# Your favorite Pacific battle / campaign to study?



## Oreo (Aug 26, 2008)

OK, I know I'm going to forget some, so there will be an "other" category. Keep in mind for this poll we are not talking merely about air combat but also ground and naval combat as well. I will put as many as I can remember. Thus the category "Solomons" would include air combat, ground combat, and naval combat in that area-- all that went with it. I know this poll can't be perfect, but please just play along.

And it may take me a few minutes to get all the options listed, for all you who like to get excited about me "forgetting" to post the options.


----------



## Oreo (Aug 26, 2008)

I hope everybody carefully reads all the options before voting. Doolittle Raid should be counted under Japan home islands.

I chose Solomons as my favorite. The exploits of the Cactus Air Force are legendary, and things were really in the balance around the end of '42.


----------



## machine shop tom (Aug 26, 2008)

I'm voting for "Other", the Battle of Leyte Gulf, because my dad was involved in it. It may be classified in Phillipines (late), but since it was such a huge battle with many facets, I'm going to separate it out.

tom


----------



## Amsel (Aug 26, 2008)

Both of my grandpas' were in the Marine Corps during the Pacific campaign. They were at Iwo Jima. But the most interesting battle to me was Okinawa. Okinawa was one of the most massive and vicious battles in mankinds history. It forced the presidents hand to use the nuke in fact, which was a hard decision to make. Looking at the casualty counts on Okinawa they realized that an invasion of mainland Japan would produce 1,000,000 plus KIA possibly.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 27, 2008)

New Guinea and the Solomons.

So many battles and stories for nearly the whole war.


----------



## Oreo (Aug 28, 2008)

Looks like a lot of different interests! Thanks for voting!


----------



## Oreo (Aug 28, 2008)

machine shop tom said:


> I'm voting for "Other", the Battle of Leyte Gulf, because my dad was involved in it. It may be classified in Phillipines (late), but since it was such a huge battle with many facets, I'm going to separate it out.
> 
> tom



Well, I was considering Leyte Gulf to be included under Phillipines, late, but you explained yourself well.


----------



## Capt. Vick (Aug 28, 2008)

I would have to say the battle of Midway for three reasons that I find fascinating.

1) That such a monumental loss to the seemingly unstoppable Japanese should happen so soon after Pearl Harbor (6 months) is just awesome and I think sometimes that aspect is overlooked.

2) The fact that the whole battle seemed to play out like a chess match. By that I mean intelligence, deception, intuition and luck (both bad and good) seem to play greater parts in this battle then the brute force, slugging matches that characterized later Pacific theater engagements.

3) Arguable the under-dog won. I guess they don't call it the "Miracle at Midway" for nothing.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 28, 2008)

None actually, but since I am moving to Alaska I really am getting interested in the fighting there.


----------



## Vraciu (Aug 28, 2008)

I chose New Guinea because of fantastic people which fought there (mjr Ed Warner, commander of 90.BS for example).


----------



## wh1skea (Sep 11, 2008)

I chose Open Water, mainly because my main subject of study is American submarine warfare in WW2. Granted, I could have picked ANY of those choices, but I felt Open Water fit best (was half tempted to pick Japanese Home Islands).


----------



## wilbur1 (Sep 11, 2008)

I went with the solomans, just seems very interesting for some reason


----------



## comiso90 (Sep 11, 2008)

Guadalcanal or Leyete


----------



## B-17engineer (Sep 11, 2008)

Okinawa....


----------



## Freebird (Sep 11, 2008)

Seems I'm the first CW or UK poster. I guess that Malaysia Singapore got lumped in with Burma SE Asia? {I think there was some kind of minor skirmish there?}  But all the Island groups are separate? 

The battles in Singapore Malaysia are more interesting, Burma is like watching a train wreck....


----------



## Wildcat (Sep 16, 2008)

RAAF operations in the New Guinea/ New Britain campaign interest me the most. Apart from that I also spend alot of time reading about Australian based units, particulary those in the Darwin area. All fascinating stuff.


----------



## Njaco (Sep 17, 2008)

Well, seeing as how I know of Pacific battles but almost nothing about them, the one that has fascinated me is Wake/Midway. Lot of stories there from the Yorktown's turn-around from the Coral Sea battle, to the ringside seat by the pilot Gay (I think thats his name), to the decision to change out the bomb loads on the japanese planes at the exact time they were attacked, to the defense of the islands with outdated equipment and planes and on and on and on.


----------



## Freebird (Sep 18, 2008)

Wildcat said:


> Apart from that I also spend alot of time reading about Australian based units,



I've always wondered how things would have been different in Malaysia/Singapore if Churchill or Wavell had done the right thing and put an Aussie in charge, preferrably Morshead. I have a feeling that the battle might have turned out quite differently....


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 18, 2008)

freebird said:


> I've always wondered how things would have been different in Malaysia/Singapore if Churchill or Wavell had done the right thing and put an Aussie in charge, preferrably Morshead. I have a feeling that the battle might have turned out quite differently....



