, Kyzikos, Arginousai) were probably the most successful and noteworthy Athenian naval leaders. Thrasyboulos was just an awesome guy all around.

 

[privatehudson]

thank you, it was 1807.. I knew there was another battle of Copenhagen and I was wondering if it was before, so maybe Nelson did bombard Copenhagen.

To be fair I think he positioned the fleet to bombard the city after the first battle and threatened to do so if an armistice wasn't forthcoming. Whether he would have struck at the civilian quarter (which is mostly what Gambier was criticised for doing) or not is another matter.

 

[GinandTonic]

Well the comment came after a crew member quoted him: "Forget the maneuvers, just sail straight at them!" so I think they were probably referring to his lack of tactical finesse, not his sensitive stomach.

Can't really comment, its from a fictional account, but probably has some basis in reality. On some occasions he probably dispensed with any subtlety, if the opportunity was there.

The night before Trafalgar he advised his captains that "no captain can do very wrong if he places his ship alongside that of the enemy" and before a shot was fired he hoisted "engage enemy more closely" and left it flying until it was shot away.

This doesnt necessarily mean he lacked sublty. He wanted to bring the French and Spanish to a decisive battle which meant getting stuck into them rather than artistic fencing. Since he was planning on creating a melee he had to rely on his captains to use their initiative as the situation developed. He could fight the entire battle of Trafalgar with the single order "engage enemy more closely" because he had put his ships in position and informed his captains of the overall thrust and their relative autonomy. There wasnt really anything more to say.

 

[GoodGame]

I guess this is a subjective matter altogether, but if it's the case that Spruance was a decent or poor tactician whose impossible luck allowed him to sink four carriers at Midway, then I don't think it would be consistent to therefore call him a great commander. It's generally recognized that people like Joseph E. Johnston and Archduke Karl of Austria-Teschen were competent commanders who failed almost constantly due to poor luck and impossible odds; but if you were to say that you can call Spruance great solely based on his fortune, then one should say the opposite about the commanders of the reverse fortunes.

I'd think to base an assessment on anyone based on truly random luck (e.g chance of a carrier sighting) especially on the combined luck of multiple events would be really dumb, but I know you're implying that.

But I think one also have to examine to what extent a behavior is luck and what is due to leadership (e.g. failing to train one's subordinates to be disciplined) or established tactics.

And also some failings are really calculated risks that have to be made due to binary-ness of the decisions; if the chance of success is near 0.50, one way or another, one can't fail a commander for making a pretty good decision (e.g. a 0.45-0.55 decision) to find they gambled and lost.

 

[rilnator]

You make your own luck in this world.

 

[vogtmurr]

From what I understood of Spruance was that he is not the genius everyone thinks he is... from my research into the Pacific War of WWII, Spruance had intelligent fleet commanders, such as Mitcher who commanded the carrier force, and Lee who commanded the Battle Line (Battleship fleet), both of whom proved instrumental in the battles that the 5th fleet was a part of.

Midway, Spruance (under Fletcher) listened to Mitcher's and Halsey's plan and allowed his carriers to launch an ambush on Japanese forces that saw the sinking of 4 carriers. (Halsey was supposed to lead this attack, and actually formulated the plan with Mitcher before Halsey was stricken with an irritating skin disease and forced to stay at Pearl and watch his fleet sail to destiny without him.)

Battle of Phillipine Sea, the only instance in which Spruance made a costly mistake, ignoring Mitcher's advice to chase the Japanese carriers and Battle Line after destroying most of their air power in the Marianas Turkey Shoot, had Spruance chased the Japanese fleet, Japan would have lost her entire navy in 1 decisive battle and ended the war sooner. (This decision is still discussed/argued among Naval historians.)


Several higher ups, including the Secretary of War wanted Halsey in command of the fleet during fleet engagements, since he was a fighting sailor, the one who led the Doolittle raid, the one who tried to request permission to chase the Japanese fleet with his lone carrier force, the Enterprise, when his scouts finally found the Japanese fleet when they turned for home after Pearl Harbor but was denied. It was only on the insistance of King, who used Midway as an example, that Spruance was finally given a command of his own. (Originally they had planned to keep Spruance under Halsey since Spruance could keep the fleet paperwork and administration duties under control while Halsey commanded the fleet in engagements.)

