What if US allowed Japan to take Midway?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

What if US allowed Japan to take Midway?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> What if US allowed Japan to take Midway?

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

What if US allowed Japan to take Midway? - 12/9/2015 12:03:51 PM

Dili

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline

I know politically would be difficult and maybe could be even negative for US forces moral, but i think US would win faster if Japan had to supply Midway, it was war they could not sustain.

Post #: 1

RE: What if US allowed Japan to take Midway? - 12/9/2015 12:37:05 PM

Mundy

Posts: 2869
Joined: 6/26/2002
From: Neenah
Status: offline

Japan most probably didn't bring enough troops to do the job. Midway was a very hard nut to crack in 1942.

_____________________________

(in reply to Dili)

Post #: 2

RE: What if US allowed Japan to take Midway? - 12/9/2015 1:40:57 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

I think in the big picture that possession of the island would not have meant much. The US public was a hell of a lot more resilient than you give them credit for. By this time they had already absorbed a lot of bad news and weathered it fairly well. There was certainly uncertainty but I think that with a little exploring you will find that the American Public was fairly confident in mid 1942 that they were going to prevail eventually. America was gearing up and the American public was well aware of our inherent strengths compared to the rest of the world. Americans are sometimes hard to fathoms but we certainly have never lacked self confidence. If they took it, (insert, Hawaii, Alaska, San Francisco here if you want), we would have taken it back and moved on. Simple as that.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Mundy)

Post #: 3

RE: What if US allowed Japan to take Midway? - 12/9/2015 2:25:23 PM

Canoerebel

Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline

crsutton is right.

And the Navy accepted and sought the fight. It had the benefit of intelligence and was confident that it had a good chance to inflict a bloody nose. And it did.

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 4

RE: What if US allowed Japan to take Midway? - 12/9/2015 2:51:51 PM

jwolf

Posts: 2493
Joined: 12/3/2013
Status: offline

More like multiple amputations than a mere bloody nose.

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 5

RE: What if US allowed Japan to take Midway? - 12/9/2015 5:22:48 PM

Canoerebel

Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline

That was the end result, of course. But prior to the battle the Allies had no way of knowing how disastrous it would turn out for Japan. The Navy just had superior intelligence (and counterintelligence - "our water system is down!"). Even though outnumbered, the Navy felt like it knew enough to shift the odds in its favor. It was right. Alot of intel, analysis, smart thinking and gutsy decison-making went into the mix that resulted in those amputations.

(in reply to jwolf)

Post #: 6

RE: What if US allowed Japan to take Midway? - 12/9/2015 5:27:56 PM

Numdydar

Posts: 3211
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline

Yes. It could have easily gone the other way. It is not called 'Miracle at Midway' for nothing

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 7

RE: What if US allowed Japan to take Midway? - 12/9/2015 5:34:21 PM

LeeChard

Posts: 1099
Joined: 9/12/2007
From: Michigan
Status: offline

Considering the difficulty they encountered on Wake it seems to me they didn't bring
as much as should have of actual combat troops. Midway was dug in to a much greater extent
than Wake was. With radar and the 'get the planes off the island' tactic that preserved
a credible attack force could we have run carriers out of supply?
Also our experience at Tarawa showed how hard is even for BB's to take out ground forces.

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 8

RE: What if US allowed Japan to take Midway? - 12/9/2015 8:17:30 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

That was the end result, of course. But prior to the battle the Allies had no way of knowing how disastrous it would turn out for Japan. The Navy just had superior intelligence (and counterintelligence - "our water system is down!"). Even though outnumbered, the Navy felt like it knew enough to shift the odds in its favor. It was right. Alot of intel, analysis, smart thinking and gutsy decison-making went into the mix that resulted in those amputations.

