Midway, 5 June (Hawaii Time)

Post a reply

Confirmation code
Enter the code exactly as it appears. All letters are case insensitive.

BBCode is OFF
Smilies are OFF

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Midway, 5 June (Hawaii Time)

by Guest » Thu May 31, 2007 12:09 pm

Is it possible that the battleships came along for political rather than operational reasons?

by Guest » Thu May 31, 2007 12:04 pm

MartinJQuinn wrote:
Werner wrote:I think we have to remember Japanese carrier captains always had one eye on the clock and the other on the fuel gauge. They would have used the most efficient speed to accomplish the mission. Yamato and the others could never have kept up.
Good point
Werner wrote:I also do not believe their tactics were fully mature by June '42. At least part of the command polity expected, nay demanded, a decisive ship-vs-ship action.
That is why the Yamamoto hung back from the 1st Air Fleet - to come in and "mop up" any cripples.
That makes no sense. Due to the short range of their weapons, the battlefleet should have a much better chance of ship-vs-ship action if it were charging out in the front, rather than hanging back. Due to the fact that the US fleet had no battleships, every American ship was faster than Yamamoto's battleline. Consequently there is almost no chance of a ship-vs-ship action unless somehow the Americans accidentally when around Nagumo and then blunder into Yamamoto's force at night in the process. How this can happen is total mystery. The Japanese had not expected the Americans to be in position at sea at all on June 4. They had expected the Americans to still be in Pearl Harbour, and would only charge out to rescue Midway after the Japanese have already started taken the island, and therefore the American forces would charge in from the East of Nagumo.

In any case there were no American forces to justify deploying 7 battleships in a ship-vs-ship action. In such an action, 8-10 cruisers plus 4 Kongos would be entirely enough, and such a force would be fast enough to screen the 1st air fleet. Remember Kaga was a converted battleship, and is only capable of 27 knots.

by MartinJQuinn » Thu May 31, 2007 9:25 am

Werner wrote:I think we have to remember Japanese carrier captains always had one eye on the clock and the other on the fuel gauge. They would have used the most efficient speed to accomplish the mission. Yamato and the others could never have kept up.
Good point
Werner wrote:I also do not believe their tactics were fully mature by June '42. At least part of the command polity expected, nay demanded, a decisive ship-vs-ship action.
That is why the Yamamoto hung back from the 1st Air Fleet - to come in and "mop up" any cripples.

by Werner » Wed May 30, 2007 9:51 pm

I think we have to remember Japanese carrier captains always had one eye on the clock and the other on the fuel gauge. They would have used the most efficient speed to accomplish the mission. Yamato and the others could never have kept up.

I also do not believe their tactics were fully mature by June '42. At least part of the command polity expected, nay demanded, a decisive ship-vs-ship action.

by MartinJQuinn » Wed May 30, 2007 9:42 pm

Anonymous wrote:Even if the crew were completely successful in avoiding any targets other than the carriers, concentrating the Japanese forces would mean there would be 4 other, less important flat tops on which to disperse the blow.

So instead of 3 vital fleet carriers lost at a stroke, the chances are the loss could have been reduced to 1.5 light carriers plus 1.5 fleet carriers, a far better proposition than what actually transpired.
So you mean no complex, chess piece set with moving parts everywhere, and all the eggs in one basket? Very un-Japanese like!! Besides, the 1st Air Fleets main asset was speed, as Werner noted, the other ships would have slowed them down.

by Guest » Wed May 30, 2007 12:38 pm

MartinJQuinn wrote:
Anonymous wrote: The several knot speed advantage bought them nothing. The BBs would have been tempting targets for the dive bombers and would probably have diverted some of the bombs, which they would have an infinitely better chance of surviving than the carriers.

If you don't want your main assets hit, and you can't keep your enemy from hitting, then provide your enemy with alternatives to hit.
Hogwash. The main targets were the carriers. While the Marines and Navy aircrews from Midway did try divert to some alternate targets, the carrier airgroups were focused on getting the carriers.

Even if the crew were completely successful in avoiding any targets other than the carriers, concentrating the Japanese forces would mean there would be 4 other, less important flat tops on which to disperse the blow.

So instead of 3 vital fleet carriers lost at a stroke, the chances are the loss could have been reduced to 1.5 light carriers plus 1.5 fleet carriers, a far better proposition than what actually transpired.

by MartinJQuinn » Wed May 30, 2007 11:35 am

Anonymous wrote:
Werner wrote: And lopped several knots off the carrier force's speed of advance.

The diagrams from Shattered Sword make it pretty clear the Japanese AAA had little to offer in the way of protection against dive bombers.
The several knot speed advantage bought them nothing. The BBs would have been tempting targets for the dive bombers and would probably have diverted some of the bombs, which they would have an infinitely better chance of surviving than the carriers.

