9 Comments
User's avatar
Andy's avatar

You may be aware that China is taking a keen interest in the lessons of the Battle of Midway. Their assessment is interesting.. they view one problem was that the Japanese fleet had two goals - which is one too many - bomb Midway, and also take out the cariers. https://www.businessinsider.com/china-is-learning-from-battle-of-midway-world-war-ii-2021-6

Expand full comment
Archibald Stein's avatar

"I don’t want think the WW2 US military was led by thoroughly incompetent fools."

Missing "to" between "want" and "think".

Also:

"It was Fuchida was essentially blaming Nagumo and Genda for not doing that which they could never be expected to do!"

Duplicated "was".

Also:

"Midway was still an active US base that planes would once more have strike."

This sentence doesn't seem right to me but I'm not 100% sure.

Expand full comment
DrManhattan16's avatar

Thanks!

The sentence reads fine to me, but it's not explicitly clear that it's written from the Japanese perspective i.e Midway was a base *their* planes would have to strike.

Expand full comment
Archibald Stein's avatar

Then shouldn't it be "have to strike"?

Expand full comment
DrManhattan16's avatar

Yes, I see it now. Fixing!

Expand full comment
Jesse's avatar

Thank you for such an interesting and thoughtful essay.

I am interested in Midway, but I find the history-of-the-history most interesting. It's amazing to me that even in 2022, we are still re-interpreting the events.

I also need to understand how this flight to nowhere is came from.

Expand full comment
DrManhattan16's avatar

Thanks!

Regarding the Flight to Nowhere, I explained it in the post, but the short of it is that it's possible the commander of the flight wanted to find the other two carriers believed to be out somewhere, as current reporting had only informed the US about two enemy carriers.

You can read a more in-depth treatment by Maritime Historian Craig Symonds here: https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2012/may/mitscher-and-mystery-midway

Expand full comment
Noumenon72's avatar

How does the book reconcile the aircraft production numbers in http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm (8861 for Japan in 1942) with the factoid you mentioned in part 2?

>[A]s modest as the demands on it had been thus far, Japanese industry *couldn’t even handle these losses*. Between major manufacturing companies Mitsubishi, Nakajima, and Aichi, only the first had a production line that ran well. The other two had neglected their own production in anticipation of newer aircraft.

> In 1942, the US built 46,000 aircraft, with no category of plane having less than a thousand built save for very heavy bombers.

> The Japanese built 56 carrier-based aircraft.

Expand full comment
DrManhattan16's avatar

The qualification there is "carrier-based". The US did not build 46000 or so carrier-based aircraft, that was all aircraft. As the website lists about 47000 for the US, I think they are lumping all of them together. So the answer is that the other aircraft would have not been for carriers to use.

Expand full comment