I agree. Midway proved that. While the Monday morning QBs at Pearl Harbor wanted Spruance to charge in to finish the Japanese fleet after sinking 4 of their carriers, Spruance backed off sensing there was a hidden danger. He was right. Yamamoto was baring down with a whole division of Battleships the U.S. intelligence had failed to identify. Had Spruance been within range of Yamamoto's Battleships the Pacific fleet might well have lost carriers Hornet and Enterprise.
@@RFMaster6 , First Midway, Gilbert Islands, Truk, Philippines, Iwo Jima, Okinawa .. he never made a mistake. He did"nt had carriers experience but destroyed enemy carriers. He was a brilliant strategic admiral.
Not a team player ? He was divorced of inter-service rivalry. As ComSoPac his command included Army, Navy/Marines, and AAF. He was one of very few Navy admirals who MacArthur could and would work with. At Guadalcanal, his commitment to 1st MarDiv is unquestionable. The reason his Fleet was so battered by typhoons in the Philippines campaign was his willingness to stay on station for air support to the army because Leyte airfields weren’t ready. I know people are going to bring up Leyte Gulf, where he took the bait from Ozawa’s Northern Force, but after Philippine Sea, where Spruance really dropped the ball on the air strike on the IJN carrier fleet, Nimitz changed the priority to the destruction of the Japanese fleet, particularly the carriers. Neither Halsey nor anyone else realized at the time that four IJN carriers represented an idle threat with only around 100 aircraft between them. That was because they had been pulled earlier to reinforce IJA aircraft at Formosa, which 3rd had mostly fleet destroyed. Could he and should he have chopped TF34 to guard San Bernardino straight ? In hindsight yes. Battleships were also, and primarily the core ADA platform to protect the carriers. He wasn’t going to give up his flak monsters and be naked against dive bombers if IJN dive and torpedo bombers made it through the CAP. Also, his last report was Kurita’s Center Force had left the area. I think a lot of the post war criticism of Halsey is from the second guessers of historians who didn’t get that ultimate line of battle battleship dual they could have if only Halsey had stuck to the script. In retrospect, it all worked out. Did we lose three DD’s and a DE, unfortunately we did, and the CE Gambier Bay, but we didn’t lose a BB to the 18.1 inch guns of Yamato either. For their part, the IJN had a good plan, but like Adm. Mikowa at Savo Island, Adm. Kurtia snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by not pressing the attack.
Great to see Chester Nimitz get the recognition he deserved. Not only a great strategist he was also a good team player . When Roosevelt opted for MacArthurs plan to carry the war to Japan rather than his own proposals instead of throwing his toys out of the pram {as several US Generals might have done) he unreservedly threw his weight and resources behind it. For him winning the war was more important than his personal ego.
IMO Chester Nimitz is the greatest Admiral in WW2. He was a smart, innovated commander who was open to new ideas and refused to give up no matter how bad things looked. It's very appropriate that a class of aircraft carriers was named after him.
Halsey reached his pinnacle of incompetence with the Solomons campaign. He famously addressed the men before the first landings, "Men, these are little guys with bad eyes. You won't have a problem." The US went on to lose 8000 men and 29 ships and lost their arrogance.
@@Stephen-oy7fl So he said something dumb. That doesn't prove incompetence. He wasn't. The Solomon campaign was costly for both sides, Iron Bottom Sound. Halsey wasn't responsible for casualties inflicted by the Japanese fleet and army.
The solomons campaign was exactly what the US needed though. It changed the landscape of the Pacific conflict into an attrititional conflict that Japan couldn't win. The US ends 1942 with the US Navy and Japanese Navy being at essentially parity for the immediate few months but the US could replace it losses, Japan couldn't. I think Japan lost something like 29,000 men on Guadalcanal alone and a similarish number of ships. The US Navy generally faired worse especially when you take into account that Hornet was lost to submarine attack and North Carolina was knocked out for a while with damage from the same attack, but it was the conflict the US needed. The US didn't have to get an amazing victory. They just needed to grind down the enemy. Its very similar to General Grant when he takes over and starts to face General Robert E. Lee. Grant doesn't care as much about winning a single battle as much as he wants to be in battle against the confederates in as many places and as often as he can. I am not a fan of Halsey at all but he was absolutely what the US needed for the Guadalcanal campaign when he took over and he absolutely turned things around.
Actually Ramsay would have been his superior but had retired and Churchill called him out of it in like '38-'39. Ramsay directed Neptune the naval part of the D-Day landings.Shame fanbois ignore these two and toss plaudits to pratts like Monty British Admiral Max Horton another ballsy bastard that didn't get much credit.
"Karl doenitz began the war as a relatively unknown submarine commander in the German navy. Hius innovative tactics and strategigic vision , however quickly propelled himt hrough the ranks. By 1939 Doenitz had become the supreme commander of the U-boat fleet." Huh? WWII STARTED in. 1939, so how the f... could he have started the war in one position in the same year that he somehow became the supremne commander? The reality is that he was already a Flotilla Commander, and BEFORE the start of the war he was in command of U-boat operations.
In fairness Nimitz had the rank to do that. Halsey and Spruance didn't care much for MacArthur either but if they had "stood up" to him it would have been insubordination.
Yes Spruance received criticism from some for not aggressively pursuing Japanese Naval forces in the Philippines. His job was to protect the landing force on Leyte which he did very well.
I don't disagree, at all. The other weirdness in Yamamoto's thinking was his use of aircraft carriers to attack USN battleships. Starting a war against an immensely superior power was insane in itself, but Yamamoto also continued to think of battleships as the naval titans, even while demonstrating why they weren't. Japan had the two biggest battleships ever built, Musashi and Yamato, which performed virtually no role in the Pacific War. Aircraft carriers started the Pacific War and, along with submarines and destroyers, they finished it, except that the Americans ended up the winners.
Yamamoto didn't start the war. He tried carry out a war he knew that he couldn't win. The orders that he was given went against his better knowledge. His big disappointment was that the aircraft carriers were not at Pearl. He knew that battleships were not the future, why else did he send aircraft carriers. His predictions for the war came true. Six months of crazy victories, and then the war was lost. The blame for the war were the political incompetents who decided to go to war against a foe that had everything. Industry, population, oil, large navy, and a pigheaded will to win. Don't blame the people receiving the orders. Blame the idiots giving impossible orders, even after they were warned about the bad results.
