IJN attacks vs defended islands: Ceylon compared to Midway

[oldcrowcv63]

From your post #33 on this thread:

"You don't look for footnotes in men like those."

to:

Lord's work, in short, is based on first-person testimony, which is subject to cross-examination on all kinds of levels, not just sincerity. Witnesses testify falsely, for any number of reasons. By all means, when there are inconsistent statements, when there are discrediting facts, whatever, let's lay them out, let's see them. Nobody's version is sacrosanct. That goes for the critics', too. Separate the allegations from the facts. Discredit on facts. Now we're going places.

seems like progress to me.

Now to elaborate the "charges" Seems like you are accusing me of repeating unfounded allegation of Lord's use of flawed sources whether they be first person witness (Fuchida Okumiya) or secondary academic (such as Morison).

It appears you are also accusing me of claiming that Lord "embellishes" the history or "missed the boat" in some way. I can only think of two instances where you might be able to suggest that: In post #32 where I said he used a well turned phrase to emphasize a point at the expense of oversimplification. I don't consider use of a stylistic device to be an "embellishment" so I don't consider that something to which I need to respond.

With regard to Lord's "missing the boat," in Post #55 58 I asked for Lord's tally of the Hiryu's air group after the two strikes on Yorktown and in preparation for the third.

If my memory serves, Lord, like virtually every other historian covering the battle did miss the boat by relying on an inaccurate primary (or less likely, a secondary) source. That source inaccuracy should have been obvious to anyone critically examining the battle but it wasn't corrected until the appearance of Lundstrom's First Team. I may be mistaken and Lord makes no final accounting of the Hiryu Air Group. In that case, I have no current proof beyond what I've already provided that he used any flawed sources, whether primary or secondary. So I'll have to await your report on what he wrote or see for myself when the book arrives. In this case, I don't need a cited reference to know if he got it as wrong as everyone else. It was glaringly apparent from my first reading (circa 1967-70) that all contemporary histories were flawed in this one respect. I vividly recall holding First Team in my hand and perusing the book to the pages where I might discover a correct account. And there it was, after more than three decades of quite evident historical inaccuracy: Lundstrom had finally gotten it right. In other words, the proof that he (Lord) used Fuchida and Okumiya is explicit in the text.

I also think it likely that the critique of Lord, however light, at the Midway Roundtable (or for that matter, although with perhaps a bit less authority the Naval Aviation News) website is less likely to be hearsay than Wikipedia.

reproduced here:

"Its faults are few and minor, and can generally be attributed to the limits of known and unclassified information in 1967."

This strikes me as generally accurate and indicates (to my own satisfaction) his use of at least some of the flawed sources available at the time and most likely they are as others have claimed, Fuchida and Okumiya.

late edit: added "(Lord)" to text for clarification.

 

[oldcrowcv63]

I do recall one author of a historical treatment of the battle that got it more right than anyone else by listening to the accounts of the SBD pilots attacking the Hiryu the afternoon of June 4. It may have been Lord's Incredible Victory, I simply don't remember. But, if it turns out to be Lord, then his attention to the details provided in eyewitness accounts yielded him an advantage over his contemporaries. We'll see.

 

[VBF-13]

Seems like you are accusing me of repeating unfounded allegation of Lord's use of flawed sources whether they be first person witness (Fuchida Okumiya) or secondary academic (such as Morison).

To repeat, neither are Fuchida nor Okumiya in Lord's list of contributors. As for any reliance on Morisin, that probably came from his critics, as well.

If my memory serves, Lord, like virtually every other historian covering the battle did miss the boat by relying on an inaccurate primary (or less likely, a secondary) source. That source inaccuracy should have been obvious to anyone critically examining the battle but it wasn't corrected until the appearance of Lundstrom's First Team. I may be mistaken and Lord makes no final accounting of the Hiryu Air Group.

Yes, you are mistaken. Or, if there is reference to that, I didn't see it.

