Western Naval Historical Association
Western Naval Historical Association
  • 46
  • 240 579
"Our Man in Tokyo: An American Ambassador and the Countdown to Pearl Harbor" with Steve Kemper
A behind-the-scenes account of the personalities and contending forces in Tokyo during the volatile decade that led to Pearl Harbor as seen through the eyes of the American ambassador, Joseph Grew. The book draws upon Grew's diaries, correspondence, diplomatic dispatches, and firsthand Japanese accounts.
Steve Kemper has written for many newspapers and national magazines and is the author of four books.
Intro: 00:00:00
Presentation: 00:02:23
Q&A: 00:51:16
Переглядів: 1 280

Відео

"EOD Operations in Desert Shield" with CAPT Tom Bernitt, USN (Ret.)
Переглядів 293Рік тому
00:00:00 - Introduction 00:12:10 - Desert Shield footage 00:31:36 - Questions & Answers
"Conducting Oral History Interviews" with Jeremy Mazur
Переглядів 128Рік тому
00:00:00 - Presentation 00:30:09 - Questions and Answers
"Victory at Sea: Naval Power and the Transformation of Global Order" with Dr. Paul Kennedy
Переглядів 1,1 тис.Рік тому
To learn more about Dr. Paul Kennedy, visit: history.yale.edu/people/paul-kennedy
"Disaster at Point Honda" with Karl Zingheim
Переглядів 1,5 тис.Рік тому
00:00:00 - Presentation 00:41:00 - Questions and Answers
Roundtable on Corbett Anniversary with Drs. David Kohnen, Carlos Rivera, and Geoffrey Till
Переглядів 262Рік тому
00:00:00 - Dr. Carlos Rivera 00:06:30 - Dr. David Kohnen 00:10:42 - Dr. Geoffrey Till
"Evolution of the Modern Attack Submarine" with CAPT Jim Bryant, USN (Ret.)
Переглядів 2,4 тис.Рік тому
00:00:00 - Presentation 00:33:40 - Questions and Answers Learn more about CAPT Jim Bryant here: www.usni.org/people/james-b-bryant
"San Diego's Carrier (USS Langley), Part 2" with Dr. Dave Winkler
Переглядів 464Рік тому
To learn more about Dr. Dave Winkler, visit www.usni.org/people/david-winkler
"Gaming the Philippine Sea Turkey Shoot" with John Burtt
Переглядів 2 тис.Рік тому
00:00:00 - Presentation 00:30:38 - Questions & Answers
"Designing Warships for Stalin" with Stephen McLaughlin
Переглядів 2 тис.Рік тому
00:00:00 - Presentation 00:39:37 - Questions and Answers You can learn more about Stephen McLaughlin here: www.usni.org/people/stephen-mclaughlin
"Naval History and Youtube" with Drachinifel
Переглядів 26 тис.Рік тому
00:00:00 - Presentation 00:29:00 - Questions and Answers You can visit Drachinifel's UA-cam page here: www.youtube.com/@Drachinifel
"How to Write for Naval History Magazine" with Eric Mills
Переглядів 179Рік тому
00:00:00 - Intro 00:07:50 - Questions & Answers You can learn more about Eric Mills here: www.usni.org/people/eric-mills Naval History Magazine: www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine
"Grace Hopper: Admiral of the Cyber Sea" with Kathleen Broome Williams
Переглядів 236Рік тому
You can find more information about Kathleen Broome Williams here: www.usni.org/people/kathleen-williams
"Operational Research Assessment of the Solomons Campaign" with Terry McKearney
Переглядів 961Рік тому
You can find more information about Terry McKearney here: www.usni.org/people/terry-mckearney
"U.S. Naval Transformation: Naval War College Gaming Between the Wars" with Dr. Norman Friedman
Переглядів 1,6 тис.Рік тому
00:00:00 - Introduction/Presentation 00:36:50 - Questions & Answers You can find more information about Dr. Friedman here: www.usni.org/people/norman-friedman
New Naval Technology with Leonard R. Heinz
Переглядів 1,6 тис.Рік тому
New Naval Technology with Leonard R. Heinz
Canada and the Cuban Missile Crisis with Michael Whitby
Переглядів 1,2 тис.2 роки тому
Canada and the Cuban Missile Crisis with Michael Whitby
"George Plante: Artist and Propagandist at War"with Dr. Kathleen Broome Williams
Переглядів 4412 роки тому
"George Plante: Artist and Propagandist at War"with Dr. Kathleen Broome Williams
"German and Italian Plans to Invade Malta, 1942" with John Burtt
Переглядів 2,8 тис.2 роки тому
"German and Italian Plans to Invade Malta, 1942" with John Burtt
"USS Langley (CV1) as San Diego's Aircraft Carrier" with Dr. David Winkler
Переглядів 8862 роки тому
"USS Langley (CV1) as San Diego's Aircraft Carrier" with Dr. David Winkler
"Declassifying the Fate of USS Thresher" with CAPT Jim Bryant, USN (Ret.)
Переглядів 13 тис.2 роки тому
"Declassifying the Fate of USS Thresher" with CAPT Jim Bryant, USN (Ret.)
"WWII Allied Invasions in the Mediterranean" with Brian Walter
Переглядів 1 тис.2 роки тому
"WWII Allied Invasions in the Mediterranean" with Brian Walter
Roundtable on the Washington Naval Treaty with Drs. Kori Schake, Emily Goldman, and Carlos R. Rivera
Переглядів 4882 роки тому
Roundtable on the Washington Naval Treaty with Drs. Kori Schake, Emily Goldman, and Carlos R. Rivera
"Writing Naval and Military Fiction" with CAPT George Galdorisi, USN (Ret.)
Переглядів 4062 роки тому
"Writing Naval and Military Fiction" with CAPT George Galdorisi, USN (Ret.)
"The Adventures of Wild Bill: The Covert Reconnaissance of CAPT Wilfred L. Painter" with Mark Fiorey
Переглядів 3,2 тис.2 роки тому
"The Adventures of Wild Bill: The Covert Reconnaissance of CAPT Wilfred L. Painter" with Mark Fiorey
Making Your Own Maps for Historical Publications with Vince O'Hara
Переглядів 2282 роки тому
Making Your Own Maps for Historical Publications with Vince O'Hara
"Assessing the WWII Decision-Making of Admiral Chester Nimitz" with Trent Hone and Jon Parshall
Переглядів 33 тис.2 роки тому
"Assessing the WWII Decision-Making of Admiral Chester Nimitz" with Trent Hone and Jon Parshall
Opening Remarks and Keynote Address from the Honorable John F. Lehman
Переглядів 3962 роки тому
Opening Remarks and Keynote Address from the Honorable John F. Lehman
Closest Point of Approach: Akiyama Saneyuki and Contact with the US Navy with Dr. Carlos R. Rivera
Переглядів 6552 роки тому
Closest Point of Approach: Akiyama Saneyuki and Contact with the US Navy with Dr. Carlos R. Rivera
Guadalcanal - Give 'em Hell! with Trent Hone
Переглядів 13 тис.2 роки тому
Guadalcanal - Give 'em Hell! with Trent Hone

