Russ: They were important to the Midway story because it was from one of the officer prisoners that the Japanese found out, or verified, that there were three USN carriers present. This officer that spilled the beans was also reported to have tried to bribe his way out of ill treatment by offering a cigarette lighter to his captors. To my knowledge this officer has never been identified in print for obvious reasons. The Japanese considered this cowardly and greatly resented this. The other two acted in an honorable manner, and there are hints of admiration in how the Japanese reported the affair.
The enlisted man was Aviation Machinist's Mate Second Class Bruno P. Gaido.
I believe there were two separate incidents one involving one man, and the other two, on two different destroyers.
The story is contained in several Midway books that I have read.
Go to modelshipwrights.com for the current dynamic site!
Research & Resources
Discuss on research, history, and issues dealing with reference materials.
Discuss on research, history, and issues dealing with reference materials.
Hosted by Jim Starkweather
Midway 2019
Quincannon
Joined: June 22, 2018
KitMaker: 275 posts
Model Shipwrights: 273 posts
Posted: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 - 03:53 AM UTC
Kevlar06
Joined: March 15, 2009
KitMaker: 3,670 posts
Model Shipwrights: 173 posts
Posted: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 - 05:03 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Russ: They were important to the Midway story because it was from one of the officer prisoners that the Japanese found out, or verified, that there were three USN carriers present. This officer that spilled the beans was also reported to have tried to bribe his way out of ill treatment by offering a cigarette lighter to his captors. To my knowledge this officer has never been identified in print for obvious reasons. The Japanese considered this cowardly and greatly resented this. The other two acted in an honorable manner, and there are hints of admiration in how the Japanese reported the affair.
The enlisted man was Aviation Machinist's Mate Second Class Bruno P. Gaido.
I believe there were two separate incidents one involving one man, and the other two, on two different destroyers.
The story is contained in several Midway books that I have read.
It would be nice to know the books this is from, but let's not confuse the story line here-- in the movie the cigarette lighter is presented by Doolittle to a Chinese schoolteacher (who was actually a real person from the Doolittle raid). Later it shows him captured with the Japanese holding the lighter as proof of his involvement--(not sure this ever happened). As for the identities of the carriers, the Japanese knew all along what carriers they were up against, as there's were only three available after Coral Sea, but they had ruled Yorktown out as either sunk or damaged. I'm not saying the incident of throwing the aircrew off the destroyer didn't happen, I'm saying I don't believe it happened where and when the movie portrays it. I believe it's inserted as a dramatic effect for the movie, as is the scene with the Chinese schoolteacher in a Japanese prison. I think these are inserted for effect. I'll need to check out the "Broken Sword" book mentioned above-- but if someone else knows better-- please let us know.
VR, Russ
Quincannon
Joined: June 22, 2018
KitMaker: 275 posts
Model Shipwrights: 273 posts
Posted: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 - 05:32 AM UTC
Again using "Shattered Sword" Prang, and Hornfischer as my guide, I would strongly dispute that the Japanese knew what carriers they were up against, at the operational level of combat.
On the strategic level, taken in context of the presumed loss by the Japanese of Yorktown at Coral Sea, the Japanese knew of three carriers in the Pacific. It can also be presumed that the Japanese knew the Saratoga was not quite up to operational standards, having just completed repairs on the west coast. So all the Japanese could assume is that Enterprise and Hornet were available somewhere in the Central Pacific.
Nagumo, when the first American ships presence was reported to him in the early morning of 4 June still had no idea of USN carrier presence. Only surface ships were reported, and while he may have suspected those surface combatants would be completely out of place were a carrier not with them, he had no verification or indication of the identity of the carrier or carriers. When, at last, a (one) carrier was reported, he still did not know there were three in the area. It was only when the number and type of attacking USN aircraft were reported to him, that he was able to deduce that there were at least two.
As to the timing of the information gained from the downed pilot, such information would do little if any good. Three carriers were already damaged and non-operational, while the fourth, Hyryu's, air group was so depleted that she could only be considered marginally effective. As it turned out marginal was good enough to put Yorktown out of action, but any hope of continuing Midway as a carrier vs. carrier battle were fading fast.
Movies do need drama. Hopefully it is good drama that will add human interest for the audience, but as we both know that is often not the case.
If you have not read "Shattered Sword" please do so at your earliest opportunity. No one can understand Midway or indeed the Japanese Navy without doing so.
On the strategic level, taken in context of the presumed loss by the Japanese of Yorktown at Coral Sea, the Japanese knew of three carriers in the Pacific. It can also be presumed that the Japanese knew the Saratoga was not quite up to operational standards, having just completed repairs on the west coast. So all the Japanese could assume is that Enterprise and Hornet were available somewhere in the Central Pacific.
Nagumo, when the first American ships presence was reported to him in the early morning of 4 June still had no idea of USN carrier presence. Only surface ships were reported, and while he may have suspected those surface combatants would be completely out of place were a carrier not with them, he had no verification or indication of the identity of the carrier or carriers. When, at last, a (one) carrier was reported, he still did not know there were three in the area. It was only when the number and type of attacking USN aircraft were reported to him, that he was able to deduce that there were at least two.
As to the timing of the information gained from the downed pilot, such information would do little if any good. Three carriers were already damaged and non-operational, while the fourth, Hyryu's, air group was so depleted that she could only be considered marginally effective. As it turned out marginal was good enough to put Yorktown out of action, but any hope of continuing Midway as a carrier vs. carrier battle were fading fast.
Movies do need drama. Hopefully it is good drama that will add human interest for the audience, but as we both know that is often not the case.
If you have not read "Shattered Sword" please do so at your earliest opportunity. No one can understand Midway or indeed the Japanese Navy without doing so.
Bravo1102
Joined: December 08, 2003
KitMaker: 2,864 posts
Model Shipwrights: 31 posts
Posted: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 - 07:21 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextThe Japanese bombers are not fictional. They're the Mitsubishi G3M "Nell".
They are way too long in wingspan and fuselage length for a Nell. The cockpit is designed like a JU88 with a bombardier nose, resembling a Nell (I believe the Nell had a solid nose) and the twin tails and wing tips look like a Nell, but the proportions are all off. They are definitely some CGI aberration of a Lilly or a Nell though (a similar aircraft was used by Laura Croft in the lataest rendition of "Tomb Raider a few years ago-- perhaps the same CGI artist was employed?) ) The primary long range Japanese Naval bomber in the central Pacific would have been the Betty, followed by the Nell, but these are definitely not those. This aberration also appears during the Doolittle segment as a very low level strafer-- likely not probable because China was largely an Army operation and the Lily was an Army bomber, whereas the Nell and Betty are Naval aircraft. I will concede they are intended to represent Nells-- but they are the least accurate looking aircraft in the movie.
VR, Russ
I saw the trailers and compared the plane to my LS 1/72 kit and it was close enough. The better CGI artists actually use model kits to do the modeling off of. You'd think they'd have gotten some of the available kits.
Nells were used in the sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse so they were used in a similar action.
Kevlar06
Joined: March 15, 2009
KitMaker: 3,670 posts
Model Shipwrights: 173 posts
Posted: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 - 10:20 AM UTC
So I did some research, and learned from the Naval record that Machinist Mate Gaido and Ensign O'Flanhery were believed to have run out of fuel, and been picked up several days after the battle by a Japanese destroyer, the Makiguma. They were believed to have likely been interrogated and tortured, and then thrown overboard. The movie shows a much different "dramatized" version. In reality, the Makiguma was also sunk, and no record exits of what transpired, so this is pretty much (conjecture) dramatization of the actual events. It is true that Gaido shot down an attacking aircraft from his SBD during the Coral Sea.
