Yamamoto, Monogram P-38 and History Channel
David O. Garcia
nothing new and used old interviews with Lanphier and Mitchell to describe
the attack. It only credits Rex Barber with a shared victory. I was
expecting much more in lieu of new support for Barber. (See The Second
Yamamoto Mission website)
Now what does the Monogram kit have to do with this post?
The story used computer graphics to show the 16 P-38's flying to the attack.
The OD P-38s shown on the show are the later type with the deep chin
intakes but they also have a curious appendage on the left rear tail fin.
In fact all of the P-38s have it.
I don't know about other kits but I know the Monogram 1/48 scale P-38J has a
molded on post to make the kit up on its landing gear and not on its tail.
The instructions tell the builder to remove it if the modelers wishes. It
appears to me the computer animators used the Monogram kit as a prototype
and did not remove the post, probably thinking it was an antennae and
included it in their computer generated P-38s
One has to be a real model geek to notice this.
David O.
Steve Fowler
pretty good, especially for TV. I hadn't seen those interviews before, so
it was new to me.
The narration said Yamamoto was the first assassination sanctioned by the US
government. How many more have there been?
Oh and speaking of model geeks, did anyone catch the "Malcolm in the Middle"
episode on Sunday? There was a scene in which Hal (the dad) got into a
slugfest with a helper monkey gone bad belonging to Craig (mom's temporarily
incapacitated coworker). The monkey was throwing dishes and Hal opens a
display cabinet and begins to throw--you guessed it--models at the monkey.
I figured this out when Craig cried, "Not the Romulan!"
"David O. Garcia" <the...@widomaker.TREETcom> wrote in message
news:ue6k3he...@corp.supernews.com...
David O.
> Great catch! I'm a real model geek and I missed it. Thought that show was
> pretty good, especially for TV. I hadn't seen those interviews before, so
> it was new to me.
>
> The narration said Yamamoto was the first assassination sanctioned by the US
> government. How many more have there been?
>
Like the show mentioned. It was the first, but not the last. We now
look back at Yamamoto as a great naval stragegist and leader, but
during 1942 he was hated and despised in the U.S. like Osama Bin Laden
is today. I hope that in 50 years Osama Bin Laden is not thought of
in the same vein as Yamamoto is today. But I do hope that a Hellfire,
Sparrow, or .223 cal round find their mark in a great ambush. That
would be great.
David O.
Mike & Debbie
Yamamoto"? Seems very coordinated to me. Premise was if we should shoot down a
diplomat we know is behind terror attacks but don't have enough evidence to
prosecute.
Mike H.
Tom Cervo
>> nothing new and used old interviews with Lanphier and Mitchell to describe
>> the attack. It only credits Rex Barber with a shared victory. I was
>> expecting much more in lieu of new support for Barber.
Was hoping for a simulation, using those cool graphics, of the two versions,
and leaving up to us.
>> The story used computer graphics to show the 16 P-38's flying to the
>attack.
>> The OD P-38s shown on the show are the later type with the deep chin
>> intakes but they also have a curious appendage on the left rear tail fin.
>> In fact all of the P-38s have it.
>>
>> I don't know about other kits but I know the Monogram 1/48 scale P-38J has
>a
>> molded on post to make the kit up on its landing gear and not on its tail.
>> The instructions tell the builder to remove it if the modelers wishes. It
>> appears to me the computer animators used the Monogram kit as a prototype
>> and did not remove the post, probably thinking it was an antennae and
>> included it in their computer generated P-38s
That's what I thought. Pretty funny, and nostalgic too. At least they put the
gear up!
JimQ
to describe the shootdown?
Yamamoto was an enemy officer serving in his country's navy during wartime
It was all a miserable part of the human experience, but an assasination it
most definitely was not. If it seems a bit more "personal" than typical,
well, it's always personal to the guy getting clobbered.
Just my $.01 worth
David O. Garcia
Yes assasination was mentioned throughout the episode. The U.S. was in an
ethical quandry about the mission from the beginning. It was authorized at
the very top. That's exactly what it was, although credible arguments can
be made that it was well within the tactics of war.
I had just finished reading "Attack on Yamamoto" by Carroll V. Glines, Pub.
Orion Books and was hoping that some of the new material that the writer
mentioned would make it into the show. His whole premise is that Lanphier
incorrectly claimed credit before he even knew who was in the plane.
