One of the most historically-accurate Hollywood war movies. - Midway (1976) Discussion

[–] BiffGG 11 years ago

There have been a lot of questions in regards to Nagumo and his actions relative to dealing with Midway Island and the presence of American forces in recent years. The movie was probably for the most part true to what was known at the time it was made. I wish I had the time to look at the reference material that posters have cited here in regards to Nagumo.

reply

[–] murad23 10 years ago

it is still accurate.

reply

[–] CGSailor 11 years ago

Biff is correct in his assessment that it was the most accurate for what we knew "at the time"

But the film is a reflection of a false history of Midway. Quite a bit of what we take for granted as truth about midway has been falsified so much it is almost a matter of faith that it's true.... and isn't.

One man, has told some serious lies about the truth of history to make himself feel more important. As he was a direct eyewitness, an Officer, and one of the few survivors, his "story" was taken as Gospel truth. His truth has been repeated by the early historians and historians since have but parroted the works of those that came before, so the lie was retold and retold.

It was not until some Historians went back and did a forensic look at actual EVIDENCE rather than verbal narratives, using material not available at the time the original histories were written, that the real truth became clear.

http://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/612aa0c4-47a1-4107-afbb-17fa992adf5 9/Reflecting-on-Fuchida,-or--A-Tale-of-Three-Whopper.aspx

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

[–] doug7347 11 years ago

fascinating article! thanks.

reply

[–] shawneuser 11 years ago

I am no Midway historian, though I have done a lot of studying of WWII overall.

Regardless, my initial impression of this article and The Shattered Sword is one of revisionist history being utilized to make the book more interesting.

Tall tales 1 and 3- Who cares if Fuchida lied about either of these things? They make exactly zero historical difference.

Tall tale 2 - It seems that log books are the only evidence that the writers have that Fuchido lied about the 5 minutes. I would think that in a court of law, eye witness testimony is stronger than log books kept during a battle.

I would have a question for the writers. Some of the American pilots were quoted as saying that there were bombs on the decks of the carriers when they were hit. If as according to article only CAP aircraft were on the decks, then why would there be bombs? CAP would have no use for bombs.

The presence of bombs suggests that there WERE anti-ship aircraft on the decks. Were they 5 minutes from launching their counterstrike? Probably not. But Fuchido exaggerating the closeness of the thing for dramatic effect would be no surprise. That is likely all that it was- a dramatic exaggeration, and not an out-and-out lie, which this article suggests.

reply

[–] CGSailor 11 years ago

I am no Midway historian, though I have done a lot of studying of WWII overall.

Regardless, my initial impression of this article and The Shattered Sword is one of revisionist history being utilized to make the book more interesting.

Revisionist.
That is quite often the charge of those who don't like having their beliefs questioned no matter what the facts are. I too hate, and am wary of revisionist historians. When I first heard of the book and that it shattered a lot of "myths" about Midway I was skeptical. But their conclusions are inescapable.

Tall tales 1 and 3- Who cares if Fuchida lied about either of these things? They make exactly zero historical difference.

How exactly are you defining "Historical difference?"
That could apply to anything, or nothing.
As such.... it's no argument. just words, false ones.

Setting the record straight, correcting a false belief of historical events, is NEVER historically insignificant.

I would have a question for the writers. Some of the American pilots were quoted as saying that there were bombs on the decks of the carriers when they were hit. If as according to article only CAP aircraft were on the decks, then why would there be bombs? CAP would have no use for bombs.

YOU are incorrect. Several American pilots saw PLANES, not Bombs, on deck and exploding, cartwheeling into the sea from the decks of the carriers.
These WERE the CAP fighters, the Zeroes. Being refueled and rearmed. Not the strike force. Also, the Bombs from the American dive bombers were penetrating the flight deck to explode INSIDE the hanger where the strike force WAS armed with bombs and torpedoes and fully fueled. The Americans were seeing secondaries from these high order detonations.
It's not hard to see that Pilots could confuse just exactly what they were seeing under the blackout inducing strain of the high Gee pullouts needed to recover from their dive attacks. and the stress of trying to fly and stay alive from all the Anti-air being thrown at them.

