Indeed, the battle that I won and then retreated from... :oops:

I've got a copy. As someone who grew up on Walter Lord's book, Incredible Victory it certainly has forever changed the way I see the Battle of Midway. From an American underdog win to Japan basically sticking it's head in a noose for lack of imagination on how to further prosecute the war.

Yup! IJN's thinking, of course, was shaped in a lot of ways by their experience of the Russo-Japanese War and the quasi-Mahanian victory at Tsushima. The IJN certainly took to heart the reasons for their own triumph, but failed to grasp the real reasons for Russia's humiliating defeat. To them, it was an example of a European empire falling to tactical brilliance and superior morale, all under the command of a genius admiral and his ultra-disciplined subordinates. In that, they totally disregarded the fact that Tsushima had virtually no impact on the war's outcome, or that Russia's war effort collapsed from the inside, for systemic reasons unique to Russia.

So their myth of the decisive battle was born, and built on layer upon layer of flawed assumptions that were held up as doctrine for the next 40 years.

The Russo-Japanese War played a part, but I suspect that a rarely discussed factor is the warpage caused by Washington Naval Treaty. I won't call the "Fleet Faction" unrealistic - they knew well enough they can't really get parity, so they were trying for 70%, which as I understand it is actually defensible by then contemporary naval theory as the approximate minimum mark they need to win.

The 70% is roughly adequate for (according to then naval theory):
1) Mutual annihilation with the Americans, should it gather up its entire force and move across the Pacific, since they are expected to lose 30% combat power while swimming over.
2) The defeat of the American Navy, should it commit its Pacific Fleet first, then the Atlantic in-turn.
3) The defeat of a theoretical British/American allied force if the issue is such that they'd only commit their Pacific Fleets.

Overall, these aren't extremely unreasonable goals or "excessive sufficiency."

The Americans and Brits crow about their "Two ocean theory" but let's fact it, the Brits are only defending their colonies and America is more or less self-sufficient even without oceanic trade at that time, so their justification is, in objective terms, much weaker than Japan's whose trade relates to the very survival of their core nation. There's also the fact that American and British national power is in the long run much stronger and so the Japanese will have to think really hard before getting too cocky, even if they did get an edge in the Pacific.

The Fleet Faction even read America properly that they would be reasonable and concede to 70%. Well, that is, until the moronic Japanese Foreign Ministry decided to send messages suggesting that 60% would be acceptable to the Japanese government. The Americans decoded the message and failed to consider the real consequences of forcing a treaty that's just below what they needed. The fact the decoding tends to be dominant factor in American accounts would suggest that really, the 60% was a nice to have rather than a critical necessity as far as the Americans are concerned.

Because of the idiocy of the Japanese Treaty Faction (yes, the idea of some kind of treaty is definitely a good one for Japan, but the Fleet Faction actually read America's limits better that time) and America's "Take When You Can" policy, the rest of Japanese naval construction and tactics throughout the 20s and 30s are a desperate attempt to make up for that "missing" 10%. You can tell how a navy feels about its position by how overloaded its ships are :-)

In a sense, it may actually have been better for the Japanese Navy had a deal where they are limited to say 30 or 40% of the American Navy was shoved down their throats. With the gap so great, the goal to beat the American Navy (on a tactical level) would be completely off the table, and a different development can take place. It also gives them a firmer ground to demand decisively different terms for the next treaty.

It didn't help when in the next Treaty, the Americans and Brits came up with the brilliant tactic of banning the "Special Type" destroyers, which really are a defensive measure. Sigh...

I have not seen the history program, but it is not accurate to say the IJN lost most battles.