@@basilpunton5702 Of course, Yamamoto started the war. He launched a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, for heaven's sake, and the battleships were his targets. The US aircraft carriers were miraculously absent, but the Japanese weren't looking for them, anyway. Britain invented the aircraft carrier, but not the concept of fleet carriers, used by Japan against Pearl Harbor, but rapidly perfected by the USN during 1942 and 1943. That's why Yamamoto's failure to track the American carriers in 1941 was both surprising, highly ironic and, ultimately, disastrous for Japan, but led to inevitable US victory.
his cotribution at Guadalcanal was his finest work, and deserving of praise. after 1943 the war had become too complex for his abilities and he had some disasterous episodes that should have disqualified him for a fifth star.
Its possible that his absence actually cost the Americans a better victory. If Halsey is there there is no way the "flight to nowhere" happens from Hornet and its not hard to conceive of the US sinking all 4 carriers if the Hornet air group shows up and so you get no counter attack from Hiryu that damages Yorktown which leads to its sinking via a submarine attack.
Halsey's finest hour was the Solomons campaign. That is only reason he might be on this list. The Guadalcanal campaign was Admiral King's idea, not Nimitz. Speaking of King he should be on the list instead of Halsey. He may have been America's best strategist of the War. Honorable mention should go to Admiral William Leahy. He was highly influential in developing overall Allied Strategy but he had no operational command. Little known today outside of Naval circles, Leahy was the senior American officer serving in WWII.
"Karl Dönitz began the war as a relatively unknown submarine commander... By 1939, Dönitz had become supreme commander of the U--boat fleet." In case you missed it, WWII actually started in 1939 in Europe. Even if you put the date back to Japanese aggression against China, Dönitz was already an Admiral at that time.
Spruance needs a 5th star. He was as good as Halsey but low key compared to Halsey. Nimitz thought so much of him that he had him command the fleet at sea while all the others were at the surrender in Tokyo Bay. He did this in case it was a Japanese trap.
I've read everything about all these Admirals of WW2 ever since I was a child. Yes, 1. Donitz was the best sub commander the Kreigsmarine had in the early years of the war. 2. Nimitz was a legend of US Naval history who emerged from the ashes of the Pearl Harbor attack on December 1941. 3. Yamamoto was the smartest strategist that the Japanese Army had, and used his expertise to deadly effect in the early years of the Pacific War until the Battle of Midway as he feared, and tried to warn his government that Japan will lose a long-term war with America before his death in Operation Vengeance. 4. Ramsey was the best admiral that Britain had in the Mediterranean theater against Italy and the Germans' Luftwaffe. 5. Cunningham was best known for saving thousands of stranded British troops from the French coast during the Battle of Dunkirk in 1940, and later returned them back to where they evacuated from four years earlier in Operation Overload on June 1944. 6. William "Bull" Halsey was another influential Admiral of the US Navy, but he did have an aggressive style to his tactics than others including the strategies that he made in the Battle of Leyte Gulf. 7. Spruance became a US Navy admiral during the Battle of Midway in 1942, even though he was not as experienced as Nimitz or Halsey at the start of his history as an admiral.
Cunningham was not involved in Dunkirk. That was Ramsey, who also led Operation Neptune, the naval element of Overlord. This video also overlooks Ching Lee and Bruce Fraser, both of whom were extremely effective fighting Admirals
I have read that "Island hopping" was MacArthur's idea. The U.S. Navy proposed capturing Formosa. Using Formosa, U.S. could "strangle" Japanese imports. Japan relied heavily on obtaining supplies from elsewhere. There would also be fewer seaborne invasions. I think the U.S. Navy was correct. The U.S. Army and U.S. Navy estimated the anticipated number of casualities would occur if Japan was attacked. The U.S. Army estimate was much lower than the U.. Navy. After the war, the U.S. Navy's estimate was found to be more accurate.
@transplant-f3p "Island hopping" was the original strategy employed. Nimitz's strategy was called "leapfrogging", taking islands behind the forward garrisons, isolating them from reinforcement and resupply. After the Formosa plan was turned down in favor of the Philippines, Nimitz came up with a way to have his cake and eat it, too. He decided to go for Okinawa, which accomplished the same goal that Formosa would have provided, isolating Japan from Indonesia, without drawing on the resources needed for the Philippines.
Spruance as Number One ? God bless you, Yes! Finally a RUclips Military Video with a brain! Why Spruance didn't receive a fifth star I will never understand. Hulsey did not deserve it after Layette.
@@JRT140 1942-43. Halsey was the difference maker in the South Pacific. Although awarded later, the Solomon Islands campaign is what got him his fifth star.
Ernie King came up with much you attribute to Nimitz. He organized a successful war on two oceans and pushed to have the US on the offensive earlier than anyone else imagined starting with Guadalcanal.
@wgielner I remember reading a report that.... openly stated.....because of Adm. King's blatant Anglophobia, he was directly responsible for shipping losses on the U.S. east coast, and should have been removed/ reassigned from responsibilities in the Atlantic theatre. The report then went on to state that if this had been done in 1942/43, the Battle of the Atlantic, would have ceased.....ten to twelve months....before the actual end of WWII.
Sie: Your judgement is truly awful! You have included two admirals that simply don't belong there and omitted one who certainly does. First error: The inclusion of Yamamoto. This is the guy who personally chose to attack Pearl Harbor, when he did not have to. Japan could simply have sailed south to the Malaysian oil fields and taken them from the Dutch and the US would not have declared war. If Roosevelt could have gotten Congress to declare war on Japan, the US navy was totally incapable of taking on the Japanese fleet in Japanese waters. This decision by Yamamoto was the worst decision by any Axis leader in the entire war. Secondly, once the decision to attack Pearl Harbor was made, Yamamoto chose the wrong targets. The chief targets at Pearl Harbor should have been the oil storage facilities and the ship repair facilities. The US would then have to fight the war out of its west coast ports. At Midway, Yamamoto failed to concentrate his forces and failed to pursue a very weakened enemy. He should have pressed on to Hawaii with his entire fleet. As for the naval battles off Guadalcanal, same story. Yamamotos failure was the failure to bring sufficient force to bear at any one time and he had the forces to win sitting at Truk and in home waters. Can you name any good strategic or tactical decisions by Yamamoto? Second error: The inclusion of Halsey. Halsey had only one great moment; The naval battles off Guadalcanal for which he was area commander and not in tactical command. Even that was marred by his interference with Kincaids', command at the Battle of Santa Cruz. Haley's dereliction of duty at Leyte and his sailing into two typhoons causing significant loss of ships and life should have gotten him courtmartialed. The only thing that saved him was that by then the press had made him a hero. Third error: The omission of Frank Jack Fletcher. This is the admiral who was in tactical command at three of the five carrier on carrier battles of WW2: Coral Sea, Midway and Eastern Solomons. In 1942, US naval aviation was no match for the Japanese. Yet, US forces under Fletchers command sank six Japanese aircraft carriers and destroyed the entire cream of Japanese naval aviation known as Kido Butai. Fletcher was personally awarded his third star by Nimitz after his, Fletchers, victory at Midway. In the year 1942, Frank Jack Fletcher was the best tactical naval commander in the entire world. (Why have you never heard of him? He had enemies: Ernest King and Samuel Elliot Morrison.)
