Vice Admiral Mark Mitscher

Discussions on WW2 in the Pacific and the Sino-Japanese War.
User avatar
Pips
Member
Posts: 1280
Joined: 26 Jun 2005, 09:44
Location: Country NSW, Australia

Vice Admiral Mark Mitscher

#1

Post by Pips » 04 May 2018, 06:56

'Pete' Mitscher well deserved his reputation as a fine commander of the Fast Carrier Task Force in the latter stages of the Pacific War.

But his performance as captain of the USS Hornet during the Midway operation left much to be desired. As captain he was responsible for the performance of his subordinates. And at Midway both the Hornets Air Department and the Air Group performed poorly.

Was Mitscher ever sanctioned regarding the dismal showing of Hornet's Air Group?

Delta Tank
Member
Posts: 2512
Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 02:51
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Vice Admiral Mark Mitscher

#2

Post by Delta Tank » 04 May 2018, 20:40

Pips,

I don’t know but, I will give you my opinion. Air agroups are assigned to an aircraft carrier, and when they get done with a mission or have suffered a good number of casualties, they my leave that carrier and another air group will take their place. As far as I know, there is not a permanent relationship, it is or could be temporary.

Mike


User avatar
R Leonard
Member
Posts: 471
Joined: 16 Oct 2003, 03:48
Location: The Old Dominion

Re: Vice Admiral Mark Mitscher

#3

Post by R Leonard » 05 May 2018, 01:39

I don't believe that Marc Andrew Mitscher (007591) (note "Marc" not "Mark") was formally censured. Certainly, though, Raymond Spruance writing in the TF-16 report that where there are discrepancies between the Hornet reports and the Enterprise report that the Enterprise reports should be considered to be more correct was not exactly a ringing endorsement.

Mitscher went to duty ashore after Hornet and became COMPatWing2, a largely administrative command at NAS Pearl Harbor. This was not a change, he already had orders to same. But, in the grand scheme, this was probably his service in durance vile for Midway, for from there he went to ComAirSols and from there to ComCarForCentPac, the beginnings of what would become the Fast Carrier Task Forces we see at the end of the war, where he commanded TF58 which later was designated the Com1stFastCarTaskFor. And of course at the end of his career he was DCNO(Air) and then CinClant, the position he held when he died. Whatever failings at Midway were certainly left in the dust.

Did he screw the pooch at Midway? No more than, say, Miles Browning or Stanhope Ring (and of those two, Browning was certainly more culpable than Ring). As an observer of US naval aviation history I always found it mildly interesting that Mitscher was coupled with Spruance, who was certainly aware of the opinions of others, if not his own, of Mitscher's Midway performance. Perhaps, perhaps, there was a reason for keeping Mitscher under Spruance's control.

Delta Tank
Member
Posts: 2512
Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 02:51
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Vice Admiral Mark Mitscher

#4

Post by Delta Tank » 05 May 2018, 14:32

R Leonard,

The US Navy did rotate air units off and on carriers? It wasn’t a permanent relationship, correct? It was never our doctrine that (made up example follows) Air Group 1 will always operate off the USS Enterprise.

Mike

User avatar
R Leonard
Member
Posts: 471
Joined: 16 Oct 2003, 03:48
Location: The Old Dominion

Re: Vice Admiral Mark Mitscher

#5

Post by R Leonard » 05 May 2018, 16:54

Really has naught to do with anything to do with any censure of Marc Mitscher after Midway.

If you are asking if air groups were rotated off an on carriers over the course of the war, yes, they were, once the replacement air group program was up and running starting in the fall of 1942 when Air Group 10 came out to deploy aboard Enterprise. Prior to that, no, it was a matter of available squadrons. Sometimes, serendipitously, a carrier might have its "own" air group aboard. Air Groups on fleet carriers up until the stateside establishments of Air Groups 9, 10, and 11, were named, not numbered. Thus while up to and through the Battle of Midway, USS Enterprise carried the Enterprise Air Group (EAG) and all the squadrons were 6's, VB-6, VF-6, VS-6,and VT-6 (except of minor case,see below); and over on Hornet, the HAG squadrons were similarly numbered with 8's, this sort of situation was not true aboard Yorktown, where up through Coral Sea the YAG consisted of VB-5, VF-42 (a Ranger squadron), VS-5, and VT-5. At Midway, the YAG was again shuffled, now made up of VB-3, VB-5, VF-3 (though most of the pilots were from VF-42), and VT-3. VF-3 from the Saratoga Air Group made a cruise as the VF squadron in the Lexington's LAG in circa February 1942; VB-3, also an erstwhile SAG squadron, likewise, was the VB squadron on Enterprise during the Doolittle adventure. Between Midway and up to and even after the advent of CVG-10, air groups were thoroughly mixed, with whatever squadrons were available going on whatever carrier was available. Also happened at the individual aviator level, one might find one's self the bull ensign of VB whatever at NAS Maui today and tomorrow just another middle of the pack ensign in another VB squadron headed for the south Pacific.