КОМЕНТАРІ

  • @greathornedowl3644
    @greathornedowl3644 18 годин тому

    Love a good, educational WW2 lecture, and Jonathan Parshall's lectures on the Battle of Midway and others fulfill my needs

  • @stischer47
    @stischer47 15 днів тому

    Nagumo was following IJN doctrine by landing the Midway attack group and THEN attacking the American ships.

  • @jordangouveia1863
    @jordangouveia1863 16 днів тому

    Adm Rickover, how many silver brazed SWJs in the reactor compartment failed the UT tests? Adm R none, I didn't allow sliver brazed SWJs in the reactor compartment.

  • @refuge42
    @refuge42 Місяць тому

    John your mythos quote is well written and quite applicable across most historical events. Curiously now that anyone with a phone and internet access can now say 'I was there' two bits to the storyline. Now you don't have to wait 60 years for records to appear or translations to be scribed, now you can get input and access to a world of knowledge in a matter of minutes. This has revolutionized our understanding of History and created whole new cottage industries of historical revision and storytelling. Of course with all this wonderful information comes an enormous tsunami of ignorance and opinion because people become instant experts with their 20 minutes of reading it online. 🤔😆

  • @philipmiller2618
    @philipmiller2618 Місяць тому

    Did the U. S. Navy knew at the start of the Pacific war that our torpedoes and torpedo planes were as bad as they were? Why did it take until early, say 1943, before they became decent?

  • @user-od5dg7ty5o
    @user-od5dg7ty5o Місяць тому

    Seth, shame on you! The movie Hanks and Spielberg should make of the PTW is the USS ENTERPRISE!!!!!! 20 BATTLE STARS a record that has never been beaten! Plus at the end of1942 she was the sole air craft carrier in the Pacific " USS ENTERPRISE vs JAPAN" Cudos to you and Captain Bill for an OUTSTANDING PROGRAM!!! Sgt. Raymond L. Moffet 25th Infantry Division Vietnam Vet

  • @canuck_gamer3359
    @canuck_gamer3359 Місяць тому

    I remember reading years ago a newspaper article about Fuchida's rendition of events coming into question in Japan. That was years ago but I am almost positive that they were talking about Pearl Harbor but it's interesting that (apparently) the Japanese were the first to discover and doubt his stories. He even claimed to have been on board the Missouri during the surrender ceremony!!! Apparently grandiose self advertising isn't something unique to North America lol.

  • @karldubhe8619
    @karldubhe8619 Місяць тому

    Fuchida, not fuchsia. Oh.

  • @JimB1
    @JimB1 Місяць тому

    Pure drivel. Another 15 minutes wasted.

  • @genie7172
    @genie7172 Місяць тому

    Great video. I have read Fuchida’s account and after this video. Need to get Shattered Sword.

  • @t5ruxlee210
    @t5ruxlee210 Місяць тому

    A few super dominant battleships kept in home waters made sense to Japan and Germeny because their potential oil resources to fight a coming war were mostly remote, scant, and vulnerable. In Japan's/ Germany's case, again, making use of bigger fleets of mission ready, long range attack and reconnaisance submarines by 1938, would have paid huge dividends later.