The presence of bombs suggests that there WERE anti-ship aircraft on the decks. Were they 5 minutes from launching their counterstrike? Probably not. But Fuchido exaggerating the closeness of the thing for dramatic effect would be no surprise.

The bombs were NOT on the deck, they were belowdecks in the hanger. Which is where they were hit and were exploding as the dive bombs penetrated through the wooden flight decks to the hangar. Oh Fuchida did it for dramatic effect alright. He was telling what we call a Sea-story after all. But it was an outright lie, not a slight exaggeration. The Strike Aircraft could not have possibly been on deck. Physically impossible. The Japanese own records proved that the carriers were recovering aircraft right up to mere moments before the American Dive bombing attacks. It would be impossible to have relocated the strike planes in that time frame.

EDIT:
Updating my answer with additional info once I read it after posting.
To preempt what I see your response would be to the above...
NO. They would not have been recovering the CAP aircraft while simultaneously spotting the strike force for launch on completion of the recovery.

WW2 aircraft carriers, both ours and theirs could not do so.
Launching a strike required the ENTIRE flight deck. They didn't have catapults or an angled deck for recovery. YOU could launch a strike. Or you could land Aircraft. You could not do both and the deck... the WHOLE DECK must be kept clear for whichever evolution you were doing. As long as they were recovering and then relaunching the fighters for CAP, they have no possibility of spotting the strike planes for their launch.
[/edit]

Tall tale 2 - It seems that log books are the only evidence that the writers have that Fuchido lied about the 5 minutes. I would think that in a court of law, eye witness testimony is stronger than log books kept during a battle.

Your "thinking" does not reflect reality.
In the real world, forensic evidence trumps eyewitness testimony in nearly every single case. PERIOD.
So you can throw this argument of yours right out the window. It's a contrived argument... stating without evidence to back you up that the evidence that proves you wrong is falsified.

As far as Courts of law are concerned, eyewitness testimony is the WORST and most unreliable form of evidence in existence.
Even when people are not lying intentionally, they are not always telling the truth. they are telling what they THINK is truth. Human recall is flawed. marred by personal beliefs, passage of time, stress, and multiple other factors.

Ask any police officer investigating a vehicle crash. You get ten different witnesses, many of them completely not involved in the accident itself, and you will likely get 8-10 different answers as to what happened and who is at fault.

So no... Shattered Sword is NOT revisionist.
It's your own incomplete understanding and stubbornness to accept that what you thought you knew for years is wrong.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

[–] shawneuser 11 years ago

Sailor, that is an awful lot of work to be so far off the mark.

I have zero stubbornly held beliefs. As I said, I am not a Midway historian, and I recognize many on this particular board are far more studied on the battle than I am. Any of my thoughts regarding Midway were probably formed within the last couple days when a showing of this very movie inspired me to do some reading on it.

I actually represent about as much an open mind about all the facts as could be found anywhere.

I have never read The Shattered Sword, and therefore can not speak intelligently about it. I was merely saying that the article you linked gave me an impression of it. That is all.

The article does not present evidence strong enough to debunk the eyewitness testimony of a man who was there. That is my conclusion from reading the article.

Tales 1 and 3 make no difference to me, honestly, I could give a crap. But I'll just say that the evidence used to debunk Tale 1 is flimsy to say the least. I could rip it to shreds if I wanted to put the time into it that you did.

Now Tale 3 was well-supported and properly debunked. Good work. Except I don't see what difference Fuchida's presence on the Missouri has to do with anything, other than to show Fuchida HAS lied. It is an unfair generalization though to say that proof of that being a lie is proof that Tale 1 and 3 are lies. If that isn't the point, then I don't know what is.

As far as Tale 2 goes, the article seems to rely solely on log books as evidence that Fuchida is lying.

I am well-aware of the unreliability of eye witness testimony so you were just wasting your time there. However, you are aware that eye witness testimony has put more people in prison than any other in the history of law, right? It may be unreliable, but that doesn't mean it is worthless.

In this case, I would count eye witness testimony as more reliable than a log book supposedly being kept while bombs are dropping. ESPECIALLY if that testimony was backed by other eye witness accounts by the enemy.

