Talk:Battle of Midway

An event mentioned in this article is a June 4 selected anniversary

---

(part one of the Japanese plan having been successful just six months earlier at Pearl Harbor)

This is misleading, as it makes Midway seem like part of a one-two punch, along with Pearl Harbor. The reality is, the Japanese failed to destroy the American carrier fleet at Pearl Harbor (and more generally, to neutralize American naval power in the Pacific), and because of this failure they had to come back and try again.

The attack on Midway was part one of a much larger plan. Part two was the invasion and conquest of Hawaii. The Japanese carriers were sailing ahead of troop transports filled with (I believe) 100,000 Japanese troops. They were all expecting to be landing on Hawaii very soon, once the US carriers were out of the way and the islands defenceless. This is all in Walter Lord's masterful book Incredible Victory, but it is surprisingly absent in almost every account of the Battle of Midway you will see (including ours - I'd do something about this but I don't have handy Lord's book or anything equivalent to reference). -- user:TimShell - 10 Aug 2004

Well, no. IJA didn't have the manpower or shipping to take & occupy, let alone supply, Hawaii. It was a persistent fantasy of Yamamoto's. See Hawaii under the Rising Sun, for instance. Trekphiler 14:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy Dispute

Midway was the first purely carrier battle.

I do believe that statement could be applied to either Battle of Taranto (November, 1940) or Battle of the Coral Sea (May, 1942), obviously both of which predate the Battle of Midway. →Raul654 09:40, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

Taranto was a raid on a port from a carrier. This was nothing new. The RNAS carried out raids from carriers as far back as WW1. The first carrier vs carrier battle was indeed the Battle of the Coral Sea, as Raul suggests. This was before Midway. Tannin 10:37, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Mention is made in the article of the possibility of the United States suing for peace in the event of the destruction of the American pacific fleet and the occupation of Hawaii. This is exceedingly unlikely due to a large number of factors. First the American people were incensed by the attacks on Pearl Harbor and wouldnt have acquiesed to capitulation. More importantly the United States had enormously greater military potential than Japan. It could have built a continental land Army in the tens of millions which would have made any invasion by Japan impossible. Even discounting its overwhelming superiority as a land power in North America, the US could have protected its west coast from attack through the use of long range air power until such time as naval forces were constructed in California or elsewhere with which the Japanese Navy could not hope to cope. Any history of WW2 in the pacific should begin and end with the question of why Japan attacked a power many times its size. Japan of the 1930-40s was a mostly agrarian power and, although possessed of reasonably high quality military industries, was simply not capable of engineering a victory over the fairly mature industrial economy of the United States.

Will McElgin 9/14/04

I'm inclined to agree with the anon above - the Japanese *hoped* the US would sue for peace, but realistically, it wasn't going to happen. Yamamato, who had himself had lived and travelled in the US for some years, realized the US would never sue for peace. He realized it on the day of the Pearl Harbor attack, upon being informed that the envoys had been late delivering the war declaration, and that the attack came as a suprise (Hence, his "I fear we have awakened a sleeping Giant, and filled him with a terrible resolve" comment). He knew the national outrage over the attack would never allow the US to sue for peace. →Raul654 07:21, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

I have changed the discussion of Japanese prospects for achieving their strategic objectives in the Pacific back to what it was when I last edited it on 9/14/04. There is certainly some significant controversy about Japanese objectives but there is very little doubt about their prospects for victory. The Japanese attack on the US was a huge strategic blunder (see my comments above) which made a catastrophe for Japan inevitable unless Germany could quickly secure a defeat of both Russia and Britain. To suggest that the US would have sued for peace, given its overwhelming industrial superiority and its immense anger and disdain toward Japan, due to an attack that was by no means crippling of American strategic potential is just a huge distortion. It would have run totally counter to American self conceptions and centuries of behavior of other nations in similar situations. It was the Japanese attack itself that was the anomaly; a weaker power attacking a clearly stronger one is quite rare in history. I wont persist in this effort if people insist upon reinserting this distortion but at least I have tried to correct it twice.

Will McElgin 10/02/04

Let me just say that the IJN wasn't really calling the shots in 1941. *They* knew if things went well, which they were duty-bound to effect, they could only hold off the USN for a year or three, but the army was full of piss and vinegar and knew it could defeat any force (other than the Russians perhaps) that could ship itself into the theatre. And to a large extent that was true. The IJA underestimated the logistical difficulties of empire and got bloodied in the various island fights, but these were largely IJN shows... the IJA's focus was still on China and the newly-won southern resource areas. In 1944 and 1945 the introduction of the B-29 into the theatre and the change of tactics to firebombing Japanese cities changed the rules on the IJA and their plans for home defense became rather inoperative.