Whole books have been written that trace these developments, the assignment of squadrons to carriers in the south Pacific over the course of the Guadalcanal campaign can be very confusing to those who expect to see homogeneously numbered squadrons in each air group. It helps to have a trusty list of squadrons and a calendar handy to keep the back and forth straight. These movements can be somewhat traced in the USN squadron location reports, but those with an eye for the facts can quickly spot errors the these reports . . . sometimes it seems that the USN was keeping secrets from itself.

As for Mitscher, his leaving Hornet after Midway is a totally different issue. You seem the equate his leaving with squadron/air group rotation. The two have nothing to do with each other other than near proximity timing. Carriers had and have two distinct organizations, ships company, that is, those whose orders assign them specifically to the ship; and air group personnel, who are assigned to a squadron which just happens to be assigned to a particular carrier.

Mitscher was captain of USS Hornet, solidly in the ships company side of the equation. As USN carrier organization and doctrine evolved, yes, the captain of a carrier, absent orders from a higher command (this is where Miles Browning over on Enterprise really did screw the pooch at Midway) had the say in what and how the ship's air group carried out its missions. So, yes, he could and did decide what the HAG was going to do, though I think he had some bad advice from a couple of folks upon whom he was overly reliant. IMO those decisions were wildly optimistic in view of the HAGs level of experience and training, so, to me, the results are not at all surprising or startling.

Mitscher was NOT a member of the air group, he was the head dog of the ship's company, so squadron/air group rotations had nothing to do with his transfer to COMPatWing1. His promotion to Rear Admiral was already a done deal and, as things were done then, he could and would assume the rank and title of RAdm upon his departure from Hornet and before his arrival at PatWing1.

Not at all as simple as you would seem to have gathered.

Delta Tank
Member
Posts: 2512
Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 02:51
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Vice Admiral Mark Mitscher

#6

Post by Delta Tank » 05 May 2018, 23:56

R Leonard,

I believe the original poster thought that the captain of an aircraft carrier was responsible for the training of the air group. I never thought that and your explanation points that out.

Bull ensign? What the hell is that?

Mike

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 20:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Vice Admiral Mark Mitscher

#7

Post by Takao » 06 May 2018, 01:12

Delta Tank wrote: Bull ensign? What the hell is that?

Mike
Most senior ensign of a Navy command.

Delta Tank
Member
Posts: 2512
Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 02:51
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Vice Admiral Mark Mitscher

#8

Post by Delta Tank » 06 May 2018, 15:06

Takao,

Well, in the Army there is no such thing, title, etc. at least when I was in. in fact, why would anyone care.

Mike

User avatar
R Leonard
Member
Posts: 471
Joined: 16 Oct 2003, 03:48
Location: The Old Dominion

Re: Vice Admiral Mark Mitscher

#9

Post by R Leonard » 06 May 2018, 15:51

Well, that's why there is an army AND a navy. And if you think a bunch of 2LTs in an army company don't know which of them is the most senior, and thus most likely to rise to 1LT in the next round of promotions I would suggest you may wish to rethink that. If he's not transferred out, he's certain to become the XO and one does not want to be on wrong side of the XO.

