Battle of Midway

snafuk35

Could the battle have resulted in a Japanese victory?

Could Japanese planes have caught the American carriers while they were loading their planes with fuel, bombs and torpedoes and scored a crushing defeat of the US Navy?

Was the outcome of the battle really about luck?

The sacrifice of Waldron's aircrews in particular is barely distinguishable from the actions of Kamikaze pilots later in the war.

How would an American defeat in Midway have decided the rest of the war? Would the war have continued into 1946 or 1947 with delayed American victory in the Pacific?

silverharp

the short answer is the war would have ended on the same date with the atom bombs. Give or take the US built around a 100 carriers so while Midway was an important victory at the time, Japan couldnt hope to compete with the US in the production rate of naval ships and carriers.
I dont know if the term is valid but individual battles did have an asymetric nature to them as in a small number of aircraft could distroy major naval assets however since the US had a numbers advantage fairly quickly odds would favour the US being "lucky" more often. For sure there was an interesting dynamic in the pacific naval battles.

ejmaztec

silverharp wrote: »

the short answer is the war would have ended on the same date with the atom bombs. Give or take the US built around a 100 carriers so while Midway was an important victory at the time, Japan couldnt hope to compete with the US in the production rate of naval ships and carriers.
I dont know if the term is valid but individual battles did have an asymetric nature to them as in a small number of aircraft could distroy major naval assets however since the US had a numbers advantage fairly quickly odds would favour the US being "lucky" more often. For sure there was an interesting dynamic in the pacific naval battles.

I think that date would have been pushed forward, because it's quite possible that it would have taken the US a lot longer to acquire a base close enough to Japan, from which to launch B29s.

silverharp

ejmaztec wrote: »

I think that date would have been pushed forward, because it's quite possible that it would have taken the US a lot longer to acquire a base close enough to Japan, from which to launch B29s.

if you mean delayed I dont think so. For a mission like the A bomb the planes wouldnt have needed to come back , a la Doolittle raid.

snafuk35

silverharp wrote: »

if you mean delayed I dont think so. For a mission like the A bomb the planes wouldnt have needed to come back , a la Doolittle raid.

The plan for the Doolittle raid was for the planes to land in China wasn't it after they dropped their bombs?
I don't think it could have been mounted if the air crews thought they had no chance of coming back alive. They were prepared to die but not to commit suicide.

The Japanese did not hold their lives dear hence their suicidal actions in World War 2. The Americans were simply not as fanatical.

I don't any B-29 crews would have committed suicide - they were prepared to fly hazardous near suicidal missions - but not actual suicide missions.

silverharp

snafuk35 wrote: »

The plan for the Doolittle raid was for the planes to land in China wasn't it after they dropped their bombs?
I don't think it could have been mounted if the air crews thought they had no chance of coming back alive. They were prepared to die but not to commit suicide.

The Japanese did not hold their lives dear hence their suicidal actions in World War 2. The Americans were simply not as fanatical.

I don't any B-29 crews would have committed suicide - they were prepared to fly hazardous near suicidal missions - but not actual suicide missions.

I wasnt suggesting that they commit suicide but for a mission of that importance it would have been worth ditching the planes and have a rescue mission to collect the pilots

ejmaztec

silverharp wrote: »

if you mean delayed I dont think so. For a mission like the A bomb the planes wouldnt have needed to come back , a la Doolittle raid.

The B29s would have also needed to get there, and one would have to assume that Japanese air-defences would be minimal for the planes to reach the target unscathed.

In reality, the Japanese were on their last legs, having lost considerable defence capabilities. Had they won at Midway, the situation could have been completely different in August 1945.

Without any Pacific bases within range, a base in China would probably have been the only option, and that is assuming that the Japanese didn't have complete control of China. The logistics involved in delivering the bombs to China would have been problematic.

cyrusdvirus

Once American war production kicked in there was no way the Japanese would have held out.

Look at the TO&E for the Battle of Midway verses the Battle of Leyte Gulf.


Midway

USN
3 carriers,
25 support ships,
233 carrier aircraft,
127 land-based aircraft

IJN
4 carriers,
2 battleships,
15 support ships (heavy and light cruisers, destroyers),
248 carrier aircraft, 16 floatplanes
Did not participate in battle:
2 light carriers,
5 battleships,
~41 support ships (Yamamoto "Main Body", Kondo "Strike Force" plus "Escort" and "Occupation Support Force")


Leyte Gulf

USN
8 fleet carriers
8 light carriers
18 escort carriers
12 battleships
24 cruisers
141 destroyers and destroyer escorts
Many PT boats, submarines, and fleet auxiliaries
About 1,500 planes

IJN
1 fleet carrier
3 light carriers
9 battleships
14 heavy cruisers
6 light cruisers
35+ destroyers
300+ planes (including land-based aircraft)

silverharp

ejmaztec wrote: »

The B29s would have also needed to get there, and one would have to assume that Japanese air-defences would be minimal for the planes to reach the target unscathed.