@@billmactiernan6304 I totally agree with you I will go further and say both Japan and Germany were very foolish to start industrial wars without both iron ore or oil - there results of such misadventures were predetermined from the very start
@@billmactiernan6304 Earnest King who let ( lead) American merchandising ships into the jaws of German u-boots... by reuring to implement safety measures advised by the British...
I'm not sure how Doenitz makes this list, he lost the Battle of the Atlantic, possibly the most important battle of WW2, as well as being a convicted war criminal, Adm Dudley Pound broke the wolf packs. I'd also add Bruce Fraser into the mix a really agressive British commander who was instrumental in defeating the German Surface fleet.
@@gnosticbrian3980 Yup. His reasoning was valid. The Germans had withdrawn their U-boats from US waters in late 1941. They only had 8 long distance subs, and King argued that we didn't have the escorts to protect convoy's. He wasn't against the convoy system per say. He just thought we had a time period before the wolf packs could operate off our coast. Unfortunately, we did take terrible merchant loses. But within a year sufficient destroyer escorts had been built to begin escorting convoys, and loses dropped dramatically. By the end of 1942 the Battle of the Atlantic had basically been won. Yes, he had the long vision for the allotment of resourses that won the war. Again-IMO
@@calliecooke1817 I've read that the U-Boat crews called the period from January 1942 to about August of that year the "American Shooting Season". Historian Michael Gannon called it "America's Second Pearl Harbor" and blamed the failure to respond quickly to the attacks on the inaction of Admiral King. King also refused British offers to provide the US navy with their own ships, I would have placed the defeat of the U-Boats around mid-1943.
@@gnosticbrian3980 I have heard it called "The Happy Time". History shows that King made some poor decisions. But he was forced to make difficult choices. If he had not sent those destroyers to the Pacific, we may well have lost or never even contended for Guadalcanal. How would that have effected the war? As for the destroyers Britian offered us, they were the old four stackers we had swapped with them for bases. They were obsolete, only 31 of the 50 ever got into service because they had been so badly preserved, and they were so slow that U-Boats sank 9 or 10 of them. We didn't want them with new stuff coming on line daily. King was still the mastermind of the strategy that won the war and left the US in complete domination of all seas.
I think Ozawa is rated highly for a couple of reasons, one he survived the war so he got to tell of his exploits. Two I think he performed competently in a Navy full of mediocre Admirals. He was able to evacuate the troops from Guadalcanal and performed well at Battle of the Philippine Sea though is role was basically to be a target for Halsey's aircraft. Personally I think Japanese Naval Doctrine forced them into overly complex battle plans that required way to much precise timing and often accounted for what the enemy was expected to do rather than what they were capable of doing which left Japan with a lot of sub-par commanders.
@taskforce3833 Some of those you mentioned were worthy. But Erich Bey?🙄 What did he do, besides losing all his destroyers at Narvik and going down with the Scharnhorst?
What about Admiral Horton RN who successfully conquered the U-boat threat in the Atlantic 1943 which allowed the material build up for Operation Overlord?
I wouldn’t have included Halsey. He was reckless beyond just being aggressive and went glory hunting at Leyte. A lot of men died needlessly. And 2 typhoons. Anyone else would have been retired for 3 mistakes like that in such proximity to each other.
Yamamoto is a highly overrated Admiral. He's credited as the mastermind behind Pearl Harbor, but I'd argue all that attack did was ensure maximum American rage and motivation would remain a factor for the entire war. Tactically, he was outmanuevered by King and Nimitz at basically every turn. The only reason he was retained in command after Midway was because the Japanese government concealed what a disaster it was from the public,and relieving him wouldn't be congruent with what they said happened.
Nimitz once commented that he should have had Halsey in command at the battle of the Philippine sea and spruance in command of the battle of leyte gulf instead of the way it was. We can only wonder what the result would have been. lol, if Halsey had been at the Philippine Sea, likely japan wouldn't have had much of a fleet during the invasion of the Philippines. and if Spruance had been at leyte gulf, we'ld have seen the battle line battle led my Lee, if it only could have been.
"Karl Donitz began World War II as a relatively unknown ...... by 1939, Donitz had become the supreme commander..." ... just checking with you, when did World War II begin, I thought it was 1st September 1939 when Germany invaded Poland!
Donitz should not be on the list. His tactics never changed tactics during the war. Also, Halsey should not be on the list instead I would put Admiral Raeder and Admiral King.
Agree with King, disagree with Raeder. Raeders main achievement is the buildup of the Kriegsmarine as a fleet based on capital ships, culminating in the Z-plan. And that was clearly the wrong kind of fleet for the war. More importantly the Z-plan was economically unfeasable, if that fleet had been build and mobilised for war it would have consumed more oil then the entire german economy was consuming. Dönitz on the other side was competent and did change his tactics as far as he could, though I would also not put him on this list.
@@briandorsett9730 He also sailed his Navy into not one but two Typhoons, and was lured away at the Battle of the Philippine Sea leaving Taffy 3 up against battleships. Not saying Halsey was a bad Admiral, his hard charging attitude was often a bonus, but perhaps not worthy of the Top 5.
Two do not belong on the list. Donitz' plan for U-Boat warfare was entirely a failure. At no time was British commerce across the Atlantic seriously threatened. Donitz only managed one battle success in the sinking of convoy PQ-17 and that was almost entirely the result of gross mismanagement by First Sea Lord Admiral Dudley Pound. Halsey also does not belong on the list. His achievements during the Pacific War, when the IJN was actually a threat, were zero. Halsey won nothing. It was Frank Fletcher who won the battles of Midway (along with Ray Spruance), Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz Islands. It was Fletcher who had to figure out how to handle a carrier battle for the very first time. Other than being friendly with the press, like MacArthur, Halsey did nothing of note during the war. He did manage to get more US sailors killed by his two typhoons than the Japanese achieved at Pearl Harbour in 1941.
If I have to hear anymore about Yamamoto….. other than attack INFERIOR FORCES, OR THOSE CAUGHT IN A SURPRISE ATTACK…. just tell me what he EVER WON? Come on….. I’ll wait. He was always obsessed with that “big final battleship” battle, split his forces at Midway, and got shot down foolishly flying about in a bomber with a tendency of BURN. NOPE, old Isoroko was a fool and lauded for sinking sleeping, anchored battleships at Pearl. He never won diddle against a worthy opponent. Get him out of your mind.