Nothing would have changed, other than inflicting higher losses on the Japanese.


----------



## Freebird (Sep 18, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> Nothing would have changed, other than inflicting higher losses on the Japanese.



Perhaps... The Japanese didn't have enough troops or supplies to make a long siege. Many of the problems were the result of poor planning leadership. Even if they only held off the Japanes a few more months, but with a tough commander and some sensible deployments they could have made the battle very costly for the Axis. Singapore was also fairly well stocked to begin with, it was the loss of the supply dumps that caused the problems. Also I suspect that a "no nonsense" guy like Morshead might to the smart thing and send many nonCom civilians out of the fortress before the Japanese reached Johore, with at least a 50% reduction on the supplies, and eliminating the feeble reason for surrendering "To save the civilians"

A competant commander would not allow RAF aircraft to sit in crates as the Japanese chewed up the defenders, he also could have evacuated the 6" 8" harbour guns that were on the minor outlying islands to defend Singapore proper.

With an the Australians in charge, I would bet that the AUS government would make a superhuman effort to supply the garrison with the few things that were vitally needed. Keep in mind that for thee first 3 weeks both Allied air and sea routes were unmolested by the Japanese

1.) An adequate supply of HE shells for the 6" 8" fortress guns. {most of the supply was anti-ship AP shells.}

2.) At least a half dozen AT guns, even towed AT with lorrys would do. Most of the troops captured in Malaysia were lost when the feeble Japanese armour broke through the British roadblocks.

3.) 1 or 2 good brigades sent early enough would make a huge difference in the retreat down the peninsula, preventing the loss of several more brigades, that could then retreat into Singapore and rest before the final assault.


Also the Australians would be more able to chuck the flawed British plan, to hold out as long as possible the forward positions airbases at the Thai border, the smart thing to do would be to fall back from the exposed forward positions, and to make a strong defensive line in Johore, where the road net would allow proper lateral defence. {border area had no good cross-peninsula roads}

Additionaly I highly doubt that Morshead would accept the Governor's weak excuse for not making proper defensive preparations in Singapore.  {It might make the civilians nervous and promote panic!} NEWS FLASH PEOPLE - The Japanese are coming, better get ready!


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 18, 2008)

The Japanese still held complete naval superiority and near total domination in the air.


----------



## RabidAlien (Sep 20, 2008)

I picked "Other", mainly because the first places that popped into my head were Guadalcanal, Tarawa, and Pileleu. Also picked Iwo Jima, drastic change in IJA tactics, and Open Waters/backwater locations, because those who fought in the less-publicized areas shouldn't be forgotten.


----------



## Wayne Little (Sep 20, 2008)

My favorite battle's/study are the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the Midway battle, mainly from the Japanese perspective of their Air groups and Carriers, certainly in both cases they were the best equipped and trained at the time and superior to any other carrier force.Yet in the space of 6 months went from hero to zero never to recover....from the loss of their 4 Fleet carriers and experienced aircrews.


----------



## renrich (Sep 29, 2008)

My favorite is the Solomons campaign. There are several reasons. One is because the Allies and Japanese were fairly evenly matched on the ground, in the air and at sea. Kind of like two well matched football teams having a knock down, drag out battle. Not too interesting when one side has little or no chance. The clincher for me is that I have had first hand accounts of two of the naval battles during the campaign; one uncle in USS Chicago at Savo Island and one uncle in USS Salt Lake City at Cape Esperance.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 6, 2008)

Midway.

Sea, Air, land (defensive preparation) and Intelligence, as well as the fact that four crucial decisions were made which could have tipped the battle either way, even down to the very end.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 6, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> New Guinea and the Solomons.
> 
> So many battles and stories for nearly the whole war.



That is my favorite Pacific focus - as the first and most important combinations of sea/land airpower for the Allies... and the start of the island hopping strategy to bypass Japanese strongholds


----------



## noelchan127 (Jan 3, 2009)

I like the Battle of Leyte Gulf cause it is the largest naval battle in WWII and it includes one of the only 2 battleship vs battleship engagements in the pacific campaign.


----------



## Amsel (Jan 10, 2009)

noelchan127 said:


> I like the Battle of Leyte Gulf cause it is the largest naval battle in WWII and it includes one of the only 2 battleship vs battleship engagements in the pacific campaign.


The Battle of Leyte Gulf was very interesting. I especially am fond of the story of Taffey 3 and the Battle off Samar. It brings a tear to the eye thinking about the bravery of those officers and sailors aboard those tin cans and jeep carriers.


----------



## fly boy (Jan 14, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> None actually, but since I am moving to Alaska



wait what?


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Jan 15, 2009)

I went with the Midway Campaign. It was the turning point in the Pacific Theater, and bascially the IJN lost their offensive capabilties in less then five minutes. Though, I'm also interested in the battle of Leyte Gulf, paticuarly the battle of Samar. I have a book on the battle itself, and should probably read it soon.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 6, 2009)

Amsel said:


> The Battle of Leyte Gulf was very interesting. I especially am fond of the story of Taffey 3 and the Battle off Samar. It brings a tear to the eye thinking about the bravery of those officers and sailors aboard those tin cans and jeep carriers.