Lanphier wrote the only after mission report from the attacking pilots with
his version and thus becoming the official mission record. Glines on the
hand gives credit for shooting down the Yamamoto Betty to Rex Barber and
partial credit for shooting down the second Betty. Mitchell agreed.
See the Second Yamamoto Mission Assc for the most current info.
David O.
"JimQ" <jrq...@gis.net> wrote in message
news:ue8f2hl...@corp.supernews.com...
Edwin Ross Quantrall
Seems to me that as an officer of an enemy armed force (and we *WERE* at
war with Japan at the time IIRC) Yamamoto was a legitimate and proper
military target -- even if only a "target of opportunity". I hardly
think that "assassination" is a proper term for his demise.
However; while OBL may not be a "military" target per se, unless he were
to actually surrender himself for trial or be killed by utter
happenstance or die a natural death, I think (and this is only *my
opinion*) that we should make an effort to take him alive...unless, of
course, he resists arrest -- *THEN* we can *legally* blow his head off...
--
Edwin
"You are never dedicated to do something you have complete confidence
in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise
tomorrow. They know it's going to rise tomorrow. When people are
fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kind
of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in
doubt." - Robert M. Pirsig, "Zen & The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"
Al Superczynski
<rey...@iquest.net> wrote:
>...while OBL may not be a "military" target per se, unless he were
>to actually surrender himself for trial or be killed by utter
>happenstance or die a natural death, I think (and this is only *my
>opinion*) that we should make an effort to take him alive...
I'd *love* to see him hooded, cuffed, and muffed getting off the
plane at Gitmo. Maybe he would even resist so the troops would have
an excuse to put him on his knees.
>...unless, of course, he resists arrest -- *THEN* we can *legally* blow his head off...
That would be okay too but I'd rather he suffered the humiliation
of capture, incarceration, and interrogation.
--
Al Superczynski, MFE, IPMS/USA #3795, continuous since 1968
My "From" address is munged - click "Reply To" to respond via email.
Check out my want and disposal lists at "Al's Place":
http://apollo.up-link.net/~modeleral
"Build what YOU like, the way YOU want to,
and the critics will flame you every time."
Tom Cervo
>to actually surrender himself for trial or be killed by utter
>happenstance or die a natural death, I think (and this is only *my
>opinion*) that we should make an effort to take him alive...unless, of
>course, he resists arrest -- *THEN* we can *legally* blow his head off...
>
>--
>Edwin
THAT explains the Lanphier-Barber confusion! They were both too busy looking to
see if anyone in the Betty had their hands up to see the other one shooting!
Art Murray
are attributing an ethical standard to it where none exists.
The Reader's Digest Great Encyclopdedic dictionary defines
"assassinate" as follows:
"To kill by surprise or sudden assault, especially a public figure".
Even more interesting is the Webster's Dictionary definition:
"1 : to injure or destroy unexpectedly and treacherously"
"2 : to murder by sudden or secret attack usually for impersonal
reasons"
Note Webster's inclusion of the term "impersonal".
The definitions fit the event exactly. There's no reason for
squeamishness about the word "assassination.
Art
Art Murray
of the Yamamoto intercept,..."
Art
Tom Cervo
>
>"1 : to injure or destroy unexpectedly and treacherously"
>"2 : to murder by sudden or secret attack usually for impersonal
>reasons"
Sounds like the Marine mission statement.
Edwin Ross Quantrall
> On Fri, 17 May 2002 01:35:18 -0600, Edwin Ross Quantrall
> <rey...@iquest.net> wrote:
>
>
>>...while OBL may not be a "military" target per se, unless he were
>>to actually surrender himself for trial or be killed by utter
>>happenstance or die a natural death, I think (and this is only *my
>>opinion*) that we should make an effort to take him alive...
>>
>
> I'd *love* to see him hooded, cuffed, and muffed getting off the
> plane at Gitmo. Maybe he would even resist so the troops would have
> an excuse to put him on his knees.
>
>
>>...unless, of course, he resists arrest -- *THEN* we can *legally* blow his head off...
>>
>
> That would be okay too but I'd rather he suffered the humiliation
> of capture, incarceration, and interrogation.