Here's a link to the story:
https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/browse-by-topic/wars-conflicts-and-operations/world-war-ii/world-war-ii-profiles/gaido-bruno.html
As for the Nells in the Movie, their CGI is no where near as faithful to the real thing as the the rest of the Japanese Kate's, Zeros and the Jake are. They appear elongated and look just wrong, with a glass enclosed cockpit and bombardier nose far to forward. As I looked through my collection of books on Japanese aircraft, the CGI looks more like a cross between a Nell and a Lorna (a Japanese sub hunting aircraft-- highly stretched). The CGI depiction is far more faithful of the SBDs, TBDs and the Midway based aircraft. I'd need to do more research, but I don't believe the Nells were used to a great extent in the Central Pacific, by 1943 most were withdrawn from front line service due to range and capability. And I don't think they were used much in inland China as the movie depicts. One great fallacy of the war is Japanese naval aircraft craft in China-- China was an Army operational area, and mostly Army aircraft were found there (except for coastal areas). But I could be wrong. I'll do some more reading. By 1943, the Betty was the real multi-purpose heavy threat. My father recalls seeing three fly past his carrier just at deck level around Thanksgiving 1943-- one of the pilots even waving as they flew by unmolested--neither side recognizing the other as enemy until after the planes were gone. I never believed that story until I found reference to the incident in the Naval war record several years ago, and confirmed in the book "Carrier Warfare in the Pacific". By the way, one other incident depicted in the movie is the true story of Director John Ford as a Navy CDR filming the "The Battle of Midway" for the War Department (later produced and shown in theaters) and being wounded in the arm-- a real case of Hollywood copying itself!
VR, Russ
Here's a link to the story:
https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/browse-by-topic/wars-conflicts-and-operations/world-war-ii/world-war-ii-profiles/gaido-bruno.html
As for the Nells in the Movie, their CGI is no where near as faithful to the real thing as the the rest of the Japanese Kate's, Zeros and the Jake are. They appear elongated and look just wrong, with a glass enclosed cockpit and bombardier nose far to forward. As I looked through my collection of books on Japanese aircraft, the CGI looks more like a cross between a Nell and a Lorna (a Japanese sub hunting aircraft-- highly stretched). The CGI depiction is far more faithful of the SBDs, TBDs and the Midway based aircraft. I'd need to do more research, but I don't believe the Nells were used to a great extent in the Central Pacific, by 1943 most were withdrawn from front line service due to range and capability. And I don't think they were used much in inland China as the movie depicts. One great fallacy of the war is Japanese naval aircraft craft in China-- China was an Army operational area, and mostly Army aircraft were found there (except for coastal areas). But I could be wrong. I'll do some more reading. By 1943, the Betty was the real multi-purpose heavy threat. My father recalls seeing three fly past his carrier just at deck level around Thanksgiving 1943-- one of the pilots even waving as they flew by unmolested--neither side recognizing the other as enemy until after the planes were gone. I never believed that story until I found reference to the incident in the Naval war record several years ago, and confirmed in the book "Carrier Warfare in the Pacific". By the way, one other incident depicted in the movie is the true story of Director John Ford as a Navy CDR filming the "The Battle of Midway" for the War Department (later produced and shown in theaters) and being wounded in the arm-- a real case of Hollywood copying itself!
VR, Russ
Removed by original poster on 11/13/19 - 23:22:02 (GMT).
Quincannon
Joined: June 22, 2018
KitMaker: 275 posts
Model Shipwrights: 273 posts
Posted: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 - 12:03 PM UTC
Russ:
" In the meantime, Kido Butai's reconnaissance efforts were again being augmented by yet more captured American aviators. A little after 1630 (4 June), after having turned west, Nagara spotted a mysterious red object in the water and apparently jogged northeast to investigate it It turned out to be a life raft, from which destroyer Makigumo shortly rescued two fliers from Scouting Six --- Ens. Frank W. O'Flagerty and his gunner AMM2c Bruno P. Gaido. After bombing Kaga earlier in the morning, O'Flaherty had exited the battle area with Ware's section, but had run out of gas on the way home. It was their misfortune to be spotted after Hiryu's westward turn. Though initially treated well, they were predictably subjected to a threatening interrogation. The two yielded accurate details concerning Midway, but nothing of value on the American carriers. Like Ensign Osmus before them, these prisoners were eventually executed"
Both of these men were tied to a five gallon can of water, and thrown overboard. Parshall and Tully tell us that it is unclear when these executions took place, but speculate that it was after the battle was over and while Mikigumo was headed north toward the Aleutians
All of the above is a direct quote from "Shattered Sword"
There is even more in the way of information on Ensign Wesley Osmus of Torpedo 3 recovered by Arashi. Osmus is the man who actually spilled the beans. I was incorrect in saying that I had never seen his name in print. Obviously I had and could not recall. There are seven citations concerning Osmus in "Shattered Sword" to include the manner and means of death, ending in him being thrown overboard. So Osmus is the fellow that informed Kido Butai of the fact there were three USN carriers in the area, naming all three, along with the composition of the American task forces, the fact that Yorktown was not operating as part of the task force that contained the other two, and several other tidbits concerning USN order of battle. Osmus was picked up at approximately 1300 hours (4 June) at a time when only Hiryu remained operational.
Evidently there is plenty of information concerning these two incidents in Japanese records, because both incidents are described in detail with supporting footnotes citing source documents.
I would be more than happy to provide you page references on these two incidents upon request.
" In the meantime, Kido Butai's reconnaissance efforts were again being augmented by yet more captured American aviators. A little after 1630 (4 June), after having turned west, Nagara spotted a mysterious red object in the water and apparently jogged northeast to investigate it It turned out to be a life raft, from which destroyer Makigumo shortly rescued two fliers from Scouting Six --- Ens. Frank W. O'Flagerty and his gunner AMM2c Bruno P. Gaido. After bombing Kaga earlier in the morning, O'Flaherty had exited the battle area with Ware's section, but had run out of gas on the way home. It was their misfortune to be spotted after Hiryu's westward turn. Though initially treated well, they were predictably subjected to a threatening interrogation. The two yielded accurate details concerning Midway, but nothing of value on the American carriers. Like Ensign Osmus before them, these prisoners were eventually executed"
Both of these men were tied to a five gallon can of water, and thrown overboard. Parshall and Tully tell us that it is unclear when these executions took place, but speculate that it was after the battle was over and while Mikigumo was headed north toward the Aleutians
All of the above is a direct quote from "Shattered Sword"
There is even more in the way of information on Ensign Wesley Osmus of Torpedo 3 recovered by Arashi. Osmus is the man who actually spilled the beans. I was incorrect in saying that I had never seen his name in print. Obviously I had and could not recall. There are seven citations concerning Osmus in "Shattered Sword" to include the manner and means of death, ending in him being thrown overboard. So Osmus is the fellow that informed Kido Butai of the fact there were three USN carriers in the area, naming all three, along with the composition of the American task forces, the fact that Yorktown was not operating as part of the task force that contained the other two, and several other tidbits concerning USN order of battle. Osmus was picked up at approximately 1300 hours (4 June) at a time when only Hiryu remained operational.
Evidently there is plenty of information concerning these two incidents in Japanese records, because both incidents are described in detail with supporting footnotes citing source documents.
I would be more than happy to provide you page references on these two incidents upon request.
d6mst0
#453
Joined: August 28, 2016
KitMaker: 1,925 posts
Model Shipwrights: 1,298 posts
Posted: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 - 01:28 PM UTC
Russ Bucy,
Just about all of the IJN fleet carriers did support missions in China all during the thirties and early 1940's. The first Zeros built for the IJN, model 11 were doing missions in China in January 1940 and new up-engine model 11s with Sakae engines were sent to Manchuria in August that year by the IJN.
Mark
Just about all of the IJN fleet carriers did support missions in China all during the thirties and early 1940's. The first Zeros built for the IJN, model 11 were doing missions in China in January 1940 and new up-engine model 11s with Sakae engines were sent to Manchuria in August that year by the IJN.