You can break it down into time periods:

-phase I: dec. 41-april 42. In phase I, the IJN won almost every battle, scored some spectacular successes, including the Java Sea battles, destroyed most of the ABDA/Asiatic fleet and captured SE Asia. This was the peak of the IJN in terms of leadership and competence;

-phase 2: may-november 42, the carrier battles. Much maneuvering, 4 actual CV vs CV battles: Coral Sea, Midway, Eastern Solomons, Santa Cruz. Midway was a IJN loss, but the other three were tactical draws. At the end, the loss table was the same, 4 CVs lost by both sides. In this phase, due to losses, the quality of IJN pilots detoriorates quickly;

-phase 3: aug. 42-nov. 43, Guadalcanal/Solomons Islands. Almost exclusively surface night fighting. At the beginning, the IJN is excellent, good tactics, equipment, optics. They score a spectacular success at Savo Island, sinking 4 Allied CAs. At that time, the U.S. is only average, poor radar equipment and over reliance on it, poor night fighting techniques.

The USN improves its tactics in the next 3 battles: Cape Esperance, and Guadalcanal I and II, which are all U.S. tactical victories.

At Tassafaronga, the U.S. suffers a defeat when 3 CAs are heavily damaged and 1 sunk, all by torpedoes.

However, the U.S.N. kept improving its equipment, by mid-43, the U.S. radar was generally better that IJN optics, they keep improving their leadership/planning, radar fire control, damage control, torpedo evasion and attack tactics. The IJN does not however, and its skill level declines over this period. IMHO, this has more to do with the fact that the IJN is badly overstretched and running out of competent personnel.

The IJN does score some occasional successes such as Kolombangara in july 43, where 3 U.S. CLs are heavily damaged by "Long Lance" torps.

The last major battle is Empress Augusta Bay in Nov.43 where the tables are completely turned from Savo. A scratch IJN force of 2 CAs, 2 CLs and 6 DDs try to intercept the Bougainville invasion fleet. Rear adm. Merrill only has 4 CLs and 8 DDs to stop them(much weaker than the allied force at Savo), but his group is intensely trained, knows exactly the battle plan and are all combat veterans. His radar picks up the enemy quickly, firing is started quickly and kept up at a frenetic pace (the IJN admiral thought he faced a much bigger force because of the firing, which totalled 10,000 6" shells) and Merrill keeps his force constantly going through 180 turns to throw off IJN torpedoes. At the end, the IJN loses 1 CL, 1 DD and are driven off, Merrill does not lose any ships.

-phase 4: jan. 44 on. Not much to say, "Turkey shoot".

I have like most of you read many books or seen documentary about WWII and the war in the pacific.

Each book or author had his or her view on why Japan lost the war

Even the documentary had their view on why...

I guess it was due to many factors..You can not point at only one thing.

That what I think.

Markus

Often they had the battle won, but lacking resources and other capital ships, they often retreated to protect what they had..

It was much the same with the South vs. the North in our US Civil War, the South had it's ways until numbers, industry and technology caught up.

I know that feeling... :shifty:

Interesting although often discussed topic. I won't repeat what everything said, all had valid points but agree most with the posts concerning rigid adherence to ideology being the downfall of the japanese as it extended to all levels .I also feel sheer luck was on our side in the desperate days when if had not, the pacific war would have ended in a much different manner.

Although luck is seen by many as preparation meets opportunity(which is mostly true) there is sheer blind luck. Midway which is acknowledged as the turning point, that stopped the japanese onslaught in the Pacific, was the most lucky battle the USNavy ever fought.

The Japanese had the advantage and had we not been so lucky, likely the US would not have scored the big victory, or could have even lost.I often wonder what would have happened had japanese had all four or even 3 carriers to attack once they realized carriers were in the area and armed their planes.Sink the Yorktown then go after Enterprise and Hornet, likely one of them would have been lost, maybe two.We were so close to defeat at that point in the war.

Point I am making while the Admirals showed plenty of sound planning, the aircrews were as brave as any could be, a lot of it was just sheer luck, good luck for US, bad for the japanese.

I tend to be of the opinion that luck was heavily minimized by the US prior to Midway. Outstanding US intelligence was no accident. Putting the whole of US carrier strength on location was no accident. Having the Yorktown repaired and operational in 24 hours was no accident. Having extra search assets at Midway was no accident.