Hear, hear.

"Just a few more minutes and we'll hit them [IJN ironclads] with 40mm"

There is a show (360 something) on the "History channel" that covers the battle; well worth watching (via Youtube at least).


----------



## dragonandhistail (Feb 6, 2009)

The invasion of Luzon and the Battle of Manila are my favorites. General Krueger's use of air, naval and economy of force measures to fight a tough campaign are an awesome study. I have to follow that with obscurity with the Solomons fights, specifically Bougainville and fight for Hill 700 followed by the Corps artillery duel there. New Georgia and Guadalcanal are also at the top!


----------



## drgondog (Feb 6, 2009)

dragonandhistail said:


> The invasion of Luzon and the Battle of Manila are my favorites. General Krueger's use of air, naval and economy of force measures to fight a tough campaign are an awesome study. I have to follow that with obscurity with the Solomons fights, specifically Bougainville and fight for Hill 700 followed by the Corps artillery duel there. New Georgia and Guadalcanal are also at the top!



Wouldn't you say that Krueger's tactics were an extension of MacArthur's?


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Feb 6, 2009)

wow, so many battles to choose from! Hmmm.....I'm not quite sure yet what to vote for, have to think about it. 

Good poll.


----------



## Bill G. (Feb 6, 2009)

So, so many good choices. For me the slight winner is the Battle of Leyte Gulf. That was the last time battleships fought battleships. You can add the valor of Taffy Three.

My favorite quote was said by a 5" gunner on one of the escort carriers when the Japanese broke off the fight. It was something like, "Damn it, their getting away!" Ya just got to love that attitude!

Bill G.


----------



## Aaron Brooks Wolters (Feb 6, 2009)

Can I vote for them all, please???


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 8, 2009)

Voted for them all!  Otherwise I'm most interested in Coral Sea, Midway, Guadalcanal and the operations of the PBY "Black Cats".....great poll!


----------



## renrich (Mar 21, 2009)

Am presently engaged in reading a new book out about Torpedo Squadron 8 and either did not know or had forgotten about the VT8s who flew from Midway. It seems that half the squadron was left in the states when the Hornet left the west coast for Pearl Harbor and the Midway fight. The crews left in the US were to receive, check out and accompany the new TBFs that VT8 was to be equipped with. When the Avengers and crewmen arrived at Pearl Harbor, the Hornet and Enterprise had already sailed and the Yorktown was finishing repairs and preparing to sail. It was decided to send six of the VT8 TBFs to Midway to augment the air assets there. They set out on the 1400 mile over water trip with extra gas tanks in the bomb bay and with two PBYs to help them navigate. After about 8 hours they landed at Midway. The morning the IJN fleet was to attack, the six VTs set out in the new TBFs,before sun up, unescorted and followed by four B26s modified to carry torpedos. One of the Avengers was allegedly the first TBF to roll out of the Grumman plant. Five of the TBFs were shot down in the attack(as well as all the B26s) and the sixth, the original TBF from Grumman was shot to pieces, the turret gunner killed and the radio gunner and pilot wounded. When that Avenger landed at Midway, it was a wreck. Later that day the 15 TBDs from the Hornet in VT8 were all shot down in attacks on the IJN and only one pilot survived. On that day VT8 sent 21 VTs to attack along with 48 crewmen. All but one aircraft were lost and only two pilots survived, wounded and one gunner, wounded. Has there ever been any unit that in one day had worse casualties than VT8?


----------



## renrich (Mar 21, 2009)

During the Midway battle the Hornet air group was about as dysfunctional as one could get. The VTs aboard were the only AC that spotted the enemy that day. The CAG and the CO of the ship, Marc Mitscher, decided not to send escort fighters with the VTs like had been done at Coral Sea. (the Hornet was not at Coral Sea but was with Enterprise on the Doolitle Raid) At Coral Sea Lexington and Enterprise sent a few F4Fs as escorts with the VTs and the TBDs were fairly effective. At Midway, it was decided that 10 VFs would go with the VBs at 20000 feet and the VTs would go in on the deck unescorted. 8 VFs would remain with the Hornet as CAP. The VFs were launched first, then the 36 VBs and then the 15 VTs. The VFs were the shortest legged and the orbiting waiting for the rest of the strike used up precious fuel. The VFs and VBs used a different bearing to find the IJN fleet from the VTs. The CO of the VTs was part Lakota Indian and his instinct told him the course taken by the others was wrong and his squadron was the only one of the Hornet's to make contact. The VFs started running out of fuel and tried to turn back and all finally ditched and the VBs, after missing the Japanese diverted to Midway and landed there. What a mess and thank God for Enterprise and Yorktown. Of course their VTs were slaughtered also but the VBs made up for it. If the Hornet's VBs had found and hit the 4th IJN carrier, that carrier's strike would not have found and badly damaged the Yorktown.