Mark
Kevlar06
Joined: March 15, 2009
KitMaker: 3,670 posts
Model Shipwrights: 173 posts
Posted: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 - 03:50 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Russ Bucy,
Just about all of the IJN fleet carriers did support missions in China all during the thirties and early 1940's. The first Zeros built for the IJN, model 11 were doing missions in China in January 1940 and new up-engine model 11s with Sakae engines were sent to Manchuria in August that year by the IJN.
Mark
But not at the time of Midway in 1942. I agree, before the attack at PH, the Japanese Navy supported coastal operations. My point is, I doubt seriously a Navy Nell would have straffed Doolittle in April 1942. I do know JA aircraft bombed some of the towns the Doolittle Raiders were being clandestinely transported through, that's been documented in several books from "30 seconds over Tokyo" to the latest volumes on he subject. I only mentioned this because many references to "Zeros" being operational over mainland China by US pilots were more likely reports of KI-43s. In those days, any low winged radial engine JA aircraft was a "Zero".
VR, Russ
Kevlar06
Joined: March 15, 2009
KitMaker: 3,670 posts
Model Shipwrights: 173 posts
Posted: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 - 04:02 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Russ:
" In the meantime, Kido Butai's reconnaissance efforts were again being augmented by yet more captured American aviators. A little after 1630 (4 June), after having turned west, Nagara spotted a mysterious red object in the water and apparently jogged northeast to investigate it It turned out to be a life raft, from which destroyer Makigumo shortly rescued two fliers from Scouting Six --- Ens. Frank W. O'Flagerty and his gunner AMM2c Bruno P. Gaido. After bombing Kaga earlier in the morning, O'Flaherty had exited the battle area with Ware's section, but had run out of gas on the way home. It was their misfortune to be spotted after Hiryu's westward turn. Though initially treated well, they were predictably subjected to a threatening interrogation. The two yielded accurate details concerning Midway, but nothing of value on the American carriers. Like Ensign Osmus before them, these prisoners were eventually executed"
Both of these men were tied to a five gallon can of water, and thrown overboard. Parshall and Tully tell us that it is unclear when these executions took place, but speculate that it was after the battle was over and while Mikigumo was headed north toward the Aleutians
All of the above is a direct quote from "Shattered Sword"
There is even more in the way of information on Ensign Wesley Osmus of Torpedo 3 recovered by Arashi. Osmus is the man who actually spilled the beans. I was incorrect in saying that I had never seen his name in print. Obviously I had and could not recall. There are seven citations concerning Osmus in "Shattered Sword" to include the manner and means of death, ending in him being thrown overboard. So Osmus is the fellow that informed Kido Butai of the fact there were three USN carriers in the area, naming all three, along with the composition of the American task forces, the fact that Yorktown was not operating as part of the task force that contained the other two, and several other tidbits concerning USN order of battle. Osmus was picked up at approximately 1300 hours (4 June) at a time when only Hiryu remained operational.
Evidently there is plenty of information concerning these two incidents in Japanese records, because both incidents are described in detail with supporting footnotes citing source documents.
I would be more than happy to provide you page references on these two incidents upon request.
Yes, I don't doubt it happened, but not the way it's depicted in the movie. Which is my point. Also, the source I linked is the official US Navy link, and it clearly states nobody really knows what happened. No doubt Japanese records are clearer--maybe. It would be nice to understand the report and context (likely in footnotes)-- as they say, the "devil is in the details". My experience with Japanese reports (I have some backgound in the Chemical weapons reports from China recovered from WWII, primarily suppressed at the end of WWII) is the Japanese were not always forthcoming for two reasons-- either because they were trying to impress or for propaganda purposes. Since the Destroyer involved was lost (supposedly with all hands), it would be interesting to learn who in fact passed the info along.
VR, Russ
Quincannon
Joined: June 22, 2018
KitMaker: 275 posts
Model Shipwrights: 273 posts
Posted: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 - 04:31 PM UTC
I am not at all sure where you are obtaining your information but Makigumo was not lost until 1 February 1943 off Guadalcanal where she struck a mine. Yagumo took off 237 survivors.
As a sidebar, the United States Navy has no great interest in this story, as it could very well be taken that these three sailors involved gave up intelligence information to the enemy. That would be particularly true in wartime America, where it was unthinkable that such a thing would happen. Gaido was the exception, and that was for his previous exploits on Enterprise earlier in the year. Cowardness, providing intelligence to the enemy even under extreme conditions, or shirking duty in any form or manner does not sell many War Bonds. The trouble with that is for anyone interested in the truth, these things become locked in concrete. As an example the first stories concerning the loss of Arizona has her taking a bomb down her stack. That has been conclusively been disproven, yet the story persists, and is literally engraved on the Arizona monument on Ford Island.
By most reports:
a.The movie is a stinker
b. Parshall and Tully's "Shattered Sword" is the one truly authoritative source on the Japanese Navy at Midway.
As a sidebar, the United States Navy has no great interest in this story, as it could very well be taken that these three sailors involved gave up intelligence information to the enemy. That would be particularly true in wartime America, where it was unthinkable that such a thing would happen. Gaido was the exception, and that was for his previous exploits on Enterprise earlier in the year. Cowardness, providing intelligence to the enemy even under extreme conditions, or shirking duty in any form or manner does not sell many War Bonds. The trouble with that is for anyone interested in the truth, these things become locked in concrete. As an example the first stories concerning the loss of Arizona has her taking a bomb down her stack. That has been conclusively been disproven, yet the story persists, and is literally engraved on the Arizona monument on Ford Island.
By most reports:
a.The movie is a stinker
b. Parshall and Tully's "Shattered Sword" is the one truly authoritative source on the Japanese Navy at Midway.
Kevlar06
Joined: March 15, 2009
KitMaker: 3,670 posts
Model Shipwrights: 173 posts
Posted: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 - 05:30 PM UTC
Quoted Text
I am not at all sure where you are obtaining your information but Makigumo was not lost until 1 February 1943 off Guadalcanal where she struck a mine. Yagumo took off 237 survivors.
As a sidebar, the United States Navy has no great interest in this story, as it could very well be taken that these three sailors involved gave up intelligence information to the enemy. That would be particularly true in wartime America, where it was unthinkable that such a thing would happen. Gaido was the exception, and that was for his previous exploits on Enterprise earlier in the year. Cowardness, providing intelligence to the enemy even under extreme conditions, or shirking duty in any form or manner does not sell many War Bonds. The trouble with that is for anyone interested in the truth, these things become locked in concrete. As an example the first stories concerning the loss of Arizona has her taking a bomb down her stack. That has been conclusively been disproven, yet the story persists, and is literally engraved on the Arizona monument on Ford Island.
By most reports:
a.The movie is a stinker
b. Parshall and Tully's "Shattered Sword" is the one truly authoritative source on the Japanese Navy at Midway.
Could be. I wouldn't call the movie a stinker-- it's much more factual than previous movies of the same ilk (but it still has issues as I've pointed out). I don't give any Hollywood pundits and reviewers credit to separate history from interesting acting, if that's what you mean by a stinker. It's not a documentary, but it at least tries to tell the story from the standpoint of a a drama based on actual facts and people--with a bit of dramatic license taken. Folks praised Saving Private Ryan and Fury for the drama, they had great actors and plot, and authenticity, but are totally fictional. This movie at least tries to get most of the facts right. As an aside, It was the leader in films this past weekend, with $17+ Million in sales for two days, but it has a ways to go to break even at $100 Mil in production cost. As far as Shattered Sword goes, I don't doubt its a good book, but I'd like to see where the detail came from exactly, with the footnotes and context in particular. The Navy info on Gaido is a current posting, not a WWII report--which doesn't mean it's correct, but my point is, there doesn't seem to be a documented eyewitness account. The movie is certainly off on the account details if Shattered Sword is correct (which it likely is). Stinker? No, not if you are interested in just the chronological history. There are errors in detail, but few movies are ever able to get every detail correct.