So, sure, you can go on about how difficult it would be for the pilots to tell what they were seeing in HORRIBLE conditions. However, if what they say happens to back what an eye witness on deck says, then I would consider that to be pretty strong evidence. Not something to be over ruled by simple logic or log books.

If indeed the American pilots did NOT say there were bombs on the deck, then I more willingly would agree that Fuchida was probably lying. However, as you said, bombs in the hangers proves that the Japanese were at least preparing for the very attack that Fuchida was talking about and probably just waiting for a break in the action to launch. So, in other words, they might have been within 40 minutes of launching and not 5. So, really, the article is making hay out of 35 minutes.

reply

[–] CGSailor 11 years ago

If indeed the American pilots did NOT say there were bombs on the deck, then I more willingly would agree that Fuchida was probably lying. However, as you said, bombs in the hangers proves that the Japanese were at least preparing for the very attack that Fuchida was talking about and probably just waiting for a break in the action to launch. So, in other words, they might have been within 40 minutes of launching and not 5. So, really, the article is making hay out of 35 minutes.

[facepalm]

OF COURSE they were preparing a strike!
That is not the point of contention.

The point of contention is the claim that we struck minutes before the Japs were to launch their own strike.
Fuchida's 5 minutes vs the REALITY of it being more like 45 minutes to an hour.

Yet you just blow it off as "making hay"
It's the whole POINT.

So, sure, you can go on about how difficult it would be for the pilots to tell what they were seeing in HORRIBLE conditions. However, if what they say happens to back what an eye witness on deck says, then I would consider that to be pretty strong evidence. Not something to be over ruled by simple logic or log books.

Seriously?
Sheesh, I pray you are never a jury member in any court case... EVER!
While it is true that eyewitness testimony has sent a lot of people to prison, it's generally when there ISN'T Contradictory forensic evidence proving the eyewitness wrong.
Basically, you are preferring someones claim over factual evidence.

I have zero stubbornly held beliefs.

The fact that you are going with the word of a known liar circumstantially backed up by the visual testimony of a pilot (one pilot really) who was describing only what he thought he saw.... rather than with factual evidence and LOGIC which draws only one inescapable conclusion, puts the lie to that statement.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

[–] Vulcans_Rule 11 years ago

All correct.

And while the debunked myths do not represent a radical reinterpretation of the battle, IMO, it remains interesting that such significant myths took so long to disprove. Jon Parshall and Tony Tully's work is currently the best on Midway to date, on a subject that has been covered by many. It's not a fun read, as there is no poetic or flowery language in there, but it is rich in precise detail and forensic analysis.

Live long and prosper.

reply

[–] CGSailor 11 years ago

One last thing... just hammering a point home.

You seem hellbent to ignore facts in support of verbal claims.
You ignore the logic and common sense that facts MUST by their very nature, outweigh verbal claims.

Verbal claims MUST FIT the facts, otherwise they are lies.

You want to accept the verbal claims as fact, and accept or ignore real facts depending on whether they agree or contradict.
Throwing out facts because they don't agree with your belief.... Is stupidity.
And yes... if you continue to insist upon your set and STUBBORN idea.... You are stupid.

The key paragraph from the essay is this....

Fuchida’s second whopper illustrates an important point in the use of sources—that operational records (dull as they are) form the bedrock of any military historical account and must be given weight at least equal to that given individual observations. If individual observations provide the narrative material, operational records should provide the foundation for understanding the larger picture into which the narrative must fit. Had American historians had the good sense to use the Japanese operational records that were available to them as early as the 1960s, Fuchida’s tales would never have been as pervasively accepted. Instead, his word was accepted essentially as holy writ until 2005.

And Though the Essay talks about three point where Fuchida lied, and only one of them deals with Midway....
There are quite a number of "myths" about Midway that the book itself delves into that are just that... Myths, and not true.

Just one example....

MYTH: Had the scout plane from the Jap Cruiser, Tone, launched on time rather than delayed, the American group would have been found sooner and changed the course of battle.

NOT TRUE.
Carefully going over the course of the fleets and the scouts proves that had Tone#4 launched on time, it would have missed the American group entirely. It's late launch is the only reason it did find the American group, though late as it was in coming.