----------



## Sweb (Mar 21, 2009)

I'm a post-moderate military history buff. Before my military service days I was very engaged emotionally with all things military. Now, I don't think "favorite" is a word I'd use. I never got into generalized accounts of battles but rather found individual accounts of the wars and battles fought most intriguing and interesting. Ted W. Lawson's _Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo_, George Gay's _Torpedo Squadron Eight_, Robert L. Scott's _God Is My Co-Pilot_, Eddie Rickenbacker's _Fighting The Flying Circus_, Boone T. Guyton's _Whistling Death_ (F4U Test Pilot), Saburo Sakai's _Samurai_ and many others give first hand accounts of the human drama without all the pageantry and glorification outsider/non-combatant observers ascribe to what really is tragic human suffering.


----------



## renrich (Mar 22, 2009)

Sweb, I have read all but Gay's book and I agree with you.


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 22, 2009)

In this context, favorite = "most interest in".


----------



## renrich (Mar 22, 2009)

Sys, of course you are right. The weakness of books that contain more human interest stories is that the historical accuracy is sometimes compromised by personal opinions. I like Lundstrom's books about the Pacific War because they are exhaustively researched and seemingly very authoritative but they sometimes spend a little time on the people involved and their personalities. One anecdote in his books was about John McCain's grandfather who, in 1942, was the Commander of all Pacific Air. He was boarding either Lexington or Saratoga while under way at sea for a conference of all the big wigs. The Lex and Sara were apparently notorious rollers and he had just stepped onto a landing near the water line when the ship did one of it's capricious rolls and he was soaked to the waist. Had to attend the meeting in a sodden state.


----------



## RabidAlien (Mar 25, 2009)

Yeah...I love the personal accounts as well. Thanks for those titles, I'm headin over to Amazon to look em up! I have a hard time keeping units and numbers from gettin all mixed up (or forgotten) in my noggin, but its nice to have at least a general overview of various battles/campaigns/theaters-of-operations...keeps the individual stories in context.


----------



## renrich (Mar 25, 2009)

RA, while you are at it, if you would like to read probably the foremost writer on the early Pacific War, get John Lundstrom's "The First Team." I have read it twice and there is info in there that will give you a new perspective about that portion of WW2.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Mar 25, 2009)

Favorite Pacific battle to discuss/debate is the Pearl Harbor attack with the conspiracy theorists who still believe "FDR knew". 

Of course these "experts" also believe in the Bermuda Triangle, Big Foot, the Loch Ness Monster, the Area 51 aliens and September 11th was an "inside job".

TO


----------



## RabidAlien (Mar 27, 2009)

renrich said:


> RA, while you are at it, if you would like to read probably the foremost writer on the early Pacific War, get John Lundstrom's "The First Team." I have read it twice and there is info in there that will give you a new perspective about that portion of WW2.



Added both of his "First Team" books to my list! Thanks for the info!


----------



## Ferdinand Foch (Mar 27, 2009)

Just to throw my opinion in, I had to go with the Battle of Midway. Personally, the US Navy was outnumbered and outclassed in several areas compared to the Japanese (more carriers, faster fighters, etc.), yet they still managed to win through some cleverness and a bit of sheer luck (though I was kinda sad when I read about the Yorktown being sunk at the end of the battle). 
Though, I wouldn't mine learning more about the Burma and Indian Theatre. Personally, I would take William Slim over Bernard Montgomery anyday.


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 27, 2009)

Ferdinand Foch said:


> Just to throw my opinion in, I had to go with the Battle of Midway. Personally, the US Navy was outnumbered and outclassed in several areas compared to the Japanese (more carriers, faster fighters, etc........



Its the subject of many other threads, but the USN wasnt as outnumbered as you think. Even though we had three carriers, the total number of aircraft was about the same. Plus we had the advantage of surprise.


----------



## fly boy (Mar 27, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> None actually, but since I am moving to Alaska



unless you already moved may want to wait on moving becuase of that mountin up there


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 27, 2009)

fly boy said:


> unless you already moved may want to wait on moving becuase of that mountin up there



It is a volcano and Alaska is full of them. If I were worried about them, I would not move there...


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 28, 2009)

Remember the first time that I read that Yorktown was sunk at Midway, very sad indeed! Then, when I noticed they kept writing about a Yorktown, I was confused....took a while before I realized that it was the CV-10 that they were writing about...young, innocent and all that stuff! 

Always had a huge affection for the Yorktown, CV-5 and 10, don't know why!


----------



## ToughOmbre (Mar 28, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> Remember the first time that I read that Yorktown was sunk at Midway, very sad indeed! Then, when I noticed they kept writing about a Yorktown, I was confused....took a while before I realized that it was the CV-10 that they were writing about...young, innocent and all that stuff!
> 
> Always had a huge affection for the Yorktown, CV-5 and 10, don't know why!



