Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Military Thoughts on operational courage of the Japanese Navy, WWII

Now how's that for a tease?

One can not question the individual courage of the Japanese soldier, sailor or even fireman (esp. the standard bearer). Banzai charges to kamikaze attacks make the question of courage moot, no?

Then why does it seem on the operational level, at least in three examples, they seem to chicken out.

First is Pearl Harbour. They stopped after two strikes. They could have gone on until they were out of fungibles. Most of the dry docks were left intact. They had complete control of the air, what were they afraid of?

Next is Midway. Sure the Japanese carriers got hammered but there were still something like 5 battleships, several cruiser squadrons and piles of destroyers. I�d argue that going ahead with the landings at Midway would work. America would have had a pyrrhic victory.

Thirdly, off Samar, the last hopes for Japan in Leyte Gulf. Taffy Three holds off a much huger force. No great banzai battleship charge, they ran off.

Al three operations were well planed, all ran into problems and all failed from lack of determination.

Now feel free to tell me I�m full of balderdash.

Navy guys are taught (with clear logic and good reason) that a fleet in being is of more stratigic value than a bunch of sunk hulls. Rock'em and sock'em but DON'T lose your ship.

The Japanese failed to demonstrate logic throughout the war. My question is why they failed to carry through a well planned, and up to contact, intact plan.

Diminishing returns..There were still the pac fleet carriers at unknown locations. Further strikes would have been met by increased AA fire and aircraft and aircrew losses. I agree the dry docks and the fuel storage were nice targets but carriers aside they got what they came for.


They might have had something if they could have forced a night gunfire action with Spruance, but that seems unlikely. they had not eliminated midways air power. two Us carriers still there to chew at them. I doubt the decimated american attack squardrons would have had much efect on the battle sqaurdrons.. but on the transports very likely. Remember it was less than 6 months since wake island. The japs did the smart thing by getting the hell out of dodge.



The jap survivers tell us that they beleived that Taffy three was made up of Fleet carriers. So the Japs thought taffy three was running from them at nearly 30 knots, not 17 that the jeep carriers could do. Don't forget that the japs were getting chewed pretty bad and they did keep at it for quite awhile.

If I had been the jap comander and I thought I had TF77 infront of me I would have pressed this one home..despite my losses. I agree the japs were timid in this case. however because Taffy 3 was comprised of escort carriers. not fleet carriers.. breaking off was the right thing..done for the wrong reason.

Pearl harbor was well planned and executed..unlucky for the japs they missed the carriers

Midway.. lots of small factors for the japs loss here. We knew they were comming..We got lucky in the detection phase and the rule for carrier warefare is "attack effectivly first" the the code and early detection did that for us.

As has been played up in the lit Nagumo was not very decisive. there was a lot of the little lucky/unlucky things going on at midway and the US was just lucky enough to come out on top.

The Imperial fleet was a fine force at the begining of the war. professional, well trained and well led. Like the US there were a few things they could have improved, such as the fire suppression systems on there carriers..we had our torpedos and our torpedo bombers.

We are just lucky that the japs didn't have half our industral might and didn't have the technically oriented personal to replace skilled personal lost in combat like pilots.

Diminish away, that�s what bombs are for.



The Japanese were far more adept at night action than the US at this time. My choice is go for it.
And we agree on Taffy Three.

Great read and pics on Taffy Three.

http://www.bosamar.com/

Pearl Harbor � Mission accomplished for the most part, why press home when there�s a bunch of unaccounted for flat-tops that could show up at the worst time. I think this was a good call on the part of the Japanese.

Midway � No way in heck would anyone in their right mind press the attack after that beating. They just lost 4 flat tops, what is there to make them think their battleships would do better? In fact, the battleships would have been taken out by carrier aircraft, or at least whittled down to the point that the rest of the US surface fleet could mop them up. Again, the Japanese made the right call�After that beating, run like hell.

Taffy � They screwed the pooch big time on this one. Absolutely no excuse whatsoever! If you have a battle fleet that includes the Yamato, you don�t flee anything until you see planes swarming in the air�And possibly not even then. They choked big time.

Although I don�t exactly agree with two out of three of your examples, I do strongly agree that the Japanese navy lacked a spine. They were horribly conservative. Their submarine fleet had a book that listed how many torpedoes can be fired for a given class of ships. This led to who knows how many damaged, but not sunken ships because no sub jock dared to go against the book.

Early in the war, the Japanese were bold and brave. But once they started taking real casualties, and their fleet numbers stated dwindling, they really got cold feet. Simply put, if we fought like they did, we would have given up after Pearl Harbor and the Philippines.

SO, for the most part everyone agrees on Taffy 3, and disagrees with me about the other two.

Midway would have been a huge gamble, if the Japanese could have pulled it off is in doubt.

Another strike or two at Pearl would have had great rewards.
Great military beatings are not tempered by fear of the enemy's resopnce.

There is a very good reason why it is called a Carrier Battle Group. Without the Carriers the other ships are extremely vulnerable to air attack from carrier based planes while the enemy Carriers are not within range of their guns. The other fighting ships in the group are baiscally there to protect the Carriers and to provide long range gun fire for landing forces.

At Pearl Harbor the Japanese had no idea where our Carriers were or when they might show up. All the Japanese planes were outfitted with bombs and torpedoes and would have been of no use to defend their fleet from air attack. About the last thing a Carrier Captain wants to do is set up to retrieve planes while under attack.