There are many such myths surrounding Midway.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

[–] HairynosedWombat 11 years ago

Tall tales 1 and 3- Who cares if Fuchida lied about either of these things? They make exactly zero historical difference.

I am no historian either and I am not about to argue historical truth. However your claim that tall tale 1 and 3 make no historic difference is ludicrous.

Tall tale 1 is crucial in interpreting Japanese motivations for the Pearl Harbor attack, whether it was to disable the US fleet for operational reasons (and the fuel tanks could be a useful target in that case), or to presage negotiations. The Japanese High Command showed in 1945 that negotiated settlements were high on their agenda when they were losing. What Japans goal was when attacking Pearl Harbor is surely hugely important to know.

Tall Tale 3 is about one of the most important events of the 20th Century, and historians have spent much time recording it.

If you tremble with indignation at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine

reply

[–] CGSailor 11 years ago

To expand on a point...

YOU: I would have a question for the writers. Some of the American pilots were quoted as saying that there were bombs on the decks of the carriers when they were hit. If as according to article only CAP aircraft were on the decks, then why would there be bombs? CAP would have no use for bombs.

ME: You are incorrect. Several American pilots saw PLANES, not Bombs, on deck and exploding, cartwheeling into the sea from the decks of the carriers.
These WERE the CAP fighters, the Zeroes. Being refueled and rearmed. Not the strike force.

YOU: The presence of bombs suggests that there WERE anti-ship aircraft on the decks. Were they 5 minutes from launching their counterstrike? Probably not. But Fuchido exaggerating the closeness of the thing for dramatic effect would be no surprise.

ME: The bombs were NOT on the deck, they were belowdecks in the hanger. Which is where they were hit and were exploding as the dive bombs penetrated through the wooden flight decks to the hangar.

Here we go:

None of this was meant to imply that the coming attack was not decisive as far as the battle was concerned-it most certainly was. Nor should it be assumed that there were no aircraft whatsoever on the flight deck at 1020-there most certainly were. But these aircraft were mostly, if not entirely, Zeroes waiting to be launched to relieve the CAP patrols that were already in the air. This view is supported by both American eyewitness accounts and Japanese sources. The official Japanese war history series (Senshi Sôsho)explicitly states that at the time of the attacks,all four Japanese carriers had their attack aircraft in the hangars. The only aircraft on deck were either CAP fighters or, in the case of Sôryû, strike force escort fighters being launched to augment the CAP.

This viewpoint, of course, stands in apparent conflict with certain eyewitness accounts made by American pilots, which often painted lurid portraits of bombs exploding among packed enemy squadrons, and Japanese planes being catapulted around the flight decks or enveloped in sheets of flame. While such accounts must be given due consideration, they must also be weighed against the authoritative written evidence that is available. Certainly these American pilot accounts contain elements of truth.The American bombing did cause spectacular fireworks, and Japanese aircraft were undoubtedly destroyed in the process. But cooler, more senior headds among the American pilots also observed a lack of planes on the Japanese flight decks. Lt.Dick Best commented that he saw very few Japanese aircraft topside during his attack run against Akagi. Lt. Cdr. Maxwell Leslie, commander of Yorktown's dive-bomber squadron, also noted in a draft of his official report that he did not see any planes whatsoever on Sôryû's deck, although the pilot just behind him, Lt. Paul Holmberg, though he saw a Zero being hurled over the side. Aboard Kaga, the situation was much the same way, with torpedo bomber pilot Morinaga remarking that Kaga had only two or three aircraft on deck near the stern when the attack developed.

These sober observations, in conjunction with the cold, hard data recorded in the individual Japanese carrier action reports, must be given precedence over the fragmentary and often conflicting reports of American pilots. Like aviators everywhere, they were prone to seeing what they wanted to see. If they embellished the appearance of the stunning damage they inflicted on the Japanese, they are to be forgiven. Dive-bombing a moving target is difficult under the best of circumstances. When these stresses were compounded by anti-aircraft fire, explosions, and violent aerial maneuvers, it is hardly surprising that the aviator accounts tended to focus on the more visible elements of their attacks. Indeed, in many cases they were simply looking for a hit, any hit, that occurred at about the time that their own bomb should have hit the target-a method that was reliable for the lead plane in a formation but decidedly less so for the ones following him down.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

[–] Vulcans_Rule 11 years ago

Bombs would have been difficult to identify from an attacking dive bomber. I don't recall any account of any pilot seeing a bomb on the deck of an enemy carrier.