Bull Ensign is a minor, unofficial, honorific which dates back to a much smaller pre-war navy. Not even sure it is used anymore. At best the title was somewhat fleeting as one's status could change. It was not something one carried around with oneself . . . it rated nothing special and was internal unit specific. I would imagine on a large ship, such as a carrier, no one would bother to figure it out, Ensigns were underfoot everywhere, but in, say, a VT squadron, where there might be all of five ensigns, which one has been an ensign longest is not hard to figure out. So, a new ensign, Sam, gets assigned to the squadron and he's down in boy's town (the slang term for the healthful and pleasant abode of the lowly ensigns) being introduced around and "Oh, and this is Joe, he's our bull ensign, or at least he was now that you are here." And, Joe takes no offense as it is just a descriptor, no extra duty, no extra responsibility, no extra anything, just that which is used to point out who is senior. I think "quaint" is an apt description of the practice.

Kind of like, if one traveled in old enough Old Army circles, the junior 2LT being a "shave-tail".

Delta Tank
Member
Posts: 2512
Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 02:51
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Vice Admiral Mark Mitscher

#10

Post by Delta Tank » 07 May 2018, 12:40

R. Leonard,

Oh, we knew who was senior but it didn’t matter unless it was a huge difference in date of rank. We were assigned to positions based on ability not based on date of rank. Some LTs senior to me were not that good and they did not get the more critical assignments and when the promotion lists came out for O-3, those guys did not get promoted. But, if the Navy let seniority determine assignments in every unit, well good for them, but that ain’t the way to lead a military unit in my opinion.

My understanding “Shavetail” is a descriptive term used for all 2LTs, not just the most junior.

Mike

reedwh52
Member
Posts: 117
Joined: 31 Mar 2014, 21:42

Re: Vice Admiral Mark Mitscher

#11

Post by reedwh52 » 07 May 2018, 15:19

Mitscher was not "tainted" by the Hornet air groups performance at Midway. His service primarily under Spruance also did not constitute a reflection of concern about Mitscher. Spruance, the non-aviator, and Mitscher complimented each other.

It is seldom noted that the performance of the Hornet Air Group was not totally unexpected; it was less than hoped for. While the Yorktown & Enterprise Air Groups were more established, more experienced and had some combat experience, Hornet's group was unblooded, The Group was commissioned on October 6, 1941 with cast-off F4Fs, SBC biplanes and biplane torpedo planes. First carrier ops began on the Hornets shakedown cruise on December 25, 1941. (the air department was noted (in "The First Team", page 178 as"expecting proficiency without practice,...restricting flight time desperately needed to gain proficiency" which does reflect badly on Mitscher.)

Once Hornet sailed for the Pacific, training on group level operations was essentially non-existent. Starting from a much lower level of training than the Pacific air groups and with no combat experience to start (or gained pre-Midway), training time was not available. Hornet was essentially on active operations (including transit time to Pacific thru active zones) from March 4 to June, 1942.

Hornet's itinerary From March 4, 1942 to Midway:
March 4 to March 20-at sea enroute to San Diego-ASW patrols
March 21-30 in San Diego Hornet air group re-equipped all squadrons-to F4f-4 from F4F-3, from SBC biplanes to SBD, and replaced last biplane TBs with TBDs)-aircraft transition time, not group training time)
March 23-25 Hornet at sea-carrier landing qualifications
March 30-31 to San Francisco
April 1-air group struck below decks; 16 B-25s deck loaded
April 2-18: Tokyo Raid outbound: No flight ops by air group
April 18-25: Enroute Pearl HArbor
April 26-29: In Pearl HArbor:
April 30-May 26: To South Pacific & back to Pearl
May 27-28: In Pearl Harbor
May 28-Sail for Midway

User avatar
R Leonard
Member
Posts: 471
Joined: 16 Oct 2003, 03:48
Location: The Old Dominion

Re: Vice Admiral Mark Mitscher

#12

Post by R Leonard » 08 May 2018, 00:44

Delta Tank wrote:R. Leonard,
But, if the Navy let seniority determine assignments in every unit, well good for them, but that ain’t the way to lead a military unit in my opinion.
Mike
I never wrote anything of the kind.

Bull Ensign was just an expression, period, full stop. It was not a billet, it was not an assignment, it carried no duties, nothing; it was a phrase used to describe the senior ensign and went back long years in the USN. In an aviation squadron, the bull ensign could, indeed, be that guy who was attached yesterday straight from advanced operational training . . . it does not mean he automatically gets to be a section or division leader. I am sorry if that seems to be so confusing.