>
Even *more* humiliating (as I've pointed out in the past on more than
one occasion) would be a "Guilty" verdict after a trial in Saudi Arabia
before an Islamic court on a charge of heresy (or the Islamic
equivalent) and being forced to kneel as the swordsman is about to lop
off his head...
Al Superczynski
<rey...@iquest.net> wrote:
>Even *more* humiliating (as I've pointed out in the past on more than
>one occasion) would be a "Guilty" verdict after a trial in Saudi Arabia
>before an Islamic court on a charge of heresy (or the Islamic
>equivalent) and being forced to kneel as the swordsman is about to lop
>off his head...
Definitely! I'd just like for us to get our hands on him first,
then turn him over to the Saudis.
Bill Woodier
You're right....if you leave out the "trecherously" and "murder" parts.
"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though
checkered by failure than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither
enjoy much nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows
not victory nor defeat"
Art Murray
to the Saudis.
Art
Tom Cervo
> Definitely! I'd just like for us to get our hands on him first,
>then turn him over to the Saudis.
Won't be hard for them to find a double for him to behead. Come on, he IS the
Saudis.
I liked the writer who said try him in New York City, and read out the murder
indictment in open court: 2936 names, one after the other.
The Old Timer
After that and before he is publicly hung (preferrably at Ground Zero), let it
be known to one and all that the rope will have been soaked in pig fat. He will
die unclean and therefore be denied a martyr's death.
No Paradise for that son of a bitch!
Regards,
-- John
____
__[xxxx]__
( o - )
-------------o00o--(__)--o00o-------------
Rufus
pretty heavy moral implication to me - isn't murder still illegal in
most places?..
I think the folks at Webter's need to choose their words a bit more
carefully if that's what they mean, but I'll agree with your point.
--
-Rufus
Bobby Galvez
> I don't know...the words "treachery" and "murder" certainly carry a
> pretty heavy moral implication to me - isn't murder still illegal in
> most places?..
>
> I think the folks at Webter's need to choose their words a bit more
> carefully if that's what they mean, but I'll agree with your point.
Why? A general or admiral is as much a target as any front line soldier. Going
after one isn't "murder." It isn't "treachery." It's an act of war. Why should
the dictionary alter a definition simply because a word is used in an improper
context?
Yamamoto wasn't assassinated, he was a high ranking enemy officer whose military
transport was shot down in an open act of war. There's nothing in the rules of
engagement that gives top ranking officers free passes within theaters of war.
If the Germans had ever managed to shoot down the airplanes carrying Churchill or
Roosevelt would those have been assassinations? No. They ve been national leaders
lost in an act of war. If they infiltrated agents to shoot them, then it is
assassination.
Cheers!!!
BobbyG
Rufus
Webster's choice of words in their definition. I think the words they
chose carry a connotation which runs counter to the point they were
trying to make in the definition; which IMO should be connotatively
neutral in order to convey the point/definition of the word
"assasination" as a political or tactical tool and not an emotive
personal action.
I fully agree that persuing and/or killing any uniformed individual of
an enemy force during time of war is an act persuant to the prosecution
of the war, and not a "murder". Hence my objection to Webster's choice
of wording as applies to the primary point.
I would have suggested the word "assasination" would only take on the
connotations of "murder" or 'treachery" in situations of undeclared
hostilities or the unsupported actions of a single individual as examples.
Strictly a linguistic objection to Webster on my part in the context of
this thread...
--
-Rufus
David O. Garcia
>Why? A general or admiral is as much a target as any front line soldier. Going
>after one isn't "murder." It isn't "treachery." It's an act of war. Why should
>the dictionary alter a definition simply because a word is used in an improper
>context?
>
I think you are applying today's "rules of engagement" to the context
of 1943. The U.S. had never done anything like this before and there
was plenty of moral agonizing. The bombers were not just some Bettys.
The U.S. knew exactly who the passeger was and needed tacit approval
from the very top to get permission. In this case the killers flew
P-38s, in fact those going after Yamamoto were called the Killer
Flight. It was an assisination thru and thru. But I do think that
the pilots who flew the mission are heroes and deserving of our
deepest respect.
Would the war have been shortened by letting him live? Who knows.
Did it shorten the war by killing him? Again I don't know.