So I'll have to await your report on what he wrote or see for myself when the book arrives. In this case, I don't need a cited reference to know if he got it as wrong as everyone else. It was glaringly apparent from my first reading (circa 1967-70) that all contemporary histories were flawed in this one respect. I vividly recall holding First Team in my hand and perusing the book to the pages where I might discover a correct account. And there it was, after more than three decades of quite evident historical inaccuracy: Lundstrom had finally gotten it right. In other words, the proof that he (Lord) used Fuchida and Okumiya is explicit in the text.

Again. Find it in the book.

 

[VBF-13]

"Its faults are few and minor, and can generally be attributed to the limits of known and unclassified information in 1967."

Just one more observation. That's still but an unsupported allegation. The authors back then beat their wives, too, as wife-beating was more commonplace back then, especially when the wives deserved it. Ah, I dunno, think I want to see a supporting fact or two or three, before I go off calling those authors wife-beaters...

 

[gjs238]

Is it still OK to wear a wife beater?

 

[buffnut453]

Just one more observation. That's still but an unsupported allegation. The authors back then beat their wives, too, as wife-beating was more commonplace back then, especially when the wives deserved it. Ah, I dunno, think I want to see a supporting fact or two or three, before I go off calling those authors wife-beaters...

Am I the only one who thinks this is going a bit far? Oldcrow has said he's waiting for the book to arrive so he can review against more recent treatments. Why don't we just have the patience to let him get the bluddy book, read it and report back? Or am I missing something?

 

[VBF-13]

Am I the only one who thinks this is going a bit far? Oldcrow has said he's waiting for the book to arrive so he can review against more recent treatments. Why don't we just have the patience to let him get the bluddy book, read it and report back? Or am I missing something?

A bit too far, or a bit too real for you? I don't know if you happened to have noticed it, but this author, Walter Lord, has been having his good character vicariously smeared in this thread based on hearsay and unsupported allegations in reference to authors there's not one iota of evidence he even relied on as sources. I do want to know Crow's opinion when he reads the book. Wherever you got the idea I'm rushing him, there, search me.

 

[buffnut453]

VBF13

In fairness, you haven't provided any data to help move the discussion along. Oldcrow asked several times for Lord's count of aircraft on Hiryu and your stock response is "read the book" which he doesn't yet have. Wag more, bark less methinks!

I was the first person in this thread to say that I absolutely want to see sources cited for statements made in historical works...and I absolutely stand by that statement. I don't take anybody's word as gospel in a published item because it's just too easy to conflate fact, opinion and perception. This isn't a slam against Lord or any other author. It's simply a realistic reflection that the conclusions drawn by any published history depend entirely on the sources used. If those sources can't be verified, either through citation or comparison with other data that has been confirmed, then the work must be questioned. I'm afraid that's what historians do...and they should do it because different interpretations can rightly be drawn as new sources emerge.

To use a specific example of sourcing issues, Martin Caiden's "Ragged, Rugged Warriors" includes a claim, sourced as being from Greg Board, that 21 Sqn RAAF was entirely wiped out in the air when the reality is that only 3 pilots were killed in combat. Now, I'm not comparing Caiden to Lord - to do so would be foolish. I am merely highlighting how even sourced information can prove to be incorrect. If information isn't sourced, the reader has an even harder problem ensuring the veracity of what he/she is being fed.

This has nothing to do with character assassination. It's merely the need to understand what sources were used to build a story or argument. I want to know explicitly what sources were used, preferably associated with the text as a footnote so I can ensure the provenance of a particular statement. Many sources that we have today were simply not available in 1967, often due to security classification concerns. I would never criticize an author who used the best available sources at a given time. Equally, an older history that has been bypassed by more recent research cannot be beyond criticism as a work of history.

Cheers,
B-N

 

[RCAFson]

. Seems perhaps 3 or 4 Hurricanes survived the encounter with no or minor damage and might be immediately operational. Careful accounting shows 10 of 16 Hurricanes forced down, with 2 crashed landed at the airfield, but with 14 of the 16 pilots surviving the action. That appears to be the biggest difference in the two actions.