In reality, the Japanese were on their last legs, having lost considerable defence capabilities. Had they won at Midway, the situation could have been completely different in August 1945.

Without any Pacific bases within range, a base in China would probably have been the only option, and that is assuming that the Japanese didn't have complete control of China. The logistics involved in delivering the bombs to China would have been problematic.

I dont think so, 6mths top would have been the delay on the conventional front. Japan was not geared up for a long war and the US was not maxed out in the pacific, in the short run the US might have had to divert some resources from Europe and Africa but by 44 it would have been a bad memory.

As for the mechanics of delivering an A-bomb without a direct base, I'm guessing here but they might have developed in flight refuelling perhaps or even dropped the bombs by submarine (wild guess) , however I think its a mute point as I really cant see that the US would have been a year behind in 45

ejmaztec

silverharp wrote: »

I dont think so, 6mths top would have been the delay on the conventional front. Japan was not geared up for a long war and the US was not maxed out in the pacific, in the short run the US might have had to divert some resources from Europe and Africa but by 44 it would have been a bad memory.

As for the mechanics of delivering an A-bomb without a direct base, I'm guessing here but they might have developed in flight refuelling perhaps or even dropped the bombs by submarine (wild guess) , however I think its a mute point as I really cant see that the US would have been a year behind in 45

I think that any delay would have meant that there would have been more chance of the Japanese becoming fluent in Russian.

Delancey

Japanese naval strategy at the outbreak of hostilities with the US was to secure a defensive ' perimeter ' that would cost the US dearly to breach , the idea being that faced with unacceptable losses the Americans would settle for a negotiated peace which would leave much of Japans empire intact.
The Japanese Navy Chief Admiral Yamamoto had lived in the US and was terrified of American industrial power , he warned that he '' could run riot for 6 months or a year....but after that I can guarantee nothing....if like me you have seen the oil fields of Texas , the steel mills of Pennsylvania and the factories of Detroit you will know what I am saying ''.
Midway happened almost exactly 6 months after Pearl Harbour.

Had Japan won at Midway the Japanese defensive perimeter would have been extended and strenghtened and the Pacific war would have probably been prolonged , US losses would have been heavier but the eventual outcome would not have changed one iota.

Tony EH

snafuk35 wrote: »

The Japanese did not hold their lives dear hence their suicidal actions in World War 2. The Americans were simply not as fanatical.

Really?

The Americans have never once faced the catastrophe that Japan faced in 1945.

If such dark clouds reached their shores, the "difference" wouldn't be so pronounced in some peoples minds.

snafuk35

Tony EH wrote: »

Really?

The Americans have never once faced the catastrophe that Japan faced in 1945.

If such dark clouds reached their shores, the "difference" wouldn't be so pronounced in some peoples minds.

American culture was and is highly individualistic.
The Japanese and Asian culture in general was and is highly collective.
Blind fanaticism and ritual suicide like that of the Japanese kamikaze pilots or in banzai attacks by Japanese soldiers simply did not occur among the Americans, British and other Western allies.

HavingCrack

Tony EH wrote: »

Really?

The Americans have never once faced the catastrophe that Japan faced in 1945.

If such dark clouds reached their shores, the "difference" wouldn't be so pronounced in some peoples minds.

It's actually an extremely difficult mindset to understand from an Irish perspective, we simply do not think in the same way to many Japanese or Asians in general. The idea of the collective before the individual is just alien to us-an entirely different way of thinking.

Tony EH

snafuk35 wrote: »

American culture was and is highly individualistic.
The Japanese and Asian culture in general was and is highly collective.
Blind fanaticism and ritual suicide like that of the Japanese kamikaze pilots or in banzai attacks by Japanese soldiers simply did not occur among the Americans, British and other Western allies.

It's only fanaticism when the "bad guys" do it though, isn't it? When white westerners do it, it's heroic sacrifice.

There have been PLENTY of "fanatics" in American / Western history.

The Kamikaze pilots weren't "ritual suiciders". Their country was facing an unbelievable disaster and possible extermination. They were down to the wire and their sacrifice was to try and save their country.

