Factor in US Victory at Midway

[Dereck]

I know this has been brought up in another thread but I can't find it and I'm too lazy and pressed for time to check.

In the other thread people have wondered if it was luck, tactics, etc that lead to the US victory at Midway but after watching a show on the History Channel there was something brought up which marked the big differences between the US and Japanese navies and could definitely have been a contribution to the loss of the 4 Japanese carriers.

Two words: fire fighting.

As a navy vet I can attest that in the US Navy now (as with during WWII shortly after Pearl Harbor on) fire fighting was drilled into sailors from boot camp on. Unfortunately the Japanese navy didn't train in fire fighting because they thought it fostered a "defeatist attitude" so when the fires started on the Japanese carriers (which even a 1st rate fire fighting crew wouldn't have been able to defeat) all the Japanese had were, at best, 2nd or 3rd rate fire fighters.

I know this isn't the MAJOR factor in the US victory but it does show a big difference in the cultures of the two navies. I'm not sure of this -- so correct me if I'm wrong -- but I don't think more than maybe 1 of all the US carriers lost in WWII were as a direct result of fire. Most of the carriers lost had been abandoned and sunk by destroyer torpedoes or by Japanese submarines after being abandoned before the US could scuttle them.

It appears that the US Navy could handle battle damage better than the Japanese navy could.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: dereck

I know this has been brought up in another thread but I can't find it and I'm too lazy and pressed for time to check.

In the other thread people have wondered if it was luck, tactics, etc that lead to the US victory at Midway but after watching a show on the History Channel there was something brought up which marked the big differences between the US and Japanese navies and could definitely have been a contribution to the loss of the 4 Japanese carriers.

Two words: fire fighting.

As a navy vet I can attest that in the US Navy now (as with during WWII shortly after Pearl Harbor on) fire fighting was drilled into sailors from boot camp on. Unfortunately the Japanese navy didn't train in fire fighting because they thought it fostered a "defeatist attitude" so when the fires started on the Japanese carriers (which even a 1st rate fire fighting crew wouldn't have been able to defeat) all the Japanese had were, at best, 2nd or 3rd rate fire fighters.

I know this isn't the MAJOR factor in the US victory but it does show a big difference in the cultures of the two navies. I'm not sure of this -- so correct me if I'm wrong -- but I don't think more than maybe 1 of all the US carriers lost in WWII were as a direct result of fire. Most of the carriers lost had been abandoned and sunk by destroyer torpedoes or by Japanese submarines after being abandoned before the US could scuttle them.

It appears that the US Navy could handle battle damage better than the Japanese navy could.

And this is where the WITP damage model is a bit off in my eyes. Fire, not flooding was the major issue. The burned out hulks that were once KB had to be scuttled by torps. Sure, there was the odd case of progressive flooding (Kongo), but fire should be where Japan stinks in damage control, not flooding to the degree we see in the game.

[Dereck]

This isn't meant to be bigotted or anything but you must remember that during World War II the Americans and Japanese had far different cultures and attitudes. Both sides were racist towards each other and each side underestimated the other.

Americans would train in damage control and firefighting and would save many ships that otherwise would have been sunk whereas the Japanese thought such training "defeatist". Another difference between the two navies was that the Japanese captains and admirals, like the British navy, would go down with their ships. The American captains and admirals saved themselves and would go before a board of inquiry where they would explain what happened - not necesarrily to be courtmartialed - but to help prevent the same thing from happening again and thus would go back to sea more experienced.

Another major difference - though not sure how it would apply to WiTP - was the treatment of the wounded. An American marine could be wounded on the Solomons and within a month could have been transported from the battle zone to a hospital in the continental United States. For all practical purpose the Japanese had no medical treatment for wounded soldiers. A wounded Japanese soldier was as good as dead.

[paullus99]

The Navy actually brought in the NYC (or what it Boston's?) fire marshal to assist with setting up fire damage control techniques at the beginning of the war. His suggestions (including flooding the fuel piping system with inert gases, like CO2, on carriers) saved many ships. With improved damage control techniques in place by 1944, it took a heck of a lot of damage to permanently disable an American warship (espeically carriers).

I've heard told that if those advanced techniques were available in 1941/42, only the Wasp would still have been lost given the damage taken at the time of its sinking (meaning the Lexington, Yorktown, & Hornet could have been saved).

[Dereck]

I've heard told that if those advanced techniques were available in 1941/42, only the Wasp would still have been lost given the damage taken at the time of its sinking (meaning the Lexington, Yorktown, & Hornet could have been saved).

Actually the fire control techniques were available by the time of the Battle of Midway according to the episode on the History Channel.

Also:

Lexington wasn't done in by fires. It was actually American destroyers who scuttled her with torpedoes after a 10 hour struggle to save her. Technically though since the fires were uncontrollable and caused the ship to be abandoned I guess you could chalk it up to fires though it wasn't fire that caused the actual sinking of the Lex.

