Shattered Sword - Opinions?

Discussions on all aspects of the Japanese Empire, from the capture of Taiwan until the end of the Second World War.
Locked
glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Shattered Sword - Opinions?

#196

Post by glenn239 » 10 Jul 2015, 18:29

paulrward wrote:Hello Mr. Glenn239 ;

I must not have been clear. When VT-3 attacked, only one carrier ran straight to the northwest to evade it, and that was the Hiryu. This is what put her so far to the north at the end of the bombing attacks.

The other three carriers, Akagi, Kaga, and Soryu, were making tight, circling turns to evade the dive bombers, VB-6 and VS-6 which attacked Akagi and Kaga, and VB-3 which attacked Soryu. This is what led to the seperation of Hiryu from the other carriers: She was using a different defense doctrine in order to deal with a different type of attack.
As per Shattered Sword, (ie, Nagumo Report), Akagi quickly settled on a course of 300 degrees at 1015 in direct response to spotting TB-3 at 45,000 meters to the southeast. So no, it wasn't just Hiryu that reacted. Akagi did so as well, (she will have considered them a threat to Akagi too). Kaga was under torpedo attack at 1015 - she was probably careening all over the place. Soryu will presumably have conformed to the movements of the flagship, Hiryu. So Soryu would swing around to course 300 degrees and run northwest at about 30kt, because Akagi and Hiryu were doing so and Soryu is keeping station. Here's the Nagumo Report where the movements of Akagi are detailed,

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Japan/I ... ay/Nagumo/

0711 Akagi swings around to place the starboard group of torpedo planes to her stern.
0714 Akagi settles on course 300 degrees.
0715 Akagi sights enemy torpedo plane group of 12 planes in position bearing 170 degrees to port, distance 45,000 meters.
0720 Akagi reports sighting bomber bearing 30 degrees directly over the Kaga and goes into a maximum turn.
0724 Noting that the two torpedo plane groups to starboard of the Akagi were preparing to launch their torpedoes, she goes into evasive action. Then, seeing that she was about to be dive bombed, she makes maximum reverse turn.


The starboard group is TB-3, so at 0711 (1011) Akagi is travelling approximately into the wind after recovering CAP at 1010. She swings to the northwest away from TB-3, settling onto a course of 300 degrees until she spots bombers over Kaga and starts to evade. At 0724 TB-3 is now close - close enough to Akagi that it is thought they are in attack range - and she evades them, and then sees the dive bombers.

Akagi and Soryu would not react to the dive bombers - that is, going into high speed circles - until these were spotted overhead. So, for Akagi, she's running in parallel with Hiryu to the northwest from 1015 to 1020. For Soryu, she's probably doing so for even longer, from 1015 to 1028. (Notice the Soryu's sinking position is northwest of Akagi's even though Akagi after being bombed moved northeast while Soryu quickly came to a stop and never moved again under her own power. Akagi peels off into evasive circles at 1020, while Soryu remains on 300 degrees with Hiryu at about 30kt for maybe seven or eight more minutes, until the dive bombers are spotted overhead).

To my mind, the question is not the location of Hiryu. It's the location of the Soryu.
Last edited by glenn239 on 10 Jul 2015, 19:55, edited 6 times in total.

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Shattered Sword - Opinions?

#197

Post by glenn239 » 10 Jul 2015, 18:45

Rob Stuart wrote:
Of the remaining two, I think that it's more likely that Kumura was launched downwind than that the map has Akagi's course wrong by 180 degrees. My knowledge of Midway is not so deep as to be able to prove that the map is correct in this regard, but I know that sorting out the details of what happened starting at 1000 was something Jon and Tony spent a lot of time doing and I don't think that they could have made as gross an error as that.
Actually, because of Paul's interesting questions about the run of Hiryu on Tully's Port, I'm doing something I've never done before - whipping up the attack in a graphics program like Jon and Tony did a decade ago, and trying to figure out just what the heck happened. It is really complicated, and there are so many variables I can easily see something slipping through the cracks.

Here's my guess. I think that IJN carriers didn't launch CAP downwind, and Akagi didn't start the practice at 1025 on June 4th. While doing her evasions 1020-1025, Akagi was pointing to all directions of the compass and was, at 1025, however briefly, on course southeast of 160 when Dick Best lined up on her. She straighted out for a moment, launched that one CAP, then got bombed. Now, there's a slight problem with that solution, and that would be that the fatal attack on Akagi will have been bombers attacking from east to west, not northwest to southeast as per SS.
I don't know of any other occasion when a Japanese carrier launched a Zero downwind under imminent threat of attack, but that may simply be because the accounts I've read of the Blenheim attack on 9 April, the attacks on Shoho and CarDiv5 at Coral Sea, etc, are not detained enough.
At Coral Sea 5th CAR DIV launched ready Zeroes with US dive bombers overhead. According to First Team, they turned into the wind to do so.


Rob Stuart
Member
Posts: 1200
Joined: 18 Apr 2009, 01:41
Location: Ottawa

Re: Shattered Sword - Opinions?