In summary, it was Spruance's subordinates who are the genius's, not Spruance, but the fact that he listened and accepted their plans (with one exception) shows that Spruance is an able, if not good, leader and commander. Unlike Halsey who just demanded that everyone follows his orders.

Of the two, I would pick Halsey over Spruance, because Halsey inspired the troops, Marines, Infantry, Sailors, and Airmen all cheered when Halsey was appointed to their fleet, or chosen to watch over their landings, etc... President Roosevelt himself admitted that without Halsey to boost the morale of the troops, the War in the Pacific would have been longer and more costly.


But for overall Greatest Naval Commander I would choose Admiral Horatio Nelson of the British Royal Navy.

You think Halsey was the main man ? He had his moments of prima-donna-ism - like north of Leyte Gulf. What about Fletcher - why did he get passed over ? or was he unlucky to be in the heat of it at Guadalcanal, as the current saying goes. I think he was highly underated even if he was junior to Halsey.

 

[Arriaga II]

From what I understood of Spruance was that he is not the genius everyone thinks he is... from my research into the Pacific War of WWII, Spruance had intelligent fleet commanders, such as Mitcher who commanded the carrier force, and Lee who commanded the Battle Line (Battleship fleet), both of whom proved instrumental in the battles that the 5th fleet was a part of.

Spruance and Mitscher deserve equal credit for the Phillippines Sea, while Spruance deserves more credit than Fletcher for Midway. But that's only because he commanded more carriers and the Yorktown was knocked out of action, so Spruance made the vital decisions on the night of June 4.

Midway, Spruance (under Fletcher) listened to Mitcher's and Halsey's plan and allowed his carriers to launch an ambush on Japanese forces that saw the sinking of 4 carriers. (Halsey was supposed to lead this attack, and actually formulated the plan with Mitcher before Halsey was stricken with an irritating skin disease and forced to stay at Pearl and watch his fleet sail to destiny without him.)

One note: when he had to be hospitalized Halsey recommended that Spruance replace him.

Battle of Phillipine Sea, the only instance in which Spruance made a costly mistake, ignoring Mitcher's advice to chase the Japanese carriers and Battle Line after destroying most of their air power in the Marianas Turkey Shoot, had Spruance chased the Japanese fleet, Japan would have lost her entire navy in 1 decisive battle and ended the war sooner. (This decision is still discussed/argued among Naval historians.)

Remember that Spruance and Mitscher had decided to launch late afternoon airstrikes against Ozawa's forces. By nightfall the returning aircraft were ditching and the carriers were focused on recovery efforts. Without the carriers Spruance and Mitscher had no air arm to conduct a pursuit and no reason to pursue and risk night battle against the Japanese battle line.

Several higher ups, including the Secretary of War wanted Halsey in command of the fleet during fleet engagements, since he was a fighting sailor, the one who led the Doolittle raid, the one who tried to request permission to chase the Japanese fleet with his lone carrier force, the Enterprise, when his scouts finally found the Japanese fleet when they turned for home after Pearl Harbor but was denied. It was only on the insistance of King, who used Midway as an example, that Spruance was finally given a command of his own. (Originally they had planned to keep Spruance under Halsey since Spruance could keep the fleet paperwork and administration duties under control while Halsey commanded the fleet in engagements.)

Halsey, indeed, was very popular in the navy and only bad luck and his temporary hospitalization prevented him from getting a battle prior to Guadalcanal. He commanded well in that theater and his subsequent commands.

However, the debacle that was Leyte Gulf prevents Halsey from being a serious contender for the greatest naval commander of history.

In summary, it was Spruance's subordinates who are the genius's, not Spruance, but the fact that he listened and accepted their plans (with one exception) shows that Spruance is an able, if not good, leader and commander. Unlike Halsey who just demanded that everyone follows his orders.

