The Ship Model Forum

There were books printed many years ago that covers this topic.....I think it was called...Illustarted history of the us navy during WWII, each volume covered each campain in the pacific theater of operations. try a local library I have seen them.

Best of luck!

regards

[quote="MartinJQuinn"][quote="Sean Hert"]Anyone know of any good references for The Battle of Coral Sea? I'm looking for a good overview type thing.[/quote]
There is also Chris Henry's "Battle of the Coral Sea". I know nothing about this book, so I can't comment on how good it is.
[img]http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1591140331.01._AA240_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg[/img]
[/quote]

I picked this this book up. It's along the lines of the Osprey series of books.

I wasn't impressed. He lost me when he labeled the guns in [url=http://www.njipms.org/images/cv3a.jpg]this picture[/url] as "DP 5 inch guns".

Come on! Doolittle handed the USA a great propaganda victory and played on classic Japanese xenophobia. Who knows how many units were tied down in the home islands until it was too late to move them elsewhere.

We can't forget the Chinese were fighting on the ground and needed all the relief they could get. If Doolittle caused the Japanese to transfer troops intended for China to the homeland, it was worth the cost.

I agree the Doolittle raid was perhaps not a really wise military move at that point in the war. Even successful as it was, it mostly put two carriers in harms way for no return in the Naval struggle. Many say that the Doolittle attack convinced Japan they HAD to take Midway. "Shattered Sword" makes pretty clear Japan had already set Midway in motion.
The full American Carrier force should have been kept together and used as one force. Like any Battle Fleet, the Carriers should be used en mass. Simple ancient military strategy there. At least as long as your enemy has an equal force in being.
I guess it was political, the Doolittle raid decision. Looked damn good in the papers, but risked ships and men for next to nothing. Had that two Carrier force run into trouble, the Doolittle raid would have gone down in history as the absolute acme of what not to do with naval forces.

Bob B.

I read "Blue Skies and Blood" back in high school, and while I don't remember particulars, I remember thinking that it was just an acceptable account of the battle.

Right now I'd have to say that "The First Team" has some of the most concise information, but somewhat limited point of view. If Lundstrom's book on the subject is up to his usual quality, then it will be the new standard when it is released.

I agree that it isn't great that most books lump Coral Sea and Midway together. I'm not up on the Japanese standpoint (still have to read 'Shattered Sword'), but the battle did have direct effect on the Americans. [i]Yorktown's [/i]performance was directly affected by her Coral Sea experience - she was the only US carrier with true combat experience at that point, and her wounds from Coral Sea affected her performance at Midway and helped lead to her loss. Also, the absence of [i]Enterprise [/i]and [i]Hornet [/i]at Coral Sea likewise affected their performance at Midway - I still say that the Doolittle Raid was a waste of resources and those two carriers should have been down helping out [i]Yorktown [/i]and [i]Lexington[/i]. Their airgroups would have probably fared better on June 4th with a little experience under their belt.

-Devin

[quote="RNfanDan"]
Incidentally, I just saw a History Channel program on the USS [i]Ronald Reagan[/i] CVN-76, where one of her officers incorrectly described the Battle of Midway as being the first sea battle where neither side saw each other, directly. I mention this only because I found it strange that Coral Sea didn't even get a cameo appearance!
[/quote]

One of my fondest memories is when my dad first told me about Coral Sea when I was a kid. *He* told me it was "the first sea battle where neither side saw each other."

[quote="bengtsson"]Coral Sea lacks a really good definitive history. I don't know why, as the first Carrier Naval Battle, I would think it a matter of great interest. Bob B.[/quote]

I think many writers and historians tend to tie-together Coral Sea and Midway in a symbiotic manner, far too often. Most Midway accounts I have read either begin with the Coral Sea affair, or somehow incorporate it into the framework of the Midway battle. Like Siamese twins, the two seem to go together everywhere you look!

[i]Shattered Sword[/i] in my opinion, did a pretty good job at prying the two battles apart, at least from the Japanese side, by debunking the longstanding presumption that [i]Shokaku[/i] and [i]Zuikaku[/i] were absent from Operation MI because of the Coral Sea battle.

Incidentally, I just saw a History Channel program on the USS [i]Ronald Reagan[/i] CVN-76, wherein one of her officers incorrectly describes the Battle of Midway as being the first sea battle where neither side saw each other, directly. I mention this only because I found it strange that Coral Sea didn't even get a cameo !

Historically, the Battle of the Coral Sea was much more impactful on the outcome of the Pacific war, than many attribute to it. It certainly would have affected subsequent USN operations, even with a Midway victory, had the Japanese succeeded in grabbing Port Moresby.

Coral Sea lacks a really good definitive history. I don't know why, as the first Carrier Naval Battle, I would think it a matter of great interest. But Midway was so huge a victory for the US and Coral Sea was a lesser victory, that all US interest went towards the Midway battle.
I hope Lundstrom does take on the Coral Sea as some have said he is. It was a first for Carriers to take each other on and change all naval warfare, putting our beloved BB's in the background.
Edwin P. Hoyt has written alot of Naval History. He has a mixed reputation as to his abilities. He writes interesting, very readable books, but does get things wrong enough to make him a little suspect. I have his book "The Karlsruhe Affair" giving the raiding history of this German Light Crusier. Wonderful read, and the only English language book to take on this story. But I was shocked to see him get the actual facts of the sinking dead wrong. His discription of Karlsruhes damage at the time of the explosion is flat wrong and all other sources show that. After reading what I thought was a good book, I just had to wonder what else he made up on his own.

Bob B.

[quote="Sean Hert"]Anyone know of any good references for The Battle of Coral Sea? I'm looking for a good overview type thing.[/quote]

I've heard mixed reviews about Edwin Hoyt's "Blue Skies and Blood".
[img]http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0743458354.01._AA240_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg[/img]

Amazon shows 5 used copies available, starting at $10.

There is also Chris Henry's "Battle of the Coral Sea". I know nothing about this book, so I can't comment on how good it is.
[img]http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1591140331.01._AA240_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg[/img]

John Lundstrom's "The First Team" has a couple of chapters on the Coral Sea, with the focus on the USN VF operations. I just finished reading AA Hoeling's "The Lexington Goes Down". The only deals with the final hours of the Lex, from the 5/8 AM attack through her sinking that night. Was a good (but depressing, for a Lex fan) read.

Blue Skies and Blood by Hoyt

Anyone know of any good references for The Battle of Coral Sea? I'm looking for a good overview type thing.