|
Post by quincannon on Apr 4, 2016 21:21:19 GMT
What is it about Lawrence's expertise as both sailor and commander, that cannot be put to rest by a review of the engagement between USS Hornet and HMS Peacock?
What is it about orders directing Chesapeake to clear Boston Harbor before Shannon is reinforced that fails to be understood?
What is it about fighting the battle you have on your hands vice the one that you wish you had, even when your crew is new, inexperienced and not trained to standard, after what two weeks in command, that is shameful?
What is it about the fact that ship handling is a collective effort, and Captains cannot wish the weather gauge, but captains and crews must collectively achieve it through intense levels of training?
Why is it that people think everything they read, especially when they read it written by some numbnuts in the Boston Globe is factual and complete, and use it to call into question a man like James Lawrence?
If you want history read "Six Frigates" by Ian Toll.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Apr 4, 2016 22:23:28 GMT
Dan Very interesting article and thanks for sharing it with us. Lawrence's actions and verbiage may be under discussion and possible reproach but there is another member of the Naval Service who is an undeniable hero. On March 5, 1968 U.S. Marine Private First Class Ralph H. Johnson threw himself on an enemy grenade and saved his comrades at the cost of his own life. Due to his heroic actions he was posthumously awarded the United States' highest military decoration, the Medal of Honor. On April 2, 2016 the US Navy commissioned its newest Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer the USS Ralph Johnson (DDG 114) in honor of Johnson who died a hero during the Viet Nam War. It goes to prove the government can and occasionally will do the right thing. It is men like Ralph Johnson who gave their all to save their comrades and preserve our country. God Bless men like him. Regards Dacve www.sunherald.com/news/business/article69366272.html
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 4, 2016 22:48:30 GMT
What discussion and possible reproach is there Dave.
The situation was quite clear from a strategic viewpoint. A strategy of engaging frigate on frigate was recognized as not being worth a bucket of spit, if you wished a negotiated settlement with Great Britain. It was only in using a small navy for commerce raiding, that could hope to give Britain, enough heartburn, combining with the ongoing Napoleonic conflict, to have Britain ask itself if continuing the war, which was essentially one of maritime rights, was worth the effort and the drain off of forces, that could be used against the real threat.
Were there taunting notes passed between the two commanders. Yes, and it is also true that was the custom of the day. The most taunting note sent to Lawrence by Broke on Shannon, was never received.
Broke and Shannon were as good as the RN had.
The problem for Lawrence was similar to that of Langsdorf and Admiral Graf Spee in December 1939. Warships are no good tied to a dock, or sitting in safe harbor.
Lawrence had orders to break out. He could only break out in one direction to get clean away and about the business of commerce raiding. Once he broke out he could train at sea. The only direction open to him was southward toward the open Atlantic, past Cape Ann and Cape Cod. A northerly direction was out of the question for break out purposes, because of the RN fleet base at Halifax, and the high probability he would run into more than he could handle from that quarter.
Broke divined Lawrence's intentions, but it was not really all that hard.
Lawrence's problems were compounded by the fact that he had to meet Shannon in a quick hit and run, do just enough damage to Shannon to get away without sustaining and significant damage (that could not be repaired at sea) to Chesapeake, or she would be back in Boston for another six months of refit, doing the United States or the United States Navy no damned good.
Broke outfought Lawrence, but no one on the RN side ever said a bad word about Lawrence or Chesapeake. Lawrence was transported by the Royal Navy and given full honors on British soil, instead of being dumped into the sea.
Any comparison of a man like James Lawrence to the incompetent idiot that was George Custer is a complete abortion of the facts of the matter.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Apr 4, 2016 23:29:56 GMT
QC, Sometimes I wonder how you really feel.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Apr 5, 2016 0:43:33 GMT
QC, Sometimes I wonder how you really feel. I know! Sometimes he can be so reserved with his opinion that we are just left guessing.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 5, 2016 1:00:41 GMT
You do!
Let me tell you.