Shores states that six 261 Squadron aircraft, five Hurricane II and one Hurricane I were left serviceable after the attack, or 6 of 16.

 

[VBF-13]

VBF13In fairness, you haven't provided any data to help move the discussion along. Oldcrow asked several times for Lord's count of aircraft on Hiryu and your stock response is "read the book" which he doesn't yet have. Wag more, bark less methinks!

To the best of my knowledge, it's not in the book, B-N. That's what I'm trying to tell you guys. If Crow can find it, that's one on me, I missed it.

I was the first person in this thread to say that I absolutely want to see sources cited for statements made in historical works...and I absolutely stand by that statement. I don't take anybody's word as gospel in a published item because it's just too easy to conflate fact, opinion and perception. This isn't a slam against Lord or any other author. It's simply a realistic reflection that the conclusions drawn by any published history depend entirely on the sources used. If those sources can't be verified, either through citation or comparison with other data that has been confirmed, then the work must be questioned. I'm afraid that's what historians do...and they should do it because different interpretations can rightly be drawn as new sources emerge.

To use a specific example of sourcing issues, Martin Caiden's "Ragged, Rugged Warriors" includes a claim, sourced as being from Greg Board, that 21 Sqn RAAF was entirely wiped out in the air when the reality is that only 3 pilots were killed in combat. Now, I'm not comparing Caiden to Lord - to do so would be foolish. I am merely highlighting how even sourced information can prove to be incorrect. If information isn't sourced, the reader has an even harder problem ensuring the veracity of what he/she is being fed.

This has nothing to do with character assassination. It's merely the need to understand what sources were used to build a story or argument. I want to know explicitly what sources were used, preferably associated with the text as a footnote so I can ensure the provenance of a particular statement. Many sources that we have today were simply not available in 1967, often due to security classification concerns. I would never criticize an author who used the best available sources at a given time. Equally, an older history that has been bypassed by more recent research cannot be beyond criticism as a work of history.

Cheers,
B-N

Ah, I dunno. He's being attacked in large part through his association with others there's no evidence he even relied on, not based on anything he said, specifically. Yeah, but on the rest, count on it, we're on the same page.

 

[oldcrowcv63]

A bit too far, or a bit too real for you? I don't know if you happened to have noticed it, but this author, Walter Lord, has been having his good character vicariously smeared in this thread based on hearsay and unsupported allegations in reference to authors there's not one iota of evidence he even relied on as sources. I do want to know Crow's opinion when he reads the book. Wherever you got the idea I'm rushing him, there, search me.

"Character viciously smeared?"

Buffnut Post #23:

"Lord raises a valid point…"

My Post #14: "Lord's statement seems just a bit of dramatic hyperbole."

"seems just a bit" is obviously an opinion and is hardly vicious.

Buffnut Post #23: "Lord seemingly doesn't accept that IJNAF fighter pilots were highly skilled."
"Seemingly doesn't accept…" is (once again) obviously an opinion and is hardly vicious

OldCrow Post #31: "I didn't mean Lord was demonstrating an ethnic bias. From what I have read, Lord was far too generous a man to label a people or culture with a broad brush.

It (Lord's) was the first book I read on the subject and remained one of my favorites for a very long time. I didn't then make the distinction between a well-researched academic treatise and the work of an avocational historian. Lord was exemplar of the latter while I believe Lundstrom to be one of the former."

"Exemplar" As in the best of that form of historical account. Vicious?

OldCrow Post #32: "It seems] to me that Lord is using a well turned phrase that, to me at least, drastically oversimplifies the reality to make the point"

That's an opinion on a stylistic device which contains explicit compliments.

OldCrow Post #51: "I believe the first priority of both Lord and McCullough is the story they are telling which is not to say they didn't do rigorous research."

Once again, it's clearly an opinion that implicitly salutes the quality of their research.

Do you want me (us?) to simply agree with everything you or Lord says?

