I think after Coral Sea, both navies’ admirals were paralyzed by the thought of launching against the wrong target, and appearing stupid. The reserves they kept for discovering ‘true’ targets were a liability. The defeat can be traced to the original decision to keep half in reserve. Nagumo should have launched everything against midway, first thing. That could have shut down the base, and there wouldn’t have been ordnance or fueled planes lying around, greatly increasing the survivability of his fleet.
Same thing with fletcher’s reluctance to launch everything at eastern solomons (which he ended up doing anyway). Hornet’s decision to head west to keep looking for more carriers falls into the same kind of completely faulty decision-making, when they were at least two perfect targets. They went looking for a bird in the bush when they had two, and perhaps all, in hand. It’s baffling, I can’t explain it other than their egos getting the better of them, wanting to be the trailblazing hero instead of just doing their job.
This perfectionist mentality is what doomed the japanese : ‘first we’ll find all the carriers, then we’ll launch a perfect, coordinated strike’ – when they should have launched what they had, and sunk what was available – more in the spirit of the disjointed american attacks.
Only later on in the war did they catch on and at philippine sea they immediately launched when they saw an incoming strike, they told them to circle, attack land targets whatever, anything but keep planes on the ship ‘as a (flammable) reserve’. More Yamamoto’s fault really, but since nagumo was willing to ignore the order to keep the reserve, he shouldn’t have half-assed it.
I think after Coral Sea, both navies’ admirals were paralyzed by the thought of launching against the wrong target, and appearing stupid.
It's not about looking stupid, there are serious consequences to not being ready to attack a discovered carrier group in this era. You have to scout those things out, and scouting is not that easy. Pilots can get lost, misreport what they see and where, or get shot down without ever revealing where they were at the time. So being ready to go at a moment's notice once contact is made matters.
The defeat can be traced to the original decision to keep half in reserve. Nagumo should have launched everything against midway, first thing.
This point deceptively supports yours because the issue at Midway was that there weren't enough planes in general. If Nagumo had CarDiv 5, this might have been alleviated. But that's not a knock against the practice of holding reserve strikes in case more enemies are found.
Hornet’s decision to head west to keep looking for more carriers falls into the same kind of completely faulty decision-making, when they were at least two perfect targets.
It is a serious issue to know your enemy is sending 4 carriers and only having spotted 2. Those other two are threats that have to be found.
Really, you're going to defend the flight to nowhere?
Even if the carriers are not all at the confirmed original sighting (say, 50% chance (because, in reality, as we know they were at the sighting), you still have to have the luck to find them (maybe 20% chance) .
So basically you incapacitated an airgroup for a 10% chance to sink 2 extra carriers, assuming they are good.
While if you send them to the sighting, you have a 50% chance to sink 2 extra carriers, plus the increase in chance of sinking the confirmed carriers, who might have been missed by the original strike.
If Nagumo had CarDiv 5, this might have been alleviated.
Having more forces is not a strategy. Anyone can win with more.
Are you just arguing to argue( it's fine if you are), or do you really believe yamamoto's reserve order, and Hornet's void search were correct decisions?
Really, you're going to defend the flight to nowhere?
I'm saying it's not obviously stupid.
Are you just arguing to argue( it's fine if you are), or do you really believe yamamoto's reserve order, and Hornet's void search were correct decisions?
I believe the idea of reserving aircraft was good, but Yamamoto's in particular was not well thought out. It's a case where doctrine isn't necessarily bad in all regards, but the plan itself is so bad that doctrine begins to hamstring it.
Ah yes I forgot fletcher also held down yorktown in reserve at first. Again, total waste of an hour. They were so afraid of making a mistake when the worst mistake was inaction - Copenhagen ethics strategy. What if the japanese showed up in that hour. An extremely explodey carrier and no strike. Those admirals all sucked, except maybe spruance.
Fog of War is a serious issue and carriers were in short supply for the time being. Losing them meant not having any way to contest enemy airpower without having land-based aircraft in whatever region they were attacking.
Launching everything is both defensively and offensively superior - best way to keep your carriers intact.
Air strikes are a limited resource. Fuel isn't freely available at sea, you have to schedule fueling times and that's a dangerous thing to do in war near enemy waters. Moreover, there's some attrition as the environment can go south quickly, or a plane can develop issues and crash into the ocean. If you exhaust your primary method of destroying enemy fleets before a refueling/resupplying can happen, you're useless.
Regarding Hornet's flight, my only point is that we don't know why they did what they did. It's true that there was a mess up, but it's only a mess up if you assume the goal was to strike the two carriers known at the time. If they were searching for the other pair or trio, then it's not necessarily a mess up.
So, this is to say that the Battle of Midway was the epitome of that meme about US military strategy, quote about "if we don't know what we're doing, neither will the enemy!" included?
Seriously, though, this reminds me of watching the Great War series on YouTube and learning just how much the Allies screwed up in that one and yet still came out on top. This goes even further, though, in that US blunders actually directly contributed to their victory. Is this just proof that war is too chaotic to be predictable, and that there are no rules, or is there something else here?