#198

Post by Rob Stuart » 11 Jul 2015, 20:04

Glenn,

Yes, The First Team notes on pages 229-230 that when the SDBs were spotted “Shokaku heeled sharply to port to come directly into the wind”, to launch two fighters, and that Zuikaku did likewise. However, CarDiv5 was on a southerly course (the SBDs put its course at 190) and the wind was from the southeast (per p. 222), so we’re talking about a turn of only about 50 degrees. If it took Akagi nearly three and a half minutes to turn 360 degrees (per Shattered Sword Figure 13-2), which is something like 1.75 degrees per second, then presumably the more nimble Shokaku and Zuikaku needed only about 30 seconds to turn 50 degrees. Furthermore, on page 222 it also notes that the wind was 15-18 knots, which is moderately strong. So it’s a no-brainer that they would turn into the wind. On 4 June, however, Akagi faced significantly different circumstances, including the fact that KdB was already under torpedo bomber attack. According to your post of 12:29 on Friday:
The starboard group is TB-3, so at 0711 (1011) Akagi is travelling approximately into the wind after recovering CAP at 1010. She swings to the northwest away from TB-3, settling onto a course of 300 degrees until she spots bombers over Kaga and starts to evade. At 0724 TB-3 is now close - close enough to Akagi that it is thought they are in attack range - and she evades them, and then sees the dive bombers.
So turning into the wind means turning toward TB-3. Furthermore, if Akagi was steering 300, she would have had to come right only about 40 degrees to be sailing downwind, which would have taken her 30 seconds or so, and if steering 350 she would have had to come left only 10 degrees. To have turned into the wind would have meant turning 170 degress to starboard, if steering 350, which would take around a minute and a half. Finally, the wind speed was only four knots when the morning strike was launched and if it was no stronger than that at 1025 then it would not have been a major factor for a Zero in any case. So launching fighters downwind may have been seen as the only fast enough and safe enough option with KdB under torpedo bomber attack from the direction of the wind, notwithstanding the lack of precedent.

You postulate that
doing her evasions 1020-1025, Akagi was pointing to all directions of the compass and was, at 1025, however briefly, on course southeast of 160 when Dick Best lined up on her. She straighted out for a moment, launched that one CAP, then got bombed.
According to Fig 13-2, Akagi probably completed her 360 degree turn “sometime during 1023”, i.e., between 1023 and 1024. During this turn she would have been pointing into the wind momentarily at about 1022, not 1025. Are you suggesting that Akagi started its 360 degree turn three minutes later than recorded in the Nagumo report? Or are you suggesting that Akagi started what ended up being a second 360 degree turn immediately after the first one? Figure 13-2 has Akagi steering about 020 when Best and his two wingmen attacked it at 1026. (You say in your 4 July post of 10:16 that the map has Akagi steering 330, but it doesn’t.) To be steaming into the wind at 1025, Akagi had to have turned about 180 degrees right after its 360 degree turn. Shattered Sword says that Akagi commenced a turn to starboard as soon as the three SBDs were spotted, at 1025, just as Kimura was racing down the flight deck. Unless you’re arguing that Akagi turned to port, then to have been steering 020 when attacked at 1026 it would have to have had turned 220 degrees in one minute. Given Akagi’s turning speed, this is impossible. This is more than a “slight problem”.

In an earlier post you asked Genie if he proposed “to go to IIzuka Tokuji's next of kin and explain to them that he needs to be lying in order for your pet theory on the state of Akagi at 1025 to be seen as correct”. It seems to me that you’re doing something of the sort yourself. Your theory is that Fuchida’s account of the state of Akagi at 1025 is accurate, and that every witness, primary source and historian who says otherwise is lying or wrong. You’re trying to prove that Akagi was steering 160 at 1025 because Akagi had to be steaming into the wind to launch torpedo-armed B5Ns, and if it was steering 300, 340 or 350 then Fuchida’s claim that the SDB attack interrupted the launch of the B-strike is nonsense. I’ll certainly concede that you’ve raised a good point – the launch of a fighter at 1025 would imply, if no other factor were in play, that Akagi was steering into the wind. I’m not a Midway scholar, but it seems to me that other factors were in play and that the evidence that Akagi was not steering a southeasterly course at 1025 is well-nigh overwelming.

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Shattered Sword - Opinions?

#199

Post by glenn239 » 15 Jul 2015, 21:04

Rob Stuart wrote: On 4 June, however, Akagi faced significantly different circumstances, including the fact that KdB was already under torpedo bomber attack.
Shattered Sword narrates the destruction of three carriers between 1020-1030. Soryu and Kaga are both said to be turning into the wind to launch CAP, swinging around to roughly 160 to fire off some fighters. But Akagi, - which was the only carrier that actually did launch CAP in this timeframe - is not said to be doing so.

.
So turning into the wind means turning toward TB-3
That depends on whether TB-3 passed to the east or west of Akagi at 1024. In figure 13-1, TB-3 is roughly 24,000 meters, far to the east of Akagi. In that case the TB's are so far from Akagi, and heading north not west, that she could turn towards them without risk to get into the wind. But here,

0724 Noting that the two torpedo plane groups to starboard of the Akagi were preparing to launch their torpedoes, she goes into evasive action.