Lucky, you gotta get to Charleston, SC and go aboard CV-10. Lot's of nice exhibits and warbirds to see. (didn't mean to get off topic, sorry)

TO


----------



## Ferdinand Foch (Mar 28, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> Its the subject of many other threads, but the USN wasnt as outnumbered as you think. Even though we had three carriers, the total number of aircraft was about the same. Plus we had the advantage of surprise.



Oh right, thanks syscom. Man, I'm gonna have to read up on Midway again.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 29, 2009)

ToughOmbre said:


> Lucky, you gotta get to Charleston, SC and go aboard CV-10. Lot's of nice exhibits and warbirds to see. (didn't mean to get off topic, sorry)
> 
> TO



Ah been there many times. I used to live in Columbia, SC. Whenever we would go to Charleston I would make a stop and check her out.


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 30, 2009)

You lucky sods!  If I ever get there, I'll take her with me when I leave!


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Mar 30, 2009)

Yeah Lucky, I've been to CV-10 a few times, it's really worth it. I too was sad when Yorktown was sunk at Midway.


----------



## Hollywood (Apr 5, 2009)

Battle(s) of Leyte Gulf...........


----------



## renrich (Apr 6, 2009)

Rough count at Midway according to Morison: IJN-seven BBs, four CVAs, ten CAs, thirty DDs, two CVLs, a lot of subs and oilers. 105 VFs, 97 VBs, 101 VTs.
USN-three CVAs, seven CAs, one CL, seventeen DDs,several oilers and subs. 79 VFs, 112 VBs and 42 VTs.
On Midway-27VFs, 27VBs, 6 VTs plus 4 B26s, 20 B17s. All of the aircraft in the IJN fleet were effective. Actually only the 79 VFs, 112 VBs of the USN carriers were effective and a few Wildcats and the six new TBFs on Midway were first line.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 6, 2009)

Here are the IJN totals as per Steve Parsall.
Akagi:50 24VF 18VB 18VT
Kaga: 72 27VF 18VB 27VT
Soryu: 55 21VF 16VB 18VT
Hiryu: 57 21VF 18VB 18VT
234 Carrier Aircraft

The following carriers were not gong to be in the battle untill June 6th at the earliest.
Hosho: 8 Obsolete Fighters
Zuiho: 8 VF and 8 Obsolete VF 12VT
16 Usable Carrier Aircraft.

From my sources:
US
Yorktown:75 25VF 37VB 13VT
Hornet:80 27VF 38VB 15VT
Enterpise:79 27VF 38VB 14VT
234 Carrier Aircraft

Midway Atoll: 7VF 6VT 17 VT and 31 PBY's, 4 B26's and 17 B17's
82 Aircraft


Thus we see that although the Japanese had more carriers, the US had just as many aircraft. Even if we were to allow for decided inferiority of the US TBD's, that's offset by the superiority of the Dauntless over the Val.


----------



## mikamee14 (Apr 6, 2009)

Midway all the way.


----------



## renrich (Apr 6, 2009)

Morison's sources are given as Japanese Navy official sources and CV plane complements from WDC #s 161733 and 161709

Akagi (21 VF,21VB,21VT) 
Kaga (30 VF, 23 VB, 30 VT)
Hiryu (21 VF, 21 VB, 21 VT)
Soryu (21 VF, 21 VB, 21 VT)
That is a total of 272 for the four CVs in the Carrier Striking Force. Seems there is a discrepancy somewhere.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 7, 2009)

renrich said:


> Morison's sources are given as Japanese Navy official sources and CV plane complements from WDC #s 161733 and 161709
> 
> Akagi (21 VF,21VB,21VT)
> Kaga (30 VF, 23 VB, 30 VT)
> ...



Parshall and his colleagues in Japan and the US painstakingly combed through IJN documents and came up with the figures I quoted. Morrisons figures might have included aircraft that were disassembled and in storage aboard the carriers, but were not available for use. In addition, there were a pair of the new Judy dive bombers available for recon use, but were not equiped for dive bombing missions.


----------



## renrich (Apr 7, 2009)

Again, Morison:
Yorktown-(25 VF, 37 VB, 13 VT)
Enterprise-(27 VF, 38 VB, 14 VT)
Hornet- (27 VF, 37 VB, 15 VT)
That gives a total of 233 on the US CVs.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 7, 2009)

renrich said:


> Again, Morison:
> Yorktown-(25 VF, 37 VB, 13 VT)
> Enterprise-(27 VF, 38 VB, 14 VT)
> Hornet- (27 VF, 37 VB, 15 VT)
> That gives a total of 233 on the US CVs.



Sorry if I am off by one. US figures are quite accurate because there are so many sources available that dont have to be translated.