A few years ago our local paper printed a story about a local vet who served on USS Boise. In the article the vet said that he was on Boise escorting a convoy to the Philippines, when they sighted a task force of Japanese ships that were heading to bomb Pearl Harbor. He went on to imply that the captain of the Boise was a coward for not attacking them. Mind you we were short of war by about six days. He later relates that Boise fought heroic battles in the Java Sea. A little later he states that Boise fought the Battle of Cape Esperance all by her lonesome, a veritable one ship task force. This is where it will start to peak Dave's interest. Blah Blah Blah on and on.
He was acclaimed a hero, by the guy who wrote the piece. Local hero wins WWII, bullshit ad infanitum (sp).
Now the facts:
Boise was indeed escorting a convoy to the Philippines at the time stated. The did see a convoy of Japanese merchant/troop ships. Those ships were heading south to Malaya. For Boise to have sighted the Pearl Harbor Task Force would be similar to going from Colorado Springs to Denver via Salt Lake City.
Boise was in the Java Sea, but not at the time of the battles in the Java Sea. At that time she was in a dry dock in San Francisco being repaired having ripped her bottom open on an uncharted reef
Boise was at Cape Esperance with Admiral Scott's task force. She was badly hit, and when combined with very poor ship handling damned near sunk. She had to return to the States again for repairs, and hungry for good war news after First Savo, she was hailed as a one ship task force in the newspapers and radio, for purposes of operational security.
In short everything this local "hero" said was a goddamned lie, and I especially was offended by the unwarranted attack he made on the courage, honor and integrity of his captain.
All that reporter would have to do is fact check before he wrote that pack of lies, but had he, he would not be writing about a hero, nor would the story be hardly worth the telling.
I guarantee you that account will appear in someone's "scholarly" paper though, thinking it must be so, it was in the paper, on the internet, in the blogosphere, or the last story in the latest issue of Bugs Bunny Comics.
That's how I feel about the matter, and I am particularly offended when such material is placed on this board, that is dedicated to the ascertaining of and discerning the truth, regardless of the period under discussion.
|
|
carl
Recruit
Posts: 48
|
Post by carl on Apr 5, 2016 1:13:28 GMT
What discussion and possible reproach is there Dave. The situation was quite clear from a strategic viewpoint. A strategy of engaging frigate on frigate was recognized as not being worth a bucket of spit, if you wished a negotiated settlement with Great Britain. It was only in using a small navy for commerce raiding, that could hope to give Britain, enough heartburn, combining with the ongoing Napoleonic conflict, to have Britain ask itself if continuing the war, which was essentially one of maritime rights, was worth the effort and the drain off of forces, that could be used against the real threat. Were there taunting notes passed between the two commanders. Yes, and it is also true that was the custom of the day. The most taunting note sent to Lawrence by Broke on Shannon, was never received. Broke and Shannon were as good as the RN had. The problem for Lawrence was similar to that of Langsdorf and Admiral Graf Spee in December 1939. Warships are no good tied to a dock, or sitting in safe harbor. Lawrence had orders to break out. He could only break out in one direction to get clean away and about the business of commerce raiding. Once he broke out he could train at sea. The only direction open to him was southward toward the open Atlantic, past Cape Ann and Cape Cod. A northerly direction was out of the question for break out purposes, because of the RN fleet base at Halifax, and the high probability he would run into more than he could handle from that quarter. Broke divined Lawrence's intentions, but it was not really all that hard. Lawrence's problems were compounded by the fact that he had to meet Shannon in a quick hit and run, do just enough damage to Shannon to get away without sustaining and significant damage (that could not be repaired at sea) to Chesapeake, or she would be back in Boston for another six months of refit, doing the United States or the United States Navy no damned good. Broke outfought Lawrence, but no one on the RN side ever said a bad word about Lawrence or Chesapeake. Lawrence was transported by the Royal Navy and given full honors on British soil, instead of being dumped into the sea. Any comparison of a man like James Lawrence to the incompetent idiot that was George Custer is a complete abortion of the facts of the matter. Quote from Roosevelt: "Moreover accident had little or nothing to with the gaining of the victory. The explanation is perfectly easy; Lawrence and Broke were probably exactly equal in almost everything that goes to make up a first class commander, but one had trained his crew for seven years, and the other was new to the officers, and to the men, and the last to each other. The Chesapeakes crew must have been fine material, or they would not have fought so well as they did."