Here they seem to be much closer than 24km - torpedo drop range is less than 1km, meaning they could be either west or east of the carrier. If passing to the west, then Akagi would be heading south for them to pass to starboard.
According to Fig 13-2, Akagi probably completed her 360 degree turn “sometime during 1023”, i.e., between 1023 and 1024. During this turn she would have been pointing into the wind momentarily at about 1022, not 1025.


There appeared to me to be insufficient information to make any conclusion of Akagi's exact heading at 1022 - maybe I missed it. Fighters were ordered aloft at 1022 and these started launching at 1025, which is three minutes, enough time for Akagi to have turned to 160 degrees from any heading on the compass.
You’re trying to prove that Akagi was steering 160 at 1025 because Akagi had to be steaming into the wind to launch torpedo-armed B5Ns, and if it was steering 300, 340 or 350 then Fuchida’s claim that the SDB attack interrupted the launch of the B-strike is nonsense
Fuchida never claimed the whole B-strike was launching. He said that only the Akagi was. The ‘hurry up before we're all dead’ thing you just argued with downwind CAP launches.

Anyways, I’m interested in comparing the differences between Fuchida and Shattered Sword about Akagi at the time of her bombing, and this is one of them. Something had caught my attention a while back on page 239 of SS. It said that Dick Best’s and his tiny band “didn’t have time to do things ‘by the book”. What struck me is – why? I would have thought that in that circumstances it would be the opposite - he'd take all the time he needed because the only thing that would make him rush - enemy fighters - were nowhere to be seen.

So, looking at it from that angle, I checked the timing and positions of the carriers on 13-2 (figure below, assumes 130kt air speed). From that, I’m not sure Best has the time get from Kaga to attack Akagi for 1026 if he has to fly clockwise around Akagi to attack her from 70 degrees port with Akagi on a heading of 160. He either needs to fly a more direct route or Akagi has to be closer to the Kaga.

Image

Rob Stuart
Member
Posts: 1200
Joined: 18 Apr 2009, 01:41
Location: Ottawa

Re: Shattered Sword - Opinions?

#200

Post by Rob Stuart » 18 Jul 2015, 17:06

Glenn,

I am not sufficiently knowledgeable of Midway to go any deeper into the weeds of this. This will probably be my final post in this thread, so I'll just leave you with two thoughts, for what they're worth:

Occam's razor suggests that the simplest explanation is usually the most likely one, and the simplest explanation for the discrepancies between Fuchida's account and other interpretations is that Fuchida is wrong. Even if Jon and Tony are wrong to say that his account is a lie, it does not follow that his account is correct. His misstatements elsewhere in his book and in the accounts he gave to Prange which formed the basis for God's Samurai, whether deliberate or not, are so numerous and so egregious that no one should believe anything he says which cannot be verified through more reliable sources.

There is nothing wrong with challenging the interpretations Jon and Tony put forward in Shattered Sword, but you're not going to convince anyone that their account of the "fateful five minutes" is substantially wrong simply by comparing their account with Fuchida's and throwing in a few passages from other secondary sources and the Nagumo Report. As you rightly noted in this thread, Jon and Tony did several years of research, examined a lot of primary sources and had the support of many contributors, including Japanese historians. To put forward a credible alternate interpretation, e.g. to prove that Akagi was steering 160 at 1025, you'll need to dig as deeply as they did.

Rob

paulrward
Member
Posts: 665
Joined: 10 Dec 2008, 21:14

Re: Shattered Sword - Opinions?

#201

Post by paulrward » 19 Jul 2015, 06:39

Hello All ;

I am going to wade in here again, this time on the book, ' God's Samurai'. This book was published AFTER the death of Fuchida and AFTER Gordon Prange's death, by his two assistants, Donald Goldstein and Katherine Dillon. It was based on notes allegedly taken by Prange of things allegedly said by Fuchida during their interviews. In other words, neither of the two people allegedly involved in the conversations could be interviewed to verify if the things stated in the book were really said to Prange by Fuchida.

I have read a number of books by Gordon Prange, and I have begun to believe that he was extremely credulous and may often have been playing fast and loose with the truth. For example, in his book on Richard Sorge, 'Target Tokyo', he states, based on his interviews with the Japanese Secret Police who interogated Sorge, that, during the course of the Sorge's interrogations, Sorge suddenly leaped to his feet and announced, " Indeed I am a Communist and have been doing espionage. I am defeated! ... I have never been defeated since I became an international Communist. But now I am beaten by the Japanese police ! "

This histrionic performance was allegedly gained without recourse to torture, or other physical means. Now, to any rational person, the idea that a Soviet spy would suddenly leap to his feet and make a dramatic confession worthy of the Perry Mason Television show is ludicrous. But, this story was, according to Prange, told to Prange by the surviving Imperial police, and he accepted it and placed it in his book without any question as to it's veracity. This alone makes me begin to question Prange's abilities as a historian.

