Talk:Robert L. Ghormley

unsourced criticism

The following passage is entirely unsourced. Rather than adding a "citation needed" template I simply removed it all, since this is a biography 84.217.39.2 (talk) 09:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The convoluted and extensive problems involving several major players in the South Pacific battles, the fact that the following battles in the Solomons in the early stages were the United States' first offensive land operations in the Pacific War, that "Island Warfare" was a new concept, that amphibious training by invasion forces was hurried, that the swift change in reality which resulted from the Pearl Harbor attack (battleship to air power in terms of naval doctrine) had not yet crystallized in the minds of key players, that the areas of operation were strung all across the South Pacific islands to Australia and New Zealand, that major decision makers were themselves attempting to grasp and deal with the complexities of logistical support for massive invasion assets, and it appears, by the faults of long-distance politics spread over 7,000 miles of expansive ocean to the U.S. – all contributed to Admiral Ghormley ultimately being dismissed from command. All these other problems aside, Admiral Ghormley's personal shortcomings, primarily due to his absences and his failure to clearly arbitrate and make decisive, on-the-spot decisions, ultimately led to his dismissal from command because he was the immediate commander in charge over all operations (Commander, South Pacific Forces (COMSOPAC)).

Assignment as COMSOPAC

I added information on Ghormley's selection as COMSOPAC, which was decided upon in April 1942, with Ghormley taking the command in mid-May, and I moved up the paragraph on his selection over Admiral Pye. Along with that, I added short notes on the Battle of the Coral Sea and Japanese moves in the Solomons, which took place in early May. I moved information on Operation Watchtower to after Ghormley's assignment, as that operation was not ordered until July. I added a summary of the forces assigned to Ghormley for Watchtower. I deleted the passage about the Battle of Midway as it did not seem relevant to Ghormley.

Sean Barnett (talk) 04:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Robert Ghormley's in command of USS Sands (DD-243), Delivery of Food Aid to Revolutionary Russia, 1921-1922

In the December, 2022 issue of Naval History published by the U.S. Naval Institute has an article , "Commander Ghormley's Black Sea Challenge." by Elliot Carlson and Robert J Hanyon. This article discusses Admiral Ghormley's early career in command of the USS Sands during Allied food relief of Russia following the Revolution. This article acknowledged the Admiral's WWII problem in contrast to his leadership performance early in his career. It might be worth revising this entry in Wikipedia to add balance. 2600:1700:53F1:BC50:85BC:980D:A1D:BBF6 (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I read that article. In my opinion, its use for this purpose is questionable at best. Here are the relevant passages from the article:

Quoted passages

"Of course, crew members could not know what the future held for Ghormley. They could not know, nor could Ghormley, that on 18 October 1942, while serving as South Pacific Area commander during the hard-fought Battle of Guadalcanal, he abruptly and ignominiously would be fired. Pacific Fleet Commander Chester W. Nimitz would never fully explain why he let Ghormley go (and replaced him with the hard-charging William F. “Bull” Halsey). But there were hints that he had found Ghormley’s leadership wanting; the South Pacific commander was said to have been hesitant, overly cautious, and defeatist. Those criticisms may have been justified. If so, would Ghormley’s shortcomings have been foreshadowed by his command of the Sands?" "Several months after the United States entered World War II, he was appointed Commander, South Pacific Area, a position he assumed in June 1942. Regarded as a skilled naval strategist, he seemed ideal for the job. Nimitz relieved him of that post five months later, on 18 October, midway through the Guadalcanal campaign, amid rumors he had failed to exert strong leadership." "If Admiral Bristol had been around in 1942 (he died in 1939), he might have asked, What happened to the “Black Sea Ghormley?” Critics might have pointed out that the admiral hadn’t skippered a ship in five years, let alone a task force; he had been too valuable in Washington. The question arises whether Ghormley might have been better prepared for his task in the South Pacific had he spent more time at sea, commanding ships, and less time holding down all those important staff jobs and serving as somebody’s aide." Source: Commander Ghormley’s Black Sea Challenge (this article was unlocked at the time of this posting but appears to be destined to go behind a paywall later)

If this article had provided hard facts, yes, it would have been useful. In my view, however, it merely perpetuates rumor-mongering and adds little to what our article already states. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 09:24, 28 December 2022 (UTC)