Spruance fought 2 hugely important battles, Midway and the Philippines Sea. He made the right decisions at the Philippines Sea. The result: a slaughter of the Japanese naval air arm and the sinking of several Japanese carriers. Spruance's critics are the same type that criticized Jellicoe at Jutland for not decisively destroying the Germans. Both critiques are wrong (and Spruance did a much better job at Philippines then Jellicoe at Jutland because Mitscher did his work successfully while Beatty failed in the battle cruiser engagement and basically everybody failed at night when the German's escaped). But the criticisms reflect the ideal of Trafalgar, and both Jellicoe and Spruance failed to provide it. Thus, the Philippines Sea was final battle of the Pacific for the US Navy against a normal opponent, the Japanese naval air had to turn to kamikaze after it due to its losses.

The thing is, however, in terms of Spruance's legacy Midway is far more important than the Philippines Sea since in terms of world history it is a far more important battle. Other than the commander of the Enterprise's dive bombers that made the pivotal decision to continue the search for the Japanese fleet, Spruance alone made the decisions that affected the battles outcome - and they were all correct.

-Spruance ordered each air group to attack immediately once formed up in the air. Against doctrine but IMO no other strategy could have realistically sunk more than 2 carriers in the first strike. It was perfect - other than those brave torpedo bomber pilots were instrumental in their suicidal attacks.

-Fletcher ceded overall command to Spruance as the Yorktown beleaguered by afternoon. Spruance's planes were already attacking and ultimately sinking Hiryu.

-At nightfall after recovering the planes, Spruance turned east when (if I remember correctly) his entire staff recommended he continue west to pursue the supposedly retreating Japanese on June 5. Too bad a pursuit would have taken Spruance directly into the battle line of Yamamato (Yamato, etc.). A night battle at Midway would have been no contest, the Japanese would have eviscerated Spruance and Yamamato's overly complex battle plan would have actually worked. Spruance's decision not to continue west the night of June 4 was the most brilliant decision of his career as it saved his command from catastrophe. IMO, it is the crowning jewel of his career which I believe made him one of the greatest naval commanders in world history.

-On June 5th attacked the Japanese cruisers, sinking the Mogami and then withdrawing.

Of the two, I would pick Halsey over Spruance, because Halsey inspired the troops, Marines, Infantry, Sailors, and Airmen all cheered when Halsey was appointed to their fleet, or chosen to watch over their landings, etc... President Roosevelt himself admitted that without Halsey to boost the morale of the troops, the War in the Pacific would have been longer and more costly.

Halsey may have been more inspiring and may have been credited by Roosevelt for his services, but I believe Spruance was superior to Halsey.

And in accomplishments, I don't think there is a naval commander since 1805 other than Togo that achieved comparable results to Spruance. And Togo only accomplished it once.

 

[Glassfan]

You think Halsey was the main man ? He had his moments of prima-donna-ism - like north of Leyte Gulf. What about Fletcher - why did he get passed over ? or was he unlucky to be in the heat of it at Guadalcanal, as the current saying goes. I think he was highly underated even if he was junior to Halsey.

Black Jack Fletcher is a somewhat controversial character. Some authors accuse him of being afraid to risk his carriers or take chances. He never quite made it to Wake Island (zig-zagging, refueling) before being recalled, and the Marines did not get their reinforcements and the island fell. At Midway, he did not exercise positive command. Admiral Spruance was left to his own devices and the two task forces did not unite. When Yorktown was hit (but not sunk), Fletcher transferred his flag to a cruiser and surrendered what little control he exercised to Spruance - at a time when it looked like the battle was lost (Hmn?). At Guadalcanal, he promised Turner 48 hours of support (already inadequate), but pulled out after only 36, forcing the amphibious force to withdraw and leaving the 1st Marine Division without its full supplies, or air cover. Soon after, Admiral Fletcher was promoted up and out, sailing a desk for the rest of the war.