  • @THOBRI
    @THOBRI Місяць тому

    I am hearing that more and more that we weren't a distinct underdog going into this battle. We may have had a slight numerical advantage in planes. But we had poor equipment a carrier that was limping at best, very little experience and relied more than a little on bravery and pluck. Thank God I am not hearing that from you gentlemen.

  • @coleparker
    @coleparker Місяць тому

    Read Shattered Sword, enjoyed it, but did not find it that earth shattering or significantly different from the other books, such as Fuchida's account or Miracle at Midway or Incredible Victory. One question though about Parshalls question of the crowded decks and Fuchida's account is why such a discrepancy is present. Could it be faulty memory, or a translation problem?

    • @manilajohn0182
      @manilajohn0182 Місяць тому

      The answer to that is Senshi Sosho.

    • @coleparker
      @coleparker Місяць тому

      @@manilajohn0182 Please Clarify.

    • @manilajohn0182
      @manilajohn0182 Місяць тому

      Senshi Sosho- the authors' primary source- is 'not' the official history that the authors claim it to be. The 102- volume series generally represents the view not of Japanese historians, but of Japanese veterans (a number of them worked on the series). A tendency in the series is to avoid that which might smear the officer corps of the Imperial Army or Navy. Regarding Midway for example, much of the responsibility for the defeat at Midway is placed onto the shoulders of a petty officer, while the fact that Japanese fighter exhibited poor aerial discipline and left the air above their carriers wide open to a dive bomber attack is glossed over. The reality is that the Japanese were overconfident and attempted too much with too few aircraft (the squadrons aboard the carriers were operating at from 10- 20% under authorized strength, and the ships carried no reserve aircraft). These are some of the likely reasons why the series was neither commissioned nor endorsed by the Japanese government. Additionally, the authors left out statements from the Executive officer of Soryu and the Air officer of Kaga which directly contradict their claim that all of the Japanese attack aircraft were in their hangars when the dive bomber attack began (the former stated that the ship's strike of 21 aircraft was on the flight deck awaiting the order to launch, while the latter stated that the ship had what amounted to approximately 20 aircraft on her flight deck. They also pass over in silence the short 20- minute time gap between the end of the dive bomber attack at 1030 and the beginning of the launch of Hiryu's retaliatory strike at 1050 on the U.S. carriers- which makes it clear that Hiryu's attack aircraft could not possibly have been in the ship's hangars. Lastly, the authors never provided any evidence that Fuchida was lying. He was actually a prime candidate for PTSD, as his personal memoirs contain a number of errors of no historical significance at all- and Lt. Best corroborated much of Fuchida's statements regarding the U.S. attack on Akagi anyway. A likely reason why some Japanese don't like Fuchida is that he "slept with the enemy". He left Japan, moved to the U.S., and adopted Christianity after the war- so many Japanese likely see him as a turncoat of sorts. The work has a great deal of information regarding the details of Japanese carrier operations which can't be found in any other single volume- but the author's analysis of the battle is greatly flawed. The authors did establish however, that there was no strike 5 minutes away from launch. Genda stated postwar that they were about 15 minutes out- and based on performance of Japanese flight deck crews in early 1942, they were likely half an hour out at least. The aircraft of CarDiv 2 were ready for launch (they had no torpedo rearming issue), Kaga had approximately 20 of her 27- aircraft strike on her flight deck but with few if any spotted, and all of Akagi's strike aircraft were in her hangars. Cheers...

    • @coleparker
      @coleparker Місяць тому

      @@manilajohn0182 Interesting points. Thanks for the info. Over confidence or Victory Disease, was one of the final conclusions the IJN General Staffs conclusions why the defeat at the battle occurred. Also, as Fuchida mentions, many of the Pilots were suffering from Combat exhaustion, which would be understandable considering they had been through extensive operations in the Indian Ocean and South East Asia region, which I also believe led to the lack of CAP discipline by the pilots. As for the below authorized strength levels of the Carrier squadrons, that is new to me, thanks for that. I suspect that was the case both because of extensive operational history, I mentioned in the previous paragraph, and the IJN's policy with regards to keeping squadrons and pilots assigned to the same carrier, and the slow replacement of both planes and pilots to those squadrons. As for the rest of your comment, I agree with your assessment of the book.

    • @manilajohn0182
      @manilajohn0182 Місяць тому

      @@coleparker You're welcome. The difference in individual squadron strengths between Pearl Harbor and Midway was small in number, but the percentage is accurate. No reserve aircraft for the squadrons was significant however, because of the different procedure for repairing damaged aircraft in the Imperial Navy.

