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.
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 -
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