Nope. I am quite right!January 8 2015 at 6:39 AM
No score for this post
|Jacques (no login)|
Response to Nope--you are quite wrong...
You seem to be missing the point but okay, let me deal with your objections:
Firstly, my information is certainly not Wikipedia-based; I only referred to Wiki pages for convenience and brevity. My reasoning comes from the good few years that I spent at sea as a navigating officer and I have the practical experience (the theory, I've mostly forgotten!) to back up what I wrote. I thoroughly understand how routes were planned (it has not really changed)and this is why I questioned the reasons for PensacolaCo going by way of Torres Strait in the first place.
"1) On what basis can you possibly assert that it is 'highly unlikely that the USN would not have had sufficient copies on hand.'??? What sources do you have to support that?"
As I pointed out, British Admiralty charts and other BA publications for the area were available and were regularly corrected. I only named BA 3745 as one example being the most important chart for making the transit from the Pacific to NEI waters, North of New Guinea. That particular chart, as I pointed out, was available and had already been in use for over 20 years by 1941. I do not know what standard practise was in the US Navy at the time; if they produced their own or simply adopted British charts, but it would have been negligent in the extreme for the officer in charge of the depot at PH not to ensure that ALL the folios were correct and complete, and copies available to naval vessels going west. I say again – "highly unlikely"!
"2) When & how did you get the idea that the PENSACOLA Convoy was altered "prior to the Pearl Harbor attacks" to go to Oz first?? I'm curious about this, too."
I never said that! The routing instructions issued to PensacolaCo before departing PH are now quite clear. I questioned why, in spite of other routes being shorter and safer from a navigational point of view, the route chosen was to go through Torres Strait. We had much discussion about this - in your words "much too much", and we ultimately had to agree (as you suggested) "Think Australia. Then think the NEI."
No, you're not, but enuff's enuff... - Melmoth the Curious on Jan 8, 2015, 8:37 PM