The Round table's comments seem to me to be more a complimentary note than a vicious smear.

In fact I don't think any of these could be characterized as vicious but that's just my opinion.

So far I have received Symonds' book (rated by the forum as their number 1 pick) and I wasn't terribly impressed after reading just one section, which he evidently thought wasn't terribly important enough to receive a more detailed account. I also received Morison's Volume IV. No sign of Lord just yet but I expect it will arrive soon along with the roundtable's own account from first person sources.

I hope you see this as funny as do I. I just reread VBF's post and realized my smudgy glasses (or alternatively failing eyesight) misread "vicariously" as "vicious". As Roseanne Roseannadanna used to say: "Nevermind…"

 

[oldcrowcv63]

To repeat, neither are Fuchida nor Okumiya in Lord's list of contributors. As for any reliance on Morisin, that probably came from his critics, as well.

Yes, you are mistaken. Or, if there is reference to that, I didn't see it.

Again. Find it in the book.

Lord (famous from his brilliant account of the Titanic) presumably has access to an esteemed academic (Morison) who had written what was to the time purported to be the most up to date and 'accurate' quasi-official history of USN operations in WW2 gleaned from many eyewitness sources, as well as the nearly contemporary account of two acknowledged aviation expert eyewitnesses to the battle and chooses not to use them? I will be shocked to the point of being speechless but NOT I repeat, NOT postless. I will report it.

late edit: Deleted unnecessary comment on numbers based on VBF's post #70

 

[oldcrowcv63]

Shores states that six 261 Squadron aircraft, five Hurricane II and one Hurricane I were left serviceable after the attack, or 6 of 16.

I just read the same sentence this morning. Page 429, vol 2 Bloddy Shambles: "10 of 16 Hurricanes forced down, with 2 crashed landed at the airfield" Do the accounting from the text. I came up with "3 to 4 undamaged and two crash-landed (in pilot accounts) with no or minor damage and might be immediately operational." Shores might have considered a crash-landed (gear up?) aircraft as 'serviceable' if it could be quickly repaired as opposed to immediately available. Dunno, but try the detailed accounting based on the text:

Page 420:

"...of the 16 which had taken off, 8 were shot down, crashed or forced landed. 3 more were damaged. 16 minus 11 is 5 a/c.

Here is my own accounting from the text:

Dawn Patrol:
1. Fulford: RTB(?) landed? ok
2. Rawnsly: Crash landed at base, OK
3. Walton: Shot Down, KIA

A Flight:
1. Cleaver: RTB landed, OK
2. Lockwood: Crash Landed: OK
3. Martin: Forced Landing: OK
4. Counter: Crash Landed at base, OK
5. Bowie: Shot Down, WIA
6. Pearce: Shot Down, KIA

B Flight:
1. Marshall: RTB landed OK
2. Warnick: RTB(?) OK
3. Mann: Shot Down, Bailed Out, OK
4. Hall: Damaged, RTB, OK
5. Mayes: Damaged, RTB, WIA
6. Gauthier: Shot Down, KIA

261 CO Lewis: Shot Down on Take Off: WIA

By my count, at most 4 landed undamaged, while 4 more landed (RTB) with some damage. That leaves 8 of the total that took off, or attempted to, that were either shot down, washed or force landed. Seems like there may be some uncertainty in the final tally or serviceable may simply mean some repair was probably necessary.

 

[Shinpachi]

Well, many thanks to the OldCrow for providing us with a link to the Japanese document that covers the battle, translated that is: link.

Thanks for the nice find, tomo pauk

The report says
"PART IV: ORDERS, REPORTS, ETC.:
War Diary (Abbreviated).
[This part is missing from the document.- Ed.]"

but the original Japanese text I have says
"Description for Part IV is omitted as described in the war diary."

I think nuance sounds different.