As to 'God's Samurai': It is known that Prange interviewed Fuchida in the early sixties. Then, the two men had some sort of 'falling out'. Some individuals have stated that it was because Fuchida continued to keep a mistress after he became a Christian lay minister, and that Prange was offended by this. After reading 'God's Samurai', I have another theory: Fuchida told nothing to Prange but the truth, and Prange, believing that, to increase the sales of the book he planned to write about Fuchida he needed to 'juice up' the story, added some fabricated incidents to the manuscript. When Fuchida was informed of this, he naturally objected, and subsequently refused to have anything further to do with the project. Without Fuchida's cooperation, ( and with the ever present possibility that, if Prange published the book over Fuchida's objections, Fuchida would publicly disavow the work ) Prange dropped the project. After so much work had been put into it, Prange would naturally have been miffed to say the least. But, the book was a dead issue.

Until, that is, Prange and Fuchida were both dead, and Donald Goldstein and Katherine Dillon brought it back to life. They could safely do this, since neither of the two parties involved could object or make embarrassing statements to the press.

In effect, Fuchida's reputation has now been badly savaged by a book that was published AFTER he was dead, and could object to it's falsehoods.

The same can be said of 'For That One Day: The Memoirs of Mitsuo Fuchida, Commander of the Attack on Pearl Harbor' by Tadanori Urabe and Douglas T Shinsato. This work is allegedly based on a 'long lost diary' kept by Fuchida that surfaced AFTER his death. Again, this is very convenient to the authors.

So, Mr. Stuart, the two works that are so often cited as evidence that Fuchida was a liar and a fabulist were both, 1) published AFTER his death, and 2) written by OTHER PEOPLE ! In my opinion, an honest historian, when evaluating Fuchida's veracity, should confine himself to studying only those writings of Fuchida that were, 1) published during Fuchida's lifetime, and 2) written BY Fuchida !


As for the Course taken by the Akagi when she was bombed: Mr. Glenn239: If the dive bomber evasion doctrine of the IJN was to immediately begin turning in tight circles, then the Akagi would have had NO fixed course during the attack by Lt. Best's formation. In fact, her course might have changed slightly between each bomb hit / miss, and so, therefore, trying to determine what Akagi's course was at any given moment would be like trying to determine the direction a weather vane is pointing in the middle of a tornado....


Respectfully ;

Paul R Ward
Information not shared, is information lost
Voices that are banned, are voices who cannot share information....
Discussions that are silenced, are discussions that will occur elsewhere !

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Shattered Sword - Opinions?

#202

Post by glenn239 » 20 Jul 2015, 19:23

paulrward wrote:Hello All ;

I am going to wade in here again, this time on the book, ' God's Samurai'. This book was published AFTER the death of Fuchida and AFTER Gordon Prange's death, by his two assistants, Donald Goldstein and Katherine Dillon. It was based on notes allegedly taken by Prange of things allegedly said by Fuchida during their interviews. In other words, neither of the two people allegedly involved in the conversations could be interviewed to verify if the things stated in the book were really said to Prange by Fuchida.
A quick google search doesn't turn up anything on Prange having questions on his reputation as a historian.

I notice a major difference in two accounts of Fuchida of the bombing of Akagi. The one in Midway matches the Shattered Sword account of three bombers dropping on Akagi more or less simultaneously. The one in God's Samurai is radically different. Here the attack on Akagi was done by bombers dropping in sequence. Enough time passed that the first miss deluged the carrier and blacked many faces before the second bomb hits. The other Akagi accounts I've seen match the second version of sequential bombings with separation between impacts, not the first. What do you make of it?
In effect, Fuchida's reputation has now been badly savaged by a book that was published AFTER he was dead, and could object to it's falsehoods.


Possible. Certainly it can be said that Fuchida could not be responsible for its contents, and if Fuchida had any interest in lying about his war experiences, he had from 1945 to his death in the 1970's to publish a book to that effect.
So, Mr. Stuart, the two works that are so often cited as evidence that Fuchida was a liar and a fabulist were both, 1) published AFTER his death, and 2) written by OTHER PEOPLE ! In my opinion, an honest historian, when evaluating Fuchida's veracity, should confine himself to studying only those writings of Fuchida that were, 1) published during Fuchida's lifetime, and 2) written BY Fuchida !
I tend to keep God's Samurai at more of a distance than Battle that Doomed Japan for that reason.
As for the Course taken by the Akagi when she was bombed: Mr. Glenn239: If the dive bomber evasion doctrine of the IJN was to immediately begin turning in tight circles, then the Akagi would have had NO fixed course during the attack by Lt. Best's formation.
Carriers can't launch planes while making emergency turns. Carriers launch CAP into the wind. So Akagi at 1025 was most probably on a straight course into the wind while launching that one fighter. The other two fighters were not launched presumably because the carrier heeled over into a maximum-rate turn, preventing any further launches.
Last edited by glenn239 on 20 Jul 2015, 19:35, edited 2 times in total.