Yes, the Allies could have just as easily lost the battle. The point is that aside from delaying eventual victory any victory or loss was a mute point. Look at your OOB for late 1942 and 43. They Allies just have too much coming down the pipeline. I find it a foolish notion is there was any sort of Japanese success that could have altered the outcome of the war with a negotiated peace. There could have not been any sort of sustained peace come out of WWII. Those that propose it as historical theory do not understand the nature of that conflict. Except for the US, most of the combatants were facing total annihilation and nothing short of that would have ended the fighting. The Soviets, Germans, Japanese and UK all saw no option but total war to the end and that is the way it played out. In the Pacific, there was no room to accommodate the two vastly different cultures that were at war with each other. After Pearl Harbor, there was no room for rapport to exist at all. I don't think the US as a whole has ever hated an enemy as they hated the Japanese. But the US held all the cards-save for the Axis getting the atomic bomb first which in itself is a total fantasy scenario. It would have taken a lot more than the loss of a few carriers for the American public to have any notion of packing it in. In fact, we are talking about a nation that was hardly feeling the war compared to the rest of the world. It is funny to hear my mom talk of a few sugar shortages when most every European and Asian society was literally on a starvation diet. Yep, lose a few carriers, we just would double down work a few more hours and build a few more...Sorry, I am really on a roll today. It must be the meds I am taking..

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 9

RE: What if US allowed Japan to take Midway? - 12/9/2015 8:25:08 PM

Dili

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline

The point i am trying to make is that US allows Japan to take the island as a trick for Japan to overstretch their supply lines.

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 10

RE: What if US allowed Japan to take Midway? - 12/9/2015 8:33:48 PM

Canoerebel

Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline

Yeah, we get your point.

Our point is that strangling supply is a long process. The US Navy had intel that gave it what it needed to try something that, if successful, would prove far more decisive. And that's exactly what happened.

(in reply to Dili)

Post #: 11

RE: What if US allowed Japan to take Midway? - 12/9/2015 8:54:37 PM

BBfanboy

Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

Not completely convinced the US population would have supported another year of war.
Several sources have said the treasury was running out of money to sustain the pace of operations much longer.
Secondly, with the war and Europe over and Japan pretty much cut off and under siege, it would have been easy to take a "let it rot approach". I think the large number of US POWs in Japan is what derailed that line of thinking, but it could have been resurrected if the combat casualties got too high.
Kamikazes and tenacious Japanese land defences were taking a toll on civilian morale, and Harry Truman was just not as inspirational as FDR.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 12

RE: What if US allowed Japan to take Midway? - 12/9/2015 9:05:06 PM

Klahn

Posts: 184
Joined: 5/8/2007
Status: offline

There were a large number of POWs. But I think the more significant line of thinking was that if Japan wasn't put in a position to surrender to the US, they would likely be surrendering to Stalin soon after.

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 13

RE: What if US allowed Japan to take Midway? - 12/10/2015 2:07:51 AM

BBfanboy

Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ryvan

There were a large number of POWs. But I think the more significant line of thinking was that if Japan wasn't put in a position to surrender to the US, they would likely be surrendering to Stalin soon after.

Good point! That explains the rush to get there firstest with the mostest!

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Klahn)

Post #: 14

RE: What if US allowed Japan to take Midway? - 12/10/2015 4:17:05 AM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

Well, the policy of "unconditional surrender" was established and set. Pretty hard to go back on that. The political implications of not following through would have been global. The US was not excited about the prospects of invading Japan but there is no indication that they were not fully prepared to do it. Sorry, I just have not seen a whole lot of historical evidence to indicate any sort of back down. Our war against the Japanese was in the end pitiless and total. That in itself says volumes about the frame of mind of the Average American.

If the invasion of Japan had been delayed a year, the US would have just had a greater arsenal to immolate them. Look at your OOB for 1946. It would have been like a bus hitting a puppy. I will agree that with the advent of the atom bomb and the total growth of Allied power, it is entirely possible that a delay until 1946 would have removed the need for an invasion.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 15

RE: What if US allowed Japan to take Midway? - 12/10/2015 10:16:49 AM

Dili

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline

@Canoerebel

Okay. But the idea was not to strangle supply per se but more of attrition of Japanese Naval forces which would have to be at fleet level that Japan have to send to escort to supply the Island.

