If they could take valuable targets, they wouldn’t have needed to attack midway.
Firstly, it was not until the end of the war, nearly 3 years after Midway, that the Mk. 14 torpedo became "reliable".
I got November 43, less than two years. Even with the malfunctioning torpedoes and slow gearing-up the japanese merchant fleet was down 25% from the start in 1943. 1944 would be the biggest year ever for anti-shipping before they ran out of targets.
I think his risk was justified as it would ultimately put the Japanese on the defense going forward.
Why is that good? They were already spent, they should have been left free to overextend further into the jungle before the hammer came down. The last thing the US should want at this point would be to get the japanese to switch to their “fortify and make them pay for every inch” strategy. Perhaps if americans had waited until supremacy to engage instead of sending every ship into battle right off the line, the whiplash would have broken the japanese, while minimizing casualties and any japanese chance of winning a limited war in the process.
Everyone thinks about WWI for generals sending men to their deaths for useless dirt, but the case is equally strong for WWII pacific. Given how it ended, any soldier who lost his life in guadalcanal and most of those grinds was wasted. But the brass needed a ‘fair fight’ over one neat island or other for those little stars to mean something. Hard to brag about winning the battle of the philippine sea or an even more lopsided battle in a wargame.
If they could take valuable targets, they wouldn’t have needed to attack midway.
Maybe so. But remember, the Japanese Navy had given a great deal of control over to Yamamoto, and it was he that insisted on sinking the American carriers. The others wanted to strike elsewhere.
Why is that good? They were already spent, they should have been left free to overextend further into the jungle before the hammer came down. The last thing the US should want at this point would be to get the japanese to switch to their “fortify and make them pay for every inch” strategy.
For one thing, leaving them alone means Japan can and would start threatening the America-Australia routes. Lose Australia as a war partner and the US has a much harder time staging land invasions, or even just the ability to resupply vessels from a nearby friendly port.
I won't comment on the loss of life in the island-hopping campaign, but the costs of losing four heavy carriers and all the experience ship crew, mechanics, and officers, were hardly replaceable to the Japanese.
Perhaps if americans had waited until supremacy to engage instead of sending every ship into battle right off the line, the whiplash would have broken the japanese, while minimizing casualties and any japanese chance of winning a limited war in the process.
Carrier warfare at the time was about launching your strike first. Nimitz knows the Japanese are coming. He gets confirmation when Midway-based scouts report that the attack is happening. His own vessels are precisely where the Japanese aren't expecting. He took his opportunity and it paid off. Yes, it relied on quite a bit of luck to make victory possible, but that is hardly an excuse to not try.
Moreover, the morale impacts cannot be understated. We are sitting 80 years in the future and know both sides of the war, I don't think the American public would have been quite aware of just how much the Japanese had overextended. They might very well insist that the navy start fighting back more aggressively if all they saw was Japan attacking national allies and taking US soil (the Aleutians and Midway Island) while the US just waited for the Japanese to overstretch.
Lastly, preventing further naval offensives had a positive moral effect as well. Let us not forget how brutally conquered civilians were treated by both the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy. You say that America should have left Japan to wear itself thin, but they were certainly willing to be monsters regardless of the nature of their supply lines. It may not be a thing to consider when planning, but it should be a positive added to the list after the fact.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
If they could take valuable targets, they wouldn’t have needed to attack midway.
I got November 43, less than two years. Even with the malfunctioning torpedoes and slow gearing-up the japanese merchant fleet was down 25% from the start in 1943. 1944 would be the biggest year ever for anti-shipping before they ran out of targets.
Why is that good? They were already spent, they should have been left free to overextend further into the jungle before the hammer came down. The last thing the US should want at this point would be to get the japanese to switch to their “fortify and make them pay for every inch” strategy. Perhaps if americans had waited until supremacy to engage instead of sending every ship into battle right off the line, the whiplash would have broken the japanese, while minimizing casualties and any japanese chance of winning a limited war in the process.
Everyone thinks about WWI for generals sending men to their deaths for useless dirt, but the case is equally strong for WWII pacific. Given how it ended, any soldier who lost his life in guadalcanal and most of those grinds was wasted. But the brass needed a ‘fair fight’ over one neat island or other for those little stars to mean something. Hard to brag about winning the battle of the philippine sea or an even more lopsided battle in a wargame.
Maybe so. But remember, the Japanese Navy had given a great deal of control over to Yamamoto, and it was he that insisted on sinking the American carriers. The others wanted to strike elsewhere.
For one thing, leaving them alone means Japan can and would start threatening the America-Australia routes. Lose Australia as a war partner and the US has a much harder time staging land invasions, or even just the ability to resupply vessels from a nearby friendly port.
I won't comment on the loss of life in the island-hopping campaign, but the costs of losing four heavy carriers and all the experience ship crew, mechanics, and officers, were hardly replaceable to the Japanese.
Carrier warfare at the time was about launching your strike first. Nimitz knows the Japanese are coming. He gets confirmation when Midway-based scouts report that the attack is happening. His own vessels are precisely where the Japanese aren't expecting. He took his opportunity and it paid off. Yes, it relied on quite a bit of luck to make victory possible, but that is hardly an excuse to not try.
Moreover, the morale impacts cannot be understated. We are sitting 80 years in the future and know both sides of the war, I don't think the American public would have been quite aware of just how much the Japanese had overextended. They might very well insist that the navy start fighting back more aggressively if all they saw was Japan attacking national allies and taking US soil (the Aleutians and Midway Island) while the US just waited for the Japanese to overstretch.
Lastly, preventing further naval offensives had a positive moral effect as well. Let us not forget how brutally conquered civilians were treated by both the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy. You say that America should have left Japan to wear itself thin, but they were certainly willing to be monsters regardless of the nature of their supply lines. It may not be a thing to consider when planning, but it should be a positive added to the list after the fact.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link