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Shattered Sword - Opinions?

#203

Post by glenn239 » 20 Jul 2015, 19:31

Rob Stuart wrote:Glenn,

Occam's razor suggests that the simplest explanation is usually the most likely one, and the simplest explanation for the discrepancies between Fuchida's account and other interpretations is that Fuchida is wrong. Even if Jon and Tony are wrong to say that his account is a lie, it does not follow that his account is correct. His misstatements elsewhere in his book and in the accounts he gave to Prange which formed the basis for God's Samurai, whether deliberate or not, are so numerous and so egregious that no one should believe anything he says which cannot be verified through more reliable sources.
Paul's comments on God's Samurai I agree with - since Fuchida had passed away by the time this book was written. He's not responsible for its content. Fuchida is on tabs for anything in Midway, the Battle that Doomed Japan. As for discounting "anything" Fuchida says, I flatly disagree. Fuchida was an expert witness, battle leader of 1st Air Fleet. Instrumental in forging the best air unit in the Japanese Empire during the war. Very smart cookie.
There is nothing wrong with challenging the interpretations Jon and Tony put forward in Shattered Sword, but you're not going to convince anyone that their account of the "fateful five minutes" is substantially wrong simply by comparing their account with Fuchida's and throwing in a few passages from other secondary sources and the Nagumo Report.


My question was why Richard Best was in a hurry to bomb the Akagi? I can think of a number of reasons why a dive bomber pilot would rush their aim. One would be pressing fighter attacks, but there were no fighters around. A second would be heavy AA. But there was no AA either. A third might be being rattled. But Best was cool and not rattled. A fourth might be if the target is about to launch a deckload of planes. But Akagi is alleged to have no strike aircraft on deck. A fifth might be if the carrier was about to disappear into a rain squall. But there were none around.

With only two (or four) planes with him, Richard Best should be taking his time to make the attack count, not rushing it. What's his rush?

Rob Stuart
Member
Posts: 1200
Joined: 18 Apr 2009, 01:41
Location: Ottawa

Re: Shattered Sword - Opinions?

#204

Post by Rob Stuart » 22 Jul 2015, 00:37

So, Mr. Stuart, the two works that are so often cited as evidence that Fuchida was a liar and a fabulist were both, 1) published AFTER his death, and 2) written by OTHER PEOPLE ! In my opinion, an honest historian, when evaluating Fuchida's veracity, should confine himself to studying only those writings of Fuchida that were, 1) published during Fuchida's lifetime, and 2) written BY Fuchida !
Well Paul, this is a pretty odd principle you're proposing - "autobiographies good, biographies bad". Apparently if we want to determine if Grant, Elizabeth I or some other deceased person was a liar we must consider only what they wrote themselves. I guess we would be out of luck if the person in question never wrote their memoires.

In the foreward to God’s Samurai, Goldstein and Dillon make the following points:

-Prange wrote the manuscript before he died.

-Their “principal task … was to prune and consolidate. Using material from the Prange files, we added most of the descriptions of the political actions going on in Japan near and after the end of World War II to place the Fuchida story in historical context.” They also added the foreword, the introduction, the bibliography, the list of key personnel and the notes.

-“The Fuchida interviews … are the foundation of this narrative”; “Prange relied principally on the Fuchida interviews”.

-“The usual procedure was for Prange and Fuchida to sit together and talk, often for hours at a stretch, with Prange taking notes. They went over the same ground several times so that Fuchida could correct any errors or misunderstandings and examine Prange’s drafts.”

-“Nowhere have we attributed sentiments to Fuchida that he did not express.”

There is no reason to suppose that the above statements are lies.

Now consider some of the errors in God’s Samurai:

-Concerning the attack on Tjilatjap, the book gives the date as 3 March when in fact it was 5 March. This smells like a Fuchida error which Prange did not notice. If Fuchida had not given the date Prange would have looked it up and put in the correct date.

-It states that Fuchida’s aircraft was damaged during the attack on Tjilatjap and came down in Borneo. This is completely wrong (see Whopper #6, at http://www.combinedfleet.com/ThreeMoreWhoppers.htm), and Prange, Goldstein and Dillon would certainly have known that it could be disproved had it been an invention of theirs, so again it has to have been a Fuchida fable which they did not verify.

-God’s Samurai has Fuchida on the deck of Akagi when it was attacked on 9 April 1942 and watching Hermes sink at the same time. (See Whopper #5.) Ditto.

-It is stated that KdB stopped at Singapore on its way back to Japan after the attack on Trincomalee and that Fuchida had a chinwag with Ozawa. If he ever had such a meeting with Ozawa it was not then, since KdB did not stop at Singapore or anywhere else until it got to Japan. Fuchida is the only plausible source for this nonsense.

-The book also has Fuchida attending the surrender ceremony aboard the Missouri. This is compltely bogus (see https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/612 ... ee-Whopper) and is so implausible that there is no way that Prange, Goldstein or Dillon would ever have made it up.