Error in "Before the Battle" section.

There is an error in the third paragraph of the section entitled "Before the Battle". In this paragraph, it states that Yamomoto was on board the Yamata in the southern Aleutians. This last bit is clearly in error, because the Yamata and the rest of the main battle group with Yamomoto was located several hundred miles to the west of Midway. This reference to the southern Aleutians should be corrected.

Yamato.--131.238.92.62 09:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Lost and Found

I added a small section discussing Robert D. Ballard's effort to locate the sunken ships from the Battle of Midway.

Difference in fighting orders

I removed this paragraph:

An example of the difference in fighting orders between the American and Japanese navies was evident in that while Admirals Fletcher and Spruance commanded their groups from the carriers, Admiral Yamamoto was safe, impregnable - and impotent - on the heavily armored deck of Yamato, hundreds of miles away in the southern Aleutians. Fletcher and Spruance changed their battle plans on the fly (especially when the loss of Yorktown cost Fletcher his flagship and placed full command of the mission on Spruance, whose flag was in Enterprise), while Yamamoto was locked into his. The fluidity of carrier battle in the Pacific in 1942 favored the Americans and their on-the-scene command style.

This seems rather biased to me. (1) The Japanese were in fact able to change their plans during the battle (preparing to make second strike on Midway, for example). (2) The on-the-scene command style almost led to disaster for the Americans at Leyte Gulf. (3) The Japanese counterpart to Fletcher and Spruance was surely Nagumo (present at the battle), not Yamamoto. Please comment. Gdr 12:21, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)

Shows the hazards of amateur analysis. If there's a historian Foo who says this, then it's a "according to Foo, ..." and we can take it as one of several intrepretations. There are plenty of authorities whose analyses we can (and should) quote, shouldn't be inventing our own. Stan 16:21, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's half right. Yamamoto was out of touch of his lead elements because he didn't dare compromise radio silence. Nimitz could & did keep Fletcher (SOPA) in the pic from HI, as Yamamoto should have been doing. Nagumo's "on the fly" decision was based on bad intel, the product of Yamamoto's incompetent starting dispositions: all the cruiser scout planes were covering his heavies, denying their eyes to Nagumo, who desperately needed them--which is precisely why he got caught with birds on deck. Trekphiler 12:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

POV

Quoted from article: Having scored a decisive victory, American forces retired. The loss of four carriers stopped the expansion of the Japanese Empire in the Pacific, and put Japan on the defensive. It had been six months to the day since the attack on Pearl Harbor. Admiral Yamamoto had predicted to his superiors that Japan would prevail for only six months to a year against the United States, after which American resources would begin to overwhelm the Japanese Navy. He had been exactly correct. This was good.

I'm removing the comment emphasised. This is as non-neutral as it gets. nihil 20:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Impact on War

A new section on Midways's overall impact. Sparten

I just did some copyediting on this interesting new section. I can't claim to be a great expert on this battle, so I have to wonder if perhaps much of this is your own original analysis? If so, then regardless of how insightful it might be, it's contrary to official policy and needs to go. Could you possibly provide a reference? Csernica 05:44, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is not original reserch. This is based on the analysis placed on the Battle by Theodore F Cook Jr, which he wrote for the book "What if". In it he wrote about a Japanese Victory at Midway and its results on the war. He wrote this as an analysis of what a victory would have ment acedemically (not a counter-factual history as written by some authors). These are his conclusions. I have read that book and the particular article a dozen times and can almost quote it from memory. I had misplaced the original, so could not provide a reference, but have since gone and bought a new one. I have added the reference. ISBN 0330487248,plz check this on Amazon, and on the "further reading" section

Sparten

Excellent. Thank you. Csernica 06:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. If that's your source, you need to redefine what you call history. Cowley is a collection of counterfactuals. And Cook's is fantastic, not accurate. I've read it. Trekphiler 15:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Questionable conclusions.

Could they have mounted a successful assault against the Hawaiian Islands? It took them four months to beat a polygot American infantry division in the Phillipenes, without adequate supply.