  • @craigslinkman1348
    @craigslinkman1348 2 місяці тому

    Nice to see a fellow student forum the operations department at the University of Minnesota Carlson School of Management at the university of Minnesota

  • @coleparker
    @coleparker 2 місяці тому

    This guy is amazing in his conclusions. First of all the Coral Sea battles was in fact the first actual Carrier vs Carrier battle, and thus there was a series of learning lessons for both sides. Also if his thesis is that Carrier dominance is a myth, why did the invasion force turn back, even though the Japanese had scored the tactical victory? Also, a similar argument could be made for the Midway campaign. Even though the IJN had lost four fleet Carriers, Yamamoto could have reorganized an ad hoc Carrier protection force with the two Aleutian Campaign Carriers, his light carriers in the Main fleet, in support of his massive battle fleet centered on the Yamato and achieved his objective; why didn't he. As far as the Battle of the Philippine Seas is concerned; it appears Ozawa never really intended to have a surface fleet action, but rather was relying on his remaining Navy Air Force with the Support of Land Based planes.

    • @f430ferrari5
      @f430ferrari5 2 місяці тому

      His definition of carrier “dominance” is that those carriers are used as “offensive” weapons. Lead strike approach. What you are describing with the two mid size Aleutian carriers is a “support” role. You even label it Carrier Protection Force. And again why are you taking a close minded presentation with your suggestions. Ryujo and Junyo and the light carriers Zuiho and Hosho were not exactly carrying the proper planes as a “protection” force. It’s clearly obvious you saw my other reply to you but for whatever reason this channel chose to hide it. Now you better understand what the US Naval War College stated. While they are only disclosing the better usage of surface ships from the get go others have to simply understand in how the IJN could have devised a much better battle plan for Midway. Had the surface ships been put up front in various task forces and then had the carriers initially as a “protection” force then the IJN would have changed the plane mixture and this would have allowed more planes overall per carrier. I’ll continue further in a separate comment to better explain.

    • @f430ferrari5
      @f430ferrari5 2 місяці тому

      Before continuing, did you watch the vid from Brighten Enlightenment. Do you think Parshall himself has watched it. I find it amazing that the vid has been out there for nearly 15 years and it doesn’t have much views but yet it’s a declassified film from the US Naval War College. So now back to the details related to the IJN carriers. Fighter planes are smaller and lighter than bomber planes. Less bombers means less bombs to carry also. Instead of 2/3 bombers just flip it where its 2/3 fighters for all 4 main carriers or perhaps just 2. There are endless combinations. Example: Akagi and Kaga could have been kept 2/3 bombers. Hiryu and Soryu switched to 2/3 fighter planes and Zuiho and Hosho done as the same. Or another option was to keep the 4 main carriers as 2/3 bombers but decide to bring Zuikaku and load her with all fighter planes or 2/3. The IJN could have still attacked the Aleutians but waited until after they took Midway and finished off the US Task Force. The bottom line is that the IJN had 9 carriers available along with 11 battleships, 22 cruisers and 64 destroyers. It don’t really matter what the US had because whatever it was it would be a lot smaller than what the IJN had. Everybody knew it. One war/battle strategy is look big but in reality small or look small but in reality big. The latter was the ticket for the IJN at Midway. Out of all the IJN vessels, one force which could have been assembled is an IJN “Expedition” Force. Their mission is to locate the enemy vessels which should be close by to Midway. This force is necessary to engage in vessel vs vessel combat. It has to be a fast “mobile” force with carrier support/CAP but it also has to have some “range/distance”. So instead of the Kido Butai which is Mobile Force consisting of 4 main carriers, it only has two which are Junyo and Ryujo. That’s around 90 planes. One fast Kongo class battleship plus 6 cruisers and 10 destroyers with subs up front. A separate carrier support trail force can be provided 100 miles back. Akagi and Kaga. The “Main” Force can be the Midway Atoll attack force. There is a night and day force. The night force approaches Midway at night. The remaining 3 Kongo class fast battleships along with Battleship Yamato shell Midway at night. The other 6 battleships are used in reserve when no threat of CAP exists. Carriers Zuikaku, Hiryu, Soryu, Zuiho, and Hosho provide CAP for the surface ships. So explain what the US carrier planes do. All they know is that they spotted the alt “Main” Force one day earlier. They didn’t expect the attack to open at night. Even when the US carrier planes launch the first body of vessels they would spot is the lead expedition force which has Carriers Junyo and Ryujo. It’s the US torpedo planes also. They would no doubt go after the expedition force. But waves of IJN fighter planes come in from Akagi and Kaga. She’s armed 2/3 fighter planes. Now the IJN knows the US carriers are close by. Please note the US Midway planes were taken out by the battleships shelling. So as more US carrier planes launch where would they go. They know about the expedition force and know Midway is being shelled by battleships. The US doesn’t know where the IJN main carriers are other than they must be further west behind what they know/seen. Battle of Cora Sea should have taught the IJN a valuable lesson. US anti aircraft fire is good. It was even described as such by the IJN pilots and thus the new strategy should have been where fast surface ships chase down “wounded” US carriers. Bombers from Ryujo and Junyo would have been the first wave. Next would have been the much larger 2nd wave from Akagi and Kaga. All 3 US carriers would have been founded and hit. All would have slowed to 20 knots at best. The IJN destroyers and cruisers could do 35-36 knots. Even the Kongo class battleships could do 30 knots. The IJN planes would have bombed the US carriers and pushed them west on a collision course with the IJN vessels. The IJN long lance torpedos probably would have finished off the US Task Force.