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 5, 2016 1:25:09 GMT
TR said in his monumental work on the U S Navy, nearly as well as you Carl found that quote which should settle this matter once and for all.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Apr 5, 2016 1:38:04 GMT
You do! Let me tell you. A few years ago our local paper printed a story about a local vet who served on USS Boise. In the article the vet said that he was on Boise escorting a convoy to the Philippines, when they sighted a task force of Japanese ships that were heading to bomb Pearl Harbor. He went on to imply that the captain of the Boise was a coward for not attacking them. Mind you we were short of war by about six days. He later relates that Boise fought heroic battles in the Java Sea. A little later he states that Boise fought the Battle of Cape Esperance all by her lonesome, a veritable one ship task force. This is where it will start to peak Dave's interest. Blah Blah Blah on and on. He was acclaimed a hero, by the guy who wrote the piece. Local hero wins WWII, bullshit ad infanitum (sp). Now the facts: Boise was indeed escorting a convoy to the Philippines at the time stated. The did see a convoy of Japanese merchant/troop ships. Those ships were heading south to Malaya. For Boise to have sighted the Pearl Harbor Task Force would be similar to going from Colorado Springs to Denver via Salt Lake City. Boise was in the Java Sea, but not at the time of the battles in the Java Sea. At that time she was in a dry dock in San Francisco being repaired having ripped her bottom open on an uncharted reef Boise was at Cape Esperance with Admiral Scott's task force. She was badly hit, and when combined with very poor ship handling damned near sunk. She had to return to the States again for repairs, and hungry for good war news after First Savo, she was hailed as a one ship task force in the newspapers and radio, for purposes of operational security. In short everything this local "hero" said was a goddamned lie, and I especially was offended by the unwarranted attack he made on the courage, honor and integrity of his captain. All that reporter would have to do is fact check before he wrote that pack of lies, but had he, he would not be writing about a hero, nor would the story be hardly worth the telling. I guarantee you that account will appear in someone's "scholarly" paper though, thinking it must be so, it was in the paper, on the internet, in the blogosphere, or the last story in the latest issue of Bugs Bunny Comics. That's how I feel about the matter, and I am particularly offended when such material is placed on this board, that is dedicated to the ascertaining of and discerning the truth, regardless of the period under discussion. Beyond the pure logistics didn't no one questioned how the Captain of the Boise was supposed to know that the ships were heading to attack Pearl Harbor long before anyone else in the US government did? Or how the Captain would have justified a total unprovoked attack on the Japanese BEFORE Dec. 7th?
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Apr 5, 2016 2:09:33 GMT
Regardless of the history of the event, it seems strange to pull in a Custer reference in the article. Custer is not just history reference but a cultural cliche. It's kind of like how people know the saying "met his Waterloo" but have no idea what a Waterloo is or what the saying means.
BTW, I've noticed quite a number of obits for Dr. Joe Medicine Crow. The man had a long impressive life, was a veteran, a leader, an educator, author and received the Medal of Freedom. What do all the headlines proclaim--that he was one of the last links to Little Bighorn.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 5, 2016 2:37:00 GMT
For Christ sake, and the welfare of human kind don't tell Captain Pretend that Medicine Crow was the last link to LBH.
The man was a hundred and two years old, that makes him from the vintage years of either 1913 or 1914. I suspect he just may have been, perhaps not the way the articles present it, but certainly he knew some of those there in his youth, and at their great age. He was somewhat later than Thomason who collected, and later used, mostly in fictional form, the reveries of his kinfolk, concerning that great conflict. I suspect MC was formed from a like mold.
Custer is the modern poster boy for all that is wrong with an Army (and I suppose now Navy)be it true or false. Every aggressive commander is Custer like, no matter their much higher levels of competence. Custer is shading material for anyone who has a bone to pick, thinking somehow that the donning of a Blue Suit, automatically transforms one from a well educated, highly trained competent soldier into a blithering idiot.
There are, it is true more Custer's still around than anyone would like to see or admit, but relatively they are small in number, just as they were in 1876. A moron in a blue suit is still first and foremost a moron.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 5, 2016 2:58:06 GMT
Good question Beth. How dare you formulate such an inquiry based upon common sense.