In a sense turning Midway into the Japanese Malta. Just instead of Italians and Germans they have to face USA.

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 16

RE: What if US allowed Japan to take Midway? - 12/10/2015 12:21:07 PM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

One of the problems with trying to turn Midway into Japan's Malta is the northern Hawaiian islands don't have very good sites for air bases and only the longest range aircraft could be used to put pressure on Midway itself. Trying to run convoys into Midway would have been expensive, especially if the USN carriers were still afloat and undamaged, but the USN knew they didn't have a deep enough bench to use the carriers for repeated raids on Midway. The pilot training program was ramping up stateside, but they really didn't have enough pilots for near continuous operations until late 43. The battles of 42 depleted the USN pilot pools pretty deeply. Not only were a number lost in combat, but a number were disabled (because shoulder harnesses weren't in use at the start of the war AG 6 alone lost two pilots in the early months when the were thrown forward in accidents and lost and eye on the tube sight sticking through the windshield, Dick Best had his lung so badly damaged at Midway he never flew again, and the list goes on). A lot of pilots were also moved into other jobs that took them out of the front line pilot pool, some in training schools, but many became staff officers supporting the growing need for new staffs for the new fleet carriers.

Many of the survivors of the 1942 battles who did serve second tours ended up in leadership positions in new squadrons created in the massive expansion.

Back to Midway... Politically the Joint Chiefs and elected government wanted headline grabbing victories, not battles of attrition. Battles of attrition could be very costly to the Japanese at somewhere like Midway, but there was little there to make splashy headlines. On the other hand a naval battle that even caused serious damage to the IJN carriers would be great newspaper fodder. If the IJN carriers had survived only to go through refits like the Mogami went through would have been almost as big a victory. Though they may have become available again sometime in 1943, which may have slowed operations to some extent.

Osprey has a series of books in the Duel series and there is one of USN vs IJN carrier which goes over the carrier battles of 1942. Having them all laid out like that, the USN's track record in carrier battles was not great, especially the early ones. In 1942 they had one outstanding day and fairly poor performance otherwise. The book doesn't cover the later two carrier battles other than in passing, but Leyte was deliberately one sided with the carriers sacrificed to allow the BBs to get through. The Battle of the Philippine Sea is a masterstroke of defense on the USN's part, but on offense performance was not great, especially considering the lopsided force balance the USN had (though they were hampered by a long range strike very late in the day). USN subs did much better in that battle on offense.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Dili)

Post #: 17

RE: What if US allowed Japan to take Midway? - 12/10/2015 5:17:21 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

Good points Bill. In the end, we were so overpowered that we did not have to be creative at all. The Japanese did a pretty good job of throwing us off the scent at the battle of the Philippine Sea and we helped out with out sloppy reaction but in the end we just had so much "stuff" on hand that their losses were catastrophic. Good plan or no, they were just gonna get crushed. That battle really shows how amazingly inexperienced we were. Makes sense with the need for expansion. But as I always said, better to have an inexperienced pilot in a Corsair than an Oscar...

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 18

RE: What if US allowed Japan to take Midway? - 12/10/2015 5:29:09 PM

Admiral DadMan

Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline

At Philippine Sea, Mitscher would have had to detach the DDs and the BBs in order to pursue the IJN CVs at a high enough speed (28 kts) to catch them.

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 19

RE: What if US allowed Japan to take Midway? - 12/10/2015 9:51:09 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Good points Bill. In the end, we were so overpowered that we did not have to be creative at all. The Japanese did a pretty good job of throwing us off the scent at the battle of the Philippine Sea and we helped out with out sloppy reaction but in the end we just had so much "stuff" on hand that their losses were catastrophic. Good plan or no, they were just gonna get crushed. That battle really shows how amazingly inexperienced we were. Makes sense with the need for expansion. But as I always said, better to have an inexperienced pilot in a Corsair than an Oscar...