VR, Russ
PzDave
Joined: November 28, 2012
KitMaker: 319 posts
Model Shipwrights: 18 posts
Posted: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 - 08:21 PM UTC
Russ Busey great comments. They had the Nells done well and the death of the two American crew members is correct. The Chinese scenes were OK (I felt I was watching Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo) but Chinese investors paid for the movie. You are right about the Wildcats! But remember there is only so much they can put into a film. I was very happy for the film. They showed Rochford and the loss of the Devastators. For a Hollywood (and Canadian) movie they got more right than I thought they would.
d6mst0
#453
Joined: August 28, 2016
KitMaker: 1,925 posts
Model Shipwrights: 1,298 posts
Posted: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 - 08:47 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextRuss Bucy,
Just about all of the IJN fleet carriers did support missions in China all during the thirties and early 1940's. The first Zeros built for the IJN, model 11 were doing missions in China in January 1940 and new up-engine model 11s with Sakae engines were sent to Manchuria in August that year by the IJN.
Mark
But not at the time of Midway in 1942. I agree, before the attack at PH, the Japanese Navy supported coastal operations. My point is, I doubt seriously a Navy Nell would have straffed Doolittle in April 1942. I do know JA aircraft bombed some of the towns the Doolittle Raiders were being clandestinely transported through, that's been documented in several books from "30 seconds over Tokyo" to the latest volumes on he subject. I only mentioned this because many references to "Zeros" being operational over mainland China by US pilots were more likely reports of KI-43s. In those days, any low winged radial engine JA aircraft was a "Zero".
VR, Russ
I agree not in 1942. I haven't seen the movie yet so I am not familiar about this issue with the Nell, but.
As you stated the Japanese only controlled the coast of China and most of that were the major cities and resource centers during the war. The model 11 had a 1200 mile range and was quite capable of traveling deep into China and was known to do. China was very good training for their pilots to develop their skills.
Many IJN units flying in China did so from carriers and from land bases. It was very common thing for IJN because of the cost of keeping those ships at sea. China was the "tiger by the tail" to the Japanese, it was bankrupting the country. By 1941 her citizens were wanting it to end but the military (Army) refused.
No American pilots were flying in China until late in 1941, over a full year and a half after Japan started full production of the Zero. I believe they encounter a mix of old and new aircraft during their short stay in China.
I agree I doubt they encountered a Nell seeing how the Nell's max speed was just a 3 miles faster than the cruising speed of a B-25 and forty miles slower than the B-25's max speed. I can't see a bomber / transport aircraft as the Nell would be capable of such a thing. It does make for a good tale.
Mark
Quincannon
Joined: June 22, 2018
KitMaker: 275 posts
Model Shipwrights: 273 posts
Posted: Thursday, November 14, 2019 - 03:11 AM UTC
Russ:
The story of O'Flaherty and Gaido was sourced from Prange, Prados, and Cressman, as well as Ultra intercepts and the Makigumo after action report, What is unknown is if Nagumo himself was ever made aware of the incident, as it is not included in his own after action report.
The story of Osmus was well known enough for post war investigation of the matter, and trying to find Commander Watanabe of Arashi to possibly charge him with war crimes in the Osmus incident. Witness accounts gathered in that effort indicated that Osmus was taken to the stern of Arashi, hit in the back of the head with a fire ax, then tumbled/or was pushed overboard. All this was on 4 June, and the Nagumo report contains verification of his death, but not the manner. Again it may be a purposeful omission on Nagumo's part, but more probably Watanabe did not tell how it occurred in his after action report. Watanabe as it turned out could not be found and tried, He was KIA in late 43 commanding Destroyer Division 1.
I have not seen the movie, and probably will not until it appears on TV. That said I do not know why a movie with Midway as a central theme should include any action in China, at Pearl Harbor, or the Doolittle raid. I believe all of the above are irrelevant to the Midway story.
Supposedly the Doolittle raid was the genesis of wanting to attack Midway. I believe there is enough evidence to dispute that as an operational factor in planning the Midway operation. I believe evidence shows that Yamamoto always had his eye on Midway.
Telling the Midway story, in my opinion, should start with Station Hypo at Pearl. That itself is dramatic enough for a movie of its own. There should also be included interpretation conflict between Hypo and the folks at Main Navy in DC.which would add real drama. Enduring war time enemies in the naval intelligence community were made there, and not forgotten.
After that the focus should move to Nimitz and his intelligence based decision on Coral Sea, and how those decisions would effect what happened at Midway. Again opinion, but my view, one I have never seen from historians, is that Coral Sea and Midway, should be considered as "one" campaign, regardless of the great distances between the two battle areas. What happened at Coral Sea impacted both navies at Midway. The prime example here is Enterprise and Hornet being purposely ordered to be detected in the South Pacific as an intelligence ruse thus giving the IJN unwarranted confidence in their overly complicated plan, forgetting that what you think the enemy will do is never a good idea, but rather basing your plans on what the enemy can do. The Japanese never learned this lesson. That is why Midway and Guadalcanal are the prime focus of Japanese War College study even today.
Then there is the battle itself. McClusky, Best, Waldron, Ring, Browning, and Mitscher alone would provide enough drama for at least two tubs of popcorn. Then you could shift to Nagumo, and Yamaguchi. There is a story to be told also of what impact the absence of Genda, and Fuchida had on the battle. Would it be any different had they been fully functional?.
In short I think Hollywood hurts itself when they don't limit war stories/movies to the facts alone. Certainly they should speak for themselves, and are plentiful if the screen writers know where to look for real drama.
Seeing as you have told us a bit about your background, I think it only fair to tell you a bit about mine. I was a professional soldier. That itself may seem strange for one interested in naval warfare and ship modeling. This latter comes from my father working at Main Navy during the 1950's and 60's. Many of the junior officers at Coral Sea and Midway, were senior officer guests at my house for dinner. I vividly remember sitting aside listening to them discuss both battles, along with Guadalcanal, after dinner, and that has stuck with me all these many years. Since then I have spent many hours of pure joy studying these battles and building ship models, mostly from that era 1942, on both sides. The modeling helps me visualize the written page.
Another thing is that it is my firm conviction that you cannot understand battle until you understand the men who wage battle. Why,for instance was Ring in conflict with Waldron. Ring, one discovers, was a pretty boy, who used his rank as a hammer and always thought he was right, seldom listening to advice from a subordinate, while Waldron, was a very gifted leader, and stubborn as a Missouri mule. Mitscher is well regarded in history, but it is his character flaw exposed at Midway, gun decking Hornet's after action report, that sticks in my mind and clouds his image.
The story of O'Flaherty and Gaido was sourced from Prange, Prados, and Cressman, as well as Ultra intercepts and the Makigumo after action report, What is unknown is if Nagumo himself was ever made aware of the incident, as it is not included in his own after action report.
The story of Osmus was well known enough for post war investigation of the matter, and trying to find Commander Watanabe of Arashi to possibly charge him with war crimes in the Osmus incident. Witness accounts gathered in that effort indicated that Osmus was taken to the stern of Arashi, hit in the back of the head with a fire ax, then tumbled/or was pushed overboard. All this was on 4 June, and the Nagumo report contains verification of his death, but not the manner. Again it may be a purposeful omission on Nagumo's part, but more probably Watanabe did not tell how it occurred in his after action report. Watanabe as it turned out could not be found and tried, He was KIA in late 43 commanding Destroyer Division 1.
I have not seen the movie, and probably will not until it appears on TV. That said I do not know why a movie with Midway as a central theme should include any action in China, at Pearl Harbor, or the Doolittle raid. I believe all of the above are irrelevant to the Midway story.
Supposedly the Doolittle raid was the genesis of wanting to attack Midway. I believe there is enough evidence to dispute that as an operational factor in planning the Midway operation. I believe evidence shows that Yamamoto always had his eye on Midway.