That there were bombs (and torpedoes) in the hangars is evidenced by the numerous subsequent explosions in the hangars. These explosions of bombs in the hangar contributed to the near-impossibility of fighting the fires in the hangar, as did poor Japanese damage control in general, damaged firefighting systems, and poor hangar design.

Live long and prosper.

reply

[–] CGSailor 11 years ago

Another thing Shawneuser is not taking into account is that the Japanese had a wholly different doctrine when it came to Carrier Operations than the US did.

It the early histories, it was just assumed the Japanese did things in a similar way as we did when it came to operating the carriers. After all, we operated them in what we considered the best way we could, with lessons learned by trial and fire. It was presumed the Japanese would learn those same lessons and reach the same conclusions.

One thing that was completely different (and bears on this specific situation of the strike group on deck vice in the hanger) Is that the USA armed their planes on the flight deck, NOT in the hangar.

The Japanese armed and fueled their planes in the Hangar deck, then moved them to the flight deck for launch. So the whole notion of the Strike group arming on the deck was fallacious.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

[–] Vulcans_Rule 11 years ago

I'm not sure what the obsession is with the bombers on the flight deck. Perhaps those familiar with modern carriers, or with British fleet carriers of the Second World War expect planes in the hangar to be relatively safe from GP bomb attack, thus they might imagine the fatally burning Japanese carriers must have had armed bombers on the flight deck.

In truth, Japan used a toxic blend of American and British design elements. They used enclosed hangars, like the British, but gave them only wooden decks, like the Americans. This meant that fires were easily started in the hangar, and once started, were almost impossible to extinguish. Add to that the fragile firefighting systems easily rendered inoperative by bomb hits, and you have the loss of all 4 carriers hit at Midway. Shokaku survived Coral Sea only because she had few planes aboard when hit.

After Midway, the Japanese made some modifications, but never really approached the damage control efficacy of the US Navy.

Live long and prosper.

reply

[–] CGSailor 11 years ago

After Midway, the Japanese made some modifications, but never really approached the damage control efficacy of the US Navy.

A lot of that had to do with Japan's obsession with the warrior code. Damage control always took second place to fighting ability. compartmentalizing a ship for DC meant less mobility in battle. DC firefighting teams meant fewer crew manning guns.
DC was only worthwhile if you meant to escape a battle to fight again elsewhere.
To the Japanese of that time, that was an act of cowardice.

The whole victory or death mindset was not just with the individual soldier/sailor... it influenced the very design of their ships and the doctrines they used to operate them.

Even how they used their pilots in battle.

USA took their best and most experienced combat pilots and after a time, rotated them OUT of the combat zone and back home to training units where they became instructors for the next group of fresh pilots. Passing on the bloody lessons learned in combat.

Japan took their best and kept them on the front lines for the war's duration. Their job was to FIGHT, not teach. As a result, the skills and lessons learned were lost and not passed on. Simple attrition lost Japan many of their best pilots through numbers and combat fatigue.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

[–] Redhooks 11 years ago

So the whole notion of the Strike group arming on the deck was fallacious.

I am pretty sure I read in one of the books about Midway that the Japanese did arm their dive bombers on the flight deck. I will have to look and find where I read that at.

Redhooks

"You don't get something for nothing, you don't get freedom for free." Neil Peart

reply

[–] CGSailor 11 years ago

I am pretty sure I read in one of the books about Midway that the Japanese did arm their dive bombers on the flight deck. I will have to look and find where I read that at

I am pretty sure it would be the one by Gordon Prange, "Miracle at Midway".

Prange based a lot of his info on interviews with Mistuo Fuchida. His book became the basis for all the histories that followed and as such, the errors due to Fuchida's lies and embellishments got incorporated into the collective memories of the battle.