    • @coleparker
      @coleparker 2 місяці тому

      @@f430ferrari5 The Aleutian Carriers were in the Offensive Roles as would have been the Zuiho. The downside of the three carriers would have been slow speed for the Ryujo and Junyo and limited Airplane capacity for all three. That is why I put them in the support role for a theoretical second strike. In fact, Yamamoto did recall the two Aleutian Carriers to protect the fleet. As for Hosho, its primary mission was anti submarine protection. But lets take a second point. Nagumo was in a tough decision making situation, especially since he was not a Carrier man per se. As you know, his group was tasked with both reducing Midway's Air Force and other defenses, with the idea of destroying the US Navy when it came out. This forced Nagumo to divide his operational air fleet, so that he could achieve the two objectives in one day if it should happen. Now both know that intelligence failure, and indecision at a critical moment cost the Japanese Navy the victory. My contention is that since Yamamoto's primary objective was to destroy the American fleet, he should have stress that to Nagumo who could have acted accordingly. Second, Yamamoto could have included the three Carriers I mentioned to attack the Midway defenses, while leaving the 4 fleet Carriers free to roam and seek out the USN Carriers.

    • @f430ferrari5
      @f430ferrari5 2 місяці тому

      @@coleparker you continually demonstrate you can’t think outside of the box. You conveniently do so because in your biased mindset you can’t accept the IJN winning at Midway. This is despite the massive vessel advantage the IJN had over the US at Midway. And you’re wrong about primary objective because the American fleet may not show up. The “goal” was to destroy the American Fleet but the only known objective since Midway Atoll can’t move is capture it or at least attempt to do so and see if this lures in the American fleet. That is why I present to you the alt scenario “Expedition” Force. It’s small enough in size to lure the American fleet into battle. I am not sure why you repeat what I already know and have been trying to tell others. This is why the IJN battle plan for Midway was flawed. Yamamoto blew it not Nagumo. Had the Main Force which included battleships taken out Midway then the IJN Carrier Force could still serve two roles but one is supporting which is CAP. The other of course is aerial bombing the US carriers to at least slow them down until the IJN fast vessels can catch up. Think of the positioning. The Expedition Force would have been 100 miles non top of Midway and heading east. Point Luck was 300 miles NE of Midway and the US Task Force was well north west of Pearl Harbor. And no I don’t agree that any carrier planes are dedicated to initial bombing of Midway. That’s what the surface ships are for. The IJN carriers are needed for CAP. The US carrier pilots are now in the dilemma as to whom to go after. Battleships or “look” for carriers. The IJN fighter pilots are to take out as many US planes as possible. Just look at it this way: 1. Akagi 91 66+25 spare 2. Kaga 90 72+18 spare 3. Hiryu 73 4. Soryu 72 5. Zuikaku 84 6. Junyo 45 7. Ryujo 45 8. Zuiho 30 9. Hosho 15 In order or “maximize” the capacity more fighter planes were necessary. That’s why the 2/3 fighter plane mixture overall was necessary. Safe distance was also necessary so the planes could launch and provide CAP. Do the math. That’s 545 planes. 2/3 fighters equals 360 fighter planes. Hosho could only carry up to 15 A5M’s but they were good enough to shoot down 3 SBD dive bombers in Feb 1942 in the Marshall Island battle. The main purpose of the battleship shelling on Midway is to ensure no US planes can take off or land on it. Neutralizing it or softening it up for troop invasion is just gravy at this point of the battle. Your flawed approach is that you’re risking 4 fleet carriers to roam and seek out US carriers. That didn’t need to happen and you’re risking the 4 IJN carriers to attack which is exactly what happened. The alt plan only has Junyo and Ryujo at risk. The IJN bomber planes would eventually catch up to Task Force 16 and 17 no matter where they are positioned. Most understand that the US very well could have lost at Midway had the IJN utilized the right battle plan. Remember. What is next if that occurred. There are no battles down south. The IJN has captured Midway and they may have used their carrier bomber planes to hit certain isolated spots but continuous shelling would have take place day and night to ensure easier take over of the Atoll. Please note that any invasion/occupation force would have been further west at a safe distance until victory was ensured. So timing wise this works out. They key now is “patrolling” Midway and with what. The IJN had around 30 oil tankers of which around at least 16 were Kawasaki Fleet oilers which meant they had decent speed and could refuel vessels at sea. The IJN already had Truk and Wake Island. The IJN already had a supply line running and with the IJN now having Midway it was impossible for any US subs to travel down south. So the Battle of Hawaii is now looming. Remember that Shokaku was repaired by July 1942. Carrier Hiyo was completed also. 53 planes. So now the IJN has 11 carriers plus 3 escort carriers to move planes on to Midway. Medium range bombers. Battleship Musashi was completed in August 1942. So why would the IJN change any strategy at this point. Just lead with the surface ships with subs out front. Carriers again behind. Are you going to claim Hawaii can be defended. If yes then explain in detail how. Which vessels. The US doesn’t have much left in 1942. This is why the war lasted until 1945. Yes the US was furiously trying to build vessels but only destroyers were being pumped out and those were dedicated to the Atlantic to deal with the German U-boats. We should all just be happy that the IJN blew it at Midway. There is a reason why it’s called the Miracle at Midway.

