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)

:)

When people say they "don't believe in luck", do they mean "Luck" as controlled by outside supernatural forces (aka the Roman Goddess Fortuna) or just that sometimes random unforeseeable events happen to us? I don't believe in the former either, but certainly the poor guy who has a plane fall on his house is indeed a victim of "bad luck". When it's not your fault and nothing you did could have prevented it, it's random chance, but can also be described as luck.

In the case in point, the US forces certainly gave themselves all the advantages they could. Even so, both sides were searching vast areas of open ocean. Did the US Navy have advanced knowledge of the proper area to search, or was it random chance that led them to find the Japanese carriers at the opportune moment? If the former, then they certainly tipped the scales with technology and energy. If the latter, then it was still luck...meaning random chance, not supernatural guidance by the fates.

Captains, I'm afraid you'll never convince me that there is any such thing as luck in this world. It just doesn't exist.
If a plane falls out of the sky onto your house, it was probably induced by the mechanic who overlooked something on the aircraft to cause it to fall. Maybe pilot error. It's all hypothetical, who knows, but it wasn't luck.
Because it was your house, well, those were just the odds of it happening,
but luck wasn't involved.

Unfortunately, we will never agree... Conversation Over and Out. :salute:

Now, let's enjoy the sim.

:)

I'm sorry, but I find that a little dismissive. You started a great thread with a very good question. You then stated an opinion, which I thought was also good. I attempted to explore it. Not bash it, or even argue with it. Just discuss it. Now you want me to ignore it and "enjoy the sim". But your thread really has nothing to do with the sim. That's cool, it's what this section is for. I just wanted to explore the possibilities. :sunny:

I think you also failed to read the actual post, because Torplexed very clearly said "luck was deliberately minimized", which is an indirect way of saying "the USN didn't leave much to chance and planned carefully, so they could make sure that things would go right and the Japanese would fall for the trap." Otherwise, actual luck didn't enter into this discussion until you'd mentioned it. And I think you'll have seen some excellent posts from several people - thanks to Kazuaki Shimazaki for also bringing in a very valid point about the Washington treaties - that actually did a great job of explaining some of the very logical historical issues here.

On a tactical/operational level, the Japanese higher up's tendency to develop overly complex schemes that relied a bit too much on their interpretation of how Allied forces would react and to split their forces into much smaller parcels also likely had something to do with many of their losses.

Luck and the real players who make it happen
 

While I certainly agree that McCluskey was a resourceful first rate naval airman worthy of all accolades, I think in many respects his decision shows how luck evens out. First of all, McCluskey's group was one of the two SBD groups that hit the Japanese carriers more or less simultaneously. His group had to stretch the limits of their fuel because a known Japanese course change, which occurred after his group launched, and was not reported to him via radio. Had it been reported to him, he would have found the target anyhow. So, that outcome (McCluskey finding the targets) was predicated on two lucky "breaks" that favored the Japanese and one that favored the Americans. The two pro-Japanese breaks were the fortuitous unplanned course change, and the US decision to not report the course change to McCluskey. The pro-US break was McCluskey reasoning that the Japanese destroyer lagging behind was an element of the carrier group.

The destroyer Arashi was there to hunt for the US sub Nautilus with which contact had instigated the Japanese course change, so you can't lay the observation of the Japanese destroyer as a lucky break. Had the US sub not been there for the DD to be dealing with the Japanese would not have changed course at all. In that event McClusky would not have had to extend his search.

The *other* (non-McCluskey) group was directed to the correct position because it was launched after the Japanese course change was known. No matter how you slice it, the Japanese lose at least two carriers in the initial US attack, even if you cut McCluskey out of the equation entirely. Which is basically the result that the Japanese obtained in their pre-operational wargame of the plan (the infamous wargame in which Admiral Ugaki interfered with the umpire's results and re-floated the Akagi, because he didn't like the results).

Most of the events in battles that are attributed to luck can be more usefully attributed to one of three things. 1.) A bad plan. 2.) A good plan badly executed. 3.) Insufficient assessment of enemy capability. It often seems that 99% of the time when someone invokes "luck" it is a case of CYA analysis.

At Midway Japan suffered the consequences of both 1 and 3.

Halsey got "lucky" during Oct 44' in the Leyte Gulf. Had Kinkiad not reacted the way he did, the invasion of Leyte might have failed.

I fail to see how. :hmmm: The Leyte amphibious landings took place on 20th October 1944. The Battle off Samar between Kinkaid's Taffy 3 and Kurita's Center Force was on October 25th. Had the Japanese made it they would have been five days late to the party. Shelling a developing beachhead on D-Day can be devastating; shelling it on D-Day+5 when the majority of the troops have advanced inland and the equipment and supplies have been dispersed to locations away from the beach, would be pretty ineffective. Not to mention that the majority of troop transports had already left to pick up another load.

Yes, assuming he had sufficient ammunition in his magazines left, I suppose Kurita could have sunk some transports at the likely cost of his entire remaining force being annihilated. That was an exchange the Allies could well afford in 1944.

Oh...and welcome aboard. After eight years. :rock:

welcome aboard!