In other words, I am quite certain you DID read that they armed the bombs on deck.
The book was wrong.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

[–] Redhooks 11 years ago

I don't own Miracle at Midway so it could not be the book I read it in. As I said previously, I will try and find the correct book I read it in and post it here. It may take a few days though.

Redhooks

"You don't get something for nothing, you don't get freedom for free." Neil Peart

reply

[–] CGSailor 11 years ago

Most historical books on Midway are simply parroting the works of other historians like Prange.

As I said. I have no doubt you DID read it. There are a lot of books out there claiming that very thing. The problem is.. they're wrong.

Most historians did not due their own "original research" into the subject, they merely parroted the works of others in their own words.
As such, errors in the first took on a life of their own with each retelling.
Nowadays people like the guy above keep persisting in their worldview despite the flaws.

In addition to Fuchida's lies, the Japanese logs were not available at the time when the first historical records were written. Or what records were available, were still untranslated and in the original Japanese.
But here was Fuchida who spoken fluent English.

Again, the perils of listening only to personal narrative and NOT paying attention to the actual records.

Shattered Sword is the first Historical work to come along that actually went back to the records and reports, the interviews by those who fought.... And did ORIGINAL RESEARCH, and did not rely upon previously written historical books.
As such, they uncovered that there are a great deal of falsehoods in the original historical account. Not necessarily purposely told lies in all cases. Just incorrect assumptions and false conclusions.

Here are some other Myths of Midway....

The Aleutian Operation was a feint designed to lure the American fleet out of Pearl Harbor.
The simultaneous launch of an operation in the Aleutians was designed to capitalize on the Americans being busy elsewhere, so that objectives in the Aleutians could be seized without hindrance. Operation AL was an invasion in it's own right, strategically timed, not merely a diversion.

During the transit to Midway, Admiral Yamamoto withheld important intelligence from Admiral Nagumo that might have changed the course of the battle. As a result, Nagumo was in the dark regarding the nature of the threat facing him at Midway.
While it's true that no communications took place between Yamamoto and Nagumo, they did not have to. Nagumo's force had the ability to receive the same intel reports from Tokyo as Yamamoto's force did. Nagumo had all the intel that Yamamoto did. there was no need for Yamamoto to pass it on. What is not clear is why Nagumo failed to act upon the intel.

Had the Japanese implemented a 2-phase search plan on the morning of 4 June, they would have found the American fleet in time to win the battle.
Neither the Japanese or the Americans had even come up with the idea of a 2 phase search in 1942. It was an invention that came about later in the war so it was never an option back then. It was disingenuous of Fuchida to even suggest this as it is hindsight looking back at what could have been.

I already mentioned in a previous post about the Search plane Tone No. 4 being launched late.
Additionally there are a few others as well regarding:
The decision to switch the strike from land to ship attack(it did not matter as he never had the time to spot, much less launch regardless of the arming),
The battle wiping out the Japanese Naval Air Corp
(actually fewer than 25% of the pilots were lost. It was the atrittional campaign in the Solomons that wiped it out),
The sacrifice of VT8 brought the CAP down to the water level allowing the Dive bombers to succeed(Zeros had more than enough climb to get back to altitude in the intervening time between VT8's loss and the Dive attacks, Their contribution was the same as the contribution of all the attacks that morning... disrupting the Japanese ability to launch their own counterforce attacks).

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

[–] CGSailor 11 years ago

And one other myth. The biggest myth of all concerning the battle.

It has persisted precisely because it fits so well into the glorification of what is arguably the greatest Naval Victory of the USA.

That is the notion that the Battle of Midway was a battle fought against OVERWHELMING Odds. That we Americans managed to pull off a Miracle in defeating the Japanese. Again, back to the title of Prange's book, "Miracle at Midway" Or Walter Lord's "Incredible Victory".

It's claimed the Japanese had 11 Battleships, we had none.
The Japanese had 8 carriers, we had 3 (one crippled).
The Japanese had 23 Cruisers, we had 8.
and so on.
While this is all technically true, you cannot count those numbers. The vast bulk of those forces were with Yamamoto's covering force. Which never engaged in battle, they were too far away.