>Yamamoto wasn't assassinated, he was a high ranking enemy officer whose military
>transport was shot down in an open act of war. There's nothing in the rules of
>engagement that gives top ranking officers free passes within theaters of war.
>
Oh, but in 1943 there apparently was. High ranking officers were
treated much different than rank and file.
>If the Germans had ever managed to shoot down the airplanes carrying Churchill or
>Roosevelt would those have been assassinations? No. They ve been national leaders
>lost in an act of war. If they infiltrated agents to shoot them, then it is
>assassination.
>
The Doolittle Raiders did not bomb the Emperor Palace when they had a
chance. Why not? He was the leader of the enemy nation, just like
Churchil and Roosevelt. The U.S. still belived in a code of honor.
>Cheers!!!
>
>BobbyG
>
>
David O.
---
email address has Spam Trap. Remove TREET to repond
Tom Cervo
>Did it shorten the war by killing him? Again I don't know.
Based on his decisions throughout the war, some historians now think it would
have been to our advantage had he lived.
>Oh, but in 1943 there apparently was. High ranking officers were
>treated much different than rank and file.
>
During our Revolution, the way our snipers targetted British officers was
similarly regarded as barbaric. Now British snipers pride themselves on that
very skill.
Bill Woodier
>
>> ........ I liked the writer who said try him in New York City,
>> and read out the murder indictment in open court: 2936 names, one
>> after the other.
>
>After that and before he is publicly hung (preferrably at Ground Zero), let
>it
>be known to one and all that the rope will have been soaked in pig fat. He
>will
>die unclean and therefore be denied a martyr's death.
>No Paradise for that son of a bitch!
>
>
>Regards,
> -- John
I like the idea. However our society has become too politically-correct to
deny him his place in the kingdom of Allah. Assuming he was caught, and
assuming he was convicted, and assuming he was sentenced to death, we'd have to
kill him nicely.
Then there's the other part of it. It would take so long to get from a
sentencing to the actually execution that there'll probably be a new business
complex built on ground zero before all that happened. :~(
Royabulgaf
be denied a martyr's death. No Paradise for that son of a bitch!
in the kingdom of Allah.
his religion or somehow attempting to ritually influence the Almighty's
judgement crosses some line to my way of thinking> Kim M
Edwin Ross Quantrall
> He'd be back in Afghanistan within three days after we turned him over
> to the Saudis.
Not necessarily...
OBL has repeatedly called for the overthrow of the Saudi Royal family
and the Saudi government. (He doesn't think that either is "Islamic"
enough for his tastes.) If we were to hand him over (or drop him at
their doorstep, depending on your point of view) with the "friendly" (or
not) warning that the whole World was watching (in order to a) prevent
what you have suggested, and b) guarantee that he receives a fair trial
in front of an impartial panel of Islamic clerics), I think that they
would probably be happy to haul his ass into a religious court. While
the Saudis may not be particularly trustworthy at times, I seriously
doubt that they would risk the wrath of World opinion (and pass up the
chance to publicly humiliate and rid themselves of a sworn enemy) by
letting him go free.
estarriol
<cnel...@austin.rr.com> writes
>Rufus wrote:
>
>> I don't know...the words "treachery" and "murder" certainly carry a
>> pretty heavy moral implication to me - isn't murder still illegal in
>> most places?..
>>
>> I think the folks at Webter's need to choose their words a bit more
>> carefully if that's what they mean, but I'll agree with your point.
>
>Why? A general or admiral is as much a target as any front line soldier. Going
>after one isn't "murder." It isn't "treachery." It's an act of war. Why should
>the dictionary alter a definition simply because a word is used in an improper
>context?
>
>Yamamoto wasn't assassinated, he was a high ranking enemy officer whose military
>transport was shot down in an open act of war. There's nothing in the rules of
>engagement that gives top ranking officers free passes within theaters of war.
>
had a long and hard think before doing it, rather than just ordered it,
it shows an appreciation for possible consequences.
>If the Germans had ever managed to shoot down the airplanes carrying Churchill
>or
>Roosevelt would those have been assassinations? No. They ve been national
>leaders
>lost in an act of war. If they infiltrated agents to shoot them, then it is
>assassination.
Ahh like the assassination of Heydrich then?
>
>Cheers!!!
>
>BobbyG
>
>
--
estarriol
And lo sayeth General Jarkeld, if he gets hold of any more
Brownies.....I QUIT!