I do agree with you that Prange was "extremely credulous" - and not just in God's Samurai. This explains why Fuchida's errors and fables made it into his transcript. A more cautious historian would have done some fact-checking between interviews and put it to Fuchida at the next one that, for example, "KdB did not stop at Singapore in April 1942, so was your meeting with Ozawa actually at some other time and place?". Prange can be faulted for this, certainly, but there is no reason to suppose that Fuchida did not make the statements attributed to him. It is therefore perfectly reasonable, mandatory in fact, to consider Fuchida's assertions in God's Samurai when assessing his reliability as a witness or source. An honest historian would recognize this.

paulrward
Member
Posts: 665
Joined: 10 Dec 2008, 21:14

Re: Shattered Sword - Opinions?

#205

Post by paulrward » 22 Jul 2015, 04:51

Hello Mr. Stuart ;

You state " but there is no reason to suppose that Fuchida did not make the statements attributed to him."

I put it to you another way: Is there ANY reason to suppose he DID make these statements ? Did Fuchida ever make these statements in public to anyone else ? Were there ever any other interviews in which he made the claims attributed to him by Prange ?

On the other hand, if you read Midway: The Battle that Doomed Japan, Fuchida is extremely self efacing, in fact, if you read his account of the dive bombing and it's aftermath, he is self deprecating in the extreme. He describes his exhuastion, his weakness, his taking cover during the attack, and his subsequent injuries while abandoning the burning Akagi. Hardly the stuff of a self-aggrandizing egotist.

As the the 'Whoppers' that Mr. Parshall has 'uncovered'. He states that in the Ceylon attack, the A6Ms flew well ahead of the bombers. If this is true, then it is one of the only times they did this. In fact, the standard IJN procedure for fighter escort was to divide the fighters in three groups, one flying on each side of the bombers, and the third flying above and behind the bombers. This is what they did at Pearl Harbor, and at Midway. Flying ahead of the bombers exposes them to the risk of their being attacked by interceptors that slip in between the fighters and the bombers.

Now, apparently Mr. Parshall believes that, because the fighters lifted off the carriers 30 minutes ahead of the bombers, that they led the bombers to the target. This is, I believe, an incorrect interpretation. I call to your attention the fact that an Mitsubishi A6M had twice the air endurance of a loaded Nakajima B5N. Thus, If I were an IJN air commander, I would launch the fighters, have them circle the carrier until the bombers took off, and then fly close escort all the way to the target.

Finally, as for Fuchida being 'everywhere' during the Ceylon attacks: This is EXACTLY what I would expect of him. He was flying in an unarmed ( no bomb load ) B5N that served as his command and control aircraft. He would certainly accompany the B5Ns into their attack, and then fly over to where the Aichi D3As were making their attack. That was his job.

I could go on, but it is, in my opinion, just a part and parcel the mis-interpretations made in Shattered Sword.

Respectfully;

Paul R. Ward
Information not shared, is information lost
Voices that are banned, are voices who cannot share information....
Discussions that are silenced, are discussions that will occur elsewhere !

Rob Stuart
Member
Posts: 1200
Joined: 18 Apr 2009, 01:41
Location: Ottawa

Re: Shattered Sword - Opinions?

#206

Post by Rob Stuart » 22 Jul 2015, 10:29

You state " but there is no reason to suppose that Fuchida did not make the statements attributed to him."

I put it to you another way: Is there ANY reason to suppose he DID make these statements ? Did Fuchida ever make these statements in public to anyone else ? Were there ever any other interviews in which he made the claims attributed to him by Prange ?
Paul, I have already given the reasons why we can be confident that Fuchida did make the statements attributed to him. You are the one trying to argue that none of the errors in God's Samurai are Fuchida's fault, that instead they are the fault of Prange or Goldstein and Dillon, who by your account positively made things up. The onus is on you to justify your claims.
As the the 'Whoppers' that Mr. Parshall has 'uncovered'. He states that in the Ceylon attack, the A6Ms flew well ahead of the bombers. If this is true, then it is one of the only times they did this. In fact, the standard IJN procedure for fighter escort was to divide the fighters in three groups, one flying on each side of the bombers, and the third flying above and behind the bombers. This is what they did at Pearl Harbor, and at Midway. Flying ahead of the bombers exposes them to the risk of their being attacked by interceptors that slip in between the fighters and the bombers.

Now, apparently Mr. Parshall believes that, because the fighters lifted off the carriers 30 minutes ahead of the bombers, that they led the bombers to the target. This is, I believe, an incorrect interpretation. I call to your attention the fact that an Mitsubishi A6M had twice the air endurance of a loaded Nakajima B5N. Thus, If I were an IJN air commander, I would launch the fighters, have them circle the carrier until the bombers took off, and then fly close escort all the way to the target.
Akagi, Soryu, Hiryu and Zuikaku each provided nine A6Ms to participate in the attack on Colombo. It is a fact that Hiryu's A6Ms flew ahead of the rest of the aircraft and arrived in the target area first. The other 27 A6Ms provided close escort for the D3As and B5Ns. And Jon is not saying that the fighters took off 30 minutes before the rest of the aircraft. They did not. He's saying that the fighters arrived in the target area 30 minutes before the bombers. He has made a small mistake there, since only Hiryu's fighters, and not all of the fighters, arrived ahead of the bombers, but he is entirely correct to say that the fighters which attacked the Swordfish were too far ahead for Fuchida to have seen them or the Swordfish. The B5Ns were in fact behind the D3As, so Fuchida himself was still well to the south at 0732. His claim that he was the first to spot the Swordfish and that he sent Itaya after them is clearly a fabrication - and it's in Midway, which Fuchida wrote himself.