The only forces you can honestly count are those forces at the point of tactical contact. This reduces the forces to e level playing field. Their 4 carriers vs our 4 (Midway Atoll itself in effect being an UNSINKABLE carrier)

Nagumo in truth, had but 23 ships to face America's 25 ships.
He had 248 carrier aircraft
USA had 233 carrier aircraft plus another 120 or so land based aircraft at Midway (a total of 353 aircraft vs Japan's 248)

All the rest of Japan's numerical force might as well have been in the Atlantic for all the effect it had on the battle.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

[–] Vulcans_Rule 11 years ago

You may have read it in Shattered Sword. It's mentioned a couple of times there.

Live long and prosper.

reply

[–] Vulcans_Rule 11 years ago

Around page 120 in my edition.

Live long and prosper.

reply

[–] CGSailor 11 years ago

yup, Dive bombers were armed on deck. Torpedo bombers in the hanger.
Which goes further to prove Fuchida wrong as there could not have been any Divebombers being armed on the deck as all four carriers were still recovering CAP fighters for refueling and rearming.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

[–] Vulcans_Rule 11 years ago

Tried posting this directly to CG:

This is where I am confused. The 3 carriers were hit around 1025. Hiryu got her dive bomber strike launching at 1054, in time to follow some of the returning American strike back to the carriers. Could they have spotted and armed a strike in about 29 minutes? Seems awfully fast. I suspect they were dis-arming and re-arming the dive bombers on the hangar deck. We know they were below all morning while the Midway strike was launched and recovered and while CAP was recovered and rearmed during the continual attacks that morning. We know some were re-armed with GP bombs, and some were re-armed with AP bombs in the switching back and forth ordered by Nagumo.

So the re-arming occurred and apparently not on the flight deck.

Live long and prosper.

reply

[–] CGSailor 11 years ago

The 3 carriers were hit around 1025. Hiryu got her dive bomber strike away at 1050, in time to follow some of the returning American strike back to the carriers. Could they have spotted and armed a strike in 25 minutes? Seems awfully fast.

Hiryu was the 4th carrier and she had completed launching her CAP at 1013 and had begun flight deck preparations when the US Dive bombers attack. Hiryu was not attacked during this time when all three of the other carriers were destroyed.

Hiryu then launches her retaliatory strike at 1057.

That's 44 minutes from last CAP recovery to launch.
Not 25.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

[–] Vulcans_Rule 11 years ago

That's not the difference I referred to. 1025 to 1054 is 29 minutes (ok, not 25). My point was that Hiryu must have been at least partly prepared to launch when the US dive bombers hit the other three carriers, because the time was too short to get a strike ready if they started spotting planes only after the American dive bomber strike, especially considering Japanese dive bombers were only armed after being brought to the flight deck per doctrine.

By choosing the longer time period, starting at 1013, you seem to agree that Hiryu's strike was at least partly spotted by 1025.

Also, until 1025, the two carriers of CarDiv2 would typically have acted almost identically. So the same would have been true for Soryu.

I just fixed my prior post to say 1054 instead of 1050.

Live long and prosper.

reply

[–] samhill08642 9 years ago

Shattered sword is revisionist garbage written to make a few bucks. You're an ignorant fool for believing it all. But like P.T. Barnum wrote....

reply

[–] Vulcans_Rule 9 years ago

Shattered Sword is, by far, the most detailed account of the Japanese side of the Battle of Midway published in English. It shattered several myths about the battle, all of which were minor in the scheme of things, but significant in the understanding of the battle. Because of that singular work, Jon Parshall is frequently invited as a guest lecturer of the US Naval Institute.

Your comment reflects very poor information.

 Entropy ain't what it used to be.

reply

[–] CGSailor 9 years ago

it isn't "revisionist" at all. it is based upon actual logs and records... EVIDENCE.
as opposed to tall tales told by a pathological liar like Fuchida.

YOU are the ignorant fool for not taking actual record into account rather than what you've "been told" for years.