----------



## renrich (Apr 8, 2009)

Sorry, I was not nit picking but had forgotten how many AC from US CVs was in earlier posts. I may have added them wrong also. IMO, taken as a whole, the Midway Battle was definitely a battle where the US was the underdog for the following reasons. The IJN had a big edge in surface ships. So big that the US could not hope to survive if it came to a surface engagement. That edge was an advantage when it came to AA protection for the IJN CVs also. Although, the total number of AC on each side was roughly equal, the Midway based AC were of little threat to the IJN(they got no hits) and their VFs were of little hindrance to the IJN attacks. The Hornet air group was light on experience and leadership and was of little use in the battle, except for the sacrifise of VT8. The VTs of the US CVs were of little use because of the poor performance of their TBDs and poor weapons performance and the pilots had little experience in dropping live torpedos, except for the pilots who had fought at Coral Sea. Their only contribution was as decoys. On the contrary, the IJN VTs were probably the best in the world. I believe the VBs on both sides were roughly equal in value. The Val was a successful dive bomber and the IJN pilots were good. Eric Brown rates the Val above the SBD and although I don't understand that, the Val was formidable. The A6M was superior overall to the F4F4 and the IJN had an edge in VF numbers 93 to 79, according to Morison. Most of the IJN pilots were veterans and highly trained as well in their specialties. Probably with more experience and training overall than their USN counterparts. Another advantage the IJN had was with four CVs, they should be able to launch a strike faster than the three US CVs. The US had the advantage of knowing more about the IJN forces than the IJN knew about the US force but the IJN had counted on the US sending their fleet to counter the attack on Midway so they were hardly surprised when enemy carriers were observed. Overall, it should have been a disaster for the US. A little luck and the skill of the VBs from Yorktown and Enterprise saved the day for the US and changed the course of the war in the Pacific.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 8, 2009)

> The IJN had a big edge in surface ships. So big that the US could not hope to survive if it came to a surface engagement.



Very true. But Nimitz, Fletcher and Spruance also knew that and understood very well that they were going to avoid a surface fight under any condition.



> That edge was an advantage when it came to AA protection for the IJN CVs also.



Incorrect. Parshall looked closely at the IJN AA weapons and how they were used. Besides being inferior, technically wise, they were further degraded by the lack of a CIC, radar and employment within the fleet.



> Although, the total number of AC on each side was roughly equal, the Midway based AC were of little threat to the IJN (they got no hits) and their VFs were of little hindrance to the IJN attacks.



The US carrier numbers equaled the IJN totals. In the end, that's what counted. Plus more B17's were flown up to Midway as the battle ended. And that was a threat the IJN had to eliminate before the invasion commenced. Time was not on the side of the Japanese and every day they couldn't invade was a major issue for their timetables.



> The Hornet air group was light on experience and leadership and was of little use in the battle, except for the sacrifise of VT8. The VTs of the US CVs were of little use because of the poor performance of their TBDs and poor weapons performance and the pilots had little experience in dropping live torpedos, except for the pilots who had fought at Coral Sea. Their only contribution was as decoys.



I wouldn't call them decoys, but essentially you are correct. The primary problem with the VT's was the USN botching coordinated air attacks.



> I believe the VBs on both sides were roughly equal in value. The Val was a successful dive bomber and the IJN pilots were good. Eric Brown rates the Val above the SBD and although I don't understand that, the Val was formidable.



And Mr Brown conveniently ignores the fact that the SBD could carry twice the payload as the Val. His comments have been proven to be suspiciously "dumb" time after time. Look at it this way. A 1000lb bomb hit on a Japanese carrier was devastating. A 500 pound bomb hit on a US carrier was tolerable.



> The A6M was superior overall to the F4F4 and the IJN had an edge in VF numbers 93 to 79, according to Morison.



Yes, that's true. 



> Most of the IJN pilots were veterans and highly trained as well in their specialties. Probably with more experience and training overall than their USN counterparts.



Not true. The US already had plenty of veterans in the battle. In fact, the IJN fighter pilots were about to encounter the "Thatch Weave" for the first time and discover that they didn't hold all the cards in the battle



> Another advantage the IJN had was with four CVs, they should be able to launch a strike faster than the three US CVs.



Not true. Read Parshalls book about the operational restrictions the IJN had to operate under. Something as little considered as carrier elevator transit times dicates how fast they can position and spot aircraft and then launch.



> The US had the advantage of knowing more about the IJN forces than the IJN knew about the US force but the IJN had counted on the US sending their fleet to counter the attack on Midway so they were hardly surprised when enemy carriers were observed.



The IJN only expected two carriers to be present by June 6 or 7. The fact that they established two carriers early on (then three later in the day) shocked the heck out them. Read Parshalls book about the poor planning the IJN staff did for the battle.



> Overall, it should have been a disaster for the US. A little luck and the skill of the VBs from Yorktown and Enterprise saved the day for the US and changed the course of the war in the Pacific.



The only disaster that could have befallen the US was losing three carriers. Losing one was bad enough, but Fletcher was going to leave the battle area after all of his air groups were used up and he needed to preserve his carriers.

