Well, by now 69 years ago the US Navy and the IJN were making their moves that will produce the clash. It was one of those moments in History: pure air-naval action, just military chess. The tension, the expectations. Thanks to Parshall and Tully's book I can imagine an overwhelmed Nagumo in the crowded small bridge of the Akagi, trying to figure out the danger. On the other side Spruance and Fletcher, with inferior numbers but with the suprise factor on their side. Brave commanders all of them... braver pilots and sailors!
By June 7th some 3,364 men lost their lives fighting for their countries...
Midway Anniversary, 68 years ago.
- Karl Heidenreich
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4808
- Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
- Location: San José, Costa Rica
Re: Midway Anniversary, 68 years ago.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
Sir Winston Churchill
Re: Midway Anniversary, 68 years ago.
I have no problems with what I read here about Japan's shortcomings in training, supply, political ineptitude, overall impompetence, etc. but I have to ask, in comparison with what? Their enemies were evidenly more so. The Empire of Japan took half of China, smashed the battle line of the mighty U.S. navy, took the bastions of the British Empire, Singapore especially should never have fallen, chased the Royal Navy out of the Indian Ocean, shot even Spitfires out of the skies over Burma and went generally on a rampage that seemed unstoppable. Which is precisely why I am in awe of what the Americans did at Midway. An intelligence advantage, yes, but in the end a handful of dive bomber pilots (brave beyond belief) let loose by admirals who must have been sick to their stomachs at the risk they were taking. Especially considering there was not a plane in the U.S. arsenal to match the bloody Zero. The impact of Midway will always be hotly debated but it did buy the Americans time, time for the shipyards and factories to turn out the material necessary for victory in the Pacific. Consider as well that a Japanese victory at Midway would have seriously impaired Roosevelt's Germany first strategy and maybe changed the history of the world.
Re: Midway Anniversary, 68 years ago.
I think you have become a little bit carried away here and exagerrated what the Japanese achieved.frankwl wrote:I have no problems with what I read here about Japan's shortcomings in training, supply, political ineptitude, overall impompetence, etc. but I have to ask, in comparison with what? Their enemies were evidenly more so. The Empire of Japan took half of China, smashed the battle line of the mighty U.S. navy, took the bastions of the British Empire, Singapore especially should never have fallen, chased the Royal Navy out of the Indian Ocean,
Japan didn't conquer half of China. They occupied Manchuria and most of the coastline areas. They did not occupy the vast hinterland of China and about 85% of the land area of China was never occupied by the Japanese.
Took the bastions of the British Emire? Well they didn't take India. Ceylon or Australia.... While I can agree about the comments on Singapore it should be remembered that it was a base and not a fortress.
The RN wasn't driven out of the Indian Ocean. It operated in 1942 out of East Africa and islands like Diego Garcia and from 1943 onwards assumed an offensive role in that area of the world.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
Re: Midway Anniversary, 68 years ago.
Not at that time in the war. But by 1944 even the Japanese realised that the Zero was becoming obsolete and needed replacing - and by then had few resources with which to do so.frankwl wrote: Especially considering there was not a plane in the U.S. arsenal to match the bloody Zero.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
Re: Midway Anniversary, 68 years ago.
A Japanese victory at Midway has been considered at length in other threads. I believe the consensus of views is that it would have lengthened the period of the Pacific War, but not altered its outcome.frankwl wrote: The impact of Midway will always be hotly debated but it did buy the Americans time, time for the shipyards and factories to turn out the material necessary for victory in the Pacific. Consider as well that a Japanese victory at Midway would have seriously impaired Roosevelt's Germany first strategy and maybe changed the history of the world.
It is possible - but not certain - that the ''Germany first'' policy would have been altered. I think that had the Japanese won at Midway the key would be the American ability to hold Midway and Hawaii, Even with carrier superiority any attempt by Japan to seize Hawaii would pose considerable risks and indeed the Americans may well have welcomed such a Japanese attempt because the Jap forces are a very long way from home and exposed.
In that scenario I would suggest that ''Germany first'' means that the 90% of US war output dedicated to the European theatre may be reduced to 80%. That statistic might not seem significant - but it means that US output to the Pacific theatre is doubled.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
Re: Midway Anniversary, 68 years ago.
This is hardly correct. The F4F was indeed capable of matching the Zeros, the P-40 was nearly as capable, and the P-38 more than adequate to do so.frankwl wrote:.... Especially considering there was not a plane in the U.S. arsenal to match the bloody Zero.
If the US lost it's carriers at Midway and the Japanese didn't there would be llittle alternative to the Germany first strategy at least until the new US CV's started hitting the water in 43. Indeed the force that went to Gaudalcanal may have ended up in Europe instead.... Consider as well that a Japanese victory at Midway would have seriously impaired Roosevelt's Germany first strategy and maybe changed the history of the world.
Re: Midway Anniversary, 68 years ago.
Or more likely concentrated in Hawaii.lwd wrote: If the US lost it's carriers at Midway and the Japanese didn't there would be llittle alternative to the Germany first strategy at least until the new US CV's started hitting the water in 43. Indeed the force that went to Gaudalcanal may have ended up in Europe instead.
After the attack on PH there were invasion scares on the US west coast, fuelled not least by the activities, albeit not very successful, of Japanese submarines operating thereto.
If it were publicly known in the US that the US Navy had no carriers or battleships left in the Pacific there would be renewed and much greater fears about the security of the western coast, far greater than any Japanese threat could realistically be. Holding Hawaii would be crucial, along with keeping Australia and China in the war. For those reasons Roosevelt could not ignore the Pacific theatre in the latter half of 1942.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
Re: Midway Anniversary, 68 years ago.
That's certainly a possiblility.RF wrote:Or more likely concentrated in Hawaii.lwd wrote: If the US lost it's carriers at Midway and the Japanese didn't there would be llittle alternative to the Germany first strategy at least until the new US CV's started hitting the water in 43. Indeed the force that went to Gaudalcanal may have ended up in Europe instead.
This wasn't the case however. Saratoga would still have been around and several of the battleships from Pearl were back in service at the time of Midway.... If it were publicly known in the US that the US Navy had no carriers or battleships left in the Pacific ....