Mark Schynert
Edwin Ross Quantrall <rey...@iquest.net> wrote:
> Art Murray wrote:
>
> > He'd be back in Afghanistan within three days after we turned him over
> > to the Saudis.
>
> Not necessarily...
>
> OBL has repeatedly called for the overthrow of the Saudi Royal family
> and the Saudi government. (He doesn't think that either is "Islamic"
> enough for his tastes.) If we were to hand him over (or drop him at
> their doorstep, depending on your point of view) with the "friendly" (or
> not) warning that the whole World was watching (in order to a) prevent
> what you have suggested, and b) guarantee that he receives a fair trial
> in front of an impartial panel of Islamic clerics), I think that they
> would probably be happy to haul his ass into a religious court. While
> the Saudis may not be particularly trustworthy at times, I seriously
> doubt that they would risk the wrath of World opinion (and pass up the
> chance to publicly humiliate and rid themselves of a sworn enemy) by
> letting him go free.
And we would not have to deal with the problem under US law, which would
take longer, cost too much and possibly not generate the desired result.
Of course, there would also be the fictive "we get him back after he
serves his sentence or is acquitted so we can try him," but of course by
then he'll be dead.
Mark Schynert
JW
> Hello Jim,
>
> Yes assasination was mentioned throughout the episode. The U.S. was in an
> ethical quandry about the mission from the beginning.
Perhaps there was an ethical question about the shoot down.
Just as importantly they had to consider the question, "Who
will replace Yamamoto?". If someone better would replace him
then you may conclude not to take him out.
If he is indeed the best then the shoot down should go
forward.
Just a thought.
Jim W.
Art Murray
great tactical operation, was a strategic failure. The irony of using
one's genius to craft a strike force of only a/c carriers and fast
cruisers and then using it to sink obsolete battleships is almost too
much to savor (in hindsight, of course). Midway was even worse. My
own guess, however, is that Yamamoto would have fought vigorously
against squandering assets in suicide missions of aircraft and ships,
thus prolonging the conflict.
This thread got me to thinking about the same dilemma regarding
Hitler. The knee jerk reaction would be to say "I wish someone had
shot the son-of-a-bitch in 1938." However, a better military mind
might have taken his place and implemented the General Staff War Plan
that called for war in 1946 instead of 1939. Then one gets into all
sorts of hypotheticals: a completed German surface and advanced
U-boat fleet, jet aircraft, ICBM's, nuclear weapons, etc.
By gosh, it's the logical dilemma of the Star Trek Prime Directive in
action! :-)
Art
William H. Shuey
>
> This thread got me to thinking about the same dilemma regarding
> Hitler. The knee jerk reaction would be to say "I wish someone had
> shot the son-of-a-bitch in 1938." However, a better military mind
> might have taken his place and implemented the General Staff War Plan
> that called for war in 1946 instead of 1939. Then one gets into all
> sorts of hypotheticals: a completed German surface and advanced
> U-boat fleet, jet aircraft, ICBM's, nuclear weapons, etc.
FWIW I was told that after the Czechs got Heydrich, they proposed to go
for Hitler. The British intelligence people refused to sanction the
attempt because the psychiatrist they had studying Hitler had evaluated
him as very unstable and they felt it would be better to leave him in
charge. If he went they might have ended up with a Government run by von
Runstedt and Rommell and a much longer war might have resulted.
> JW wrote:
>
> >
> > Just as importantly they had to consider the question, "Who
> > will replace Yamamoto?". If someone better would replace him
> > then you may conclude not to take him out.
> > If he is indeed the best then the shoot down should go
> > forward.
> >
> > Just a thought.
> >
> > Jim W.
The Japanese Officer whose loss was most felt in the first 2 years was
the Commander of the 2nd Carrier Div., Admiral Tamone Yamaguchi, who
elected to do the dramatic thing and go down with his flagship at
Midway. He was a much more competent carrier commander than Nagumo and
if he had replaced Nagumo things might have gone quite differently in
the year after Midway.
As far as Yamomoto goes, he made his share of mistakes. Splitting up
the Japanese fleet and keeping the Battleships too far in the rear to
influence things at Midway; and his piecemeal commitment of forces to
the Solomon's Campaign were errors that allowed the severely depleted
U.S. Fleet to checkmate the larger Japanese one.
