Review Shattered Sword: The Japanese Story of the Battle of Midway

AWP

SOF Support
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
19,116
Location
Florida
This thread will be a work in progress as I read more of the book. I wanted to share some details as I read, so that even if you dont' buy the book you can pick up a few things.

Authors: Jonathon Parshall and Anthony Tully

The book makes extensive use of Japanense accounts, documentation, and interviews from surviving members of the IJN. It appears to be well researched and written. The authors have already demonstrated the great divides within the Japanese military and within the IJN itself and how Midway was partially the result of being too successful in the opening days of the war. Japan didn't have a solid plan following Malaya and the Dutch East Indies which suddenly caused a lot of internal turmoil. Yamamoto isn't presented as the genius we see in the West and how Japan's rigid society promoted men based on senority vice merit, sometimes with disasterous results. One interesting myth they've dispelled: the attack on the Aleutians wasn't a diversionary attack, but its own operation planned to coincide with Midway; something driven by internal politics.

They briefly covered Japanese naval and carrier doctrine along with air group composition and even carrier size plus strengths and weaknesses. They've managed to do so without it being to dry or technical. One main point in doing so is that Western authors imprint Japanese carrier operations against the USN's for the same period. In fact, doctrine, air group composition, and carrier size drove Japanese tactics, so comparing them tot he West is a bit futile. They've also covered the airgroups at the time of sailing for Midway and how they were very experienced, but the IJN's naval aviation was already tired. Aircraft production in 1942 only delivered 59 carrier aircraft which left every squadron below its authorized strength or even some smaller carriers without aircraft. They've even covered how the IJN knew America would produce far more carriers than it could, while Japan wouldn't see a new carrier until 1944. In short, they had great aircrews, but were understrength and with no depth in ships.

Politically, Vice Admiral Chuichi Nagumo, commander of the carrier striking force, wasn't an advocate of carrier operations. He shared a "big gun" background with his counterpart at Midway, Ray Spruance, but Spruance was calm and handled carriers well, taking the time to learn what he could about carrier operations while Nagumo was more or less detached. Yamamoto's force of personality was pushing the operation and no one was able to stand up to him. Becuase he was viewed as a driving force in Japan's early victoriies, he was politically bulletproof even as those around him could see the operation's shortcomings. He was so focused on forcing a decisive battle that he overlooked one basic assumption in Japanese doctrine: the decisive battle should take place in the western Pacific, not the central where American land-based airpower could be brought to bear on the fleet. Moving against Midway left him without a proper reconnaisance force while the Americans had over 30 patrol aircraft on Midway alone.

The Japanese sub force, intended as a screen to warn of the American carriers, left their anchorage late and didn't even have a plan. It was literally, "be here at this time" and that's about all. Their commander was married to the Emporer's niece and has escaped condemnation, particularly in post-war Japan, because of his royal connection.

In other words, by the time the IJN fleet left Japan, they were already behind the 8-ball and didn't know it.

Great book so far.
 
Oh, one other doctrinal issue is deck-spotting. Basically, Japanese carriers were smaller than their US counterparts. The Japanese essentially took half of an air group and kept it on deck. When they launched an airstrike it was half of a ship's capability, but combined with other carriers' air groups to form a strike package. This is one reason there were two waves striking Pearl Harbor: it would take about 30 minutes to stage and launch the rest of the air group. Rather than have the first group orbit and burn fuel, they planned around two waves. US carriers could, if needed, place an entire air group (the original CAG in the US military) on deck and launch it though in practice this wasn't necessary. The IJN carriers were smaller and had to split their forces.

Unlike the US Navy, the IJN didn't mix and match squadrons. Prior to Midway, the USN swapped out depleted squadrons for fresh, full sqaudrons. After the Battle of the Coral Sea, the IJN had one fleet crrier damaged and another with losses to its air wing. Rather than consolidate air groups on the undamaged carrier, the IJN sent four "complete" air groups to Midway. Overall carrier air strength was about the same, but Midway could launch attack aircraft. A fifth carrier would have given the IJN some parity in attack aircraft instead of an overall deficit.
 