I edited the final paragraphs, because I don't feel comfortable about the inclusion of long term strategic hypotheticals. They are also factually inaccurate, since the IJA had no plans to invade Hawaii should the Midway operation had succeeded; also, the US Navy had two additional carriers in the Pacific, not one, and another one operating in the Atlantic--the USS Ranger--which would have certainly been transferred to the pacific had the Americans lost catastrophically at Midway.

Please read the book I reffered to. The Japanese did have plans to invade Hawaii, if they won Midway. Yamamoto's aide was the man responsible for planning. In anycase the Americans would have given up Hawaii as a bad job, at least for the time being. USS Ranger was too small. Yamamoto had planned that to win the war, they would have to capture Hawaii and destroy Panama.

Finally

Remember the Part about "No original research?."

I am trying to keep this discussion real, not an exercise in counterfact which ignores the logistical difficulties the Japanese army and Navy suffered under.

I recommend the book "Midway: The Battle That Doomed Japan" by Mitsuo Fuchida & Masatake Okumiya. It is an in-depth discussion of the battle, its plans and objectives by two Japanese naval aviators who were privy to the plans and personalities involved. They mention nothing about a hawaiian invasion.

I also recommend that you look at the US Army order of battle for the hawaiian islands in August, 1942.

Fuchida & Okumiya let Yamamoto off the hook & hang Scout 4, per the Japanese line; I had a history prof parroting it. Not unbiased. See Wilmott (cited in the article & below). Trekphiler 15:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Various Edits

I made a pass through the Battle section, fixing various inaccuracies. This could still use some more editing; I have a lot more respect for historical writers now!

I also edited out the conclusions about Hawaii being abandoned, the Panama canal being closed, the Manhattan project being shelved, and the Pacific campaign being stopped all due to the hypothetical Japanese victory... Sheer idiocy. Japan didn't have the oil or fleet oilers to do much of anything, OK? Japan trying to take and hold Hawaii (with what army???) would have ended the war quicker, given the relative logistics advantages the US enjoyed there.

I used to think it was that simple, too. I've seen extensive debate in a newsgroup suggesting it wasn't. Could IJA have taken HI? In their dreams. Would it have been a bonanza for the U.S. if they had? Probably not. Would the war have been longer? Maybe. (That's "original research" territory.) Trekphiler 15:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I smell plagiarism

From the "orphaned" references and purple prose, and from the way that sections have been placed without regard to existing text, it would seem that much of this article has been lifted from other sources without attribution. I agree with the previous poster that it needs work, which I've done; but more is needed. Others, please lend a hand. This should be just as well done as the Pearl Harbor article.
— J M Rice 06:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

POV.

I removed the line about Yamamoto's attack plan being bold and ingenious. He divided his forces in a failed diversionary attempt, and thus lost the battle. It couldn't have been that ingenious.

Well, theoretically it was ingenious. An ingenious plan can still fail. With luck Yamamoto's might have succeeded. If you happened to agree with this POV, I bet you'd have left it alone. ;-)

Anyway, the kind of editorializing you've flagged again suggests that the article was lifted from another source without attribution. From all the descriptive language, sounds like it came from a popular history. — J M Rice 22:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Theoretically it was ingenious. Factually, it was overcomplicated & stupid. The dispositions were plain wrong, & success didn't depend on luck, it depended (as it often did in IJN planning) on the U.S. doing exactly what was expected. If anything else (such as IJN submarines being late because Yamamoto was in an infernal hurry, & so missing the sorite of U.S. carriers) happened, the plan falls apart. It did. See Wilmott, Barrier & the Javelin. Trekphiler 12:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The division of forces was a violation of one of the basic principles of war, mass.--131.238.92.62 09:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Well when you had already lost superiority what can you do except of being "creative" ? Ericd 20:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hypo

I rewrote the intel section. Jasper's plan didn't call for a message en clair (tho it's often rendered as such) but in a compromised cypher (probably 1 captured at Wake). Trekphiler 12:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

POV?

It seems to me the following needs rewriting:

"Meanwhile, as a result of their participation in the Battle of the Coral Sea, the Japanese aircraft carrier Zuikaku was laid up, at Truk in the Caroline Islands, waiting for an air group to be brought to her to replace her decimated planes, while the lightly damaged Shokaku was awaiting repairs. One has to wonder how the battle would have unfolded if the Japanese had not assumed that the United States would be sending only the Enterprise and Hornet, to meet Soryu, Hiryu, Akagi and Kaga. Also, although Yamamoto had a large superiority in surface ships overall, he did not commit all his forces to the battle. As a result, only the Japanese carrier force engaged the U.S., while several other detachments, including key battleships and cruisers, did not see combat."