    • @coleparker
      @coleparker 2 місяці тому

      @@f430ferrari5 And I am totally amazed how you have misinterpreted my comment. I am saying that IJN could have won the battle of Midway even with the sinking of 4 carriers. My Comment was also pointing out the flaws in the initial strategy and tactics by Yamamoto and Nagumo, which could have been negated by some of the proposed actions that I mentioned. As for your other points, about the Defense of Hawaii and a theoretical attack on it by the IJN. The big flaw in their Capture of Midway, would have been to support the Island Garrison, which even the Japanese general Naval staff, was doubtful it could do, Given the islands Proximity to Bombers from Hawaii as well as submarine Attacks etc, and the arrival of sections of the Atlantic Fleet, and battleships still on the West coast. Also do not forget that the USN and USAAF had been training pilots since 1940. As for the War lasting Until 1945, that was primarily due to the Germany first Policy, which prioritized material being sent to North Africa and Europe.

  • @coleparker
    @coleparker 2 місяці тому

    Interesting discussion. FitzSimonds is correct when he points out he is not Naval historian. He ignores the early battles in the German Norway campaign where the Luftwaffe basically drove back the Royal Navy Battleship dominated fleet even after the latter had decimated the Kriegsmarine and Mediterranean Seas where the Luftwaffe, and Italian Airforce were pushing back the relief efforts to reinforce Malta. Also, even after Midway and Coral seas, it was shown in the Guadacanal actions that no fleet without aircraft either land based or Carrier based could operate during daylight hours.

  • @doverbeachcomber
    @doverbeachcomber 2 місяці тому

    Just a note on presentation technique. It was 35 years ago that I first heard the warning to presenters not to cram large amounts of text onto one slide. For one thing, doing so necessarily makes the letters so small and the lines so long that the words are very hard to read. It also distracts the audience from the verbal remarks - the heart of any presentation - since the audience can now simply read the content right off the screen instead of listening. Yet even after so many years, here we are, with an expert with plenty of value to communicate, impairing his impact on his audience by making this same rookie mistake.

  • @pakers2128
    @pakers2128 2 місяці тому

    Actually IMHO Nimitz only had two carriers that participated. Hornet contributed nothing- AM battle nothing. destruction of Hiryu took off too late to participate. Never heard it said but the only effective weapon the carrier possessed was the dive bombers, which I assume Nimitz had great confidence.

  • @tonydevos
    @tonydevos 2 місяці тому

    John parshall, you are what the japanese call a tensai

  • @zenden6564
    @zenden6564 2 місяці тому

    I thought Fujida was recovering the sick bay from an appendix operation, during that famous attack? Or is that mixed up?

    • @tonydevos
      @tonydevos 2 місяці тому

      According to his account, he climbed out of sick bay because he didn't want to be cooped up

  • @audioworkshop1
    @audioworkshop1 2 місяці тому

    Just listened to this on another site... Incredible job guys this is one I'll be adding to my library!

  • @anthonylathrop7251
    @anthonylathrop7251 3 місяці тому

    This also reminds me of the "flashbulb memories" phenomenon - the high detail vivid memories of big events. I have memories of the patients I was seeing on the morning of 9-11, their conditions, details about their personal lives. But research has proven that these memories are actually extremely unreliable. Every time we access these memories we unconsciously alter them. Realizing this perfect opportunity, memory researchers recruited people to write down their 9-11 memories in the first week, then a year later, 5 years later, etc. People would look at their own account in their own handwriting and insist they were forgeries, or that somehow they'd been mistaken in the week of 9-11 and only now 10 years later finally got the details right. It's possible that Fuchida really believed the account in his book. If you're interested in this kind of thing, check out Malcolm Gladwell's podcast "Free Brian Johnson." Johnson was a newscaster whose reputation was ruined by what looked like lying, but was probably a classic flashbulb memory effect. Every time someone brings this up, people will share their own flashbulb memories that they are 100% certain could not possibly be subject to this effect

  • @anthonylathrop7251
    @anthonylathrop7251 3 місяці тому

    It sounds totally counterintuitive, but I wonder if it's possible Fuchida really didn't know much about the fine details of flight deck operations. In my line of work I write orders for medications every day. I know what the meds do, when they're indicated and when they're contraindicated, and what the dosage and frequency should be. But if you ask me whether it's a big pill that's hard to swallow or whether it tastes bad, I will probably have to ask the nurses who actually give the meds. There are certainly a lot of other things Fuchida would know in exacting detail. But unless he was the air group commander or a mechanic or the IJN equivalent of an Airedale, he there could be a lot of flight deck operations he's only distantly familiar with.