I liked this series, I'd love to read more history formatted like this, albeit as singular posts and not necessarily parceled out like this.
So, this is to say that the Battle of Midway was the epitome of that meme about US military strategy, quote about "if we don't know what we're doing, neither will the enemy!" included?
No, not at all. The US knew what it was doing at the strategic and operational level, but it failed at the tactical level. The reason for this was inexperience, America just didn't have the experience the Japanese did with carrier flight operations and especially combined carrier strike launches. They had some, it wasn't like the US was completely clueless as to how carriers operated. But Kido Butai had many, many years of experience over their counterparts, including constant working of the men and machines in the six months prior to Midway.
Remember, neither side thought that carriers were the primary means of delivering power that we think of them as today. They saw battleships and the "big gun" as the capability around which many other things followed.
This goes even further, though, in that US blunders actually directly contributed to their victory. Is this just proof that war is too chaotic to be predictable, and that there are no rules, or is there something else here?
The success of the blunders is only a thing because of the luck at 10:20 A.M. Had only Yorktown's planes found their target, it would have been a 3 vs. 3, but the US carriers would have a big chunk of planes and pilots missing. Not an easy fight to win, and they may have just cut their losses right there.
I was not able to find any discussion of a hypothetical scenario in which all US strikes were perfectly coordinated at the carrier level i.e dive-bombers and torpedo planes working in concert, all escorted by fighters. But I would hazard a guess and say the Japanese would not have had so much success before 10:20 A.M.
I guess I'm trying to say that you should never rely on your poor military performance to somehow be exactly what you need to have luck roll in your favor.
I liked this series, I'd love to read more history formatted like this, albeit as singular posts and not necessarily parceled out like this.
Part of the problem with that is that I'd either have to zoom out much more, or you'd get one mega-post that people would just get tired of reading.
Oh, no, I meant to say that it's probable that one of the only hard guidelines of war is that, while it's not ideal to fuck up, all that matters is if you fuck up less than your opponents, which probably held true in Midway.
Congratulations on the series! Regarding Fuchida, I think it's worthy to add that whatever amount of charisma he had abroad was due to him becoming a famous Christian convert and missionary, which I'm sure was an unexpected turn for a veteran officer of Japanese naval aviation. I can't tell if his conversion was genuine, but considering the sheer level of culture shock he was exposed to after the war, I think we can assume it was genuine. It's rather unfortunate, but also somewhat predictable, that he abused his position to spread lies about the battle (but not only that).
Yeah, it's somewhat sad that Fuchida felt the need to lie. Kido Butai's performance was objectively world-class, but that alone wouldn't have been very validating to the strategic leadership in Combined Fleet.
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 -
I think after Coral Sea, both navies’ admirals were paralyzed by the thought of launching against the wrong target, and appearing stupid. The reserves they kept for discovering ‘true’ targets were a liability. The defeat can be traced to the original decision to keep half in reserve. Nagumo should have launched everything against midway, first thing. That could have shut down the base, and there wouldn’t have been ordnance or fueled planes lying around, greatly increasing the survivability of his fleet.
Same thing with fletcher’s reluctance to launch everything at eastern solomons (which he ended up doing anyway). Hornet’s decision to head west to keep looking for more carriers falls into the same kind of completely faulty decision-making, when they were at least two perfect targets. They went looking for a bird in the bush when they had two, and perhaps all, in hand. It’s baffling, I can’t explain it other than their egos getting the better of them, wanting to be the trailblazing hero instead of just doing their job.
This perfectionist mentality is what doomed the japanese : ‘first we’ll find all the carriers, then we’ll launch a perfect, coordinated strike’ – when they should have launched what they had, and sunk what was available – more in the spirit of the disjointed american attacks.
Only later on in the war did they catch on and at philippine sea they immediately launched when they saw an incoming strike, they told them to circle, attack land targets whatever, anything but keep planes on the ship ‘as a (flammable) reserve’. More Yamamoto’s fault really, but since nagumo was willing to ignore the order to keep the reserve, he shouldn’t have half-assed it.
It's not about looking stupid, there are serious consequences to not being ready to attack a discovered carrier group in this era. You have to scout those things out, and scouting is not that easy. Pilots can get lost, misreport what they see and where, or get shot down without ever revealing where they were at the time. So being ready to go at a moment's notice once contact is made matters.
This point deceptively supports yours because the issue at Midway was that there weren't enough planes in general. If Nagumo had CarDiv 5, this might have been alleviated. But that's not a knock against the practice of holding reserve strikes in case more enemies are found.
It is a serious issue to know your enemy is sending 4 carriers and only having spotted 2. Those other two are threats that have to be found.
Really, you're going to defend the flight to nowhere?
Even if the carriers are not all at the confirmed original sighting (say, 50% chance (because, in reality, as we know they were at the sighting), you still have to have the luck to find them (maybe 20% chance) .
So basically you incapacitated an airgroup for a 10% chance to sink 2 extra carriers, assuming they are good.
