It seems you're impervious to irony.
I usually just ignore irony, to the benefit of the people who try to use it.
Lex was scuttled because... it was scuttled.
No, actually, it was scuttled because it was irrecoverable. These sorts of things are done for good reasons. Prior to the damage control error that occurred 1 1/2 hours after the last Japanese plane left the scene, while
Lexington was making good way, not on fire, and not flooding, an explosion of gasoline vapor occurred. That is a vastly different set of circumstances than the case of Japanese carriers suffering from unresolved uncontrollable fires that started immediately as a consequence of bomb hits, and well-documented flooding, irrecoverable damage in engineering spaces, and complete loss of way that they suffered at Midway. Therefore, you effort to draw an analogy between
Lexington at Coral Sea and any Japanese ship lost at Midway is thoroughly flawed, with or without the intended irony.
it takes much cynicism to tell the Lex was not lost because of the japanese attack.
Nope. It just takes an objective look at the facts. The material condition and readiness of Lexington, 1 1/2 hours after she was struck by the last torpedo that hit her, was far superior to that of any Japanese ship at Midway, and comparable to Zuikaku's condition as she retired from Coral Sea. In both instances, poor post-battle decisions were made that almost caused Zui to founder and that did cause
Lexington to brew up. Had Zui foundered, no one in their right mind would have said that it was "because of USN action."
If you were a footslogger in the ETO during WW2 and accidently shot yourself in the foot while fleeing an artillery barrage, no one would say you were wounded in the barrage. Probably citations for valor or the purple heart would not be forthcoming.
Can't it be said to be a fluke too ? After all, it's only because that given AA-gunner missed his shot that the US plane managed to drop its bomb...
Depends on which part you view as the "fluke." It was typical of Japanese AA gunners to miss, so that was no fluke. It was typical of most pilots in any navy or air force to miss when dropping ordnance, so that might be viewed as "statistically unlikely." But that bomb started an immediate unresolved fire. Therefore the bomb and its immediate consequences did the deed.
Whether a ship is sunk because it's been hit by three hundred 1-ton bombs and 17 torpedoes, or between an electrical short-circuit ignited the fumes resulting from one .50 shot entering the hangar by chance and putting the planes afire, doesn't matter.
We disagree.
The ship is lost because of enemy operations.
We disagree.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
"Post hoc ergo propter hoc" is one of many logical fallacies noted by the late eminent scientist Carl Sagan in his "Baloney Detector Kit."
Or, put in simpler terms : if the ship had not been hit by the enemy, it would not have sunk.
Generally true, although Mutsu and numerous other ships allied and otherwise provide exceptions. However, it is incorrect as a generalization to claim that "If a ship that was hit by the enemy eventually sank, it was sunk because of enemy damage." That is clearly NOT true in
Lexington's case. And it would not have been true of
Yorktown at Midway were one speaking of the consequences of Japanese naval aviation. The plain fact is that Lex was sunk by a damage control error, and
Yorktown was sunk by a submarine. The damage on these ships that was caused by enemy action was controlled and the ships were in operable (arguably so in York's case) or recoverable (true in both cases) condition. In contrast, the Japanese CVs at Midway were irrecoverably damaged. Their own ships crews say as much.
As for "solid win", are you serious man ?
Yes.
The aircraft losses were about the same.
No, they weren't.
At the very best, it's a draw, tactically speaking
I disagree. It was a solid win for the USN.
the USN didn't have an intact CV.
That is incorrect.
Even strategically speaking, it's an american victory only because of two events who happened after the battle:
The Japanese withdrew. QED. All strategic victories are ultimately the consequence of someone's decision to discontinue to engage.
the fact that Yorktown was miraculously made battle-fit in a few days
There were no miracles involved. Yorktown was not operation at Midway owing to images of the Virgin Mary appearing in scorched paint, in some mold on a bread crust, or from God's tears weeping from the anchor chains. Yorktown was operational at Midway owing to simple, solid, outstanding engineering work done by people.
and the fact that the japanese didn't merge the two carrier air wings to bring Zuikaku at Midway...
..was a predictable consequence of Japanese doctrine that married carrier air groups to a particular ship, in contrast to USN doctrine that was highly flexible in that regard.
It could have been 5 CVs vs 3 CVs, or 5 CVs vs 2 CVs, or 4 CVs vs 2 CVs, with the dire consequences we could imagine.
Under the circumstances, the presence of 5 Japanese CVs at Midway would almost certainly have resulted in the loss of 5 Japanese CVs and
Yorktown because the locations of the Japanese CVs were all known, but the only CV on which the Japanese had a good bead was
Yorktown.
So, marginal strategic victory, not decisive.
A decisive strategic victory IMO. The Japanese retired. They made no further effort during the war to obtain Port Moresby by amphibious coups de main.
All in all, it was an inconclusive battle, certainly not a solid victory for one side or another.
It was a solid USN win all around.