An intelligent person alter's his beliefs to fit new facts as they come to light.
An ignorant fool (like you), ignores facts when they are inconvenient to his preconceived belief.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

[–] joed1667 9 years ago

P.T. Barnum didn't say that, a banker actually did in regards to the hoaxes P.T. Barnum was attributed to at his shows.

reply

[–] murad23 10 years ago

Exactly. So much of "shattered sword" has been debunked.

Ironic that a popular film like midway turned out to be much more historically accurate

reply

[–] joed1667 11 years ago

But they had to ruin this movie with a love story between a Navy pilot and Japanese girl. Andcwhy did they have to stick in a fictional character name Matt Garth? Typical Hollywood! Imagine they put in a love story in the movie Patton?

I would love to be able to edit the movie and take all that Matt Gath's son-Japanese girlfriend BS out!

reply

[–] murad23 10 years ago

the rest of the film is stunningly accurate history. Yes in holywood's eyes it needed a love story, but the rest is one of the most accurate war films ever made

reply

[–] HVMetal 9 years ago

I watch "Midway" online, and I simply fast forward through all that crap.

reply

[–] Marvelouis 11 years ago

That's why I love this film and will be watching it on Memorial Weekend sometime.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Cairo-5 10 years ago

Joseph Rochefort certainly deserves all the recognition and respect we can give him and it's truly outrageous that instead of being honored at the time for his crucial role in the Midway victory his career was instead essentially destroyed by the vengeful spite of a superior (in rank, not in character) because he was wrong and Rochefort was right about the Japanese target and timetable.

When the movie came out in the summer of 1976 I saw it in the theater every chance I had. I followed the PR that accompanied the film and as I recall Rochefort was able to visit the set during filming and speak with Hal Holbrook and give him some pointers. So I think Rochefort knew before his death that finally he was going to be vindicated. He deserved better but at least he got that much.

I also seem to remember that George Gay was also able to visit during filming.

As for the responses to the original post I believe I can understand the concerns of the posters. It's easy, perhaps it's only natural and automatic for legends to arise about great and momentous events. Especially as the story grows in the telling. There are many notable actions from World War II that fall in that category. And it certainly doesn't help things if unwitting exaggerations are accompanied by deliberate lies by self serving individuals, as has also happened with some events from that war.

But it is also evident that by and large the ordinary people who were there, who were the actual participants in those events never wanted to be "legendized." They simply wanted the facts to be told, if anything had to be said at all. That's something that gets driven home to us by such stories as Flags Of Our Fathers.

The initial responses to the original post were largely driven by people who respect that need to tell the truth, the learning of which can be an ongoing process, and not to blindly repeat legends that have now been proved erroneous.

It is clear that the original post was written to praise the movie for getting it right about Joseph Rochefort. However the subject title of the post was more general in nature in calling this one of the most historically accurate Hollywood war movies. So the initial responders felt a need to come to the defense of the truth as we now understand it by pointing out some areas where the film was repeating the legends. Areas of the film that were unrelated to the crucial work of Joe Rochefort and his "black chamber code breakers." It's unfortunate that a tip of the hat was not given to what the OP said about Rochefort, but I'm sure this was not motivated by any disrespect of Rochefort, or of the OP either.

1976 was the bicentennial year of American independence and I'm sure you remember how this was recognized all year long in a vast array of activities and events and other matters. The movie Midway was Hollywood's contribution to the bicentennial celebrations. Hard to imagine this kind of respect now, but Hollywood was a different place back then.

Midway isn't the only movie where a real hero was able to view some of the filming as he finally received the recognition and respect he long deserved. I've read that an aged and wheelchair bound Hugh Dowding wept softly as he watched Laurence Olivier portray him in a scene from The Battle Of Britain.

***
It's easier to be an individual than a god.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ATG6 (3000) a year ago

This movie was great for showing the planning and counter-planning and decision making and indecision that affected the outcome at Midway.

It's very odd and a major oversight that they didn't even mention Richard Best, the only pilot ever to sink 2 carriers in a single day. His were the only bombs that hit the Akagai, destroying it because of all the bombs on the deck after they had re-armed their planes with torpedoes.

Then later in the day, he was one of 4 pilots who got through to the Hiryu, and may have provided the critical bomb.

reply