Excuse me guys, I meant to use Leyte Gulf as my example and cited the Philippine Sea.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 20

RE: What if US allowed Japan to take Midway? - 12/10/2015 10:23:48 PM

Big B

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline

quote:

Yes. It could have easily gone the other way. It is not called 'Miracle at Midway' for nothing

Well, it's called the Miracle at Midway for journalistic sensationalism that sells a lot of books...and do what Americans like best - cash in and make a lot of money.

There has been much myth making about Midway after the war - and it sold a lot of books, and made a lot of money in the process.
But that doesn't stand up to modern historical research anymore.
For two hours of informative listening - try these two by Johnathan Parshall (co-author of Shattered Sword) - he pretty much ruthlessly exposes the myths versus the reality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9rkKtK1b44
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Sqt4-ux9jU

I can't really see any realistic outcome of Midway where the USN gets a lopsided defeat (and don't forget - if the cruiser floatplane that spotted Yorktown had taken off on schedule - the Japanese would never even have spotted the Americans at all, luck was on the side that kept chipping away and making their own luck).

There were 4 carrier battles in 1942, and what they all had in common was that the Japanese always lost more men and aircraft - and they never came out of a carrier battle better positioned than before they entered (we won't get into the next series of carrier battles of 1944)... and that's 4 out of 4.
So, yeah - anything can happen in a battle theoretically - but there's more than chance in battle - that is why there were consistent outcomes in those series of battles.

Sorry to hi-jack your thread... and on that point I agree holding Midway would have been too costly.

< Message edited by Big B -- 12/10/2015 11:56:41 PM >

_____________________________

Big B's Shipyard

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 21

RE: What if US allowed Japan to take Midway? - 12/11/2015 1:10:10 AM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

quote:

Yes. It could have easily gone the other way. It is not called 'Miracle at Midway' for nothing

Well, it's called the Miracle at Midway for journalistic sensationalism that sells a lot of books...and do what Americans like best - cash in and make a lot of money.

There has been much myth making about Midway after the war - and it sold a lot of books, and made a lot of money in the process.
But that doesn't stand up to modern historical research anymore.
For two hours of informative listening - try these two by Johnathan Parshall (co-author of Shattered Sword) - he pretty much ruthlessly exposes the myths versus the reality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9rkKtK1b44
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Sqt4-ux9jU

I can't really see any realistic outcome of Midway where the USN gets a lopsided defeat (and don't forget - if the cruiser floatplane that spotted Yorktown had taken off on schedule - the Japanese would never even have spotted the Americans at all, luck was on the side that kept chipping away and making their own luck).

There were 4 carrier battles in 1942, and what they all had in common was that the Japanese always lost more men and aircraft - and they never came out of a carrier battle better positioned than before they entered (we won't get into the next series of carrier battles of 1944)... and that's 4 out of 4.
So, yeah - anything can happen in a battle theoretically - but there's more than chance in battle - that is why there were consistent outcomes in those series of battles.

Sorry to hi-jack your thread... and on that point I agree holding Midway would have been too costly.

I've read Shattered Sword as well as a number of other modern books on Midway. The USN was holding a very strong hand at Midway, but they did come close to throwing it away. VB-8 and VS-8 were out of the fight because of Stanhope Ring's incompetence as an air group leader and the dive bombers from the Yorktown and Enterprise both missed the IJN carriers initially and only stumbled into them with some luck at extreme range and past the point of no return for some aircraft. At that, the new air group leader of AG 6 got the signals wrong and sent both VS-6 and VB-6 after Kaga ignoring Akagi. It was only quick thinking by Dick Best who ignored protocol, almost collided with some SBDs beginning their dives, who redirected his flight of three planes to the Akagi and did enough damage to put her out of action.