Yorktown wasn't sunk at all by fire. There was fear that she was going to capsize after a Japanese torpedo plane attack which crippled her and she was abandoned. Though she refused to sink on her own so a 170 man salvage team reboarded her at dawn on June 6 and by noon pumping caused her to be near even keel and all remaining fires were under control. By mid-afternoon though a Japanese submarine found her and torpedoed her and the destroyer Hammann. After that submarine attack the Yorktown was abandoned and finally sank.

Hornet, according to my one history book, was an embarassment to the US navy. The ship was abandoned but remained afloat and when it was decided to scuttle her but despite being hit by 9 American torpedoes and more than 400 rounds of gunfire she remained afloat. Fortunately there was a Japanese submarine in the vicinity which was kind enough to lend 4 of their torpedoes and they sank the Hornet for the Americans.

[Mark VII]

I believe Japanese Destroyers finished off Hornet with torpedoes. edit: I also think the Americans abandoned her after the (above) failed to put her under as the USN DD's fled the scene. The IJN arrived to find the Hornet burning from stem to stern, decided she was not worth towing as a war trophy and pumped some long lances into her, down she went shortly there after.

[paullus99]

Semantics - the damage to Lexington was under control until a fuel explosion caused the captain to order the ship abandoned.

[Dereck]

The book I have implied that the US destroyers were still there pumping shells into her when the Japanese submarine intervened. There was no way either navy would abandon a still floating carrier and risk any possibility of it falling into enemy hands. That's why ships are scuttled rather than just abandoned.

[tsimmonds]

But Hornet was abandoned, following determined but unsuccessful efforts by Anderson and Mustin to sink her; she was sunk by Long Lance torpedoes from DDs Makigumo and Akigumo when they came upon her burning hulk. She was clearly beyond salvage.

[Dereck]

I was under the impression the Hornet was sunk by torpedoes from a Japanese submarine.

[tsimmonds]

You may be thinking of Yorktown.

I Googled up several sites that mention IJN DD torps; here is one that has their names. I remember this from Morison as well.

[madflava13]

My understanding was that IJN DDs did in the Hornet in the evening when they came upon her hulk...

Also, I believe Lady Lex had the up-to-date damage control measures in place, but a gas leak that wasn't detected set off a chain reaction putting her beyond salvage.

Finally, consider the Franklin in the end of the war - she took a more severe pounding than any other ship in history (mostly from her own stores that touched off) and was able to make 15 knots within 24 hours of the attack...

[Dereck]

You may be thinking of Yorktown.

I Googled up several sites that mention IJN DD torps; here is one that has their names. I remember this from Morison as well.

I stand corrected [8|] I misread the passage and after going back and checking it does clearly state that Japanese forces arrived forcing the Americans off before dispatching the Hornet.

*feels so embarrased*

[Dereck]

I'm asking this question because off hand I can't think of one but WAS there any American carrier that was sunk directly as a result of an air attack? I keep thinking that they were damaged - possibly mortally - but were either scuttled after the initial damage or sunk by submarines/enemy surface forces after the main damage was under control but found to be irreparable.

[tsimmonds]

Princeton. St Lo. Ommaney Bay. Bismarck Sea. But no fleet carriers.

[Dereck]

How many of those were the results of Kamikaze attacks?

[tsimmonds]

The 3 CVEs were all sunk by kamikazes. Princeton was sunk by self-induced ammo explosions following a bomb hit from a lone dive-bomber. Ommaney Bay ws scuttled by DD torps in order to put her under before her stowed torpedoes could explode. The other two sank directly as a result of damage received. St Lo was hit by one of the very first kamikaze attacks, which arrived just minutes after the battle off Samar, in which she was damaged by gunfire, had ended.

[Sharkosaurus rex]

One more difference between the navies was crew size. The Japs had just enough to maintain the bare minimum. Its CV, with crews of 1400 compared to the 2700 embarked in USN CV made the Japs one shot wonders. They couldn't maintain prolonged operations or handle battle damage well. Maybe the small crew size added to their problems at Midway. After the orders to change the ordinance on the bombers from naval attack to land bombs back to naval attack, the exhausted handlers failed to properly store their unneeded bombs in the magazines during the ensueing chaos. These later detonated added crippling damage and blazing fires. Also the planes being arranged on the flight deck with their combustable fuel added to the disaster.

[Dereck]

Good point.

When I was in the Navy stationed on the Midway (homeported in Yokosuka, Japan by the way) we were the only forward deployed aircraft carrier and we were at a wartime manning level which meant instead of a normal compliment of 15 photographers we had close to 40. We were all cross-trained with at least one other photographer's duty for one simple reason: to be able to still function after taking combat casualties.

Maybe another intangible culture difference? Planning for casualties would be a "loss of face" for the Japanese whereas for the Allies it was just accepted you'd take casualties?

[Sharkosaurus rex]

The final coup de grace was sometimes administered by one's own side. But it still remains that the ship(s) were sufficiently damaged or threatened by other means to force their own side to scuttle them. Not all CV are going to sink as quickly as little Shoho on the 7th May 1942. But the hors de combat have still prevented some ships from operating or the risk of capture.

(Just like the Bismarck- was it scuttled or sunk by the RN? The fact is it was destroyed regardless if the sole survivor unplugged the cork when it had 99 sys, 98 flotation, and 99 fires.)