 

[RCAFson]

I just read the same sentence this morning. Page 429, vol 2 Bloddy Shambles: "10 of 16 Hurricanes forced down, with 2 crashed landed at the airfield" Do the accounting from the text. I came up with "3 to 4 undamaged and two crash-landed (in pilot accounts) with no or minor damage and might be immediately operational." Shores might have considered a crash-landed (gear up?) aircraft as 'serviceable' if it could be quickly repaired as opposed to immediately available. Dunno, but try the detailed accounting based on the text:

Page 420:

"...of the 16 which had taken off, 8 were shot down, crashed or forced landed. 3 more were damaged. 16 minus 11 is 5 a/c.

Here is my own accounting from the text:

Dawn Patrol:
1. Fulford: RTB(?) landed? ok
2. Rawnsly: Crash landed at base, OK
3. Walton: Shot Down, KIA

A Flight:
1. Cleaver: RTB landed, OK
2. Lockwood: Crash Landed: OK
3. Martin: Forced Landing: OK
4. Counter: Crash Landed at base, OK
5. Bowie: Shot Down, WIA
6. Pearce: Shot Down, KIA

B Flight:
1. Marshall: RTB landed OK
2. Warnick: RTB(?) OK
3. Mann: Shot Down, Bailed Out, OK
4. Hall: Damaged, RTB, OK
5. Mayes: Damaged, RTB, WIA
6. Gauthier: Shot Down, KIA

261 CO Lewis: Shot Down on Take Off: WIA

By my count, at most 4 landed undamaged, while 4 more landed (RTB) with some damage. That leaves 8 of the total that took off, or attempted to, that were either shot down, washed or force landed. Seems like there may be some uncertainty in the final tally or serviceable may simply mean some repair was probably necessary.

I got so interested in this that I purchased and downloaded 261 Squadron's Operations Record Book. 6 Hurricanes were serviceable after the attack, but two of these aircraft were spares (one spare was a Hurricane 1). Warnick's aircraft went u/s from a glycol leak, not from enemy action.

Using full overboost at low altitude, Cleaver was able, by hard rudder turns, to evade and slowly pull away from 4 pursuing Zeros after 40 miles, who nonetheless, were able to put 20 mg rounds into his fuselage.

Fulford got into a climbing match with 6 Zeros from about 15000 to 22000ft when he decided that they were slowly catching up. He dived away vertically and recorded his IAS as 420mph at pull out of his dive (7000ft).

 

[RCAFson]

Well, many thanks to the OldCrow for providing us with a link to the Japanese document that covers the battle, translated that is: link.

From the above:

The enemy apparently anticipated our attack and had their attack planes and flying boats take off. They also concentrated about 50 fighters (all Grummans), and intercepted our first attack wave at a point approximately 30 miles short of our target. When we subjected these to fierce counterattacks, however, they were put on the defensive and engaged, for the most part, in evasive maneuvers. Our ship-based attack planes and bombers suffered no casualties from enemy interceptors while the greater part of their fighters were brought down by us. Results we obtained were 41 enemy ship-based fighters, 1 ship-based bomber and 1 float recco shot down. We lost 4 planes from the exceedingly hot enemy AA fire, so our total losses including 2 which were scuttled during air engagements, were 6 planes.

 

[slaterat]

Hello to everyone. I dug up some notes on this topic I wrote down some time ago. My sources for the actions at Ceylon are mostly from "Bloody Shambles" and Terrence Kelly's "Hurricane Over the Jungle".