You are reading far, far and away too much into this. If one bothers to look one can come up with numerous examples of juniors leading seniors in USN squadrons, but it seems to me, that is, in my opinion, from what I am reading here that you seem to want to veer into some sort of USN vs USA tit-for-tat. Sorry, I’m not going to play, for while my field of study is naval aviation, I’ve far too many army officers in my background, starting with my grandfather who retired a colonel in 1935, to even consider for a moment playing that game. You may write from a position of authority on the US Army, good for you, but if you’re expecting an argument, you are on your own if that’s where you are going. And silence is not necessarily acquiescence.

User avatar
R Leonard
Member
Posts: 471
Joined: 16 Oct 2003, 03:48
Location: The Old Dominion

Re: Vice Admiral Mark Mitscher

#13

Post by R Leonard » 08 May 2018, 00:52

reedwh52 wrote:Once Hornet sailed for the Pacific, training on group level operations was essentially non-existent. Starting from a much lower level of training than the Pacific air groups and with no combat experience to start (or gained pre-Midway), training time was not available.
Which is exactly to what I referred when I wrote above of my lack of surprise at the performance of the air group. I have long wondered, however, about criticism of Stanhope Ring on his technical ability to fly the SBD in combat levelled by some of the JO’s of VB & VS 8 considering their own vast level of experience in type in the same time period and the paltry number of hits their squadrons managed to achieve. Not that I am a great fan of, or apologist for, Ring, quite the opposite actually, just that I think that particular criticism, and maybe one or two others, might be a bit unfair.

Lundstrom’s First Team volumes, both of them, are the best places to find the above mentioned back and forth of squadrons, and even individuals, amongst the carriers active in the Pacific from just before 7 Dec 1941 through the end of November 1942. Shoot, just look at VF-42 – a USS Ranger fighter squadron - aboard Yorktown since June 1941. After Coral Sea and back at Pearl, VF-3 goes aboard Yorktown as the VF squadron but short so many pilots that everyone but the CO, XO, and one sick list LTJG of VF-42 are sent off under the command of the senior LTJG to fill in the holes in VF-3. There were no written orders assigning the VF-42 flyers to TAD with VF-3. It was very straight forward. The senior LTJG was called in to the VF-42 offices at Ewa where he found the CO, Charlie Fenton, and the YAG, Pete Pedersen. Pedersen (who had been CO of VF-42 before moving up to CYAG) looked at him and said, "Billy, gather up the rest of the pilots and report to Lieut Cdr Thach at Kaneohe. Your transport leaves in an hour," and that was that. These gents did not even have to move their dunnage back on the ship, it was still aboard. At Midway, nine out of 12 section leaders in VF-3 were from VF-42, all LTJGs except for Dick Wright who was an ensign (and, no, he was not the Bull Ensign). Four of those 12 section leaders were also, obviously, division leaders and three of them, LTJGs Dick Crommelin, Art Brassfield, and Bill Leonard were all from VF-42, Jimmie Thach, of course, was leader of the 1st Division. Oh, and the last two section leaders? They were VF-3 warrant Machinists, Tom Cheek and Doyle Barnes, both recently promoted in late March 1942, from the ranks of enlisted NAP who were (gasp, turning seniority on its head in favour of experience) leading the ensigns assigned to their sections.

Delta Tank
Member
Posts: 2512
Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 02:51
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Vice Admiral Mark Mitscher

#14

Post by Delta Tank » 08 May 2018, 00:52

R. Leonard,

R. Leonard wrote: “ Well, that's why there is an army AND a navy. And if you think a bunch of 2LTs in an army company don't know which of them is the most senior, and thus most likely to rise to 1LT in the next round of promotions I would suggest you may wish to rethink that. If he's not transferred out, he's certain to become the XO and one does not want to be on wrong side of the XO.“

Now read what you wrote!! Read the last line!

You wrote it, I read it, and means what it means! Promotion by seniority, not on ability. Ok! Got it!

Mike

User avatar
R Leonard
Member
Posts: 471
Joined: 16 Oct 2003, 03:48
Location: The Old Dominion

Re: Vice Admiral Mark Mitscher

#15

Post by R Leonard » 08 May 2018, 01:44

No, it means what you want it to mean. And when there is a 1LT at hand & everyone else is a 2LT, guess who gets the job? We are done.

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in the Pacific & Asia”