Admiral Chester Nimitz was THE greatest Admiral of WWII and very possibly the greatest leader. If it wasn't for him, we would've lost to the Japanese. Let that sink in deep.
Why 10. Unforgivable to omit Hugh Dowding who promoted early warning radar; the aircraft spotters of the observer corps; centralized command and control of RAF fighters and the Spitfire. Kieth Park was commander of the RAF fighters, his brilliance in sending just enough planes in the BOB ensured its survival from attrition, while stopping the german invasion of Britain; William Slim drove the Japanese out of Burma, denying India and the Indian ocean from Japan.
You're comparing men, like Halsey, Lee or Donitz, in command of small, localised actions, against admirals, like Cunningham, Nimitz and Yamamoto, orchestrating war-altering campaigns - not really very clever.
Ramsay was the No.1 outstanding Allied admiral of the war, bar none. Donitz? A ridiculous individual. His insistence his U-boat captains send him lots of radio signals led directly to their doom as the Allies knew exactly where they were, secondly, he pioneered the Type-21 U-boat, a ridiculous exercise in building off site that created a fleet of 250 submarines of which only two floated! The American admirals had overwhelming air and sea power in their favour - few battles were equal contests - and the Americans utilised British innovations throughout the war, of which not least was ocean-going carrier operations, radar, radio HFDF, hedgehog mortars and many more..
Halsey was fine in the early going. His aggressiveness exactly what was needed. He was promoted too high. He had reached his level of incompetence. I'm not sure that Yamamoto was particularly good as an admiral. Terrible at Midway and nondescript elsewhere. Maybe he was a good enough administrator to have helped Japan at the end.
When the fighting was most intense and winning was essential from Carol Sea though October, 1942 Halsey was in the hospital. He had shingles which is caused by stress.
I agree I think this list was trying to include Admirals from both sides though personally I feel that is not possible. I think the Japanese were hamstrung by poor doctrine and inter service disputes with the Army which lead to the Admirals being very mediocre, the Germans really never had much of a Navy to begin with and while Doenitz was correct in developing the U-Boat arm he was too rigid in his command structure and tactics. When you compare them to the commanders of the US and Royal Navy in my opinion there really is no comparison. If I were to pick people in the Top 5, even the Top 10, they would likely all be American or British(some of the Bottom 10 would be there as well).
The senior Adm at sea during the Dattle of Midway was Adm Frank Jack Fletcher. He was in overall charge not Adm Spruance. Halsey was good earlyon not so good in the latter stages of the war. Halsey imo does not belong on any list of greatest of in WWII.
Weren’t Otto Kretschmer and Günther Prien merely U-Boat commanders? Skill and success in command of a single vessel is not the same thing as skill and success in command of an entire flotilla.
An admiral can only work, (a) with the resources available to him, and (b) in accordance with the political directives of the government which he serves. Doenitz’s defeat was inevitable, given the inadequacy of Germany’s naval resources and the sheer lunacy of the political directives given by Hitler and his immediate henchmen. The true test of an admiral’s competence is how well he did, with the resources at his disposal, in attempting to fulfil the ambitions of his political masters. By that test, Doenitz was superior to everyone on this list apart from Ramsay and Cunningham, and possibly Yamamoto (who, like Doenitz, did his best with inadequate resources to fulfil absurd political directives).
Admiral Raymond Spruance a tactical genius
@@percyedwin1 how so ?
I agree. Midway proved that. While the Monday morning QBs at Pearl Harbor wanted Spruance to charge in to finish the Japanese fleet after sinking 4 of their carriers, Spruance backed off sensing there was a hidden danger. He was right. Yamamoto was baring down with a whole division of Battleships the U.S. intelligence had failed to identify. Had Spruance been within range of Yamamoto's Battleships the Pacific fleet might well have lost carriers Hornet and Enterprise.
@@RFMaster6 , First Midway, Gilbert Islands, Truk, Philippines, Iwo Jima, Okinawa .. he never made a mistake. He did"nt had carriers experience but destroyed enemy carriers. He was a brilliant strategic admiral.
I think Spruance was far better than Halsey
Yes.
That’s debatable.
Spruance was mainly a staff officer. He did take Halsey's command for the battle of Midway. He did win it. Halsey had a higher rank during the war.
Halsey might have been good at tactical strikes, but was a menace strategically. Not a team player. I perceive him as a glory seeker. A naval Custer.
Not a team player ?
He was divorced of inter-service rivalry. As ComSoPac his command included Army, Navy/Marines, and AAF.
He was one of very few Navy admirals who MacArthur could and would work with.
At Guadalcanal, his commitment to 1st MarDiv is unquestionable.
The reason his Fleet was so battered by typhoons in the Philippines campaign was his willingness to stay on station for air support to the army because Leyte airfields weren’t ready.
I know people are going to bring up Leyte Gulf, where he took the bait from Ozawa’s Northern Force, but after Philippine Sea, where Spruance really dropped the ball on the air strike on the IJN carrier fleet, Nimitz changed the priority to the destruction of the Japanese fleet, particularly the carriers. Neither Halsey nor anyone else realized at the time that four IJN carriers represented an idle threat with only around 100 aircraft between them.
That was because they had been pulled earlier to reinforce IJA aircraft at Formosa, which 3rd had mostly fleet destroyed.
Could he and should he have chopped TF34 to guard San Bernardino straight ?
In hindsight yes.
Battleships were also, and primarily the core ADA platform to protect the carriers. He wasn’t going to give up his flak monsters and be naked against dive bombers if IJN dive and torpedo bombers made it through the CAP.
Also, his last report was Kurita’s Center Force had left the area.
I think a lot of the post war criticism of Halsey is from the second guessers of historians who didn’t get that ultimate line of battle battleship dual they could have if only Halsey had stuck to the script.
In retrospect, it all worked out.
Did we lose three DD’s and a DE, unfortunately we did, and the CE Gambier Bay, but we didn’t lose a BB to the 18.1 inch guns of Yamato either.
For their part, the IJN had a good plan, but like Adm. Mikowa at Savo Island, Adm. Kurtia snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by not pressing the attack.
Great to see Chester Nimitz get the recognition he deserved. Not only a great strategist he was also a good team player . When Roosevelt opted for MacArthurs plan to carry the war to Japan rather than his own proposals instead of throwing his toys out of the pram {as several US Generals might have done) he unreservedly threw his weight and resources behind it. For him winning the war was more important than his personal ego.
IMO Chester Nimitz is the greatest Admiral in WW2. He was a smart, innovated commander who was open to new ideas and refused to give up no matter how bad things looked. It's very appropriate that a class of aircraft carriers was named after him.
