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.

Arrogant and overreaching is exactly it.

Also, to be fair to Kimmel from a threat assessment standpoint, Pearl was not considered to be much of a threat. The majority of threat focus was rightfully on the Philippines, not on Pearl. The attack on Pearl Harbor was nearly as unprecedented as 9/11�Easy to Monday morning quarterback, but very difficult to figure in the moment. I too think Kimmel got a bit of a raw deal.

No one outside of the military had ever heard of Kimmel prior to Dec 7th, while McCarthur was very well known inside and outside of the military. I think that had allot to do with his treatement as opposed to Kimmel�s. Some �fall-guys� were needed after the attacks and Kimmel was a much easier/safer target than McCarthur was.

Funniest line I have ever read came from McCarthur regarding Dwight Esinhower�s abilities to be a good president. When McCarthur was asked this question he smirked and said: �Dwight was one of the best clerks I ever had so he should do fine.�

It would be interesting to imagine how McArthur would have fared as Supreme Allied Commander in the ETO. Can you picture him "dealing" with Patton, Montgomery and De Gaulle? I'm thinking instead of a more or less united Allied effort against the Germans we might have had at least 4 separate wars going on at once.

War is one of those endeavors where it should be mandatory that all political leaders and military commanders check their egos and personal agendas at the door...but that ain�t ever gonna happen.

Inter service battles within a countries own military are bad enough, but when you toss in a few �allies� that have to be appeased, catered to, and dealt with you really start walking a tight rope.

Esenhower was not a �warrior� (he had never been in combat or commanded troops) he was a politician, and perhaps that what was needed for that job.

Eisenhower was precisely the right man in the right position at the right time. He kept it all together when everyone else was trying to pull it all apart.

The ego thing is a two sided blade. Ego ruined Patton�s career and cowing to the ego of Montgomery brought about Market Garden. But generally speaking, the more egotistical the general, the more competent he is. Ego just goes with the territory and has to be managed. Several times during gulf war v.1.0 Schwarzkopf had to be reigned in, and at one time, Colon Powell just about fired him over his ego. But the man was good, few could argue that.

"Just because you're a megalomaniac doesn't mean you can't do what you say you can."

Caesar, Napolean, Patton, a certain Alaskan logger, my first employer (who was a classic megalomaniac albeit a total crook and highly successful millionaire) etc., etc.

All successful people have an �ego�...but when it becomes the primary focus of your decision making process it can have very bad consequences...especially for the people working for you whose lives may depend on your decisions.

The Imperial Japanese Navy pretty much lost the War before sailing to Hawaii. You all forget that it was the Code breakers, we have a long tradition of reading peoples mail. Knowing what they were going to do or not do at the operational level assured that Japan would not win, same for Germany. It was the Information Battle that the Allies won early on and well the rest is history. They depended on a quick fight, America would leave the pacific and all would be well for the take over of the Asian land mass. Japan did not have the resorces for a long war, and American Blocking Actions in the first six months foiled them, and by June 5 we when from defence to offence. It all turned on a dime because of some good math guys in a room in the basment of the Department of the Navy.

one factor in the TAFFY 3 battle not mentioned was the JAPS had heard the clear radio meassage sent without code by taffy 3 to the main fleet for help and fully expected (INCORRECTLY) to be engaged with the full force of the fast battleships and cruisers they THOUGHT were only a hour or so away at best from the carriers they tTHOUGHT those ships were guarding, keep in mind they THOUGHT that th destroyer screen they engauged were only the outer edge of the fleets defensive formation and could clearly read that call for help to the main battle fleet which THEY thought was divided between those chasing the northern DECOY jap CARRIERS and the BATTLESHIPS THEY THOUGHT were guarding the beaches/landings

340mag brings up very good points. As I had said earlier, fighting Naval battles in the 1940�s wasn�t like it is today where we have ways of accurately pin-pointing enemy ships. Back then anything over the horizon was pretty safe from detection, and in most cases both sides were only making educated guesses as to where each others ships actually were.