Telling the Midway story, in my opinion, should start with Station Hypo at Pearl. That itself is dramatic enough for a movie of its own. There should also be included interpretation conflict between Hypo and the folks at Main Navy in DC.which would add real drama. Enduring war time enemies in the naval intelligence community were made there, and not forgotten.
After that the focus should move to Nimitz and his intelligence based decision on Coral Sea, and how those decisions would effect what happened at Midway. Again opinion, but my view, one I have never seen from historians, is that Coral Sea and Midway, should be considered as "one" campaign, regardless of the great distances between the two battle areas. What happened at Coral Sea impacted both navies at Midway. The prime example here is Enterprise and Hornet being purposely ordered to be detected in the South Pacific as an intelligence ruse thus giving the IJN unwarranted confidence in their overly complicated plan, forgetting that what you think the enemy will do is never a good idea, but rather basing your plans on what the enemy can do. The Japanese never learned this lesson. That is why Midway and Guadalcanal are the prime focus of Japanese War College study even today.
Then there is the battle itself. McClusky, Best, Waldron, Ring, Browning, and Mitscher alone would provide enough drama for at least two tubs of popcorn. Then you could shift to Nagumo, and Yamaguchi. There is a story to be told also of what impact the absence of Genda, and Fuchida had on the battle. Would it be any different had they been fully functional?.
In short I think Hollywood hurts itself when they don't limit war stories/movies to the facts alone. Certainly they should speak for themselves, and are plentiful if the screen writers know where to look for real drama.
Seeing as you have told us a bit about your background, I think it only fair to tell you a bit about mine. I was a professional soldier. That itself may seem strange for one interested in naval warfare and ship modeling. This latter comes from my father working at Main Navy during the 1950's and 60's. Many of the junior officers at Coral Sea and Midway, were senior officer guests at my house for dinner. I vividly remember sitting aside listening to them discuss both battles, along with Guadalcanal, after dinner, and that has stuck with me all these many years. Since then I have spent many hours of pure joy studying these battles and building ship models, mostly from that era 1942, on both sides. The modeling helps me visualize the written page.
Another thing is that it is my firm conviction that you cannot understand battle until you understand the men who wage battle. Why,for instance was Ring in conflict with Waldron. Ring, one discovers, was a pretty boy, who used his rank as a hammer and always thought he was right, seldom listening to advice from a subordinate, while Waldron, was a very gifted leader, and stubborn as a Missouri mule. Mitscher is well regarded in history, but it is his character flaw exposed at Midway, gun decking Hornet's after action report, that sticks in my mind and clouds his image.
Kevlar06
Joined: March 15, 2009
KitMaker: 3,670 posts
Model Shipwrights: 173 posts
Posted: Thursday, November 14, 2019 - 08:37 AM UTC
Chuck,
We have similar backgrounds, I too am a professional soldier, serving 30 years RA, and spending 7 years of that time out in the Pacific and eventually receiving a Masters from the Naval War College--which was a highlight of my land-lubbing career. I never got to use my Naval education for much though, as in it's infinite wisdom, the Army sent me to the center of the country to work in an Air Force assignment as a Joint Duty Officer at NORAD (go figure). My Father was an Essex plankholder, and my Father-in-Law served three years in the CBI, followed by 26 years on active duty. I too grew up being regaled with stories of tropical palm trees and Pinapple Daiquiris!
As for the movie, you should see it as it's closer to your comments than you think. Hypo, conflict between the Washington Intelligence establishment and Layton, the Coral Sea carrier reveal, and many other details are all there-- and the Director and producers did their historical research. The drawback is it's all crammed into 138 minutes-- meaning the significance of these and other details is sometimes lost, but not If you've studied the battle. The one big drawback of any movie is cramming too much detail in, and trying to mix it with compelling human interest. That's not the case with this one-- as there are no purely fictional characters or "love story" interests-- other than a few short scenes of Best's, Layton's and a snippet of Yamamoto's own family life. I think the producers had to put that in to make the characters a bit more "human"-- there's perhaps 20 minutes of the 138 minutes devoted to that. The movie concentrates mostly on the dynamics between Members of VT6, Layton/Nimitz, Yamamoto/Nagumo, interspersed with action scenes.
The chronological progression from Tokyo 1937 to Pearl Harbor to Coral Sea and finally Midway are the stage setting for the components you mention above. it provides a glimpse into the background of the significance of Midway-- to the Japanese especially. Almost everything you mention in your comments is touched upon, the Coral Sea reveal, the trap involving AF, the codebreaking, Layton and Rochefort's professional drive, even details like the Nautilus' attack which may have caused the destroyer wake to have been spotted by searching SBDs, and the mix up in SBD targeting carriers-- if you watch closely. There are also areas so lightly touched on they are shockingly absent, such as the sacrificial VT6 and 8 torpedo attacks and their effect on the Japanese CAP.
I was very skeptical myself about seeing the movie, as Hollywood has disappointed me so many times (my family hates seeing "war" movies with me for this reason) --nothing in a movie is anything like real war, it's a little like modeling-- a model is only a representation of the real thing. But, if you can get past some CGI antics-- all the elements you describe above are in the movie, thankfully without the "love interest" of previous movies. For that reason alone I'd say to see it. It more closely resembles Cornelius Ryan's "The Longest Day" in the telling of the Midway story-- than any previous movie about the war in the Pacific, the exception perhaps being "Flags of our Fathers" which is shot more from the Tactical than Strategic point of view. Theron lies the problem with movies like this-- producers and directors have difficulty separating tactics from strategy. The Tokyo Raid is a just small part of the movie, attempting to show its contribution to getting the Japanese Navy to finally convince the JA that Midway and the Central Pacific are important. Unfortunately It's also used to set the stage for Japanese brutality (likely the Chinese production influence), in China-- which detracts from the Strategic implications of the Raid. The execution of the captured aviators at the end of the movie is a bit of an afterthought--Hollywood "jingoism", but these scenes don't really take away from the story, I just think the time could have been better spent used to "unjumble" other points.
Overall, the movie explores most of what you have said. I think TV will just cut it into pieces interspersed with commercials and cut its 138 minutes into 70 or 80 minutes of rubbish-- so I wouldn't wait to see it there. Wait for it to come out on CD. If anyone expects the CGI flight scenes to be "real" you'll be disappointed-- these are pure Hollywood-- designed for video-game afficianados (in my opinion) the aircraft "skins" are nice (except for the elongated Nell's)-- but they don't "fly" like real aircraft. Don't see it if that's going to bother you, but if you can get past that, and a few cheesy "morale" scenes, most of the pertinent historical stuff is there. Picking real people to show it through, notably Best, Layton, McCluskey, Nimitz, Halsey, Yamamoto and Nagumo was a good decision. At the end of the movie, the main characters are profiled, fading into period photos of the real characters, with a short written snippet of what happened to them, and it's obvious the producers sought out actors resembling their real counterparts, which is a good thing (except for McCluskys mustache!). See the movie, be prepared for a little "tounge-in-cheek" antics, but take a look at how Hollywood chooses to portray a significant historical event through "vignette" storytelling.
VR, Russ
We have similar backgrounds, I too am a professional soldier, serving 30 years RA, and spending 7 years of that time out in the Pacific and eventually receiving a Masters from the Naval War College--which was a highlight of my land-lubbing career. I never got to use my Naval education for much though, as in it's infinite wisdom, the Army sent me to the center of the country to work in an Air Force assignment as a Joint Duty Officer at NORAD (go figure). My Father was an Essex plankholder, and my Father-in-Law served three years in the CBI, followed by 26 years on active duty. I too grew up being regaled with stories of tropical palm trees and Pinapple Daiquiris!
