Why the Submarine is the unsung hero at Midway -- true story.

[Armistead]

Have you ever read the book "Shattered Sword"?

It will blow your mind with what really happened at Midway, most of what we've been taught is totally debunked.

A great read.......

[peabody]

Originally Posted by IGD

Why the Submarine is the unsung hero at Midway -- true story.

There was also another sub at the Battle of Midway but it was Japanese. The Yorktown Carrier after recieving major damage in the Coral Sea was taken to Pearl and hasty repairs were made to get it seaworthy and was sent to Midway.
During the battle Yorktown had sustained massive damage and was listing about 10 degrees, but as it reached 26 degrees the Carrier was abandoned.
But the Yorktown refused to sink. So the next day crews were returned to the Yorktown to attempt to get enough repairs done to enable it to be towed back to port. They were making headway when a Japanese sub fired at it and the destroyer Hammann. Hammann sunk almost immediately and two torpedoes hit the Yorktown. The tow ship released the Yorktown and picked up survivors from Hammann and Yorktown.
The Yorktown remained afloat the night of the 6th but on the 7th at about 05:30 it finally rolled over and sank.

Peabody

[I'm goin' down]

I read a book about the Battle of Midway a long time ago. One sailor from the Yorktown was rescued by the same destroyer twice. Once after he abandoned ship from an air attack, and again when he abandoned ship after it was torpedoed. He was a cook. When the destroyer picked him up the second time he reportedly said, as he came on board, "Don't tell me. I know where the galley is."

[Daniel Prates]

Originally Posted by I'm goin' down

"Don't tell me. I know where the galley is."

Hehe. Anecdote, or true story?

[I'm goin' down]

Uhh. How would I know? I wasn't on the destroyer.

[I-25]

Originally Posted by Armistead

Have you ever read the book "Shattered Sword"?

It will blow your mind with what really happened at Midway, most of what we've been taught is totally debunked.

A great read.......

This is undoubtedly one of the BEST books i have ever read, i'd recommend it to anyone

Originally Posted by peabody

There was also another sub at the Battle of Midway but it was Japanese. The Yorktown Carrier after recieving major damage in the Coral Sea was taken to Pearl and hasty repairs were made to get it seaworthy and was sent to Midway.
During the battle Yorktown had sustained massive damage and was listing about 10 degrees, but as it reached 26 degrees the Carrier was abandoned.
But the Yorktown refused to sink. So the next day crews were returned to the Yorktown to attempt to get enough repairs done to enable it to be towed back to port. They were making headway when a Japanese sub fired at it and the destroyer Hammann. Hammann sunk almost immediately and two torpedoes hit the Yorktown. The tow ship released the Yorktown and picked up survivors from Hammann and Yorktown.
The Yorktown remained afloat the night of the 6th but on the 7th at about 05:30 it finally rolled over and sank.

Peabody
[/B]

The I-168 Under Lt Commander Tanabe

[Dread Knot]

Originally Posted by I-25

The I-168 Under Lt Commander Tanabe

Midway was such a lopsided victory as it was. One wonders how much easier the Guadalcanal campaign would have been for the USN with an addition carrier had Yorktown survived. However, she would have had to see a lot of time in a dockyard first.

One benefit of Yorktown's slow motion demise was that the vast majority of her trained crew got away. Specifically, the mechanics and remaining aircrew. In addition to the loss of the carriers, that's what made Midway so devastating for Japan. In a small industrial country the loss of so many highly trained aviation mechanics at one time, in those burning carrier hulls was exceedingly difficult to make up.

Originally Posted by Armistead

Have you ever read the book "Shattered Sword"?

It will blow your mind with what really happened at Midway, most of what we've been taught is totally debunked.

A great read.......

Agree 100%

However, in stripping away the myths the book does nothing to depreciate the actions of the men who actually fought the battle. Rather the opposite really.

Objective history is a rare thing and always better than myth or legend although with written with warts and all it loses some of the feel-good glitter that comes from a good story. Shattered Sword is a model of analysis and objectivity in my subjective opinion.

[WernherVonTrapp]

Yes, that IJN DD was the Arashi. There was also a second U.S. sub in the vicinity that not only failed to take any aggressive action, but failed to send a prompt contact report. I don't remember the sub's name, maybe Armistead can elaborate, but Nimitz was furious with it's skipper and subsequently relieved him of his command. BTW, Nautilus was not unsung, hence it's inclusion in the Battle 360 series and the book Shattered Sword. It's skipper was cited for his aggressive and relentless pursuit of the enemy.

[joea]

Originally Posted by Randomizer

Agree 100%

However, in stripping away the myths the book does nothing to depreciate the actions of the men who actually fought the battle. Rather the opposite really.

Objective history is a rare thing and always better than myth or legend although with written with warts and all it loses some of the feel-good glitter that comes from a good story. Shattered Sword is a model of analysis and objectivity in my subjective opinion.

I really, really have to get that book.

[Dread Knot]

Originally Posted by joea

I really, really have to get that book.