If you don't want your main assets hit, and you can't keep your enemy from hitting, then provide your enemy with alternatives to hit.
Hogwash. The main targets were the carriers. While the Marines and Navy aircrews from Midway did try divert to some alternate targets, the carrier airgroups were focused on getting the carriers.

by Guest » Wed May 30, 2007 10:57 am

Werner wrote:
Chuck wrote: If the combined fleet main force had been with Nagumo's 1st air fleet, in all likelihood the Japanese would have weathered the attack and would have been in the position to deliver a battle winning counter attack.
And lopped several knots off the carrier force's speed of advance.

The diagrams from Shattered Sword make it pretty clear the Japanese AAA had little to offer in the way of protection against dive bombers.
The several knot speed advantage bought them nothing. The BBs would have been tempting targets for the dive bombers and would probably have diverted some of the bombs, which they would have an infinitely better chance of surviving than the carriers.

If you don't want your main assets hit, and you can't keep your enemy from hitting, then provide your enemy with alternatives to hit.

by Werner » Wed May 30, 2007 8:03 am

Chuck wrote: If the combined fleet main force had been with Nagumo's 1st air fleet, in all likelihood the Japanese would have weathered the attack and would have been in the position to deliver a battle winning counter attack.
And lopped several knots off the carrier force's speed of advance.

The diagrams from Shattered Sword make it pretty clear the Japanese AAA had little to offer in the way of protection against dive bombers.

by Guest » Wed May 30, 2007 1:54 am

It is nevertheless an singularly bad naval disposition.

If the combined fleet main force had been with Nagumo's 1st air fleet, in all likelihood the Japanese would have weathered the attack and would have been in the position to deliver a battle winning counter attack.

by Werner » Tue May 29, 2007 6:28 pm

Presumably they would mop up cripples from the earlier days' battle and not to act as a close screen.

by Guest » Tue May 29, 2007 5:21 pm

BTW, can someone explain to me why Yamamoto and 7 battleships are 300 miles behind Nogumo's force? Why were they not screening the 1st air fleet and why did they bother to come along if they were going to linger so far from battle?

What could they have done from 300 miles away that they could not do by being around the carrier force? Had they screened the carriers they could have have considerably strengthened the carrier's AA screen, and the Yamato and other battleships might well have harmlessly absorbed some of the bombs that would otherwise turn a carrier into an inferno??

by Werner » Tue May 29, 2007 4:15 pm

Japan recognized she did not have enough cargo lift to maintain a military force in Hawaii. It was recognized they would have to exterminate a large proportion of the civil and prisoner of war population of Hawaii if they took it.

Re: Midway, June 5

by chuck » Tue May 29, 2007 12:41 pm

j leyland wrote:My guess is that if Yamamoto had really wanted Midway, the landing could have been forced through with heavy losses. The US carrier airgroups were depleted and exhausted and later battles showed that a lot of hits were needed to sink a battleship. On the other hand, although B-17s couldn't hit maneuvering ships with any regularity, anchored troop and supply ships would be a different story. The marines at Wake showed how tough they were when cornered on a tiny island.

All that said, I think Yamamoto realized the futility of trying to hold Midway in the face of long supply lines and continuous air and submarine interference. He was really after the US carriers using Midway as bait, and when he realized that that chance was finished, he cut his losses and went home. The idea of continuing on to take Hawaii was a navy pipe dream. The army had other priorities and would not have consented and the War Minister was their man.
That's right, Yamaaoto didn't give a rat's ass about Midway. He wanted the decisive fleet action and Midway was just a disposible bait. When his transport fleet chief told him that it would be very difficult to support the occupation force on Midway against determined American efforts to dislodge them, Yamamoto was totally untroubled and said would be easy enough to evacuate Midway should Americans make too much trouble, provided the main American carriers were already destroyed in the effort to take it in the first place. The occupation of Midway, far from being a corner stone of any strategic position, was nothing but a oportunistic tactical probe in force. Unfortunately the probe involved so much force that its defeat crippled the main force of IJN.

During the planning phase of operation MI, the Japanese naval staff already rejected the taking of Hawaii as impossible to achieve because carrier airpower possessed by Japan is insufficient to establish air superiority over Hawaiian islands. Furthermore, the Japanese concluded, rightly or wrongly, that the actual occupation of Hawaii would have negligible effect on American's ability to wage war on Japan, and the occupation of Islands to the east of Australia would enhance Japanese security much more than occupation of Hawaii.

Had Midway operation been successful, the IJN follow up plans called for the carriers to return to Truk and launch further operations in the South rather than build upon Midway to threaten Hawaii. When you take all these things into consideration, it become more and more clear that not only was the Midway operation ill-conducted and fatally compromised from the beginning, it was really ill-conceived and ill-fitting even as part of grand overall strategy. Yamamoto the strategist was not Napoleonic in caliber.