For further information on the Colombo attack, see my recent article in the Royal Canadian Air Force Journal. It's at http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/assets ... l-1942.pdf.
Finally, as for Fuchida being 'everywhere' during the Ceylon attacks: This is EXACTLY what I would expect of him. He was flying in an unarmed ( no bomb load ) B5N that served as his command and control aircraft. He would certainly accompany the B5Ns into their attack, and then fly over to where the Aichi D3As were making their attack. That was his job.
Fuchida's B5N was not unarmed. Did you not look at the pages from Akagi's 9 April kodochosho which Jon attached to his article? It clearly shows that the 18 B5Ns carried 18 bombs, so obviously he lugged an 800 kg bomb just like everyone else. His aircraft was also armed for the attack on Colombo.

The kodochosho also shows that Fuchida landed back on Akagi at 0930. He certainly did not see Hermes sink before landing on Akagi, since Hermes was not attacked until 1035 and sank at 1055. And just how exactly could he have been on Akagi's deck at 1045 when the Blenheims attacked and over Hermes at 1055 when she sank? Clearly this is impossible. Equally clearly, Fuchida must be the source for the claim that he saw Hermes sink. Whatever their other faults, to my knowledge no one (other than you) has ever suggested that Prange, Goldstein or Dillon were liars who just made things up. Furthermore, they were not stupid people, and if they were going to twist the truth they would not have invented a tale which could be so easily disproved.
I could go on, but it is, in my opinion, just a part and parcel the mis-interpretations made in Shattered Sword.
With the exception of the small editorial error I've acknowledged, there are to my knowledge no misinterpretations in Jon's descriptions of Fuchida's six whoppers. On the other hand, there are several misinterpretations in your response to my post. I'll take Jon and Tony's interpretations over yours any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

paulrward
Member
Posts: 665
Joined: 10 Dec 2008, 21:14

Re: Shattered Sword - Opinions?

#207

Post by paulrward » 23 Jul 2015, 03:11

Hello Mr. Stuart ;

I just re-read the relevant pages of 'Midway, The Battle that Doomed Japan". In it, Fuchida is very clear that he was ON BOARD the Akagi when the Hermes was sunk, and that it was sunk by a group of Dive Bombers led by Commander Egusa.

I will take words written by Fuchida over words written by Prange, Goldstein, or Dillon ( or for that matter, Parshall and Tully ), any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

Respectfully ;

Paul R. Ward
Information not shared, is information lost
Voices that are banned, are voices who cannot share information....
Discussions that are silenced, are discussions that will occur elsewhere !

Rob Stuart
Member
Posts: 1200
Joined: 18 Apr 2009, 01:41
Location: Ottawa

Re: Shattered Sword - Opinions?

#208

Post by Rob Stuart » 23 Jul 2015, 05:30

paulrward wrote:Hello Mr. Stuart ;

I just re-read the relevant pages of 'Midway, The Battle that Doomed Japan". In it, Fuchida is very clear that he was ON BOARD the Akagi when the Hermes was sunk, and that it was sunk by a group of Dive Bombers led by Commander Egusa.
There is no doubt that Fuchida was on Akagi when Hermes was sunk. There is no argument about that. He is however wrong to say that the D3As which attacked Hermes were led by Egusa. They were in fact led by Takahashi. This is just typical of the many smaller errors he makes in Midway, on top of the whoppers.
paulrward wrote: I will take words written by Fuchida over words written by Prange, Goldstein, or Dillon ( or for that matter, Parshall and Tully ), any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.
So evidently it is your position that, first of all, there are no errors of any kind in Midway, because, like the Pope, Fuchida is infallible, and second, any and all errors in God's Samurai are due to Fuchida being misunderstood, misquoted or deliberately misrepresented by Prange, Goldstein and Dillon. Thank God you're here to tell us that Prange, who was a professor of history and spent decades studying Pearl Harbor and Midway, did not know how to take accurate notes during an interview and that he picked liars and incompetents as his protégés. Your perspicuity is amazing, as evidently you can discern these things when no one else in the whole damn world can do so. After all, no one who is to be the subject of a biography would ever embellish any account he gave to his biographer about his life, so anything in the biography attributed to him which is disproved must be the fault of the biographer. Nor would the author of an autobiography add anything juicy to help sell his book. No, everyone who's ever written an autobiography has always written a true and complete account of everything they did. Thank you so much for seting us all straight!

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Shattered Sword - Opinions?