    • @manilajohn0182
      @manilajohn0182 3 місяці тому

      Fuchida wasn't lying, and a careful reading of their work will reveal that the authors never presented any evidence that he actually was. As his personal memoirs contain a number of errors of no historical consequence whatsoever, a solid case can be made that Fuchida was suffering from PTSD (a.k.a. shell shock or battle fatigue) and conflated the launch of two CAP sections with the launch of the strike which he knew was being prepared). His statement regarding the attack on Akagi is in fact partially accurate. He correctly recorded the (unusual) number of aircraft (3) which attacked Akagi, the number of hits which the Japanese recorded, and the fact that A6Ms were launching from the ship (one of which was seen by Lt. Best through his bombsight). It's worth pointing out that Senshi Sosho (the author's primary source) is 'not' the official history which they claim it to be (it predominantly represents the viewpoint of Japanese veterans, and not historians), and that "Japanese sources" do not universally support the authors' contention that all of the Japanese attack aircraft were in their hangars when the dive bomber attack began. In fact the senior surviving officers of both Kaga and Soryu (whose jobs involved actually knowing the status of the ship's aircraft) both directly contradict this. They state that Kaga had approximately 20 aircraft on the flight deck in the process of being spotted and that Soryu's strike was awaiting the order to launch. Lastly, the short time gap of 20 minutes between the end of the dive- bombing attack and the launch of Hiryu's retaliatory strike shows clearly enough that Hiryu's strike was likewise on her flight deck awaiting the order to launch.

  • @sailordude2094
    @sailordude2094 3 місяці тому

    Well, this certainly conflicts with the 1970s Midway film, I need to watch the newer version now and see how its portrayed with strike planes on or not on the flight deck.

    • @coleparker
      @coleparker Місяць тому

      I have seen both; the 1970s one when it first came out (that is how old I am). Just take these into account when you see the earlier one; first there was no CGI back then, so much of the film relied on stock footage from earlier movies and thus there are a lot of plane inaccuracies. Second, as Charlton Heston states; a number of the actual participants were still alive when they made the movie, so they had to be careful in how they portray them, and last they had to make a fictional backstory to keep the movie entertaining.

  • @davidtrindle6473
    @davidtrindle6473 4 місяці тому

    I wonder if Fuchida made up this whole fiction, or whether it was a joint effort led by the politicians in Tokyo to push an interpretation of “bad luck“ regarding Midway rather than “ Bad performance?”

  • @StephenMortimer
    @StephenMortimer 4 місяці тому

    READ IT FOUR TIMES

  • @thomasbernecky2078
    @thomasbernecky2078 4 місяці тому

    I could only stand the first ten minutes of Trent Hones' org chart before I wanted to stab both my eyes out, TFG for Jon Parshall's same comfy presentation he's been making lo' these last decades. Trent, sorry but no longer following you on Audible. You would have to pay me double what Big Pharma did to make me stay awake for any more mind-numbing presentations like that? Sport. Jon, when is 1942 out? 2042? You could put Pat Rothfuss,, part-time writer to shame?

    • @thomasbernecky2078
      @thomasbernecky2078 4 місяці тому

      Yup, I've been drinking two Guinness, the adult chocolate milkshake. I'm now switching to Car Bombs. Jon please explain to Trent why adults sometimes need to drink?

  • @Laotzu819
    @Laotzu819 4 місяці тому

    John you hurt Randys feelings. He was talking about his torpedoes and you called it a rabbitt hole.

  • @gruntforever7437
    @gruntforever7437 4 місяці тому

    we were very lucky Nimitz was running the pacific. His gamble on Midway was the key decision of the entire pacific war

  • @CD-ek3iq
    @CD-ek3iq 4 місяці тому

    Why does Drach look like he’s giving a briefing on making a Death Star trench run?

  • @tarjei99
    @tarjei99 5 місяців тому

    I suppose you already know that AI will help with translation of most languages.

  • @wiredspeaker5658
    @wiredspeaker5658 5 місяців тому

    I agree, the huge amounts of information from the japanese records will eventually be mined by new translation code. $18 per page aint gonna do it.

  • @nathanelmore5435
    @nathanelmore5435 5 місяців тому

    What did the American pilots say about the presence of planes on the deck? Wouldn’t this be a highly reliable source? More so than the logs?

    • @manilajohn0182
      @manilajohn0182 5 місяців тому

      Those pilots and gunners whose bombs registered hits on Kaga and Soryu reported many aircraft on the carrier's flight deck. Lt. Best recorded 6- 7 Zeros in the act of launching from Akagi when he attacked. This squares with the USSBS statement of Kaga's and Soryu's senior surviving officers (Air officer Lt. Cmdr. Takahisa Amagai and Cmdr. Hisaishi Ohara respectively), who stated that Soryu's strike of 18 Vals and 3 Zeros was on her flight deck awaiting the order to launch when the ship was attacked, and that Kaga had about 30 aircraft in her hangars, six fighters in the air, and the rest (about 20 aircraft) on her flight deck. Cmdr. Fuchida aboard Akagi reported that Zeros were in the act of launching from Akagi just as Best's section attacked the ship (although it's clear that Fuchida conflated the launch of these fighters with the beginning of the launch of the strike which he knew was being prepared). While Fuchida clearly suffered from some form of PTSD (as evidenced by the multiple errors in his memoirs over issues of no historical significance at all), he did state the correct number of aircraft which attacked the ship, as well as the correct number of hits which the Japanese recorded. The last landing time of aircraft on these carriers (0950 on Soryu,1005 on Kaga, and 1010 on Akagi) supports the statements of the three Japanese officers, although few of Kaga's aircraft were likely spotted.