Unlike their planes and pilots, the Japanese didn�t have the luxury of having �throw-away� ships and they had to protect what they had just like we did.

Yes but...

The fast battleships were supposed to be chasing the decoy fleet, and in fact they were. Up till now things are going (sort of) according to plan. Halsey took the bait, the southern fleet failed to follow thru, running from ships that were not there.
They choked! Good thing too, my Grandfather was ferrying Marines to the beach about then and my dad was yet unborn, heck the Japs coulda killed me two generations ago.

Screw ups and miscalculations are always going to occur in a war. The trick is to minimize yours and capitalize on your enemies. Like they say...no battle plan has ever survived the first round being fired.

I have read that the US Navy under Kimmel wasn't responsible for providing air defense. Hawaiian air defense on 12/07/1941 was the responsibility of the US Army Air Corps under Short. The lack of a unified command allowed the ball to be dropped. I have also read that neither Kimmel, nor Short, had access to the information from the coded Japanese communications that the Navy�s ONI and the Army�s MI were reading. Again, the lack of a central authority for intelligence allowed opportunities to be missed.

I understand that McArthur�s original plan to defend the Philippines was to stockpile several months of supplies on Bataan Peninsula and to be build a defense in depth. Late in the game, McA decided to defend against the Japanese at the landing beaches even though he lacked air power, artillery, armor, and trained soldiers. Also, the USN submarine forces in the Philippines were employed hauling gold and US dollars out of Japan�s reach, rather than shooting torpedoes at the Japanese landing forces. Of course, once the Japanese bombed the Civite Naval Base, there might not have been replacement torpedoes or a means to load them into the submarines, so the effort might not have been worth the risk.

Jeff

Luckily for all of us we learned from our early mistakes and incompetence and sprang back faster than Japan could handle.

Naval aircraft has traditionally been used for defending the Fleet while at sea and providing close air support for Marine landing forces. The vast majority of the Navy planes were sitting on the decks of the carriers that weren�t at Pearl Harbor during the attack.

Now...if they had just listened to Billy Mitchell 20 years earlier things might have been different.

Pearl Harbor was a puric victory for the Japanese, they Sank or damaged 21 ships of the U.S. Navy Pacific Fleet, 18 of them would be refloated, repaired and returnd to service. The Japanese did have Courage and a lot of it, so much so it clouded judgement at the highest levels of their command. Operationally they should have looked for a way out after New Guinea or Coral Sea, and they should have asked what was required after Midway, it would have cost the Japanese a whole lot less. All they would have had to do was to leave China, that was a loosing deal for them anyway. Hind sight as they aways say is 20/20. In the end it really dose not matter things turned out the way the turned out. The pacific war was a tough long fight, just as this current one. I think that there was more of a Will to close with the enemy then. How this current one is going to pan out is anybodys guess.

I�ve often wondered how different the war in the Pacific might have turned out had it been our carriers sitting in Pearl Harbor and being destroyed/damaged and the Battleships had been out of harms way that day?

I think we would have had allot harder time �bouncing� back.

Pure speculation, but in that reversal, I think the Japanese carrier planes would have finished the job by sinking our battleships at Midway, since those would have been all we had to send there.

Or not - could be the fleets never would have found each other, the Japs would have bombed the crap out of Midway virtually unopposed and then landed and taken it.

Either way the Japanese would still have had their carriers to harass and interdict our attempts in the Solomons, etc. etc. Or we would have had to wait until we built new carriers before trying any island landings.

I think we would have won eventually since it was a war of attrition after all, but there would have been lots of ripple effects that would not have been good for us, that's for sure.

What if's are fun, but we should all thank our lucky stars that the Japanese DID miss our carriers at Pearl, and that we fortunately did find their carriers at Midway and by sheer luck on our part and a bad decision on their part, that our dive bombers arrived when their carrier decks were loaded with planes being re-armed.

Lots of places where history swung on one lucky (or unlucky) happenstance.