That Japan multi-tasked their carriers to simultaneously attempt to accomplish three missions at once was not due to luck. It was standard bad operational planning for Japan once all the set piece battles had been won in the first six months of the war. Japan failing to grasp the implications of enhanced US search assets all along the string of islands that link the Hawaiian Islands to Midway was no accident. Japan failing to grasp the odd coincidence that American surface vessels just happened to be in their strategic recon lagoon at French Frigate Shoals the right moment, along with all the other obviously weird going-ons on in the Central Pacific was no accident. The latter two were the result of poor pre-war Japanese commitment to intel and their inability to commit resources to (indicative of their contempt for) strategic intelligence. During the battle, the reckless Japanese decision to stubbornly continue fighting with just the Hiryu alone was also not luck. Just indicative of a poorly thought out naval philosophy that put too much stock into the offensive for the offensive's sake.

Midway turned out as it did because the Japanese were lax, poorly informed, and poorly prepared, and because the USN was well prepared, well informed, and ready to seize the opportunity that was stupidly handed out by Japan. The only "miracle" at Midway was that the Japanese did not lose more than they actually lost when all the shooting stopped. Luck was a factor, but certainly Nimitz did a great deal to stack odds in his favor.

one point that often gets lost is that after 1 year of war, at the end of 1942, the IJN and Allied fleets had lost about the same number, types and tonnage of warships.

In dec. 42, the USN had only 1 operational carrier in the Pacific, the old U.S.S. Saratoga. The RN detached one of their carriers to the Solomons Islands in case the IJN tried something.

The big difference is that the USN had replaced all their losses by mid-43 and just kept on expanding the fleet while Japan struggled for the end of the war just to replace their losses.

Japan could never win a war of attrition with the U.S.. Even if Midway had turned out to be a IJN victory with all 3 american carriers lost, the U.S. would still have won the war.

plück and lück; the jab and the hook
 

Exceptional post, sir. :salute: :agree: Personally, I don't believe in luck. It's just a stupid word for unknown ideas and thoughts. It has nothing to do with reality. :down:

:)

The fog of war=plan B and muddling through to victory
 

Unfortunately you've got to believe. One of the first rules of war is: when you start the actual battle... you are no longer on Plan A. R.E. Lee used to get to the battlefield on time...and then put his trust in God. Eisenhower who famously exhorted the troops: "I have full confidence in your courage and devotion to duty and skill in battle.
We will accept nothing less than full Victory! Good luck And let us beseech the blessing of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking" also carried an apology note in his pocket on D-day in the event his (history's) extremely meticulously well planned invasion didn't go well... it, sort of, didn't.https://i1.wp.com/www.archives.gov/e...re-message.gif

It was the Viking Leif “The Lucky” (Leif Ericsson), that in the year 1000 a.d. discovered America, or “Vinland” as he called it, not Columbus. He was given his nickname, “The lucky” because he was responsible for rescuing fifteen shipwrecked mariners marooned on a skerry (Islet) in Greenland. Essentially amphibious military operations:

Leif’s journey to America, along with thirty five other men, is recounted in both “The Saga of Eric the red, and Snorre’ s “Heimskringla”. The honour for the discovery of America almost fell to Eric The Red, Leif had asked his father to be leader of the expedition, but as Eric was on his way to the ship, his horse stumbled and caused the aging chieftain to fall off and injure his leg. He took this as a less than propitious sign...of the gods' favor that his conquering days were ended. According to the sagas, he was heard to comment: “It was not meant for me to discover other lands than that in which we now live. We shall sail together no more.” Three acknowledged professionals with a remarkably similar point of view IMHO. A fourth, Alexander the Great, just cut to the core issue-eliminated the middleman- and declared himself a god, not unlike the devine Emperor Hirohito actually, and the night before Gaugamela...and victory over Persia, declared a full eclipse of the moon to be a sure sign of victory!:yeah: Rising suns or eclipsing moons...go figure!
.http://i2.mirror.co.uk/incoming/arti...n-Svalbard.jpgwow that sure makes me feel like a winner BBY! talk about spin! :huh:

I don't have to and never did nor will I ever believe in a stupid word as luck. Just because a few famous people used the word, certainly doesn't mean it is proper or correct. There is no such thing as luck. It's just a stupid word for unknown thoughts and ideas. (Ignorance)

:)