#209

Post by glenn239 » 23 Jul 2015, 23:02

Rob Stuart wrote: Paul, I have already given the reasons why we can be confident that Fuchida did make the statements attributed to him. You are the one trying to argue that none of the errors in God's Samurai are Fuchida's fault, that instead they are the fault of Prange or Goldstein and Dillon, who by your account positively made things up. The onus is on you to justify your claims.
The easiest way to clear up the matter would be to examine Prange's original notes.
And just how exactly could he have been on Akagi's deck at 1045 when the Blenheims attacked and over Hermes at 1055 when she sank?
Fuchida states in Battle that Doomed Japan that he was aboard Akagi and did not see the Hermes sink. Fuchida's account of the sinking of Akagi is also substantially different in the two books.

...there are to my knowledge no misinterpretations in Jon's descriptions of Fuchida's six whoppers....
https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/292 ... views.aspx

Three Whoppers consisted of the following three accusations, intended to 'bury' Fuchida -

1. The Missouri accusation was made by way of circumstantial evidence - that Fuchida was not on the guest list. It might be correct. Then again, it might not be.

2. The Pearl Harbor accusation was that Fuchida would not have earmarked oil tanks for a follow up strike because American historians after the war decided they were of more significance than they actually were. All well and good, but a non-sequiter. Fuchida had never claimed any strategic genius in earmarking the tanks, only that he did so. The tactical reasons why it is reasonable to conclude he did so are pretty much self-evident, and also nowhere to be found in Three Whoppers.

3. With respect to the Five Minutes, Three Whoppers claimed that Fuchida had Soryu, Hiryu and Kaga turning into the wind to launch. A read of Fuchida confirms nothing of the sort. Fuchida's account in Midway is clear that (1) Hiryu launched at 1040 on order of Yamaguchi, not at 1025 on order of Nagumo, (2) Soryu was not yet ready to launch its strike when bombed and was caught still preparing for launch, (3) there is no mention of aircraft of Kaga's flight deck when bombed. Fuchida's account has Akagi, and Akagi only turning to launch a strike.

The article states the motive was,

This made sense in a book written immediately after the
conflict by a former Japanese naval officer trying to salvage some honor fromthe
wreckage of both a career and a lost war. Indeed, Fuchida’s motivations were
probably along the same lines as those of individuals like Major General F. W.
von Mellenthin, whose famous book Panzer Battles (1956), along with memoirs
by other former Wehrmacht commanders, not only helped orient the terms of
study of the eastern front along essentially German lines for the better part of
fifty years but also implanted the myth of outsized Germanmartial prowess that
reverberates in some audiences to this day.


For the most part former German panzer generals were publishing self-expurgating books to exonerate their own conduct in battles. This motive is therefore unconvincing. Fuchida in fact bore no responsibility for the defeat at Midway and his book took the narrative position that Nagumo was responsible for destroying his carefully trained air command.

It goes on to assert,

I am convinced that one reason why Fuchida’s tale endured in American literature is that it tapped into an underlying national self-image that we Americans have of the battle.

The actual reason why had little to do with Fuchida; it is because dive bomber pilots such as Wade McClusky stated that the Japanese decks were covered in aircraft. The VB-3 action report from June 10th states,

http://www.midway42.org/ShowPDF.aspx?Pa ... R/vb-3.pdf

"It's flight deck was covered with aircraft spotted aft....his bombed exploded in the midst of the spotted planes...''

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Shattered Sword - Opinions?

#210

Post by glenn239 » 24 Jul 2015, 21:19

Getting back to the Akagi attack for a moment, I've found an article by George J. Walsh, (USN retired) that pertains to the question on attack formations vs. Akagi. Mr. Walsh was a Helldiver USN dive bomber pilot, now ametuer historian,

http://midwayhistorians.blogspot.ca/

Shattered Sword Jon Parshall presents a detailed 4 page description of the attack on the Akagi, complete with diagrams. His Japanese sources report that the 1st bomb dropped was a near miss. It was the 2nd bomb striking amidships that inflicted the mortal damage. The 3rd bomb dropped was a damaging near miss at the stern of Akagi.

From these facts the author then creates a scenario that has the VB-6 bombers making a V section formation attack on the Akagi, rather than the normal attack procedure where the wingmen trail the section leader. The diagram above depicts a glide bombing attack. To my knowledge our Navy never made a formation dive bombing attack in combat.

According to Page 4 of the 1966 Barde interview of Dick Best;1

“He readied for dive, about 150 feet behind each other in a 700.

So close were they in a dive, that when Kroeger, #2, released his bomb, Best was in his bombsight”.

From this we may conclude that the normal attack procedure was followed, wing men following the leader, not a V section attack in formation as described in Shattered Sword. The Japanese reported that the 1st bomb of Dick Best was a near miss. It was the 2nd bomb striking amidships that inflicted the mortal damage. This would have been dropped by Lt.(jg) Edwin Kroeger. I am sorry that the continuing criticism of Wade McClusky has led to this unforeseen conclusion. I did not initiate this line of investigation.

Locked

Return to “Japan at War 1895-1945”