Re: Naval Battle of Guadalcanal


"Peter Skelton" <skeltonp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:vr0sh4hhcodb96rvjbt1vk8af54ilqle3v@xxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:21:55 -0500, "Raymond O'Hara"
<raymond-ohara@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Peter Skelton" <skeltonp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:f1orh4hudi8m414g63u2jinvq66s6uomor@xxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 15:30:50 -0500, "Raymond O'Hara"
<raymond-ohara@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Peter Skelton" <skeltonp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:pcnrh4haluce9rec9nh2v9rjv95kuevk66@xxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 20:17:21 GMT, "BF Lake" <noname@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


"Peter Skelton" <skeltonp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:vomrh4lcfbkqoq50be30gsb6hjkq0r08ec@xxxxxxxxxx

So success is your definition of screw-up?

The original question was " Scott and Callahan......screw ups or
made
the
best out of bad
situation?" so I read that as not taking a position up front on
that.

Right, but Ray posted a reply to Deemsbill that took a firm
oposition. Frankly, I'm a bit sick of Ray deciding on little
knowledge and less analysis that the guys at the pointy end were
stupid, incompetent etc.

Peter Skelton


ah only you have the right to opinions, and of course you have much
better
info right?

You do not have the right to uniform negative opinions. In the
past, some of your stuff has been astonishingly inane, in this
case early learning curve is a much more cogfent explanation than
your blather,

and nobody should ever dare critize anybody because they "did their
best"
callaghan made a tactical fiasco out of his battle. he was lucky inthat
all
his mission required was to get in the way and hope the japanese tripped
over him.

In other words, you admit he did what was required of him.

you on the other hand obviously know little of the battle and are just
disputing an and everything i post because you are a kneejerk fool.

Care to point out something I've said about the battle that is
incorrect or shows that I know little of it.

Ray, I'm sick of negativity that you can't support.

Peter Skelton


i supported what i said.
you just don't like it.

Bull*** Ray. You've defined success as screw-up. You've taken
deployment nobody knew how to do as bungling. And so on. . .until
you sank to name calling.

so why don't you show how cakllaghan did things right?
back up what you claim to believe or shut up..

Because we don't disagree on the facts. I'm saying that the
problem was ea4rly days on the learning curve. You're saying that
a commander given and impossibly short time to get his command
operating under conditions where nobody knew the right answers
was a screw-up.

The support for my pov is obvious.


Peter Skelton


so you can't defend his actions.
i gave you examples of people in the same situation who didn't screw it up.
scott, merrill, ainsworth, lee.
okay, he didn't realize the value of radar, the SG sets on that time were
primitive, but its his handling of his ships that's where he's getting
criticized.
he was a long service man, he commanded a cruiser as a captain. they
actually did do exercises in naval tactics prewar in the USN.
having half his destroyers in the rear of his column was not a learning
curve problem.
and as he had been ghormley's chief of staff he must have seen the after
action reports from the previous battles. something should have sunk in.


.

Loading