Bad strike coordination and a mixed bag of unit leadership plagued the USN in air battles in 1942. At Midway, they were just lucky enough to get enough bombs on target at the right time and place. It was not as miraculous as a lot of contemporaneous accounts like to make it. The USN had strategically set up the battle to their advantage, the carriers were in the perfect spot, and Midway was as much of a fortress as you could make an atoll in 1942. However tactically they almost blew it.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Big B)

Post #: 22

RE: What if US allowed Japan to take Midway? - 12/11/2015 1:24:48 AM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Good points Bill. In the end, we were so overpowered that we did not have to be creative at all. The Japanese did a pretty good job of throwing us off the scent at the battle of the Philippine Sea and we helped out with out sloppy reaction but in the end we just had so much "stuff" on hand that their losses were catastrophic. Good plan or no, they were just gonna get crushed. That battle really shows how amazingly inexperienced we were. Makes sense with the need for expansion. But as I always said, better to have an inexperienced pilot in a Corsair than an Oscar...

The Battle of the Philippine Sea also demonstrated how good fighter direction had become as well as how good the deck crews were at prepping fighters to get them airborne again. Spruance also positioned his heavy assets out in front of the carriers with all the BBs in one TF that attracted a lot of attention from the inexperienced Japanese and allowed the carriers to keep cycling fighters with less interference. The only USN ship hit that day was the South Dakota which took a smallish bomb that did little damage.

The difference in training was really showing by 1944. The USN had a lot of green pilots, but the greenest USN pilot was probably more experienced than the average Japanese pilot. The USN pilots also had a lot of experience with ground attack before the sea battle. They had been raiding Japanese bases for months and almost every pilot in the fleet had at least some real combat experience.

Leyte Gulf's air war was even more lopsided, but again the USN shipping strikes were less than optimal. Studies of the strikes in the Sibuyan Sea showed poor strike discipline. Bombers tended to gang up on ships that were already crippled like the Musashi and mostly ignored other ships. If they had focused on leaving cripples alone in the first wave of strikes and gone after ships still operational, they probably could have put all the BBs out of action and then mopped them up with later strikes if they didn't sink on their own. The strikes on the carriers was crushing, but it was breaking eggs with sledge hammers. The carriers were helpless with no aircraft left and the USN strikes were basically shooting fish in a barrel.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 23

RE: What if US allowed Japan to take Midway? - 12/11/2015 1:42:49 AM

Big B

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline

Ok, not here for a contest of who didn't do what - but to explain what I said...

The Hornets' air group (Bombing 8 and Scouting 8) followed the initial sighting report and failed to make contact - because - the KB turned away to the North after the Nautilus attacks, and the reaction to the sighting report from the floatplane.

Wade McCluskey, commanding Bombing 6 did the same as Bombing 8 - but saw the IJN DD Arashi steaming at full speed North (to catch back up withe her TF after sitting on Nautilus because she made torpedo attacks on Kirishima)...which of course led to the fateful outcome.

No one critiques the many errors of assumptions that the IJN made - including the wargames held before the battle that showed the USN might just launch a cataclysmic counter blow - which the USN did do.

The point remains, no matter how one does a "blow-by-blow" of any of those battles one can always find errors, but the fact and the ink of the tally sheet remains - the IJN always lost more men and aircraft in all carrier battles - 4 out of 4.

Could the KB have done better? Theoretically - yes. Unimportant. The Fact is they never did. If you were a betting man - you would have gone broke betting on them.

This fits the consistent pattern of outcomes, which I stated above

< Message edited by Big B -- 12/11/2015 2:54:54 AM >

_____________________________

Big B's Shipyard

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 24

RE: What if US allowed Japan to take Midway? - 12/11/2015 2:27:25 AM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

Ok, not here for a contest of who didn't do what - but to explain what I said...

The Hornets' air group (Bombing 8 and Scouting 8) followed the initial sighting report and failed to make contact - because - the KB turned away to the North after the Nautilus attacks, and the reaction to the sighting report from the floatplane.