As for the movie, you should see it as it's closer to your comments than you think. Hypo, conflict between the Washington Intelligence establishment and Layton, the Coral Sea carrier reveal, and many other details are all there-- and the Director and producers did their historical research. The drawback is it's all crammed into 138 minutes-- meaning the significance of these and other details is sometimes lost, but not If you've studied the battle. The one big drawback of any movie is cramming too much detail in, and trying to mix it with compelling human interest. That's not the case with this one-- as there are no purely fictional characters or "love story" interests-- other than a few short scenes of Best's, Layton's and a snippet of Yamamoto's own family life. I think the producers had to put that in to make the characters a bit more "human"-- there's perhaps 20 minutes of the 138 minutes devoted to that. The movie concentrates mostly on the dynamics between Members of VT6, Layton/Nimitz, Yamamoto/Nagumo, interspersed with action scenes.
The chronological progression from Tokyo 1937 to Pearl Harbor to Coral Sea and finally Midway are the stage setting for the components you mention above. it provides a glimpse into the background of the significance of Midway-- to the Japanese especially. Almost everything you mention in your comments is touched upon, the Coral Sea reveal, the trap involving AF, the codebreaking, Layton and Rochefort's professional drive, even details like the Nautilus' attack which may have caused the destroyer wake to have been spotted by searching SBDs, and the mix up in SBD targeting carriers-- if you watch closely. There are also areas so lightly touched on they are shockingly absent, such as the sacrificial VT6 and 8 torpedo attacks and their effect on the Japanese CAP.
I was very skeptical myself about seeing the movie, as Hollywood has disappointed me so many times (my family hates seeing "war" movies with me for this reason) --nothing in a movie is anything like real war, it's a little like modeling-- a model is only a representation of the real thing. But, if you can get past some CGI antics-- all the elements you describe above are in the movie, thankfully without the "love interest" of previous movies. For that reason alone I'd say to see it. It more closely resembles Cornelius Ryan's "The Longest Day" in the telling of the Midway story-- than any previous movie about the war in the Pacific, the exception perhaps being "Flags of our Fathers" which is shot more from the Tactical than Strategic point of view. Theron lies the problem with movies like this-- producers and directors have difficulty separating tactics from strategy. The Tokyo Raid is a just small part of the movie, attempting to show its contribution to getting the Japanese Navy to finally convince the JA that Midway and the Central Pacific are important. Unfortunately It's also used to set the stage for Japanese brutality (likely the Chinese production influence), in China-- which detracts from the Strategic implications of the Raid. The execution of the captured aviators at the end of the movie is a bit of an afterthought--Hollywood "jingoism", but these scenes don't really take away from the story, I just think the time could have been better spent used to "unjumble" other points.
Overall, the movie explores most of what you have said. I think TV will just cut it into pieces interspersed with commercials and cut its 138 minutes into 70 or 80 minutes of rubbish-- so I wouldn't wait to see it there. Wait for it to come out on CD. If anyone expects the CGI flight scenes to be "real" you'll be disappointed-- these are pure Hollywood-- designed for video-game afficianados (in my opinion) the aircraft "skins" are nice (except for the elongated Nell's)-- but they don't "fly" like real aircraft. Don't see it if that's going to bother you, but if you can get past that, and a few cheesy "morale" scenes, most of the pertinent historical stuff is there. Picking real people to show it through, notably Best, Layton, McCluskey, Nimitz, Halsey, Yamamoto and Nagumo was a good decision. At the end of the movie, the main characters are profiled, fading into period photos of the real characters, with a short written snippet of what happened to them, and it's obvious the producers sought out actors resembling their real counterparts, which is a good thing (except for McCluskys mustache!). See the movie, be prepared for a little "tounge-in-cheek" antics, but take a look at how Hollywood chooses to portray a significant historical event through "vignette" storytelling.
VR, Russ
d6mst0
#453
Joined: August 28, 2016
KitMaker: 1,925 posts
Model Shipwrights: 1,298 posts
Posted: Thursday, November 14, 2019 - 10:50 AM UTC
Chuck,
I believed Yamamoto always had an eye on Hawaii, Midway is just a speck on land in a vast body of water. With is vision of a defense zone for the Americas to wear themselves out trying to get through thinking we would sue for peace after failing too. After missing the carriers at Pearl Harbor he pushed again to invade Hawaii, but the Army didn't support it because they couldn't keep the islands supplied with their limited shipping. Japan lost 2/3 of her shipping capacity when the war started (but was able regain some increase by seizing foreign own ships in Japanese ports). She never was able to bring her shipping capacity up to pre-war levels.
IJN HQ wanted Australia and the Army wanted Australia but both knew they did not have the manpower or the ships to support such an operation.
Yamamoto knew he needed that defense zone and the one battle to knock out the American fleet before the industrial power of America started being felt and get his defenses in place, thus he turned to Midway. The Army refuse to support any action against Midway until as you know the Doolittle raid. Now the Army supported the attack on Midway but there wasn't any attack plans (IJN had over a year to plan the Peal Harbor attack)developed to do such a thing. Yamamoto staff only had six weeks to develop one and what a lousy plan it turned out to be. Yamamoto got his butt kick during the war games to test it and had the rules changed so he would win with acceptable loses. Glad they stayed with that plan.
Japan military leaders had to suffer from victory fever. They developed that fever from China, Pearl Harbor, Singapore, Coral Sea and Philippines. This could be the reason why they were added to the movie but at 138 minutes there is no way in heck they could do a good job of covering all of those battles and effects and then cover the Battle of Midway. When I saw the previews for the movie I thought to myself this is going to one long movie. I was thinking Lord of Rings long. Maybe they will release an uncut version after the movie finish running.
Mark
I believed Yamamoto always had an eye on Hawaii, Midway is just a speck on land in a vast body of water. With is vision of a defense zone for the Americas to wear themselves out trying to get through thinking we would sue for peace after failing too. After missing the carriers at Pearl Harbor he pushed again to invade Hawaii, but the Army didn't support it because they couldn't keep the islands supplied with their limited shipping. Japan lost 2/3 of her shipping capacity when the war started (but was able regain some increase by seizing foreign own ships in Japanese ports). She never was able to bring her shipping capacity up to pre-war levels.
IJN HQ wanted Australia and the Army wanted Australia but both knew they did not have the manpower or the ships to support such an operation.
Yamamoto knew he needed that defense zone and the one battle to knock out the American fleet before the industrial power of America started being felt and get his defenses in place, thus he turned to Midway. The Army refuse to support any action against Midway until as you know the Doolittle raid. Now the Army supported the attack on Midway but there wasn't any attack plans (IJN had over a year to plan the Peal Harbor attack)developed to do such a thing. Yamamoto staff only had six weeks to develop one and what a lousy plan it turned out to be. Yamamoto got his butt kick during the war games to test it and had the rules changed so he would win with acceptable loses. Glad they stayed with that plan.
Japan military leaders had to suffer from victory fever. They developed that fever from China, Pearl Harbor, Singapore, Coral Sea and Philippines. This could be the reason why they were added to the movie but at 138 minutes there is no way in heck they could do a good job of covering all of those battles and effects and then cover the Battle of Midway. When I saw the previews for the movie I thought to myself this is going to one long movie. I was thinking Lord of Rings long. Maybe they will release an uncut version after the movie finish running.
Mark
Quincannon
Joined: June 22, 2018
KitMaker: 275 posts
Model Shipwrights: 273 posts
Posted: Thursday, November 14, 2019 - 11:52 AM UTC
Russ: My favorite war movie is "Mrs. Minever", seriously. I never miss a chance to watch it again. It is closely followed, almost neck and neck, with "Battleground". Van Johnson trying to cook two eggs in his helmet tell you more about life in the Infantry, than any battle action ever on film including the real thing. It was priceless.
Now a bit of trivia for a new found Army buddy. What battalion was depicted in "Battleground"? If you know Army Lineages the answer will be easy. If not you are in for a fair amount of head scratching.