Still, Yamomoto was more world wise than the rest of the Senior
Japanese Commanders and might have learned from his mistakes if he had
lasted. Certainly there was no one among the senior Japanese Admirals
who could fill his shoes.
Bill Shuey
estarriol
>FWIW I was told that after the Czechs got Heydrich, they proposed to go
>for Hitler. The British intelligence people refused to sanction the
>attempt because the psychiatrist they had studying Hitler had evaluated
>him as very unstable and they felt it would be better to leave him in
>charge. If he went they might have ended up with a Government run by von
>Runstedt and Rommell and a much longer war might have resulted.
>
fully backed from London as well as Being soldiers. Rommel or Von
Runsteadt they could have lived with, if Hitler had died, Heydrich would
have taken over, which is one of the reasons the mission was allowed,
Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels and Goering who were the most likely to take
over in the event were all considered unstable in some way, Heydrich was
not.
William H. Shuey
You are missing the time line. The attempt on Hitler was proposed AFTER
the Heydrich hit! The British had no problem with Heydrich being
eliminated, but it was the British who decided they could live with
Hitler better than a von Runstedt/Rommell or whatever government.
Bill Shuey
Mark Schynert
The hypotheticals are interesting. If you allow that the targets were
competent leaders in positions of great authority, then speculation as
to who might replace them is secondary. The enemy will necessarily have
one less competent leader if the target is killed.
The notion that von rundstadt or Rommel would take charge of the
government is interesting, but I wonder if they would not have sued for
peace at once. The generals knew they were beaten. Of course, the
British may not have thought the Germans saw it that way.
The notion of an individual as a strategic target is rather chilling.
WWII was for the most part a very impersonal war, at least as far as
combat was concerned. Planes shoot at planes or ships or tanks, tanks at
tanks or redoubts, ships at planes or ships or bombardment targets so
far inland only the spotter planes see the strikes. Are there any men at
the other end of that killing blow? And who exactly are they? A
strategic strike against one individual gives the lie to that kind of
impersonality, perhaps even more than hand-to-hand combat, where unhappy
accident dictates the specific victims, rather than some plan from the
RAMFs.
Mark Schynert
David Fleming
wrote:
>An interesting point. Yamamoto's attack on Pearl Harbor, while a
>great tactical operation, was a strategic failure. The irony of using
>one's genius to craft a strike force of only a/c carriers and fast
>cruisers and then using it to sink obsolete battleships is almost too
>much to savor (in hindsight, of course). Midway was even worse. My
>own guess, however, is that Yamamoto would have fought vigorously
>against squandering assets in suicide missions of aircraft and ships,
>thus prolonging the conflict.
>
BUT, had the Carrier fleet been at Pearl Harbour, Midway would never have
happened and what would our opinion of Yamamoto's plan been then ?
Dave
FROM ADDRESS HAS SPAM TRAP - CLICK REPLY TO EMAIL
David O. Garcia
This topic was new to the U.S. at that time. I agree with you though.
David
Mark Schynert
dave.flem...@dial.pipex.com (David Fleming) wrote:
If the US had only one carrier in the Pacific as of Midway (One would
not have been lost even in this hypothetical), Yamamoto's Midway plan
would have been brutally different--probably Zuikaku and Shokaku would
not have been out of action due to Coral Sea, so the large carrier count
is 6 to 1 instead of 4 to 3, and he can afford to hit the place with one
airstrike, then roll in the battlewagons and reduce Midway to sand.
Mark Schynert
Art Murray
anyway. After Pearl Harbor, instead of searching for the US carriers,
he sent his carriers sailing off to the Indian ocean. Yamamoto didn't
finish the job he started at P.H. and the IJN paid dearly for that
strategic mistake.
Why sink battleships? The composition of his own force should have
told him the escort vessels were more important than the battleships.
Look at the diagrams of P.H. the day of the attack. All those
destroyers and cruisers moored side by side. One torpedo with a
delayed fuse broadside into the line of destroyers would have sunk
two, maybe three or four at one time.
Why sink ships in 20 feet of water and not destroy the dry docks? Why
leave the fuel storage tanks intact?
Yamamoto also calculated the P.H. attack would buy him 12 months
instead of the six it actually did. Even after living and traveling
extensively in the U.S. he completely underestimated the American
economy and its production capabilities.