It smacks of POV, contains the questionable claim Japan assumed 2 carriers & the implication Yamamoto's surface forces made any difference, while overlooking the flawed dispositions (by now a familiar refrain). "One has to wonder" is an inappropriate tone. And it misses a fundamental fact of inadequate IJN recon of Midway before Nagumo's first wave launched, & the role of Midway's PBYs. Something about navy doctrine should probably be said, too; Yamamoto's plan of attack at Midway was in keeping with that of every major navy at the time (& at odds with his myth as the "brilliant carrier pioneer"), leading with the carriers (scouts), holding his heavies back for the "decisive battle". Only naval war had changed, & it was carriers that were decisive, now.

Also, something should be said to Yorktown; a "virtual wreck" she wasn't, tho often believed to be. In fact, her damage was not so severe as that, tho it was serious; her hull was mainly intact, & they got her flight deck & lifts working, which was what mattered. Trekphiler 13:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I deleted this:

"It had been six months to the day since the attack on Pearl Harbor. Admiral Yamamoto had predicted to his superiors that Japan would prevail for only six months to a year against the United States, after which American resources would begin to overwhelm the Japanese Navy. He had been exactly correct. American industrial output was greater than the combined Japanese and German industrial output. Nonetheless American victory was never inevitable; only probable."

It smacks of POV, & its tone is inappropriate for an encyclopedia.

I also deleted this:

"The true importance of the Battle of Midway can be assessed by examining the counter-factual of assuming the destruction of the US aircraft carrier fleet. The United States would likely have had to devote much greater resources to rebuilding their aircraft carrier fleet, possibly delaying amphibious operations in the Mediterranean and at Normandy. Some feel that technological advances in other areas, such as the Manhattan Project, may also have been impacted by the necessity of reforming naval power in the Pacific, perhaps increasing the length of the war by years or even preventing the unconditional surrender of Japan."

While interesting, it is speculation, which has no place in an encyclopedia. It is nothing like a settled issue, even amongst those who've studied it (& I've seen extensive exchanges in newsgroups on it, not even counting professional historiography). Sounds like the writer's on a soapbox. Trekphiler 14:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Error

I rewrote this:

"full command of the battle—and ultimate credit for its victory—passed from Admiral Fletcher, into the hands of Admiral Spruance."

Fletcher was still senior officer; credit was still his. Afterward, when described as "victor at Midway", Spruance by tradition (& to his eternal credit) denied it, granting the honor to Fletcher. Trekphiler 14:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It needs an intelligent re-write. Spruance won the battle despite Fletcher's lack of coherent effort. Good peace admiral, terrible war admiral.--131.238.92.62 09:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

New Research

There's a new book that's just come out called "Shattered Sword: The Untold Story of the Battle of Midway" that basically says we've got the history of it all wrong: The US did not triumph against overwhelming odds, the Aleutians Operation was not a diversion, the Japanese airplanes were not sitting on deck loaded with fuel and bombs, and Japan's aviators were not wiped out during the battle. Apologies if this sounds like a teaser or like spam, but I got the book for Christmas and it appears to be very-well researched (It focuses more on Japanese carrier doctrine and flight logs than on memoirs to reach its conclusions). I'd put more down but I've got several projects going already, but I thought you all should know. Palm_Dogg 01:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Infobox

The strength field in the infobox should probably list the number of planes deployed by both sides. Fornadan (t) 14:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Shattered Sword

I'm likely to make some corrections to the main page based on Tony Tully and my research for "Shattered Sword: The Untold Story of the Battle of Midway." I'll try not to be too heavy-handed or oaf-like!  ;-) -jon parshall-

• JP, be as heavy-handed as you like. I was going to do the same thing eventually. BTW, am a big fan of your book and website. If you're thinking of doing some serious editing, I'd suggest that you only use Shattered Sword as a reference for the new research and stick to other works like Incredible Victory or The Nagumo Report just for variety in the bibliography. Are you and Tully ever getting out to Washington DC? Palm_Dogg 18:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey Dogg, well I was heavier handed than I intended, but that's how it went. Thanks for the kind comments on the book. I'd like to offer to you, and anyone with questions/comments about the edits I made, to feel free to contact me directly at jonp@combinedfleet.com. As for DC, yeah, that's likely--dunno when, though. Tony and I just spoke last week at the Pritzker Military History Library (www.pritzkermilitarylibrary.org), and you can view the webcast of the talk from their site if you get yourself a login. Just an FYI.