While if you send them to the sighting, you have a 50% chance to sink 2 extra carriers, plus the increase in chance of sinking the confirmed carriers, who might have been missed by the original strike.
Having more forces is not a strategy. Anyone can win with more.
Are you just arguing to argue( it's fine if you are), or do you really believe yamamoto's reserve order, and Hornet's void search were correct decisions?
I'm saying it's not obviously stupid.
I believe the idea of reserving aircraft was good, but Yamamoto's in particular was not well thought out. It's a case where doctrine isn't necessarily bad in all regards, but the plan itself is so bad that doctrine begins to hamstring it.
Ah yes I forgot fletcher also held down yorktown in reserve at first. Again, total waste of an hour. They were so afraid of making a mistake when the worst mistake was inaction - Copenhagen ethics strategy. What if the japanese showed up in that hour. An extremely explodey carrier and no strike. Those admirals all sucked, except maybe spruance.
Fog of War is a serious issue and carriers were in short supply for the time being. Losing them meant not having any way to contest enemy airpower without having land-based aircraft in whatever region they were attacking.
Launching everything is both defensively and offensively superior - best way to keep your carriers intact.
Anyway, back to Hornet's flight, mitscher knew he fucked up, the insubordinate flight leader certainly thought it was stupid.
Air strikes are a limited resource. Fuel isn't freely available at sea, you have to schedule fueling times and that's a dangerous thing to do in war near enemy waters. Moreover, there's some attrition as the environment can go south quickly, or a plane can develop issues and crash into the ocean. If you exhaust your primary method of destroying enemy fleets before a refueling/resupplying can happen, you're useless.
Regarding Hornet's flight, my only point is that we don't know why they did what they did. It's true that there was a mess up, but it's only a mess up if you assume the goal was to strike the two carriers known at the time. If they were searching for the other pair or trio, then it's not necessarily a mess up.
Before the battle the issue is not to get fuel into your planes, but how to get it out of your hangars before it burns down the ship.
You're overcomplicating the hornet issue, like there's some 8D chess reason for a simple, yet major, fuckup.
Has anyone beside you ever thought it was a good idea, well-justified ?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
So, this is to say that the Battle of Midway was the epitome of that meme about US military strategy, quote about "if we don't know what we're doing, neither will the enemy!" included?
Seriously, though, this reminds me of watching the Great War series on YouTube and learning just how much the Allies screwed up in that one and yet still came out on top. This goes even further, though, in that US blunders actually directly contributed to their victory. Is this just proof that war is too chaotic to be predictable, and that there are no rules, or is there something else here?
I liked this series, I'd love to read more history formatted like this, albeit as singular posts and not necessarily parceled out like this.
More options
Context Copy link
No, not at all. The US knew what it was doing at the strategic and operational level, but it failed at the tactical level. The reason for this was inexperience, America just didn't have the experience the Japanese did with carrier flight operations and especially combined carrier strike launches. They had some, it wasn't like the US was completely clueless as to how carriers operated. But Kido Butai had many, many years of experience over their counterparts, including constant working of the men and machines in the six months prior to Midway.
Remember, neither side thought that carriers were the primary means of delivering power that we think of them as today. They saw battleships and the "big gun" as the capability around which many other things followed.
The success of the blunders is only a thing because of the luck at 10:20 A.M. Had only Yorktown's planes found their target, it would have been a 3 vs. 3, but the US carriers would have a big chunk of planes and pilots missing. Not an easy fight to win, and they may have just cut their losses right there.
I was not able to find any discussion of a hypothetical scenario in which all US strikes were perfectly coordinated at the carrier level i.e dive-bombers and torpedo planes working in concert, all escorted by fighters. But I would hazard a guess and say the Japanese would not have had so much success before 10:20 A.M.
I guess I'm trying to say that you should never rely on your poor military performance to somehow be exactly what you need to have luck roll in your favor.
Part of the problem with that is that I'd either have to zoom out much more, or you'd get one mega-post that people would just get tired of reading.
Oh, no, I meant to say that it's probable that one of the only hard guidelines of war is that, while it's not ideal to fuck up, all that matters is if you fuck up less than your opponents, which probably held true in Midway.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Congratulations on the series! Regarding Fuchida, I think it's worthy to add that whatever amount of charisma he had abroad was due to him becoming a famous Christian convert and missionary, which I'm sure was an unexpected turn for a veteran officer of Japanese naval aviation. I can't tell if his conversion was genuine, but considering the sheer level of culture shock he was exposed to after the war, I think we can assume it was genuine. It's rather unfortunate, but also somewhat predictable, that he abused his position to spread lies about the battle (but not only that).
Thanks!
Yeah, it's somewhat sad that Fuchida felt the need to lie. Kido Butai's performance was objectively world-class, but that alone wouldn't have been very validating to the strategic leadership in Combined Fleet.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This series was sooo good, I really enjoyed it.
Thank you for writing this!
Glad you, Nwallins, and all the others enjoyed it!
More options
Context Copy link
Seconded!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link