"In Which We Serve" "Das Boote" and "The Enemy Below" are among my favorites as well.
Mark: Yamamoto could read the 1941 edition of Janes as well as any man, and knew his goose was cooked if he didn't establish conditions for a truce or cease fire by the end of 42. I don't want to pretend I can read the man's mind, but I honestly believe that any designs he had on Midway or Hawaii were for the purpose of the decisive battle.
The strategic thought before the war in Japanese naval circles centered on the decisive battle in home waters. Pearl Harbor put an end to that in real terms. The USN did not have the combat power to advance across the Pacific to make the home waters decisive battle a real possibility. Yamamoto had to move the decisive battle eastward to draw out what was left of the US Fleet, and do it before the Fall of 42, if there was any chance of any truce.
Of course a truce, after Pearl Harbor, was something that was never going to happen.
If you look at Nimitz's strategic problem, all he really had to do is maintain a cresent shaped outpost line ftom the Aleutians to Australia, including Hawaii, and Samoa. He had to fight for Midway, as his outpost in Hawaii was untenable without doing so. He really did not have to undertake any offensive action until the Summer of 43 had he not wanted to, when the USN would reach material parity, followed within the next six to twelve months with material dominance. In boxing terms counter punching while retaining balance. That's the view of a broken down old rifleman anyway.
That of course brings up the Japanese having the ability to make their outpost line more strongly fortified, but when you think about it how much stronger could they make it without adequate shipping to bring in the material and supplies. As long as there was a growing USN submarine force in the Pacific Japanese hopes of keeping what they seized supplied was a pipe dream.
You are so correct about logistics and the ability to transport supplies. As the old saying goes Amateurs study tactics while professional study logistics.
Now a bit of trivia for a new found Army buddy. What battalion was depicted in "Battleground"? If you know Army Lineages the answer will be easy. If not you are in for a fair amount of head scratching.
"In Which We Serve" "Das Boote" and "The Enemy Below" are among my favorites as well.
Mark: Yamamoto could read the 1941 edition of Janes as well as any man, and knew his goose was cooked if he didn't establish conditions for a truce or cease fire by the end of 42. I don't want to pretend I can read the man's mind, but I honestly believe that any designs he had on Midway or Hawaii were for the purpose of the decisive battle.
The strategic thought before the war in Japanese naval circles centered on the decisive battle in home waters. Pearl Harbor put an end to that in real terms. The USN did not have the combat power to advance across the Pacific to make the home waters decisive battle a real possibility. Yamamoto had to move the decisive battle eastward to draw out what was left of the US Fleet, and do it before the Fall of 42, if there was any chance of any truce.
Of course a truce, after Pearl Harbor, was something that was never going to happen.
If you look at Nimitz's strategic problem, all he really had to do is maintain a cresent shaped outpost line ftom the Aleutians to Australia, including Hawaii, and Samoa. He had to fight for Midway, as his outpost in Hawaii was untenable without doing so. He really did not have to undertake any offensive action until the Summer of 43 had he not wanted to, when the USN would reach material parity, followed within the next six to twelve months with material dominance. In boxing terms counter punching while retaining balance. That's the view of a broken down old rifleman anyway.
That of course brings up the Japanese having the ability to make their outpost line more strongly fortified, but when you think about it how much stronger could they make it without adequate shipping to bring in the material and supplies. As long as there was a growing USN submarine force in the Pacific Japanese hopes of keeping what they seized supplied was a pipe dream.
You are so correct about logistics and the ability to transport supplies. As the old saying goes Amateurs study tactics while professional study logistics.
PzDave
Joined: November 28, 2012
KitMaker: 319 posts
Model Shipwrights: 18 posts
Posted: Thursday, November 14, 2019 - 05:28 PM UTC
As a further comment on the movie I would like to remind everyone that other great WW2 movies always had a back story. i.e. Thirty Secomds Over okyo had a long back story of Ted Lawson and his family. Wing and Prayer was the story of life aboard a carrier operations and training and the raids after Pearl Harbor. (it was also about the Battle of Midway). So if the new Midway wants to deal with the wives that's OK with me. And we have been talking about the amout of Japanese AA fire on the dive bombers? How much was there? The combined AA effects of AA fire from three carriers and their supporting ships would be a lot.
Kevlar06
Joined: March 15, 2009
KitMaker: 3,670 posts
Model Shipwrights: 173 posts
Posted: Thursday, November 14, 2019 - 05:39 PM UTC
I believe Battleground is based on a company in the 1/506th PIR. I generally don't have many Hollywood war movie favorites, prefering documentaries, but I have a few favorites based on real incidents-- Dambusters, The Battle of Britain, and a few others. Das Boote is good, and 12 O'clock High is a classic. Blackhawk Down is very close to reality, but a little too close for me-- I knew some of the participants. One thing I forgot to mention is oil--- at the beginning of the movie, Yamamoto is having a private conversation with Layton at a Naval attaché dinner in 1937 Tokyo (not sure if this really took place, but it sets the scene) where Yamamoto mentions the US control of oil in the Pacific. Later, he mentions the failure to destroy fuel reserves at Pearl Harbor, and in another scene the distraction of Coral Sea (by supporting the Army) from the main target of Midway (really Hawaii). Again, the 138 minutes of the movie limits the time to delve deeper, but the basic facts are there--they've at least made an attempt to focus on them. For these reasons, I was able to overlook the "over the top" CGI antics and focus on the underlying true story.
Movies like Battleground and 12 O'clock High have a narrow, compelling dramatic-human focus that appeals to us (perhaps we all have a little of the Spartan brotherhood in us). It's much harder to make a strategically "sweeping" movie like Midway with a "cast of thousands" interesting, but I think they've done a pretty good job. It's not the personal "Battleground" level of storytelling, (I've never cooked eggs in my steel pot before, but I've heated water and shaved plenty out of one-- this new generation can't do that with Kevlar!). Midway is a pretty good rundown of the facts (not to say it's perfect) with only some snippets of human interest stories. I definitely would want to see this movie in its entirety, without interruption (hard at my age, since I tend to measure how good a movie is by how long I can make it between bathroom breaks!). For this movie, I did manage to sit through the entire 138 minutes, with a bag of popcorn and a medium diet Coke without getting up. So did my wife, who normally finds war movies either predictably boring or plain confusing. During the ride home, she even asked me several question relating to the US and Japanese strategy, so I took it to mean the movie had piqued her interest by being both informative and thought provoking. This is why I've changed my opinion of it between seeing the "cheesy" previews of a few months ago (perhaps I was tainted by 2003s Pearl Harbor?) in short, the previews don't do it justice. There's not a lot of gratuitous blood and gore in it either (lots of stuff blowing up though), nor is there much swearing. It simply tells the technical story of Midway, in a way that holds interest-- interspersed with factoids--like Halsey's bout of Shingles that keep him out of the battle. It might have been better with another hour, but then we're in "Lawrence of Arabia" territory (another of my favorites) and this movie is certainly not in that dramatic category.
If you have any interest in the Naval Warfare in the Pacific during WWII, you should see it. The young guy who came to clean my roof today asked me if I'd seen it, telling me he saw it this weeekend and thought it was good movie! He'd learned a lot of stuff he never knew about a battle his grandfather had been in! So I think if nothing else, it effectively introduces a younger generation to the true exploits of the greatest generation. Unlike other Pacific war movies of late.