I was pleased to note Admirals Ramsay and Cunningham were mentioned in this as well.
Halsey reached his pinnacle of incompetence with the Solomons campaign. He famously addressed the men before the first landings, "Men, these are little guys with bad eyes. You won't have a problem." The US went on to lose 8000 men and 29 ships and lost their arrogance.
source ?
@@Stephen-oy7fl So he said something dumb. That doesn't prove incompetence. He wasn't. The Solomon campaign was costly for both sides, Iron Bottom Sound. Halsey wasn't responsible for casualties inflicted by the Japanese fleet and army.
The solomons campaign was exactly what the US needed though. It changed the landscape of the Pacific conflict into an attrititional conflict that Japan couldn't win. The US ends 1942 with the US Navy and Japanese Navy being at essentially parity for the immediate few months but the US could replace it losses, Japan couldn't.
I think Japan lost something like 29,000 men on Guadalcanal alone and a similarish number of ships. The US Navy generally faired worse especially when you take into account that Hornet was lost to submarine attack and North Carolina was knocked out for a while with damage from the same attack, but it was the conflict the US needed. The US didn't have to get an amazing victory. They just needed to grind down the enemy.
Its very similar to General Grant when he takes over and starts to face General Robert E. Lee. Grant doesn't care as much about winning a single battle as much as he wants to be in battle against the confederates in as many places and as often as he can.
I am not a fan of Halsey at all but he was absolutely what the US needed for the Guadalcanal campaign when he took over and he absolutely turned things around.
Cunningham was unsurpassed
Actually Ramsay would have been his superior but had retired and Churchill called him out of it in like '38-'39. Ramsay directed Neptune the naval part of the D-Day landings.Shame fanbois ignore these two and toss plaudits to pratts like Monty
British Admiral Max Horton another ballsy bastard that didn't get much credit.
@@bigwoody4704 Yes. He fought the Atlantic War. The enemy was initially invincible and virtually invisible.
"Karl doenitz began the war as a relatively unknown submarine commander in the German navy. Hius innovative tactics and strategigic vision , however quickly propelled himt hrough the ranks. By 1939 Doenitz had become the supreme commander of the U-boat fleet."
Huh?
WWII STARTED in. 1939, so how the f... could he have started the war in one position in the same year that he somehow became the supremne commander?
The reality is that he was already a Flotilla Commander, and BEFORE the start of the war he was in command of U-boat operations.
Glad ABC got some recognition….
Nimitz was the only Admiral that stood up to General MacArthur.
In fairness Nimitz had the rank to do that. Halsey and Spruance didn't care much for MacArthur either but if they had "stood up" to him it would have been insubordination.
Yes Spruance received criticism from some for not aggressively pursuing Japanese Naval forces in the Philippines. His job was to protect the landing force on Leyte which he did very well.
The landing force on Leyte was very important. My Dad fought in that battle.
You are talking about one thing and the stock footage shows something totally irrelevant…
If Yamamoto had truly been great he wouldn’t have planned the attack of Pearl Harbor. The ultimate idiocy is starting a war you know you won’t win.
I don't disagree, at all. The other weirdness in Yamamoto's thinking was his use of aircraft carriers to attack USN battleships. Starting a war against an immensely superior power was insane in itself, but Yamamoto also continued to think of battleships as the naval titans, even while demonstrating why they weren't. Japan had the two biggest battleships ever built, Musashi and Yamato, which performed virtually no role in the Pacific War. Aircraft carriers started the Pacific War and, along with submarines and destroyers, they finished it, except that the Americans ended up the winners.
Yamamoto didn't start the war.
He tried carry out a war he knew that he couldn't win. The orders that he was given went against his better knowledge.
His big disappointment was that the aircraft carriers were not at Pearl. He knew that battleships were not the future, why else did he send aircraft carriers.
His predictions for the war came true. Six months of crazy victories, and then the war was lost.
The blame for the war were the political incompetents who decided to go to war against a foe that had everything. Industry, population, oil, large navy, and a pigheaded will to win.
Don't blame the people receiving the orders. Blame the idiots giving impossible orders, even after they were warned about the bad results.
@@basilpunton5702 Of course, Yamamoto started the war. He launched a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, for heaven's sake, and the battleships were his targets. The US aircraft carriers were miraculously absent, but the Japanese weren't looking for them, anyway.
Britain invented the aircraft carrier, but not the concept of fleet carriers, used by Japan against Pearl Harbor, but rapidly perfected by the USN during 1942 and 1943. That's why Yamamoto's failure to track the American carriers in 1941 was both surprising, highly ironic and, ultimately, disastrous for Japan, but led to inevitable US victory.
@@gwilymmorgan5115 Wars are declared by the countries leaders, not the military.
Tojo and Japanese army wanted war Admiral Yamamoto knew better but had to follow orders.
Halsey best contribution was his illness during the battle of Midway
his cotribution at Guadalcanal was his finest work, and deserving of praise. after 1943 the war had become too complex for his abilities and he had some disasterous episodes that should have disqualified him for a fifth star.
Its possible that his absence actually cost the Americans a better victory. If Halsey is there there is no way the "flight to nowhere" happens from Hornet and its not hard to conceive of the US sinking all 4 carriers if the Hornet air group shows up and so you get no counter attack from Hiryu that damages Yorktown which leads to its sinking via a submarine attack.
Halsey's finest hour was the Solomons campaign. That is only reason he might be on this list. The Guadalcanal campaign was Admiral King's idea, not Nimitz. Speaking of King he should be on the list instead of Halsey. He may have been America's best strategist of the War. Honorable mention should go to Admiral William Leahy. He was highly influential in developing overall Allied Strategy but he had no operational command. Little known today outside of Naval circles, Leahy was the senior American officer serving in WWII.
Been waiting for a video on this one
Nimitz had been head of Navy personnel for years. He knew which commanders to put where and who to listen to.
Halsey blundered when he went for the bait force only saved by the taffy destroyers and carriers
Bingo
Plus he had a problem with the weather
ABC Cunningham - Churchill said 'never had so much much been achieved with so little'
"Karl Dönitz began the war as a relatively unknown submarine commander... By 1939, Dönitz had become supreme commander of the U--boat fleet."
In case you missed it, WWII actually started in 1939 in Europe. Even if you put the date back to Japanese aggression against China, Dönitz was already an Admiral at that time.
Odd how much of this feature seems to use the same footage as Drachife’s intro. Is it tge same source? Citation?
The fact that Donitz never signed the Commando and Kommisar orders saved him from the hangman.