Wade McCluskey, commanding Bombing 6 did the same as Bombing 8 - but saw the IJN DD Arashi steaming at full speed North (to catch back up withe her TF after sitting on Nautilus because she made torpedo attacks on Kirishima)...which of course led to the fateful outcome.

No one critiques the many errors of assumptions that the IJN made - including the wargames held before the battle that showed the USN might just launch a cataclysmic counter blow - which the USN did do.

The point remains, no matter how one does a "blow-by-blow" of any of those battles one can always find errors, but the fact and the ink of the tally sheet remains - the IJN always lost more men and aircraft in all carrier battles - 4 out of 4.

Could the KB have done better? Theoretically - yes. Unimportant. The Fact is they never did. If you were a betting man - you would have gone broke betting on them.

This fits the consistent pattern of outcomes, which I stated above

Stanhope Ring flew off way north of the KB. Waldron had an instinct where the KB was, ignored Ring's orders and flew right to the KB. If Waldron had been the AG commander, AG 8 would have found the KB first.

The KB did turn north, but I believe the Yorktown's air group initially went north and found the KB when they turned south, but the Enterprise group went south initially.

Bill

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Big B)

Post #: 25

RE: What if US allowed Japan to take Midway? - 12/11/2015 2:36:10 AM

Big B

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline

Yes ok - but does that change the ink on the balance sheet?

_____________________________

Big B's Shipyard

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 26

RE: What if US allowed Japan to take Midway? - 12/12/2015 10:17:32 PM

spence

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline

The Marines at Midway numbered over 2000. The Marines at Wake numbered around 400. At Wake the IJN landing force. The IJN's reinforced landing force of 22 December 1941 only barely overcame the defense (and their landing force on one of the islets got wiped out). The IJN/IJA brought two battalions to the fight - the Marines brought three.

The Navy, Army and Marines put 175 strike aircraft (not counting fighters) in the air to hit the IJN carriers before they, the IJN, even put up one on an anti-ship mission.

The IJN's KB showed up for "THE DECISIVE BATTLE" without 2 of its carriers and with the air groups of the other 4 somewhat understrength. The rest of the IJN was not within supporting distance of the KB.

IJN Fanboys love to criticize USN fighter direction. In the early days of wartime carrier aviation the only thing worse than USN fighter direction was IJN fighter direction, which frankly equates to NO fighter direction at all. After all it was the individual IJN fighter pilots' ability to land whenever HE felt he needed fuel or bullets that kept all those bomb/torpedo/gas laden bombers in the carrier's hangars until the SBD's showed up at Midway. And when the SBDs showed up the IJN's strongest CAP of the day completely ignored them in favor of ganging up on the Yorktown's TBDs and fighters.

Perhaps the results of the Battle of Midway were not fore-ordained as a USN victory. IRL the IJN did nothing whatever to justify a different result.

(in reply to Dili)

Post #: 27

RE: What if US allowed Japan to take Midway? - 12/13/2015 5:10:43 AM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

The Marines at Midway numbered over 2000. The Marines at Wake numbered around 400. At Wake the IJN landing force. The IJN's reinforced landing force of 22 December 1941 only barely overcame the defense (and their landing force on one of the islets got wiped out). The IJN/IJA brought two battalions to the fight - the Marines brought three.

The Navy, Army and Marines put 175 strike aircraft (not counting fighters) in the air to hit the IJN carriers before they, the IJN, even put up one on an anti-ship mission.

The IJN's KB showed up for "THE DECISIVE BATTLE" without 2 of its carriers and with the air groups of the other 4 somewhat understrength. The rest of the IJN was not within supporting distance of the KB.

IJN Fanboys love to criticize USN fighter direction. In the early days of wartime carrier aviation the only thing worse than USN fighter direction was IJN fighter direction, which frankly equates to NO fighter direction at all. After all it was the individual IJN fighter pilots' ability to land whenever HE felt he needed fuel or bullets that kept all those bomb/torpedo/gas laden bombers in the carrier's hangars until the SBD's showed up at Midway. And when the SBDs showed up the IJN's strongest CAP of the day completely ignored them in favor of ganging up on the Yorktown's TBDs and fighters.