It's definitely worth it. To me the most interesting passage was near the end after summing up. The authors make a case that had the Japanese even won the naval battle, they almost certainly would have been decimated in the land battle. The Japanese landing forces were without proper maps, landing craft or even amphibious doctrine for a landing on Midway against a force that, unbeknowst to them actually larger and better armed than their own. The most successful Japanese amphibious landings of the war up to that point had taken place at deserted, undefended beaches far from their objectives, such as in the Philippines and Malaysia where the Japanese would then march overland to their objectives. The Japanese forces at Midway would be landing in front of a reef they didn't know was there, straight against the teeth of bristling US Marine defenses, which included tanks and would likely have suffered the same fate as the intial Japanese landing at Wake, if not worse.

[soopaman2]

History is always written by the victor, and will always do so to make themselves look as noble as possible. The man in my signature attempted that with purges and propaganda. As did the Brits and Americans (minus the purges).

Just an educated hypothesis...

Maybe the thinking at the time was because Germany favored "cheap" sub warfare, and they were the enemy, it automatically makes it evil. (even if we partook in the same behavior)

The carrier battles, and devastating warship salvos are always highlighted at Midway, because it is head to head, rather than hit and run, sneaky "dishonorable" fighting. Hence the nobility re-write I mentioned.

Maybe that is why they call it the silent service, not because you are isolated, but because you are behind the scenes and underacknowledged.

Originally Posted by soopaman2

History is always written by the victor, and will always do so to make themselves look as noble as possible. The man in my signature attempted that with purges and propaganda. As did the Brits and Americans (minus the purges).

Just an educated hypothesis...

Maybe the thinking at the time was because Germany favored "cheap" sub warfare, and they were the enemy, it automatically makes it evil. (even if we partook in the same behavior)

The carrier battles, and devastating warship salvos are always highlighted at Midway, because it is head to head, rather than hit and run, sneaky "dishonorable" fighting. Hence the nobility re-write I mentioned.

Maybe that is why they call it the silent service, not because you are isolated, but because you are behind the scenes and underacknowledged.

I do not think that is the case at with regards to Midway at all. It's been a while since I read Shattered Sword but as I recall the authors go into some detail on the historiography of the battle from wartime accounts until publication of their book. It's fascinating to read the staples, Walter Lord's Incredible Victory, Fuchida's Midway; The Battle that Doomed Japan, Prange's Miracle at Midway etc. and see how the narratives match so very well while several glaring logical contradictions are present but ignored. The knife edge timeline of the conventional account makes too good drama to discard.

Likewise all the English language accounts mention Narwhal's relentless but unsuccessful attack on the Kido Butai and how it ultimately paid off for the Enterprise air strike. So it's disingenuous in the extreme to state that she represented some "unsung" asset. The subsequent loss of Yorktown and Hammann to the boldly handled I-168 was a great embarrassment to the USN, particularly as she got away clean and so was played down in early versions of the story. It however, provided for the Japanese, one of the few bright spots in an operation where the Imperial Navy was batting well below average overall.

Nevertheless, the story did change considerably as the War retreated into the past. Morrison's official version in his Naval Operations omits much compared with the much later Prange, who benefited by being allowed to use classified material and Fuchida's book is nothing short of an apologia that has all the pitfalls of an eyewitness account and 20/20 hindsight while lacking much of the primary source data that could back up his version of events. Still all are important to build the overall picture and worth reading even today.

The USN always had problems with PR that were deeply institutionalized from the top down. So they tended to keep things close to the vest as it were and miss some opportunities to set the record straight or suffer from attempts to camouflage disasters even long after the event. An example of this effect can be found in 1964's Clear for Action: The Photographic Story of Modern Naval Combat 1898-1964 by Hailey and Lancelot. Even two decades after the battle the book repeats much of the wartime Air Force canard that land based air intervention was almost as important to the victory as the carrier strikes. This myth grew out of the reluctance of the Naval press office to initially release too much info in the wake of the Battle for security reasons, a mistake that the media savvy Army Air Force jumped on with both feet. Of course the Air Force knew that for all their efforts and losses they never even scratched the paint on a Japanese warship but why let facts get in the way of creating a legend. Particularly at the expense of an inter-service rival.

The evolution of the Midway narrative, from wartime propaganda to the release of Shattered Sword provides excellent lessons for anybody who might be interested in how information regarding a historically significant event can be manipulated, distorted and controlled. Even without any sinister or conspiratorial motives.

[WernherVonTrapp]

During the battle of Midway, as ineffective as they were in actually causing any physical damage to the IJN, the land based planes are nevertheless credited with disrupting/dispersing the IJN carrier TF and preventing the carriers from spotting their deck with torpedo planes and dive bombers. They kept the fighters on deck, landing, refueling and launching again and again. So they did contribute in an ironic but significant way.

[WernherVonTrapp]

Actually, Hitler declared "War" on the U.S. as a direct result of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, in support of his new Asian ally.
Not that I believe in any conspiracy theory, but you should read a book titled "Infamy" by John Toland. It presents (with evidence) some very compelling arguments supporting Roosevelt's knowledge of an impending attack on Pearl Harbor. Billy Mitchell was not the only one who predicted just such an attack, Admiral Richmond Kelly Turner did too.