Gordon Prange makes all these points (and more) in his excellent books
about P.H. and Midway. The Midway book is especially revealing in its
description of the slack-ass Japanese approach to that battle as
contrasted with the attack on P.H.
Art
Chris Bucholtz
<< If the US had only one carrier in the Pacific as of Midway (One would not
have been lost even in this hypothetical), Yamamoto's Midway plan would have
been brutally different--probably Zuikaku and Shokaku would not have been out
of action due to Coral Sea, so the large carrier count is 6 to 1 instead of 4
to 3, and he can afford to hit the place with one airstrike, then roll in the
battlewagons and reduce Midway to sand. >>
Maybe not. The U.S. had only three carriers in the entire Pacific at the time
of Pearl Harbor--Enterprise, Lexington and Saratoga. Sara was torpedoed off
Oahu on Jan. 11, 1942 and made it back into service just in time to miss
Midway.
Meanwhile, over in the Atlantic, Yorktown and Hornet and the less capable Wasp
and Ranger were on "neutrality patrol." Since three of these ships were
transferred to the Pacific eventually, it is likely that they would have borne
the brunt of carrier-to-carrier fighting, only earlier.
The argument of who to blame for Midway (and the failure to strike key targets
at Pearl Harbor) should not rest with Yamamoto, but with Chuichi Nagumo, who
never failed to demonstrate his knack for indecision when provided with an
opportunity. His Pearl Harbor decision is hard to knock; he didn't know where
the carriers were and had to keep his fleet intact for the coming war, plus the
carrier was still a weapon whose value was not fully understood. Midway,
however, pointed out flaws in procedures, tactics and leadership that would
eventually doom the Imperial Japanese Navy; no one embodied that more than
Nagumo. The fact that the fighter escort for a strike group was launching from
Akagi when it was bombed points out just how devastating Nagumo's dithering
proved to be.
Yamamoto's mistakes included bowing to pressure for the Indian Ocean excursion
of early 1942, rather than seeking out the American carriers then, and
splitting his forces far too often. If the Japanese had brought six fleet
carriers to the Coral Sea and had bagged both the Yorktown and Lexington, the
fight at Midway would have been tilted much more in their favor. Or, had the
Ryujo and Junyo brought their 82 planes to the show at Midway instead of
screwing around in the Aleutians, things may have been different.
Another interesting point is that the Japanese invasion force at Midway was far
too small to have taken the islands, but that's another issue entirely.
--Chris Bucholtz
Art Murray
I respectfully disagree. It was Yamamoto who was charged with
*strategic* planning with input from the Naval General Staff. Nagumo
was charged with executing portions of Yamamoto's overall plan. It
should also be noted that Nagumo and Fuchida did not approve of the
Midway operation, with Fuchida labeling it "grammar school strategy".
As you point out, Nagumo's *tactical* failures at Pearl Harbor and
Midway are well documented. However, at Midway, Yamamoto gave Nagumo
two potentially conflicting tasks: (1) bomb Midway in preparation for
a landing (2) destroy the American carrier force when it was drawn
into battle. Yamamoto's staff refused to allow for the two events
simultaneously even though a staff officer had inserted the
possibility during war games for the operation. The expected outcome
of the war game exercise demonstrated that the IJN would lose the
battle if the U.S. carriers arrived during the early phase of the
battle. Yamamoto's Chief of Staff over-ruled the results, declared a
Japanese victory anyway and promptly removed such a possibility from
everyone's thinking.
"Be careful of that which you seek, you may find it." Lucky for us
this is an English language proverb and not Japanese! :-)
Art
Chris Bucholtz
"As you point out, Nagumo's *tactical* failures at Pearl Harbor and Midway are
well documented. However, at Midway, Yamamoto gave Nagumo two potentially
conflicting tasks: (1) bomb Midway in preparation for a landing (2) destroy
the American carrier force when it was drawn into battle. Yamamoto's staff
refused to allow for the two events simultaneously even though a staff officer
had inserted the possibility during war games for the operation."