Perhaps the results of the Battle of Midway were not fore-ordained as a USN victory. IRL the IJN did nothing whatever to justify a different result.

Even under ideal conditions the quality of radios on Japanese Navy fighters was problematical. Many just did not work or worked poorly. You can't have efficient fighter direction without a uniform number of working radios.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 28

RE: What if US allowed Japan to take Midway? - 12/13/2015 11:50:54 AM

Big B

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

The Marines at Midway numbered over 2000. The Marines at Wake numbered around 400. At Wake the IJN landing force. The IJN's reinforced landing force of 22 December 1941 only barely overcame the defense (and their landing force on one of the islets got wiped out). The IJN/IJA brought two battalions to the fight - the Marines brought three.

The Navy, Army and Marines put 175 strike aircraft (not counting fighters) in the air to hit the IJN carriers before they, the IJN, even put up one on an anti-ship mission.

The IJN's KB showed up for "THE DECISIVE BATTLE" without 2 of its carriers and with the air groups of the other 4 somewhat understrength. The rest of the IJN was not within supporting distance of the KB.

IJN Fanboys love to criticize USN fighter direction. In the early days of wartime carrier aviation the only thing worse than USN fighter direction was IJN fighter direction, which frankly equates to NO fighter direction at all. After all it was the individual IJN fighter pilots' ability to land whenever HE felt he needed fuel or bullets that kept all those bomb/torpedo/gas laden bombers in the carrier's hangars until the SBD's showed up at Midway. And when the SBDs showed up the IJN's strongest CAP of the day completely ignored them in favor of ganging up on the Yorktown's TBDs and fighters.

[b]Perhaps the results of the Battle of Midway were not fore-ordained as a USN victory. IRL the IJN did nothing whatever to justify a different result.

This cuts to the heart of my original statement below.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

quote:

Yes. It could have easily gone the other way. It is not called 'Miracle at Midway' for nothing

Well, it's called the Miracle at Midway for journalistic sensationalism that sells a lot of books...and do what Americans like best - cash in and make a lot of money.

There has been much myth making about Midway after the war - and it sold a lot of books, and made a lot of money in the process.
But that doesn't stand up to modern historical research anymore.

I never said that the IJN was Pre-ordained to loose either - but what I did say was that I don't see a realistic probability that the USN was ever likely to come out with a one-sided defeat, especially given the pattern of how the CV battles of '42 came out.

Hence - the myth that Midway was a 'miracle victory' suggests that it was a long shot against the odds, a David and Goliath affair is how it's been sold. But it couldn't be farther from the truth.
Of all the CV battles of '42, the odds were the longest against the Japanese at Midway. Despite the number of ships - the numbers which mattered were the numbers of combat aircraft involved - and that was heavily in favor of the US (Japan:248 carrier-based vs America:233 carrier-based and 127 land-based aircraft = Total 360). Then pile on that - all the tactical advantages lay with the US as well - The US knew the Japanese plan and dates and direction of approach, The US had all the long range air search, the Japanese operated blind, etc etc.

That is why I originally said that selling Midway as a Miracle has been no more than Journalistic sensationalism.

_____________________________

Big B's Shipyard

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 29

RE: What if US allowed Japan to take Midway? - 12/13/2015 7:57:56 PM

Dili

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline

Well if there was cloud cover things could have been different. Or if the first dive bomber squadron didn't found the carriers.

The USS Franklin case shows that only one dive bomber - albeit a B7 Grace and 2 250kg bombs - can wreck a day.

I agree that US had the advantage. But i say that a 3-3 could have happened.

Let's suppose that Japanese had sent all airplanes with GP bombs like Yamaguchi wanted, probably the damage would not be so severe.

(in reply to Big B)

Post #: 30