would seem both simple and logical to retain king in his dual role.

what would be the effect of keeping stark as cno?
less meddling with production priorities and scheduling.

kings 'anglophobia' is one of those things often averred but never adduced, much less proven. additionally, the rn and the mn are in much better shape than in otl, so that any action by king, if taken, would be less than material to their efficient operations.

one suspects that any anti-british attitude may be traced to the fact that the usn and its officers, especially those of flag rank, had trained and planned for action with the ijn. and might feel that the 'battle of the atlantic' was somewhat of a sideshow. which the allies were in ffo winning as of 1942, though not as yet in otl.

there was a long thread concerning king's 'anglophobia' a while ago on the nfb forum or perhaps the us navy forum. verdict was a scotch one, 'not proven.'

besides, why was stark translated from cno to a lesser position, as chief of us naval forces in europe, in march '42? was he in any way responsible for kimmel's selection or for the flow of info and intel to k later as cic us pacific fleet? a gentle reprimand perhaps?

also, king's experience ashore and afloat greatly exceeded, i believe, that of stark.

stark also got along very well with the briish military and facilitated smooth operations in london, much as dill did in washington. dill, by the way, got on famously with king!

finally 'kiss' applies here does it not? as material appears on nfb much anguish and heartache will be vented by readers who disagree with the development, let's not give them even more to be upset about! no more flaming if its easily avoidable

rgrds,

jim/1jimmee