A great way to end 2024, with a video of ww2 most well respected and military strategist admirals
Have a look at the definition of infamous....
Spruance needs a 5th star. He was as good as Halsey but low key compared to Halsey. Nimitz thought so much of him that he had him command the fleet at sea while all the others were at the surrender in Tokyo Bay. He did this in case it was a Japanese trap.
I've read everything about all these Admirals of WW2 ever since I was a child. Yes, 1. Donitz was the best sub commander the Kreigsmarine had in the early years of the war.
2. Nimitz was a legend of US Naval history who emerged from the ashes of the Pearl Harbor attack on December 1941.
3. Yamamoto was the smartest strategist that the Japanese Army had, and used his expertise to deadly effect in the early years of the Pacific War until the Battle of Midway as he feared, and tried to warn his government that Japan will lose a long-term war with America before his death in Operation Vengeance.
4. Ramsey was the best admiral that Britain had in the Mediterranean theater against Italy and the Germans' Luftwaffe.
5. Cunningham was best known for saving thousands of stranded British troops from the French coast during the Battle of Dunkirk in 1940, and later returned them back to where they evacuated from four years earlier in Operation Overload on June 1944.
6. William "Bull" Halsey was another influential Admiral of the US Navy, but he did have an aggressive style to his tactics than others including the strategies that he made in the Battle of Leyte Gulf.
7. Spruance became a US Navy admiral during the Battle of Midway in 1942, even though he was not as experienced as Nimitz or Halsey at the start of his history as an admiral.
I think you mixed up the careers of Ramsey and Cunningham.
@@basilpunton5702 I'm sure he did.
@@basilpunton5702 Yes!
Cunningham was not involved in Dunkirk. That was Ramsey, who also led Operation Neptune, the naval element of Overlord. This video also overlooks Ching Lee and Bruce Fraser, both of whom were extremely effective fighting Admirals
I have read that "Island hopping" was MacArthur's idea. The U.S. Navy proposed capturing Formosa. Using Formosa, U.S. could "strangle" Japanese imports. Japan relied heavily on obtaining supplies from elsewhere. There would also be fewer seaborne invasions. I think the U.S. Navy was correct. The U.S. Army and U.S. Navy estimated the anticipated number of casualities would occur if Japan was attacked. The U.S. Army estimate was much lower than the U.. Navy. After the war, the U.S. Navy's estimate was found to be more accurate.
@transplant-f3p
"Island hopping" was the original strategy employed. Nimitz's strategy was called "leapfrogging", taking islands behind the forward garrisons, isolating them from reinforcement and resupply.
After the Formosa plan was turned down in favor of the Philippines, Nimitz came up with a way to have his cake and eat it, too. He decided to go for Okinawa, which accomplished the same goal that Formosa would have provided, isolating Japan from Indonesia, without drawing on the resources needed for the Philippines.
Spruance as Number One ? God bless you, Yes! Finally a RUclips Military Video with a brain! Why Spruance didn't receive a fifth star I will never understand. Hulsey did not deserve it after Layette.
Two words: Carl Vinson.
Halsey is a stretch
@@JRT140 1942-43. Halsey was the difference maker in the South Pacific.
Although awarded later, the Solomon Islands campaign is what got him his fifth star.
He had to have birth
Ernie King came up with much you attribute to Nimitz. He organized a successful war on two oceans and pushed to have the US on the offensive earlier than anyone else imagined starting with Guadalcanal.
Would you care to express an opinion about the 'Second Happy Time,' Operation Paukenschlag?
@wgielner I remember reading a report that.... openly stated.....because of Adm. King's blatant Anglophobia, he was directly responsible for shipping losses on the U.S. east coast, and should have been removed/ reassigned from responsibilities in the Atlantic theatre. The report then went on to state that if this had been done in 1942/43, the Battle of the Atlantic, would have ceased.....ten to twelve months....before the actual end of WWII.
Why is there film of German ww1 troops when talking about Yamamoto. Simply mysterious choice.
Sie:
Your judgement is truly awful! You have included two admirals that simply don't belong there and omitted one who certainly does.
First error: The inclusion of Yamamoto. This is the guy who personally chose to attack Pearl Harbor, when he did not have to. Japan could simply have sailed south to the Malaysian oil fields and taken them from the Dutch and the US would not have declared war. If Roosevelt could have gotten Congress to declare war on Japan, the US navy was totally incapable of taking on the Japanese fleet in Japanese waters. This decision by Yamamoto was the worst decision by any Axis leader in the entire war. Secondly, once the decision to attack Pearl Harbor was made, Yamamoto chose the wrong targets. The chief targets at Pearl Harbor should have been the oil storage facilities and the ship repair facilities. The US would then have to fight the war out of its west coast ports.
At Midway, Yamamoto failed to concentrate his forces and failed to pursue a very weakened enemy. He should have pressed on to Hawaii with his entire fleet.
As for the naval battles off Guadalcanal, same story. Yamamotos failure was the failure to bring sufficient force to bear at any one time and he had the forces to win sitting at Truk and in home waters. Can you name any good strategic or tactical decisions by Yamamoto?
Second error: The inclusion of Halsey. Halsey had only one great moment; The naval battles off Guadalcanal for which he was area commander and not in tactical command. Even that was marred by his interference with Kincaids', command at the Battle of Santa Cruz. Haley's dereliction of duty at Leyte and his sailing into two typhoons causing significant loss of ships and life should have gotten him courtmartialed. The only thing that saved him was that by then the press had made him a hero.
Third error: The omission of Frank Jack Fletcher. This is the admiral who was in tactical command at three of the five carrier on carrier battles of WW2: Coral Sea, Midway and Eastern Solomons. In 1942, US naval aviation was no match for the Japanese. Yet, US forces under Fletchers command sank six Japanese aircraft carriers and destroyed the entire cream of Japanese naval aviation known as Kido Butai. Fletcher was personally awarded his third star by Nimitz after his, Fletchers, victory at Midway. In the year 1942, Frank Jack Fletcher was the best tactical naval commander in the entire world. (Why have you never heard of him? He had enemies: Ernest King and Samuel Elliot Morrison.)
correct in every detail.
@@billmactiernan6304
I totally agree with you
I will go further and say both Japan and Germany were very foolish to start industrial wars without both iron ore or oil - there results of such misadventures were predetermined from the very start
Oil fields in Malaysia(Malaya)? I think you should have said Indonesia (Dutch East Indies). Or perhaps Borneo. There was little oil in Malaya.
@@basilpunton5702 There is oil in Burma and Brunei.
@@billmactiernan6304 Earnest King who let ( lead) American merchandising ships into the jaws of German u-boots... by reuring to implement safety measures advised by the British...