Same was true at Midway. Once the Japanese Carriers were taken out the rest of their fleet was too vulnerable to attempt landing troops. A landing fleet is an easy target...especially with no air support from Carrier based planes.

Our own Navy bugged out on the Marines at Guadalcanal because Nimitz felt that parking the entire landing fleet off the island was too dangerous. Ships sitting dead in the water while off loading troops and supplies are sitting ducks.

Both the USA and the Japanese were smart enough to know early on that the one with the most ships would win the war in the Pacific...and protecting those ships was a major concern for both sides.

Pearl Harbor. Bad strategy, conservative decision making, not chickening out. In the long run, the fuel depot would likely have been a more valuable target than the BBs.

Midway. Four carriers down, the pilots lost, the war was over. Save what you have left to drag it out, hope for a stalemate? Again conservative, not chicken.

Leyte. No excuse for that one, they should have been on a suicide mission.

Strangely, you could argue that the japs were way more ready for the way the pacific war was fought than we were in some respects, but Midway really screwed that up for them. Probably the luckiest few minutes of the whole war.

It�s far too easy to think of these WWII battles as if they had the same technology that we have today.

About the only way Navies could find enemy ships back then was to send out planes to search for them.

The Japanese fleet at Lete had no carriers and hence no planes. They were only guessing at the size of the US forces they were going after and also their actual location. Taffy 3 had carriers and planes and those planes took out three or four of the Japanese ships.

Anyway you cut it the Japanese forces in WWII were a very formidable enemy. We beat them by having a more robust industrial base to build and supply the materials to our forces. And the H-Bomb didn�t hurt either!

You guys surely have more detailed knowledge of individual WWII battles than I, but gotta add one comment about Taffy 3.

If Japanese naval commanders in general had cajones like those destroyer and destroyer escort commanders we'd all be bowing to the emperor right now.

Taking tin cans and charging in for torpedo runs against battleships and heavy cruisers, then standing and duking it out with what's left of your little five inch pop guns (comparatively speaking), that impresses me as much as any other single action in the entire war.

Those young men flying Wildcats (in 1944!) on strafing runs against heavily armored ships like mosquitoes attacking elephants did not lack for courage either.

The US military has always excelled when it comes to individuals taking the initiative and charging ahead in the face of what seemed an impossible task.

The trouble that totalitarian governments have always faced is that the above sort of behavior is not only discouraged, it can be fatal to those that attempt it...and at the hands of their own leaders. Their biggest strength is also their biggest weakness.

If Hitler�s generals could have acted on their own without having to clear everything with him the war in Europe might have turned out allot differently than it did.

Strange things happen in War, and courage and cowardice is often in the eye of the beholder.

Admiral Kimmel lost his command as a result of the attack at Pearl Harbor yet Bug-Out Doug McCarthur was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for losing the entire Philippines. Go figure that one.

That's an old Japanese proverb: "The nail that sticks up gets hammered down."

The History channel has been doing programs about famous military battles where they use digital graphics of the battle fields along with actual footage and analysis from military experts and historians. Awhile back they had one on the sea battle at Lete Gulf that was pretty interesting and addressed some of the questions raised by this thread.

Computer graphics are being well used in some of these historical battles.
Dogfights is another great show.

Yep, tonight (Friday) is "fight night" on the History Channel.

"Dogfight", they were running "Shootout" with historical and recreated footage, and I believe Mail Call with R. Lee Ermey is on tonight. - "Oo-rah, Semper Fi!"

Dogfight and Shootout are pretty good if a bit repetitive after each commercial break. The recreations in Shootout are okay, guess they have to stick within a limited budget, and they do sometimes play a bit loose with the historical footage - more "representative" than footage of the actual battle.

Still and all one of the better nights of TV when I don't have to change channels very much.

RickB,

There were some real differences between Kimmel and McArthur. Kimmel felt safe at Pearl and had little in the way of defenses. McArthur felt the pressure and screamed for reinforcements long before the Japanese invaded. Nothing that happened in the Philippines could be made the fault of McArthur if he wasn�t properly equipped, which he wasn�t.

That�s certainly a valid viewpoint...but it still seems a bit strange that a Commander who deserts the battle field and has his entire command killed and/or captured is rewarded by being presented our nations highest honor. Yes, I understand that he was ordered to leave, but so was Col. Moore at the battle of Ia Drang in 1965 but he stayed with his troops anyway. McCarthur was notorious for disobeying or ignoring orders during his entire career, but he sure had no problem obeying the one that got his ass out of the Philippines.

It has also been observed by historians and military experts that McCarthur�s forces actually out numbered the first invading Japanese troops by quite a bit but never tried to capitalize on that by attacking them.

Kimmel also had asked for more equipment in the way of planes and ships but was also denied because of Roosevelt�s obsession with Germany and the war in Europe. If you study the history of our lead up and entry into WWII it is very clear that the vast amount of concern and resources were directed to the war with Germany, not the War in the Pacific with Japan.

My only point was how people sometimes view actions in wars a bit differently with very little regard to what actually took place.

The topic of the thread was the �operational courage� of the Japanese in certain Naval battles. Personally, I don�t believe their actions had anything to do with a lack of courage. Bad planning, arrogant and overreaching perhaps...but certainly not cowardice.