Do you REALLY think that if Western countries faced the same dilemma that the Japanese faced that there wouldn't be people willing to engage in the ultimate sacrifice to save their country?

REALLY?

Tony EH

HavingCrack wrote: »

It's actually an extremely difficult mindset to understand from an Irish perspective, we simply do not think in the same way to many Japanese or Asians in general. The idea of the collective before the individual is just alien to us-an entirely different way of thinking.

Met many Japanese/Asian people have you?

Your black and white wash of entire cultures (which are actually vastly different to each other) doesn't apply.

The Japanese/Chinese/Korean/Vietnamese people that I have met would show your opinion up.

snafuk35

Tony EH wrote: »

It's only fanaticism when the "bad guys" do it though, isn't it? When white westerners do it, it's heroic sacrifice.

There have been PLENTY of "fanatics" in American / Western history.

The Kamikaze pilots weren't "ritual suiciders". Their country was facing an unbelievable disaster and possible extermination. They were down to the wire and their sacrifice was to try and save their country.

Do you REALLY think that if Western countries faced the same dilemma that the Japanese faced that there wouldn't be people willing to engage in the ultimate sacrifice to save their country?

REALLY?

First of all there was no moral equivalence between the Japanese and Allies in WW2.

The Japanese believed it was a sacred duty to die for the Emperor. The banzai attacks and the kamikaze attacks were ritual suicides. It was their religion.

Tony EH

What's the difference between dying for your Emperor and dying for your Country?

Here's a hint...none. It's the same thing.

BTW, "Banzai arracks", or "last stands" weren't as common place as Hollywood and sub-par history would have you believe.

And there have been plenty of "last stands" in "modern" Western histories too, from the Alamo to present day.

Do yourself a favour and abandon the clichés. Just because one sides sacrifices are feted doesn't mean that the other sides aren't as noble.

Also, the Kamikaze attacks weren't anything to do with religion. It was borne out of the fact that the Japanese nation had reached and utterly desperate situation and was faced with the very real possibility of extinction, at least as far as the ultimate fear was concerned.

Such desperate times will breed such desperate measures, such as the sacrifice that young Japanese men chose to engage in, in a truly desperate attempt to turn back the tide of an overwhelming invading enemy force.

It's truly naive to think that only Asian cultures would be driven to such extreme sacrificial measures in the face of the incredible impending doom that Japan faced in 1945.

Jawgap

snafuk35 wrote: »

Could the battle have resulted in a Japanese victory?

Could Japanese planes have caught the American carriers while they were loading their planes with fuel, bombs and torpedoes and scored a crushing defeat of the US Navy?

Was the outcome of the battle really about luck?

The sacrifice of Waldron's aircrews in particular is barely distinguishable from the actions of Kamikaze pilots later in the war.

How would an American defeat in Midway have decided the rest of the war? Would the war have continued into 1946 or 1947 with delayed American victory in the Pacific?

To go back to the OP's original question for discussion.....

The answer to the first two questions is "possibly" (in my opinion:))

Yes, it was really about luck, or as Clausewitz put it - "the play of chance and probability" (you can't really discuss military history without a bit of Clausewitz).

The difference between Waldron's TBD attack and the kamikhaze attacks later in the war are probably only semantic, but Waldron's attack was more akin to a forlorn hope - no doubt he wanted to come back alive and in one piece, even though they probably knew death was inevitable. My understanding of the kamikhaze's is they were willing to sacrifice themselves and they trained to do so - their decisions were pre-meditated.

Even if the Americans had been checked at Midway, it's debatable whether they IJN could have inflicted a heavy defeat given their tendency towards caution. The Americans could have seriously lost the battle (snatching defeat from the jaws of victory:)), if they had sought a night action instead of withdrawing.

Would a Japanese victory have prolonged the war? Who knows - I would say not, for one simple reason - for every pound of supplies the Japanese were shipping to their combat forces in the Pacific, the Americans were shipping 2 tons!!! Difficult to see how that type of effort could have been resisted.

Tony EH

The problem with the war in the Pacific is that the Japanese never truly sought a war with the US. Their reasoning behind the Pearl Habour attack was to prevent the US bringing war to them, while they pursued their own war in Asia.

Failure to sufficiently blunt that ability (ie aircraft carriers) would always mean that a Japanese defeat was on the cards regardless of how much territory they actually took. It would only have been a matter of time

A Japanese victory at Midway may have prolonged the war by a small amount (depending on how total the victory was). But they were always onto a loser.

Even though Yamamoto was the architect (to a large degree) of the Pearl Harbour attack, he realised that it was a gamble destined to be drowned in an eventual loss.