2.15.2006 I updated the air strength information with new figuress from Shattered Sword. It may be too much detail; I dunno. I don't want to do an actual OB here, but I also wanted to be thorough with the aircraft types. I won't be heartbroken if someone decides to condense what I've done.

Speaking of OBs, someone (probably not me) is going to need to retrofit the OB inforamtion in Shattered Sword into the Wikipedia "Midway Order of Battle" page at some point. We made *many* corrections to the Japanese OB for the book that supersede the older OBs found in books like Fuchida's or Prange's. But I just don't have the gumption to tackle that at the moment--typesetting the OB in "Shattered Sword" was the nearest thing to the Chinese water torture that I've ever had to endure.

• There's an image in your book of the Hiryu launching Kobayashi's strike during the battle, which I believe you claim is the only picture of Japanese carriers launching aircraft during the battle. If it's not copyrighted, would you mind uploading it? Palm_Dogg 21:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It is copyright, and I had to give up a couple of body parts to get ahold of it, unfortunately. I don't want to burn bridges in Japan, as it was very difficult (as in, multiple bottles of Maalox, and not a few stiff shots of gin)(not to mention probably the need for therapy) to get photo perms outta Japan. So as much as I'd like to, I'm gonna pass. It is a cool picture, though. Cheers, JP

Paragraph needs to be re-done

Meanwhile, as a result of their participation in the Battle of the Coral Sea, the Japanese aircraft carrier Zuikaku was in port in Kure (near Hiroshima), waiting for an air group to be brought to her to replace her destroyed planes, while the heavily damaged Shokaku wagroup, the Japanese made no serious attempt to get her into the forthcoming battle

Aviator Losses

2.24.2006 I have reverted to an earlier version of my description of the aviator losses. The notion that Midway's aviator losses somehow represented a "year's worth" of "pilots" for the Japanese is utterly fallacious. Now, it *is* true that pre-war Japanese pilot training programs had only cranked out a few hundred *pilots* (as distinct from "aviators", which are pilots, navigator/observer, and any other aircrew), but even by the time of Midway that picture was changing radically. The Japanese had already instituted the "ko" and "otsu" supplemental training classes for high school students, and were gearing up their mainline programs as well. Remember, Japan lost *50,000* aircraft during the course of the war, the majority of which were manned at the time of their loss. Granted, the late-war pilots weren't very good, but the point is that the Japanese were eventually able to address their pilot production issues, and actually cranked out a lot of pilots (not to mention aviators in general). That process was already underway by the time of Midway. Thus, applying a pre-war statistic for *pilot* losses to the *aviator* losses at Midway is misleading in two different dimensions, and must be corrected.

-jon parshall-

• JP. Going to spare you some future agony and grief. People will keep reverting to the "popular" history of Midway unless you give them a reason not to. I would suggest checking out the Featured article Polish September Campaign; near the bottom they have a section called "Myths" where they talk about similar misconceptions that most people regard as facts. Have to apologize, since I was going to add your Shattered Sword "Myths of Midway" to the page, but have been detained on other articles. Palm_Dogg 21:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

2.25.2006 Oh, I knew that going in, of course.  ;-) You can't change the mythology of a battle this important overnight. But I'm in a unique position. Since I've literally re-written the book on this particular battle, I figure I ought to be able to argue my points fairly effectively. But I know, too, that people don't necessarily read the Discussion before they go edit. They just edit, and a lot of them are going to edit on the basis of the conventional wisdom, because that's all they've read (so far). So I knew that the nature of the medium meant that this would be a slow, iterative process. That's cool. I'm good with it.

-jon parshall-

3.10.2006 I added the passage in question. High school students may have made good losses in terms of numbers (look at the Battle of the Philipine Sea; no shortage of Japanese aircraft) but they could never make up for the loss of quality. The pre-war IJN chose a strategy of quality over quantity: a small pool of exceptional pilots and air crew. The loss of so many in one day was a much greater blow than you are prepared to give credit for. Pilots and aircrew who had taken a full year to train, were seasoned combat veterans and represented the elite of the navy, were gone. As you point out, in the battles for Guadalcanal, the remaining pool of pre-war pilots were ground down in a war of attrition. Your book makes the point that the Japanese training programs, although able to produce sufficient quanitity, were never able to produce good quality. That was my point, and I believe it still holds true. I've rewritten and reinserted that paragraph and trust that it has been made more clear.