I'm not sure how Doenitz makes this list, he lost the Battle of the Atlantic, possibly the most important battle of WW2, as well as being a convicted war criminal, Adm Dudley Pound broke the wolf packs. I'd also add Bruce Fraser into the mix a really agressive British commander who was instrumental in defeating the German Surface fleet.
A good choice and well presented commentary.
Cannot understand the footage of ww1 german infantry and navy in some of the features.
Also footage of German one-man-subs while talking about Pacific operations
Although he wasn't a combat commander, Ernest King had more to do with wining the war than any of the afore mentioned-IMO
certainly in the Pacific
Despite the massive losses he caused by opposing convoys for merchant ships?
@@gnosticbrian3980 Yup. His reasoning was valid. The Germans had withdrawn their U-boats from US waters in late 1941. They only had 8 long distance subs, and King argued that we didn't have the escorts to protect convoy's. He wasn't against the convoy system per say. He just thought we had a time period before the wolf packs could operate off our coast. Unfortunately, we did take terrible merchant loses. But within a year sufficient destroyer escorts had been built to begin escorting convoys, and loses dropped dramatically. By the end of 1942 the Battle of the Atlantic had basically been won. Yes, he had the long vision for the allotment of resourses that won the war. Again-IMO
@@calliecooke1817 I've read that the U-Boat crews called the period from January 1942 to about August of that year the "American Shooting Season". Historian Michael Gannon called it "America's Second Pearl Harbor" and blamed the failure to respond quickly to the attacks on the inaction of Admiral King. King also refused British offers to provide the US navy with their own ships,
I would have placed the defeat of the U-Boats around mid-1943.
@@gnosticbrian3980 I have heard it called "The Happy Time". History shows that King made some poor decisions. But he was forced to make difficult choices. If he had not sent those destroyers to the Pacific, we may well have lost or never even contended for Guadalcanal. How would that have effected the war? As for the destroyers Britian offered us, they were the old four stackers we had swapped with them for bases. They were obsolete, only 31 of the 50 ever got into service because they had been so badly preserved, and they were so slow that U-Boats sank 9 or 10 of them. We didn't want them with new stuff coming on line daily. King was still the mastermind of the strategy that won the war and left the US in complete domination of all seas.
Since we're at this topic, I just wonder why is Ozawa so heavily lauded as an admiral?
I think Ozawa is rated highly for a couple of reasons, one he survived the war so he got to tell of his exploits. Two I think he performed competently in a Navy full of mediocre Admirals. He was able to evacuate the troops from Guadalcanal and performed well at Battle of the Philippine Sea though is role was basically to be a target for Halsey's aircraft. Personally I think Japanese Naval Doctrine forced them into overly complex battle plans that required way to much precise timing and often accounted for what the enemy was expected to do rather than what they were capable of doing which left Japan with a lot of sub-par commanders.
"The 5 Greatest Admirals of WW2"
Very first thing said in the video. "In the chaos of World War II, seven men emerged as masters of the sea."
what about Sommerville, willis Lee, Ehrich Bey, Karel Doorman, Raizo Tanaka.. just to name a few.. even Takeo Takagi and Frank Fletcher.
And Dudley Pound. And Louis Mountbatten.
@taskforce3833
Some of those you mentioned were worthy.
But Erich Bey?🙄 What did he do, besides losing all his destroyers at Narvik and going down with the Scharnhorst?
Bruce Fraser.
I think you need to differentiate those like King Nimitz and Pound from the fighting admirals. Cunningham, Lee and Spruance did it for me there.
Yamamoto cored a great tactical victory at Pearl, but one that made peace negotiations with America impossible. Max Horton should have been included.
What about Admiral Horton RN who successfully conquered the U-boat threat in the Atlantic 1943 which allowed the material build up for Operation Overlord?
During Yamamoto report why the heck are there "Kaiser Willy's Pickelhauben" shown?
Halsey should have listened to Willis A. Lee at Leyte Gulf. Speaking of Lee there should have been a 6th admiral on this list. Willis A. Lee
I may be old-fashioned, but 7 doesn't equal 5
One of the best naval quotes was by Admiral Willis 🌟A. Lee to US PT boats off Guadalcanal.
"Stand aside, this is Ching Lee, I'm coming through." 👏👏👏‼
And yet Nimitz made a huge mistake about the invasion of Peleliu.
British Admirals were and are and always will be the best.
@@paulgregory3985 🤣😂🤣😂
I needed a laugh
Has there ever been a better combination than Nelson and Collingwood?
If so, it would have to be Drake and Hawkins.
@@anthonymorris2276 depends on what you are talking about. I would give you King, Nimitz, Spruance, Lee from top to bottom
I wouldn’t have included Halsey. He was reckless beyond just being aggressive and went glory hunting at Leyte. A lot of men died needlessly. And 2 typhoons. Anyone else would have been retired for 3 mistakes like that in such proximity to each other.
Yamamoto is a highly overrated Admiral. He's credited as the mastermind behind Pearl Harbor, but I'd argue all that attack did was ensure maximum American rage and motivation would remain a factor for the entire war. Tactically, he was outmanuevered by King and Nimitz at basically every turn. The only reason he was retained in command after Midway was because the Japanese government concealed what a disaster it was from the public,and relieving him wouldn't be congruent with what they said happened.
Nimitz once commented that he should have had Halsey in command at the battle of the Philippine sea and spruance in command of the battle of leyte gulf instead of the way it was. We can only wonder what the result would have been. lol, if Halsey had been at the Philippine Sea, likely japan wouldn't have had much of a fleet during the invasion of the Philippines. and if Spruance had been at leyte gulf, we'ld have seen the battle line battle led my Lee, if it only could have been.
Admiral Sir Bruce Fraser....
"Karl Donitz began World War II as a relatively unknown ...... by 1939, Donitz had become the supreme commander..." ... just checking with you, when did World War II begin, I thought it was 1st September 1939 when Germany invaded Poland!
Donitz should not be on the list. His tactics never changed tactics during the war. Also, Halsey should not be on the list instead I would put Admiral Raeder and Admiral King.
@@johnfleet235 agreed
Halsey was instrumental in the success of the US Navy winning the Pacific war with Japan. Saying Halsey shouldn't be listed is ridiculous.
Agree with King, disagree with Raeder. Raeders main achievement is the buildup of the Kriegsmarine as a fleet based on capital ships, culminating in the Z-plan. And that was clearly the wrong kind of fleet for the war. More importantly the Z-plan was economically unfeasable, if that fleet had been build and mobilised for war it would have consumed more oil then the entire german economy was consuming. Dönitz on the other side was competent and did change his tactics as far as he could, though I would also not put him on this list.