And luck counts for everything. It was our time for it and not Japans.

By the way, even if the IJN had taken out the US carriers, either by sinking them or wiping out the air groups, there was still the issue of invading the island. And in that regard, they were going to be butchered and slaughtered. (read the book).


----------



## renrich (Apr 9, 2009)

Actually, the beam defense maneuver(The Thach Weave) was only used by Thach and two wing men, one of whom was not aware of what he was doing, in the battle. None of the other VF pilots were using it then. The IJN pilots were veterans of all the Pacific conquests so far and their training was extremely thorough. According to Lundstrom, "The First Team," the Japanese were the more experienced. Once a strike was positioned on deck, the IJN carriers should have been able to launch more quickly, just because of four flight decks instead of three. Of course, you are correct that the TBDs were not intended to be "decoys" Unfortunately, they wound up being so. Based on the US force on Midway, it is hard to see how the Japanese would have been slaughtered. Their air strikes were not that heavily opposed. I haven't read Parshall's book but one book which seems to be counter to the conclusion of a large number of other accounts of the battle doesn't necessarily prove a point but I will be on the lookout for the book. Sounds interesting! Being lucky can sometimes trump being good but thank God for the skill of VS5, VB3, VS6 and VB6.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 9, 2009)

> Actually, the beam defense maneuver(The Thach Weave) was only used by Thach and two wing men, one of whom was not aware of what he was doing, in the battle. None of the other VF pilots were using it then.



And it worked beautifully, as a dozen or so Zero's were tied up in knots trying to defeat the tactic.



> The IJN pilots were veterans of all the Pacific conquests so far and their training was extremely thorough. According to Lundstrom, "The First Team," the Japanese were the more experienced.



And after seven months of war, the USN wasn't?



> Once a strike was positioned on deck, the IJN carriers should have been able to launch more quickly, just because of four flight decks instead of three.



After rethinking what you're saying, I agree. Four decks (regardless of efficiences) is better than three



> Based on the US force on Midway, it is hard to see how the Japanese would have been slaughtered. Their air strikes were not that heavily opposed.



The Midway air strikes were heavily opposed and the Zero CAP accounted for nearly every single allied plane being shot down. As Parshall showed in the book, each allied attack on the IJN carriers that morning contributed to the downward spiral in their defenses that culminated in the Dauntless's having an clear cut opportunities in hitting them. That is the advantage of having the initiative and forcing the enemy to react.

Note - The morning attack on Midway cost them 11 AC shot down and 15 damaged bad enough to be unserviceable and effectively no longer available for any action that day or the next. 




> I haven't read Parshall's book but one book which seems to be counter to the conclusion of a large number of other accounts of the battle doesn't necessarily prove a point but I will be on the lookout for the book. Sounds interesting!



The beauty of Parshalls book is his use of surviving Japanese sources, all of which have been available for US authors for decades. He uses rosters, patrol logs and after action accounts (and time lines) to buttress his claims. And he doesn't for a moment fail to mention that he had lots of assistance from Japanese sources who were all to willing to help him out.

Get the book and read it. Its something you wont put down once you start.


----------



## renrich (Apr 10, 2009)

Thanks for the recommendation. I found the forward online on the Battle of Midway Roundtable and am looking forward to reading the book. Since my book budget is strained right now(along with all other budgets) I am hoping to get the Durango Public Library to order or borrow it for me.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 11, 2009)

> A 500 pound bomb hit on a US carrier was tolerable.



It could be devastating on battleships like the USS Arizona. 

I think the Dauntless was a match for the Val, and could even be used as a heavy fighter if the situation arose.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 11, 2009)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> It could be devastating on battleships like the USS Arizona.



And many US carriers took 500 pound bomb hits and didnt sink.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 12, 2009)

I guess that's why the Japanese did suicide bombing.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 13, 2009)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> I guess that's why the Japanese did suicide bombing.



It seems that the burning avgas did more damage than the high explosives.

After reading the IJN accounts of the out of control fires in the hanger decks of their four carriers at Midway, and later the near sinking of the USS Franklin due to a similar fire issue; one can see just how important damage control philosophy is. And thats why the Essex class carriers never had a war loss.

And again, the great thing about "Shattered Sword" is its accounts by Japanese survivors of what was going on in the ships through out the battle, from beginning to end. I will say it again: "get the book and read it".


----------



## Milos Sijacki (Apr 13, 2009)

Iwo Jima was always my fav campaign and battle in the Pacific theatre of battles, especially after I had seen "Letters from Iwo Jima" movie.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 13, 2009)

Renrich, one more thing I would like to clarify ....

Both forces were experienced.

But the IJN was still the more proficient in launching coordinated strikes in a minimum of time and hassle.


Therefore, the edge in this battle, goes to the IJN.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 13, 2009)

That sounds like a cool book Syscom, I'll try to get it from the library.