At the first action over Ceylon at Columbo you have 6 Fulmars of the FAA, 8 Hurricane IIbs and 5 MKIs of 258 sqn and 21 Hurricane IIbs of 30 sqn. Many sources quote this as the total intercept force but that number is misleading. As there was a lack of radar warning not all of the force was able to launch. Bloody Shambles describes four of the 6 Fulmars as being shoot down on take off. One hurricane ,Cartwrights,is also shot down on take off and another one is described as being prevented from taking off from a bomb blast. However published combat results account for only for 12 hurricanes in action from 30 sqn. Whalen,Davidson, Wagner and Davies all rtb. Allison and MacDonald are shoot down but survive and Ovens, Geffene, Brown, Paxton and Caswell are all kia. It would seem perhaps ,that the other 7 hurricanes of 30 sqn werewere unservicable or probably stuck on the ground as a result of the 5 or 6 aircraft shoot down on the airfield. Bloody Shambles states that 30 sqn had 7 servicable aircraft available after the raid which would mean there were at least 3 unused hurricanes left on the ground assuming that all 4 Hurricanes that rtb'd were immediatly serviceable, or if they weren't then the 7 servicable aircraft would be the ones that were never launched.
258 sqn launches all of its hurricanes 9 mk IIs and 5 clapped out mkIs. They launch from the racetrack and are able to get airborne and make a co alt attack on the bomber force but are then set upon by the escorting zeros coming from an altitude advantage. They attack the bombers as long asthey can but lose 7 hurricanes . Brown,Nicholls, Sharp, Cambell/White, Milnes, Gavin, and Morehouse all rtb . Fletcher and Peacock are shot down but survive and Lockert, McFadden, Tremlett, Neill, and Thain are all kia. Terence Kelly notes in "Hurricanes Over the Jungle" that all of the 258 pilots that had gained combat experience against the Japanese with the squadron in Sumatra and Java survived this action.


In summary in the action at Columbo there are

An airborne intercepting force of( not counting aircraft shot down on take off)
26 hurricanes 2 Fulmars
losses 14 loss rate 54%
kills 7 sorties per kill 4

 

[RCAFson]

After the April 1942 combats, Somerville signalled the Admiralty asking for more Sea Hurricane IIs, and he stated that they were considered superior to the Zero. We now know that there was a rough parity between the Hurricane II and A6M-2-21 but this certainly wasn't the opinion of the USN in regards to the Zero and F2A or F4F.

 

[tomo pauk]

Maybe we should not compare one opinion (Zero 21 vs. F2A) vs. second opinion (Zero 21 vs. what subtype of F4F?) vs. a modern day knowledge (Zero 21 vs. Sea Hurricane)?

 

[oldcrowcv63]

After the April 1942 combats, Somerville signalled the Admiralty asking for more Sea Hurricane IIs, and he stated that they were considered superior to the Zero. We now know that there was a rough parity between the Hurricane II and A6M-2-21 but this certainly wasn't the opinion of the USN in regards to the Zero and F2A or F4F.

Been trying to find information on the Sea Hurricane II. Can you point me to any websites or published descriptions you'd recommend? I've got Eric Brown's Wings of the Navy with a description of the SH IIC.

Finally got back from travel and found a copy of Lord's IV waiting for me. I immediately went to the List of contributors (page 309). Indeed, no sign of Fuchida. Then I turned to the pages describing the Hiryu's surviving air wing (page 232) and found the tabulation I was seeking:

6 VF, 5VB and 4VT survived on Hiryu… basically Fuchida's numbers; which are wrong. In fact, he (Lord) suggests the remaining Zeroes weren't available for the follow up third strike because they had to remain on CAP… VERY Wrong and, as before, follows Fuchida's account.

So with that confirmation in hand, I happened to accidentally open the book to the acknowledgments page (301): Abouth half way down page 302 Lord writes:

"On the Japanese side, the traditional authority has long been Mitsuo Fichida and Masatake Okumiya's Midway- the battle that Doopmed Japan. This remains an indispensable work...."

I was actually hoping that VBF was on to something. Hoping that Lord put two and two together: That he recognized from SBD accounts of the numbers of zeroes reported by the USN VB striking Hiryu and realized that much of the large morning CAP would have been available and operating from the Hiryu. The Hiryu was well defended by a stronger CAP than Yorktown had thrown against the VB force attacking it. Hiryu was as well defended as it could be without RADAR and an FDO, and their were no USN VT to "distract" the IJN CAP. Yet, Hiryu was damaged beyond salvage.

Late edits to clarify where the text was found and to clarify whether it was Lord's or Fuchida's contribution regarding Hiryu CAP assignment.