Fortunately it is both logistics and geography that gives lie to the tale, not to mention foreign relations (as strained as they were then). It has come to my attention that it is extremely bad form to fire on the vessel(s) of another country, unless those vessels present a clear and present danger. Had they been the carriers we were hunting for weeks, and had they been in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, they had every right to be there, and that is just what the captain of Boise concluded and stated about the transports he sighted. Had he sighted the carriers or indeed the transports 150 miles northwest of Oahu then he would have been just what that man accused him of being.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Apr 5, 2016 3:36:13 GMT
QC Custer was an early proponent of the press machine. He was young, dashing, brave and very loud which attracted reporters and politicians. Notice that most military authorities never fell for his hype except Sheridan. He reached his zenith during the War and never received the press he so desperately desired when shuttled to the South and then the frontier. During the War he had easy access to reporters and politicians but they did not inhabit the West in many numbers or power.
Discussing GAC in the same discussion as James Lawrence is as you say not appropriate. Lawrence fought the battle as the British desired and paid the price for his choices. His skill and bravery were shown by his handling of the Hornet prior to his promotion to Captain and charge of the Chesapeake. Yet his failure to follow orders lead to his death and capture of his vessel.
As to the story of the vet and the USS Boise this just a result of the super patriotism we are experiencing in America today. The guilt and shame borne by the citizens and the US government from the mistreatment and abuse of our Viet Nam veterans propels the outpouring of support and appreciation to our men and women in uniform. There will always be people who behave badly and make claims of deeds and actions they did not perform. Stolen Valor should be a crime and I fervently desire the government to take the necessary action to pass the legislation detailing it as a crime with appropriate penalties.
I am starting to pontificate and I need to shut up and allow the thread to progress. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 5, 2016 4:23:01 GMT
I am trying to figure out what order you think Lawrence disobeyed Dave. None that I know of. He was ordered to get out of Boston. He did. He was forced into an engagement with Shannon, Had Shannon gone northeast, instead of southeast, Lawrence would have gone southeast into the Atlantic.
I don't think this was a case of stolen valor Dave. The guy was there. I think this is more on the order of Peter Thompson in his advancing age.
Cases in and on point. Every member of the 5th Ranger Battalion was standing next to Norm Cota when he told Max Schneider "Rangers lead the way". Every Twenty Niner on Omaha, and a few still out to sea, were no more that fifty meters when the block in the Vierville Draw blew. Every man in the Texas Brigade held Lee's horse in the Wilderness shouting at the top of their lungs General Lee to the rear. Advancing age sometimes writes history. Every man was there. All of them were on that beach or in those woods, and to them those things become truth.
My heartburn with that story is that people whose job it is to check facts before they publish do not. It took me all of five minutes to fact check that story printed about Boise. I have the library to do so, either immediately behind my desk, or in the basement. That reporter only needed to walk five blocks from the Gazette to the central public library. Too much trouble I suppose. All of which reminds me that the Madam's former campaign manager is the wife of the Gazette's editor. They have asked us to dinner next week, so I am making a note to myself to ask what happened to that reporter. Have not seen his Bi Line for a good long time.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Apr 5, 2016 9:54:56 GMT
My thanks to Dan for bringing the article to light. Dan did not write the article, I probably would have brought it up as well, whether factual or not. Seeing the Custer attribution would have been worth the discussion, as it has been. Witness, not only the coverage of the Chesapeake, but the Boise, the board has brought to light. My thanks to Carl for the Roosevelt quote. This almost needs to be in our Naval section.
The press in this country and others has always been called the "Fourth Estate." We need to keep in mind that these guys facts need to be checked and their agendas discovered, if they have one. These folks are no different than you and I. They have political leanings and opinions developed over their life experience. Sometimes their opinions can be bought or coopted.
Our press has become nothing more than an for profit business. While you may not agree with all of this writers examples/statements it is a sad commentary about the "4th Estate." inthesetimes.com/article/3790/is_the_fourth_estate_a_fifth_column
Regards, Tom
|
|