----------



## renrich (Apr 14, 2009)

Thanks, Sys, I am looking forward to getting my hands on the book. It would have been interesting to see how the war had gone if the silly, to me, Doolittle raid had not gone forward and Enterprise and Hornet had been available for Coral Sea and consequently the Hornet air group had had more battle experience. Lots of what ifs but enjoyable to speculate about.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 14, 2009)

renrich said:


> Thanks, Sys, I am looking forward to getting my hands on the book. It would have been interesting to see how the war had gone if the silly, to me, Doolittle raid had not gone forward and Enterprise and Hornet had been available for Coral Sea and consequently the Hornet air group had had more battle experience. Lots of what ifs but enjoyable to speculate about.



Things could have been different in the following ways:
- the IJN did not divide forces between the Aleutions and Midway, and had their two light carriers available for operations with the main fleet, or operating as an independant raiding force.

- The Yorktown was not available for the battle.

- The IJN command staff "war gamed" Midway in a truthfull manner and changed their plans accordingly.

- The Enterprise dive bombers missed the Soryu completely (read the book to see how lucky the USN was on that attack ..... just 30 meters inaccuracy and the battle changes)

In the end though, even if the Japanese won the sea battles, they would have still failed in the land battle (or been so severly mauled, they were crippled for quite some time).


----------



## renrich (Apr 15, 2009)

Also, if Hornet and Enterprise had been at Coral Sea, Lexington may not have been lost and would have been available at Midway.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 15, 2009)

renrich said:


> Also, if Hornet and Enterprise had been at Coral Sea, Lexington may not have been lost and would have been available at Midway.




And Saratoga being the unluckiest carrier in the fleet.


----------



## renrich (Apr 15, 2009)

Amazing how unlucky the Sara was and her air group was not all that functional either. It seems like the Lex and the Sara were exact opposites.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 24, 2009)

While I recognize the importance of Midway, to me the most interesting, and I think generally underappreciated is the Guadalcanal campaign. It has everything.

Invasion/counter invasion

Unsupplied troops vs unsupplied troops

Night time sea battles with piercing search lights watched from shore

Destroyer vs Destroyer/Destroyers lost

Cruiser vs Crusier/Crusiers lost

Battleship vs Battleship/Battleships lost

Mixes of the above

Carrier vs Carrier/Carriers lost

Point blank battleship duels, point blank cruiser duels

Submarine attacks/ships sunk

Sub/ship/aircraft Torpedoes all over the place/ships sunk

Undermanned Army, Navy, and Marine pilots heroically fighting in outclassed aircraft against airborne and seaborne enemy

Jappanese pilots flying 1100 mile missions (longest of the war?)

Jungle fighting/machine guns/bayonets

Jungle battles fought, won and lost by both sides

Land raids/successful and unsuccessful

Banzai attacks

Massacres of ship borne troops

Disease/Starvation

Probably the only Pacific battle where both sides were roughly equal, Guadalcanal is the very definition an all aspect battle.

An island called Guadalcanal was the apex of the Japanese Empire and beheld a battle like never seen before or since, fought by brave men on both sides, on the sea, in the air, and on the land. The Jappanese tidal wave of expansion broke mightily against a jungle covered ridge with a handful of marines on top, and, ebbed back in a bloody tide to he shore of Japan itself.

American allies played a major role and I don't want to omit their effort and loses in this horrific battle.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 24, 2009)

I think the most underappreciated campaigns in that part of the world, was the New Georgia campaign in summer 1943, and the 2 year struggle for new Guinie.


----------



## renrich (Apr 24, 2009)

Dav, you make a good argument for the Guadalcanal Campaign and it does have a lot going for it.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 24, 2009)

Renrich, upon further review of your comments (and I went back to my source book) about the quality of the IJN naval air forces vs. the USN naval air forces; I now come to accept your arguments that they (the IJN) were the better of the two.


----------



## renrich (Apr 25, 2009)

Sys, I want to be clear about my earlier comments. I am an unabashed fan of the USN pilots in WW2. I have been a avid fan of the USN in general since my two uncles who had, at that time, come from the PTO directly from USS Salt Lake City and USS Chicago, (both were CGMs) and had been on those ships when PH occurred. They came to our house in Dallas sometime, I think, in 1943, and stayed with us for at least a week. All I really remember was that they went out one night together and did not return for several days. Dallas was a target rich environment and neither were married. I did get the impression that these old sea dogs had seen a lot of action. That was confirmed later, after the war. Most of my "knowledge" about USN pilots is from reading Lundstrom's two books about USN fighter pilots in the 1941-42 period and a little bit of personal interaction with Jim Swope, a WW2 USN double ace. Anyway, I believe that at the time of Midway, the IJN pilots in that battle had an overall edge in experience and training over their counterparts from the Hornet, Enterprise and Yorktown. Later, that would not be true.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 25, 2009)

Thanks Renrich.

I based my comment on the fact that on the attack on the Yorktown, the IJN dive bomber pilots had an impressive hit rate of approx 50%.

The US had far lower hit rates on the IJN carriers.


----------