Midway, June 5

by j leyland » Tue May 29, 2007 12:35 pm

My guess is that if Yamamoto had really wanted Midway, the landing could have been forced through with heavy losses. The US carrier airgroups were depleted and exhausted and later battles showed that a lot of hits were needed to sink a battleship. On the other hand, although B-17s couldn't hit maneuvering ships with any regularity, anchored troop and supply ships would be a different story. The marines at Wake showed how tough they were when cornered on a tiny island.

All that said, I think Yamamoto realized the futility of trying to hold Midway in the face of long supply lines and continuous air and submarine interference. He was really after the US carriers using Midway as bait, and when he realized that that chance was finished, he cut his losses and went home. The idea of continuing on to take Hawaii was a navy pipe dream. The army had other priorities and would not have consented and the War Minister was their man.

by Dan K » Sun May 27, 2007 12:12 pm

Anonymous wrote:It is a reflection of Japanese military character. The Japanese type of tactical thinking is very appropriate to a style of warfare that has had a long period in which to mature, in which doctrine and practice has been brought up to a very high level of refinement, and tactics have evolved to a very elaborate and comprehensive state with proven countermoves for every false move having been devised and widely disseminated throughout all level on all sides. In another words a world in which tactic are elaborate, complex and formalized, experimentation that is just a bit too bold is much more likely to be savagely punished than to be rewarded, and trying to what you've been doing just a little bit better is likely to much more rewards than any radical innovation.

This is not, however, the world of technological warfare. In technological war, tactics are never developed to a very high pitch. There is no time for the sort of refinement Samurai take to be alter ego of war. Long before tactics have been refined to the point being formalized, technology has moved on and something new has to be devised. This was the world of WWII. But the Japanese still thought in terms of old, elaborate, formalized maneuvers of samurai days. They still expected that there is one prove tactical doctrine, and that there is very little room for deviation.

I think this is the most concise explanation of the limitations of Japanese thinking and tactics governing their actions that I have encountered. Very good.

by Guest » Wed May 23, 2007 11:00 pm

The Japanese navy suffers less from this sort of thinking, possibly because the most reactionary and inflexible minds tends to be attracted to the army. But the Navy is not immune.

by Guest » Wed May 23, 2007 10:57 pm

In the Japanese army one does not volunteer unhappy news to one's superiors, like "Sir, you plan is not working." If the superior wants to know, he would ask, and then you might acknowledge that "Sir, your masterly plan is working to perfection, but the ill-will of the enemy has limited the effect of your genius."

It is an indication of the ability of many Japanese officers to have accomplished as much as they did without free and unobstructed tactical information flowing in from beyond their line of sight. But on the whole, how ever able the officers are, they are not likely to accomplish much against real opposition with this sort of illiberal approach to situation awareness.

by Werner » Wed May 23, 2007 10:48 pm

I keep thinking about the complex attack on Henderson Field in November, 1942. Complete plans with locations and times were distributed well in advance with no discussion of contingencies which would have been essential in an engagement of this complexity. Because the march to the East took longer than expected, the plan was seriously out of kilter, but noone felt the urge to inform the overall commander the main elements were out of place. If the Japanese had changed the timetable a day or so, it may have succeeded, instead of as soon as the weary attackers staggered to their jumping off points, conveniently allowing the Marines to destroy the Japanese in detail rather than having to fight their coordinated battle.

by Guest » Wed May 23, 2007 10:39 pm

Werner wrote:Don't be too hard on Yamamoto. It appears to be a common failing among their planners. Morison frequently points out how "uncooperative" US commanders forced many a Japanese commander to the back pages of his play book faster than he would have preferred.

I have often wondered if this didn't have a lot to do with the structure and style of Japanese writing rather than some cardinal flaw in Japanese military character.

The attack on Mogami and Mikuma on 6 June prove Spruance was not willing to take a calculated risk if he expected a real return. I wonder what Kondo with four battleships and two cruisers well Northeast of Midway could have done for his appetite.
It is a reflection of Japanese military character. The Japanese type of tactical thinking is very appropriate to a style of warfare that has had a long period in which to mature, in which doctrine and practice has been brought up to a very high level of refinement, and tactics have evolved to a very elaborate and comprehensive state with proven countermoves for every false move having been devised and widely disseminated throughout all level on all sides. In another words a world in which tactic are elaborate, complex and formalized, experimentation that is just a bit too bold is much more likely to be savagely punished than to be rewarded, and trying to what you've been doing just a little bit better is likely to much more rewards than any radical innovation.

This is not, however, the world of technological warfare. In technological war, tactics are never developed to a very high pitch. There is no time for the sort of refinement Samurai take to be alter ego of war. Long before tactics have been refined to the point being formalized, technology has moved on and something new has to be devised. This was the world of WWII. But the Japanese still thought in terms of old, elaborate, formalized maneuvers of samurai days. They still expected that there is one prove tactical doctrine, and that there is very little room for deviation.

Top