Ever heard of Hannibal? Doenitz saved more lives than he took.. So you have half the brain
@@briandorsett9730 He also sailed his Navy into not one but two Typhoons, and was lured away at the Battle of the Philippine Sea leaving Taffy 3 up against battleships. Not saying Halsey was a bad Admiral, his hard charging attitude was often a bonus, but perhaps not worthy of the Top 5.
Follow up: This channel is NOT RECOMMENDED.
Two do not belong on the list. Donitz' plan for U-Boat warfare was entirely a failure. At no time was British commerce across the Atlantic seriously threatened. Donitz only managed one battle success in the sinking of convoy PQ-17 and that was almost entirely the result of gross mismanagement by First Sea Lord Admiral Dudley Pound.
Halsey also does not belong on the list. His achievements during the Pacific War, when the IJN was actually a threat, were zero. Halsey won nothing. It was Frank Fletcher who won the battles of Midway (along with Ray Spruance), Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz Islands. It was Fletcher who had to figure out how to handle a carrier battle for the very first time. Other than being friendly with the press, like MacArthur, Halsey did nothing of note during the war. He did manage to get more US sailors killed by his two typhoons than the Japanese achieved at Pearl Harbour in 1941.
Nice vid man would love to see the best Japanese generals
If I have to hear anymore about Yamamoto….. other than attack INFERIOR FORCES, OR THOSE CAUGHT IN A SURPRISE ATTACK…. just tell me what he EVER WON? Come on….. I’ll wait. He was always obsessed with that “big final battleship” battle, split his forces at Midway, and got shot down foolishly flying about in a bomber with a tendency of BURN. NOPE, old Isoroko was a fool and lauded for sinking sleeping, anchored battleships at Pearl. He never won diddle against a worthy opponent. Get him out of your mind.
@sheilah4525 Oh no I meant yamashita and them kind of generals
@sheilah4525 I do agree with you yamamoto is so overrated all he did was fail to destroy the Pacific fleet
Admiral Chester Nimitz was THE greatest Admiral of WWII and very possibly the greatest leader.
If it wasn't for him, we would've lost to the Japanese.
Let that sink in deep.
For me Karel Doorman.
Why 10. Unforgivable to omit Hugh Dowding who promoted early warning radar; the aircraft spotters of the observer corps; centralized command and control of RAF fighters and the Spitfire. Kieth Park was commander of the RAF fighters, his brilliance in sending just enough planes in the BOB ensured its survival from attrition, while stopping the german invasion of Britain; William Slim drove the Japanese out of Burma, denying India and the Indian ocean from Japan.
They do rank, but were not admirals.
You're comparing men, like Halsey, Lee or Donitz, in command of small, localised actions, against admirals, like Cunningham, Nimitz and Yamamoto, orchestrating war-altering campaigns - not really very clever.
Ramsay was the No.1 outstanding Allied admiral of the war, bar none. Donitz? A ridiculous individual. His insistence his U-boat captains send him lots of radio signals led directly to their doom as the Allies knew exactly where they were, secondly, he pioneered the Type-21 U-boat, a ridiculous exercise in building off site that created a fleet of 250 submarines of which only two floated! The American admirals had overwhelming air and sea power in their favour - few battles were equal contests - and the Americans utilised British innovations throughout the war, of which not least was ocean-going carrier operations, radar, radio HFDF, hedgehog mortars and many more..
Who was the Senior Officer Present Afloat at Coral Sea, Midway, Eastern Solomons and sank 6 Japanese carriers.
just goes to show that being senior does not matter that much
yeah I know you are a Fletcher fan boy
Low Fuel Fletcher was not all that
The planning of "Pearl Harbor" was genius, the execution of the plan far less so....
Halsey got to big for his boots late 1944 to 1945 earlier he was ok then chashing flat tops for no reason then the cyclone
I like your list but was afraid you were going to list King as a successful WW2 leader.
Halsey was fine in the early going. His aggressiveness exactly what was needed. He was promoted too high. He had reached his level of incompetence. I'm not sure that Yamamoto was particularly good as an admiral. Terrible at Midway and nondescript elsewhere. Maybe he was a good enough administrator to have helped Japan at the end.
When the fighting was most intense and winning was essential from Carol Sea though October, 1942 Halsey was in the hospital. He had shingles which is caused by stress.
I agree I think this list was trying to include Admirals from both sides though personally I feel that is not possible. I think the Japanese were hamstrung by poor doctrine and inter service disputes with the Army which lead to the Admirals being very mediocre, the Germans really never had much of a Navy to begin with and while Doenitz was correct in developing the U-Boat arm he was too rigid in his command structure and tactics. When you compare them to the commanders of the US and Royal Navy in my opinion there really is no comparison. If I were to pick people in the Top 5, even the Top 10, they would likely all be American or British(some of the Bottom 10 would be there as well).
The senior Adm at sea during the Dattle of Midway was Adm Frank Jack Fletcher. He was in overall charge not Adm Spruance. Halsey was good earlyon not so good in the latter stages of the war. Halsey imo does not belong on any list of greatest of in WWII.
Spruance overall. Good choice. Halsey? Where is TF34? He sails off and leaves San Bernardino Straight unguarded.
Wildly inaccurate and quite misinformative..
Your thumbnail says 5, your explanation says 7, you mentioned 6, you need to reorganizeour counting.
You need to lose Doenitz and Halsey, neither were close to as good as they thought they were. King and Somerville are better fits in this list.
Your British accent betrays your partisan favor for British admirals. Most people never heard of all these Liverpool Lads. Be fair.
Pickelhaubes...? 4:15
KONDO of Japan.
Swap Fletcher for Halsey, and it will be good. Halsey was an aggressive cretin, who was only good at losing carriers.
No Eugene Lee, no worth to the list!
Hash
Silent Otto ? Günther Prien ?
Weren’t Otto Kretschmer and Günther Prien merely U-Boat commanders?
Skill and success in command of a single vessel is not the same thing as skill and success in command of an entire flotilla.
Ching Lee
Doenitz was completely defeated long before the end of the war, how does he belong here.
An admiral can only work, (a) with the resources available to him, and (b) in accordance with the political directives of the government which he serves.
Doenitz’s defeat was inevitable, given the inadequacy of Germany’s naval resources and the sheer lunacy of the political directives given by Hitler and his immediate henchmen.
The true test of an admiral’s competence is how well he did, with the resources at his disposal, in attempting to fulfil the ambitions of his political masters. By that test, Doenitz was superior to everyone on this list apart from Ramsay and Cunningham, and possibly Yamamoto (who, like Doenitz, did his best with inadequate resources to fulfil absurd political directives).