-Michael Lyle-

3.15.2006 Nice rewrite, Michael; I do think that's clearer. Thanks very much for putting up with my nitpickiness.

-jon parshall-

Vandalized Text

The Plan

"As was typical of many Japanese naval plans during the Second World War, Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto's Yamamoto was later released from the Japenese Army for beingcaught in the middle of the night performing inappropriate acts on a sleeping man battle plan was complicated and intricate."

Just thought you'd want to know.64.121.192.62 22:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Nomination for Featured Article

All the work that's been done on this article in the last few months appears, IMO, to have it worthy of nomination as a featured article (FA). However, one issue that I think would inhibit its acceptance as an FA is the lack of citations in the body of the text. Although numerous quality references are listed at the end of the entry, they aren't cited or specifically referenced throughout the article. If someone who has worked heavily on the article would be willing to go through and add the specific references, I would then hope that the article would be nominated and accepted for FA status. Cla68 12:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

+++

If I have the cycles, I will do that. Certainly, citation shouldn't be a problem--Shattered Sword had 1,318 endnotes (but who's counting?) and I should be able to bring appropriate citation to bear. I just didn't really know how far people wanted to go on that--too many endnotes may be seen as tedious.

-jon parshall-

I'm definitely no expert on getting FA status for an article, but, from what I've seen, most easily arguable assertions should be backed-up with some kind of reference or citation. Of course, defining what an "easily arguable assertion" is very subjective in and of itself. However, I think if there are a moderate number of citations in the text, especially in the sections that contain more analysis, I think it will pass the FA review. I think FA status is a deserved recognition for all the work that you all have put into this excellent article. Cla68 19:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, examples of articles with the kind of in-line citations that would help this article pass "featured article" review are: Operation Ten-Go and Naval Battle of Guadalcanal. Cla68 17:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

+++

All right, I added some citation (May 25, 2006). There's too much of Shattered Sword, and not enough of prior sources. But then again, dang it all, when it comes to the Japanese side of things, and some of the more recent research on the battle, our book is pretty much it. I could go back and fill some more in (frankly, you could do it simply by reading through the citations we give (all 1,318 of 'em), to trace back to the original primary sources, but that would take a while. And I have my daughter's room to sheetrock.  ;-)

Cheers,

-jon parshall-

P.S. Added some more on May 26, and fleshed it out a bit.

I think it looks great. I just now rearranged the references section somewhat and put the "notes" section at the bottom of the article, but I didn't delete or add any content. If you're ready, I think we can go ahead and nominate it now for FA. Cla68 03:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Fleming's Apocryphal Crash

I changed the main article to explicitly note that Capt. Richard Fleming, although the recipient of the Medal of Honor, did not in fact hit Mikuma, either with his bomb or his aircraft. That's a common myth of the battle, although interestingly contemporary Marine Corps reports make it clear that Fleming went down off Mikuma's fantail by a good distance. However, the famous photos of Mikuma taken near her sinking seem to show some sort of wreckage on the top of Turret #4, and this has commonly been described as wreckage from Fleming's plane--I remember seeing that very citation in one of the American Heritage books as a child in the early 1970s. However, this wreckage is, in fact, the remains of Mikuma's mainmast and aft superstructure, as well as torn up lagging sheeting on the roof of the turret. Finally, of course, the Japanese records make absolutely no mention of having been struck by an American aircraft, and all things being equal they must of course be given greater weight of consideration over American aviator accounts--it was, after all, *their* ship, and the conditions of Mikuma's damage are *very* well documented by the Japanese.

-jon parshall-

'Biggest Battle' Not

I reverted a recent change edit that called Midway the largest naval battle of World War II, because that honor belongs to the Battle of Leyte gulf.

-jon parshall-

Ford's movie

John Ford directed the film he didn't shot footage of the battle himself. I've just verified from my mp4 copy of the movie. "The following authentic scene were made by U.S. Navy photographers.". Please notice that the film also include some fictional scenes but the US navy didn't care about this at that time. Ericd 17:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"some fictional scenes" well I first wrote this from memory. But soon after I spent some time to verify. Well not much but they're there. Probably less than 10 seconds in an 18 minutes movie. Ericd 18:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)