Admiral Fletcher has his admirers, but many detractors. If you look up the Wiki article, all his shortcomings are explained away, but the "Neutrality of this Article is in Dispute". Many writers on the Pacific War (Pogue, et.al.) are somewhat negative. Don't even bother asking the Marines what the thought of him.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Leyte Gulf was a debacle? For the Japanese, perhaps.

 

[GoodGame]

You make your own luck in this world.

That's the gist of what I was trying to emphasize. Judge a commander by the degree that they used reasonable practice to achieve success, not by whether or not they won or lost.

But still not all events are reasonably under human control, so obviously we aren't the sole proprietor of success/luck.

 

[Arriaga II]

Leyte Gulf was a debacle? For the Japanese, perhaps.

The US navy won the battle but Halsey's decision to take the all of the fleet carriers and Lee's battle line north after Ozawa left the escort carriers alone against the Kurita's much superior group. Thankfully for Halsey, Sprague saved his butt with and prevented the Japanese from destroying the Leyte landing force.

If anybody deserves credit for the victory it is Sprague and/or Oldendorf.

 

[Ace]

The US navy won the battle but Halsey's decision to take the all of the fleet carriers and Lee's battle line north after Ozawa left the escort carriers alone against the Kurita's much superior group. Thankfully for Halsey, Sprague saved his butt with and prevented the Japanese from destroying the Leyte landing force.

If anybody deserves credit for the victory it is Sprague and/or Oldendorf.

Wrong. It is Kurita who deserves credit of the American victory. If he had followed his orders and continued his attack, he would have smashed the escort carrier groups between him and the beachead, and could then have hammered the beachead, sinking most of the support/supply ships there. Instead, just when he was closing in for the kill, he turned away and ran for home. He knew the whole Japenese plan was a do or die operation, and yet, when he actually got aircraft carriers under his battleship and cruiser guns, he turned away.

As for Halsey, He made a serious mistake by not covering San Bernadino Straight. He knew he had a massive preponderance of ships and planes, but, instead of dividing them up to fulfil all of his responsibilities, He took every ship North against the decoy force. And he left the impression that task force 34 (the fast battleships) had been left behind to cover the straight. And it was just luck for him that Kurita turned away when he did.

 

[Cutlass]

Leyte Gulf was a debacle? For the Japanese, perhaps.

The US Navy was wrong to pull most of the modern fleet to pursue a decoy fleet. They were very lucky that what they left behind sufficed to hold the line.

 

[matarreyes]

Undoubtedly, Blas de Lezo

 

[xchen08]

Wrong. It is Kurita who deserves credit of the American victory. If he had followed his orders and continued his attack, he would have smashed the escort carrier groups between him and the beachead, and could then have hammered the beachead, sinking most of the support/supply ships there. Instead, just when he was closing in for the kill, he turned away and ran for home. He knew the whole Japenese plan was a do or die operation, and yet, when he actually got aircraft carriers under his battleship and cruiser guns, he turned away.

As for Halsey, He made a serious mistake by not covering San Bernadino Straight. He knew he had a massive preponderance of ships and planes, but, instead of dividing them up to fulfil all of his responsibilities, He took every ship North against the decoy force. And he left the impression that task force 34 (the fast battleships) had been left behind to cover the straight. And it was just luck for him that Kurita turned away when he did.

Not true. Oh Halsey did make a serious mistake, but there was no chance of Kurita reaching the beachhead. If he had dealt with Taffy 3, he would still have to deal with Taffy 1 and 2 with 10 more escort carriers between them, and not being caught by surprise, it is impossible for Kurita to catch them and still hope to reach the beachhead before TF 38 returns, and they have near 300 aircraft between them, which would be constantly harrassing. Then, Kurita would have to deal with Admiral Oldendorf's force of 6 battleships, 4 CA, 4 CL, and 28 destroyers. And after that, there's still the close escort of the invasion convoy itself, 52 additional destroyers. And to deal with all of that, Kurita started at Samar with just 4 BB, 6 CA, 2 CL, and 11 DD and he only has 6 hours from first contact with Taffy 3 before strike groups arrive from TF 38.