Sounds like one I need to add to my collection. Looking forward to your further comments. You might also be interested in John Toland's The Rising Sun. A prodigious work about the Pacific War from the Japanese POV written in the late 70's, when many of the principle Japanese participants were still alive to be interviewed.

Shattered Sword sounds like it would be a good companion for Walter Lord's Incredible Victory, one of the best (IMO) accounts of Midway from the U.S. POV.
 
The authors cover the Japanese search pattern and flaws with that plan, what little plan existed, even including diagrams of the plan and how it unfolded. They also addressed a problem historians have generally claimed: had Tone's scout plan launched 30 minutes earlier it would have "saved" the Japanese fleet by finding the US first. I say they "addressed" the problem, they rather obliterated the topic. If anything, leaving 30 minutes late allowed the Japanese to know where the American fleet was located, otherwise they wouldn't even know the Americans were operating on their flank. Then they cover a crucial 45 minute period regarding arming-dearming aircraft on the carriers, the report from Tone's scoutplane, and the Japanese decisions. One interesting part was the initial sighting of the US fleet (well, one of two US carrier fleets involved in the battle). The report stated 10 ships, but no carriers, however the report contained info that they were steaming on a course of 150 which was into the wind that morning. The Japanese didn't consider a carrier to be in the sighting and ignored or overlooked the part about the force steaming into the wind. Carriers do that to launch and recover aircraft. As historians would later learn, the IJN scout aircraft was shadowing one US task force as it was launching strike aircraft.

They've also gone into detail about the Japanese process for prepping a strike force, gassing, arming/ dearming planes, spotting them on deck, even elevator speeds and sizes. The latter even determined what aircarft were spotted where on the flight deck, even if it put them on the edge of their takeoff envelope.

I will say I went into the book thinking they might be apologists or sympathetic to the Japanese, but they'e been very balanced in their information and criticism. They've done an excellent job of breaking down how the Kido Butai functioned at just about every level in the fleet.
 
I just wrapped up the first American carrier-based strikes and the book is dealing with the damage and aftermath to Akagi, Soryu, and Kaga. The amount of detail at this point in the book is overwhelming, but the authors also provide a number of illustrations to make their points regarding carrier positions, attack waves, and damage to the IJN carriers. In no particular order they also cover:
- Damage control layouts on the carriers
- Damage control practices and methods
- Carrier design and how this impacts DC efforts
- Anti-aircraft effectiveness
- Dispels the myth that the sacrifice of American torpedo squadrons allowed dive-bombers to decimate the carriers, because...
- ...the book also covers IJN Combat Air Patrol (CAP) procedures and detailed dispositions of who was where and why
- And a bunch of other stuff I'm missing.

The flood of information is staggering and I'm re-reading some passages two and three times, but they are also heavily annotated and supported with footnotes, which brings me to one complaint. The footnotes at times are small passages themselves. while great they also get ahead of the narrative in a few places and contribute to a bit of confusion. I find myself circling back now and then to digest everything. Again, the level of detail is amazing and they do a great job of breaking it down, but at the same time the level of detail is overwhelming. The authors have taken great pains to recreate a "3D" picture of the battle and this thread can't do them any justice.
 
Finished the book. BLUF: If you're into WWII history it is worth the read. The Appendices are exhaustive, including the make-up of the various CAP and strike flights, including the pilots and their aviation class number. The amount of info in the book is sick.

The conclusions section had some great points: the outcome of the Pacific War was pre-ordained, so Midway wasn't so much a turning point as it was a mile marker on the journey. Japanese cultural and historical (Tsushima) bias shped its naval doctrine and essentially tied the hands of the various commanders; initiative was not prized. Lastly, naval aviation wasn't broken in the battle, that would occur during the Guadalcanal- Solomons campaign. That was a brutal war of attrition the Japanese lost. Aircrew loses at Midway were slight, something like less than 25%. The big loss, other than the cariers, was in airwing personnel. The mechanics, deck handlers, fuel and ordnance crews, their losses were around 40% in some cases. Japan's agrarian economy couldn't sustain the loss of so many technicians. Ultimately, Midway hastened the end of the war and a Japanese victory could only prolong the Pacific campaigns.
 
Back
Top