  • @ethanmckinney203
    @ethanmckinney203 5 місяців тому

    The safety culture we have today simply didn't exist at the time. The Navy wouldn't expect to make changes to procedures over something like this because the regulations simply weren't that detailed (for a wide range of topics). The expectation was that captains, commodores, and admirals would have their own ways of doing things, not that procedures would be standardized across the Navy. Given the relatively primitive instruments and wide range of skill levels, experts were *obviously* able to do things that below-average officers couldn't. The development of a rigorous safety culture in SAC (in response to the loss ratenof the B-47 and the realization that bombers crashing with hydrogen bombs in their bellies probably wouldn't be good) is arguably the turning point for modern industrial societies.

  • @cheesenoodles8316
    @cheesenoodles8316 5 місяців тому

    Great video. Lived with my brother, he took 3 yrs Japanese because he had Japanese business associates. His homework made my brain hurt. PS: the Kodo's were amazing to see the image.

  • @panzerdeal8727
    @panzerdeal8727 6 місяців тому

    NOW I want a copy..lol

  • @panzerdeal8727
    @panzerdeal8727 6 місяців тому

    3 carrier groups and a battle group. Park all the CVLs in 1 Carrier group and park it off the beaches, covering the invasion force with fighters and Avengers [ASP] , cve's can direct support the landings. All CV [ fleet carriers, ] can go hunting...

  • @panzerdeal8727
    @panzerdeal8727 6 місяців тому

    OHHHH. part 2..The 7 th. fleet expansion pack...WHAT IF...Tf 58, was distracted / Evaded and Ozawa got through to the CVE's...Kinkaid's day.

  • @panzerdeal8727
    @panzerdeal8727 6 місяців тому

    Has he included the Independance class CVL's ?

  • @jerrewilliams5555
    @jerrewilliams5555 6 місяців тому

    The history of the Pacific War is basically naval history. The European war was army and the focus was essencially Europe First in the same focus as the policital focus. I started as an adult with Morrison's books, (even then it took a lot of imagination and toleration) and ended with my mind in the Pacific. Thank you for your updates and service to History.

  • @juanfervalencia
    @juanfervalencia 6 місяців тому

    I'm reading Shattered Sword, please do the same, it is fantastic.

  • @johnharper1778
    @johnharper1778 6 місяців тому

    Very interesting talk. I bought Steve's book as well, lots of good insights into wartime Japan - much more nuanced than it appears from the outside.

  • @Revolver1701
    @Revolver1701 6 місяців тому

    Shattered Sword is a great book.

  • @roberthansen9694
    @roberthansen9694 6 місяців тому

    I read VADM Lockwood's book on the disaster along with the accounts in Naval History. An interesting factoid is that the fictional ship in the Novel "The Caine Mutiny" was a converted Clemson Class Destroyer. Most (if not all) of the remaining ships of the Class were converted into Destroyer Minesweepers and the author based his descriptions on his service aboard one.

  • @Conn30Mtenor
    @Conn30Mtenor 6 місяців тому

    Amphibious landings were a guarantee in the Pacific campaign. They had to start somewhere and there were lessons that needed to be learned.

  • @NormanBraslow-nh2tz
    @NormanBraslow-nh2tz 6 місяців тому

    It appears that these folks are not reading the Japanese for themselves. A real scholar cannot, repeat cannot, depend on any translators. The translating programs don't do much better than producing what those of us who do deal with Japanese studies at an academic level, call "Japlish". They are doing their best, but there was a reason I spent the last 40 years studying Japanese. The older"classic" Japanese is difficult, but for real academic work, it must be done. And I did so.

  • @v.mwilliams1101
    @v.mwilliams1101 7 місяців тому

    I've read about this disaster however, as never being to the location, the slides really help to visualize . Thank you.

  • @ActressBiographyAndMeasurement
    @ActressBiographyAndMeasurement 7 місяців тому

    Today only one USN battleship remains, that fought another enemy battleship, the Massachusetts. The ship should get more credit by historians, since she was one of the few tot fulfill the role she was designed for

  • @BeKindToBirds
    @BeKindToBirds 7 місяців тому

    You prove that carriers ARE the sea control they proclaim to be. Gunboats are clearly already relegated to shore control in the tineline you covered with the exaples you used. This really should be a presentation on the early effectiveness of carriers with a mention of how shore bombardment vessels became a second role. Submarines and Aircraft carriers have proven they are sea control in the modern age and always will be due to the nature of the air and sea domains. Modern precision missiles and destroyers are both seen as part of the carrier weapon system so that should show you its central role as the elementary nexus of surface power. This really should have been a presentation on the stopping power of early carrier warfare. Your analysis IMMEDIATELY falls off when modern warfare evolves during Vietnam. Falklands war was not about battleships and the idea that a battleship could even leave harbor against a carrier today is laughable.

  • @v.mwilliams1101
    @v.mwilliams1101 7 місяців тому

    Thank you gentlemen, so very interesting. When listening to Mr Hone and Parshall it's 'the rest of the story'. Always providing the nitty gritty details.