This was Yamamoto's fault, indeed; he fully expected to have a
couple of days before the U.S. carriers arrived to invade Midway
(or at least make a good go of it). However, no one in Japan could
have suspected that the U.S. operators at stations HYPO and
FRUMEL would have boken the Japanese JN-25 code, or achieved
the equally amazing feat of pulling the needle from the haystack
--the Japanese code group for "attack" before the key geographic
grouping "AF" from mountains of intercepted data.
The Japanese simply underestimated the U.S.'s capabilities in the
planning stages, then made mistake after mistake during the
battle itself. Both the overseeing commander (Yamamoto) and the
Kido Butai commander (Nagumo) made cataclysmic mistakes.
However, as events proved themselves later, there was no one
among the ranks of the Japanese command who was any better
than these two.
And, of course, we had some damn good fliers at the time (Dick
Best, Jimmy Thach, John Waldron and Wade McCluskey come to
mind, but there were many others) who overcame our own idiotic
leadership in the form of Miles Browning and Stanhope Ring ("the
only airman I ever knew who carried a riding crop," VF-3's Tom
Cheek told me just this morning!) who took the Hornet's air wing
almost completely out of the battle. It was really four carriers
vs. two carriers and a torpedo squadron, when you look at what
was effectively employed.
Final analysis: a lot of people on both sides screwed up at
Midway. Our people planned better, screwed up less and fought
harder and that's why we won the battle.
As for whether Yamamoto was more useful to the U.S. cause alive
or dead: his participation in planning the Pearl Harbor attack
made him public enemy number one. He would have been targeted
wherever we thought he was—in a Betty visiting Lae, at his
mother's house, wherever we could reach out and touch him. It
didn't matter if there was someone better behind him in the
chain of command; like Osama Bin Laden, he was the face of the
enemy to a great many people at the time.
--Chris Bucholtz
Art Murray
Two points:
1. You are staying up much too late. :-)
2. I was smiling as I read your reply, wondering which of us would
first return to the original question. You beat me to it!
I agree with you. The Japanese government, via the press, made
Yamamoto a national hero. Striking him down was a huge blow to
Japanese morale in addition to any military benefit.
Art
Chris Bucholtz
"1. You are staying up much too late. :-)"
Guilty as charged--I'm working on an especially
exciting article for the June 2002 (aka "Midway
+60") issue of Internet Modeler, and I've found it
hard to stop working on it!
"2. I was smiling as I read your reply, wondering which of us would first
return to the original question. You beat me to it!"
Great minds think alike. :) I got to talk to Besby Frank Holmes (who shot down
the OTHER Betty on
that mission) about five years ago, and he was NOT
an "assassin," but an ordinary fighter pilot tasked
with executing part of an ambitious plan. Whether
Yamamoto caught a stray piece of shrapnel (like
Simon Bolivar Buckner did late in the war) or a well-
placed slug from a P-38 makes no dofference: he
was a combatant and he died in combat. End of story!
--Chris Bucholtz
Tom Cervo
>down
>the OTHER Betty on
>that mission) about five years ago, and he was NOT
>an "assassin," but an ordinary fighter pilot tasked
>with executing part of an ambitious plan. Whether
>Yamamoto caught a stray piece of shrapnel (like
>Simon Bolivar Buckner did late in the war) or a well-
>placed slug from a P-38 makes no dofference: he
>was a combatant and he died in combat. End of story!
Burke Davis' "Get Yamamoto", unburdened as it is with proving that
Lanphier/Barber shot down Yamamoto, may be the best account still of this
mission, and events leading up to it. One thing it brings out is that the 339th
had become regarded as an elite unit by 4/43, and they didn't get the nod just
because they had the range.
Kevin Carroll
"Tom Cervo" <tomc...@aol.com> wrote in message
>One thing it brings out is that the 339th
> had become regarded as an elite unit by 4/43, and they didn't get the nod
just
> because they had the range.
Just coincidentally I am reading a novel called "When Duty Whispers Low"
(John Goebells). The Yamamoto shoot down is a sub plot and it is mentioned
that Marine Corps Corsairs at CACTUS were originally considered for the
mission, but the pylons for their external tanks (required for this long
range job) had been removed and discarded! Is that true?
KC
Kevin Carroll
"Kevin Carroll" <carr...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> Just coincidentally I am reading a novel called "When Duty Whispers Low"
> (John Goebells).
Oooops.....got thoroughly carried away in WWII mode!
The esteemed author is in fact John Gobbel. My apology.
Kevin