VR, Russ
Movies like Battleground and 12 O'clock High have a narrow, compelling dramatic-human focus that appeals to us (perhaps we all have a little of the Spartan brotherhood in us). It's much harder to make a strategically "sweeping" movie like Midway with a "cast of thousands" interesting, but I think they've done a pretty good job. It's not the personal "Battleground" level of storytelling, (I've never cooked eggs in my steel pot before, but I've heated water and shaved plenty out of one-- this new generation can't do that with Kevlar!). Midway is a pretty good rundown of the facts (not to say it's perfect) with only some snippets of human interest stories. I definitely would want to see this movie in its entirety, without interruption (hard at my age, since I tend to measure how good a movie is by how long I can make it between bathroom breaks!). For this movie, I did manage to sit through the entire 138 minutes, with a bag of popcorn and a medium diet Coke without getting up. So did my wife, who normally finds war movies either predictably boring or plain confusing. During the ride home, she even asked me several question relating to the US and Japanese strategy, so I took it to mean the movie had piqued her interest by being both informative and thought provoking. This is why I've changed my opinion of it between seeing the "cheesy" previews of a few months ago (perhaps I was tainted by 2003s Pearl Harbor?) in short, the previews don't do it justice. There's not a lot of gratuitous blood and gore in it either (lots of stuff blowing up though), nor is there much swearing. It simply tells the technical story of Midway, in a way that holds interest-- interspersed with factoids--like Halsey's bout of Shingles that keep him out of the battle. It might have been better with another hour, but then we're in "Lawrence of Arabia" territory (another of my favorites) and this movie is certainly not in that dramatic category.
If you have any interest in the Naval Warfare in the Pacific during WWII, you should see it. The young guy who came to clean my roof today asked me if I'd seen it, telling me he saw it this weeekend and thought it was good movie! He'd learned a lot of stuff he never knew about a battle his grandfather had been in! So I think if nothing else, it effectively introduces a younger generation to the true exploits of the greatest generation. Unlike other Pacific war movies of late.
VR, Russ
Quincannon
Joined: June 22, 2018
KitMaker: 275 posts
Model Shipwrights: 273 posts
Posted: Friday, November 15, 2019 - 03:53 AM UTC
The Battleground unit was a company of the 1st Battalion, 401st Glider Infantry Regiment. The 1/401 was effectively the third battalion of the 327th Gilder Infantry Regiment.
When they were task organizing the 82nd and 101st for Normandy, each division only needed one glider regiment for the plan. The 82nd only had one (the two battalion 325th) and the 101st had two (the 327 and 401st both two battalion regiments). So to beef up both of the glider regiments, 1/401st was attached to the 327th and 2/401st was attached to the 325th. In practice and unofficially the companies of each of these battalions became Companies G, H, and I. So the company depicted was either Company G or Company I. Company H was mentioned early on as the company next door.
It remained this way through Holland, and the Bulge, and became official in March 45 with a change to the TO&E's making glider regiments three battalion organizations.
As a sidebar, Maxwell Taylor was not at the Bulge, He was in Washington as the XVIII Airborne Corps representative to the people who were redesigning the airborne divisions based on battle experience. In March 1945 the divisions were officially reorganized, but in effect, the organization was in place since Normandy, and all the reorganization turned out to be was an official blessing of what already was in place.
You get a hint of what unit it is by both helmet ,markings and the scene where the German is enlighten as to what "Nuts" means by Colonel Harper the 327th commander.
PS: There is another movie out there "Screaming Eagles" which follows a squad of Company D, 502nd Parachute Infantry at Normandy. You don't see it hardly at all on television. I would suspect it is on You tube, but it is worth a watch. It is the kind of movie that stirs the juices of fourteen year old kids at the time. At least it did mine. It was made and released at the time when the 101st was being reactivated as a "new" Pentomic division test bed.
When they were task organizing the 82nd and 101st for Normandy, each division only needed one glider regiment for the plan. The 82nd only had one (the two battalion 325th) and the 101st had two (the 327 and 401st both two battalion regiments). So to beef up both of the glider regiments, 1/401st was attached to the 327th and 2/401st was attached to the 325th. In practice and unofficially the companies of each of these battalions became Companies G, H, and I. So the company depicted was either Company G or Company I. Company H was mentioned early on as the company next door.
It remained this way through Holland, and the Bulge, and became official in March 45 with a change to the TO&E's making glider regiments three battalion organizations.
As a sidebar, Maxwell Taylor was not at the Bulge, He was in Washington as the XVIII Airborne Corps representative to the people who were redesigning the airborne divisions based on battle experience. In March 1945 the divisions were officially reorganized, but in effect, the organization was in place since Normandy, and all the reorganization turned out to be was an official blessing of what already was in place.
You get a hint of what unit it is by both helmet ,markings and the scene where the German is enlighten as to what "Nuts" means by Colonel Harper the 327th commander.
PS: There is another movie out there "Screaming Eagles" which follows a squad of Company D, 502nd Parachute Infantry at Normandy. You don't see it hardly at all on television. I would suspect it is on You tube, but it is worth a watch. It is the kind of movie that stirs the juices of fourteen year old kids at the time. At least it did mine. It was made and released at the time when the 101st was being reactivated as a "new" Pentomic division test bed.
Hohenstaufen
Joined: December 13, 2004
KitMaker: 2,192 posts
Model Shipwrights: 2 posts
Posted: Friday, November 15, 2019 - 05:57 AM UTC
I've just seen Midway and I have to say that I enoyed it. I do know a bit about the battle, but not in the detail displayed by other posters here. As others have said, I think it covered most of the bases fact wise.
It is a pretty "busy" movie; never having flown a plane, I can't comment on the aerial sequences, but I suspect the low level stuff is a bit naff. On the other hand, I suspect there aren't many people around now who know what it's like to dive bomb a carrier with a lot of flak coming up at you; it looked pretty convincing to me. If you want a clue what flying a dive bomber is like, you can do worse than read Eric "Winkle" Browns description of his air test of a Junkers Ju 87 "Stuka" in the Haynes "manual".
We do tend to be a bit blase about Hollywood and its "gung-ho" attitude to war films. I found it on whole impressively absent here. The family bits were just right I thought, it reminds us that all these people involved are actually ordinary guys with normal hopes and aspirations.
It would IMHO be a mistake not to see it on the basis of Pearl Harbour. It is an immeasurably better film than that. After the film finished I chatted with an old guy (even older than me!) in the loo and he said he thought it was good - he remembered the battle being in the news as a boy, which proves something. We agreed it was much better than the 70s version which was mainly rehashed footage from Tora,Tora,Tora and blurry wartime footage.
My wife came with me and although it is not her sort of thing, she did ask some pertinent questions after, so I think she was entertained.
It is a pretty "busy" movie; never having flown a plane, I can't comment on the aerial sequences, but I suspect the low level stuff is a bit naff. On the other hand, I suspect there aren't many people around now who know what it's like to dive bomb a carrier with a lot of flak coming up at you; it looked pretty convincing to me. If you want a clue what flying a dive bomber is like, you can do worse than read Eric "Winkle" Browns description of his air test of a Junkers Ju 87 "Stuka" in the Haynes "manual".
We do tend to be a bit blase about Hollywood and its "gung-ho" attitude to war films. I found it on whole impressively absent here. The family bits were just right I thought, it reminds us that all these people involved are actually ordinary guys with normal hopes and aspirations.
It would IMHO be a mistake not to see it on the basis of Pearl Harbour. It is an immeasurably better film than that. After the film finished I chatted with an old guy (even older than me!) in the loo and he said he thought it was good - he remembered the battle being in the news as a boy, which proves something. We agreed it was much better than the 70s version which was mainly rehashed footage from Tora,Tora,Tora and blurry wartime footage.
My wife came with me and although it is not her sort of thing, she did ask some pertinent questions after, so I think she was entertained.
Quincannon
Joined: June 22, 2018
KitMaker: 275 posts
Model Shipwrights: 273 posts
Posted: Friday, November 15, 2019 - 07:28 AM UTC
Russ and Steve:
I don't really have a dislike for this type of movie per say. I watched the original Midway and Tora Tora Tore in the theaters, and I was entertained. I never bothered with Pearl Harbor when it was first out, but I did start to watch it on TV, and turned it off in the first fifteen minutes, deciding that it was pure smaltz, and not worth my time.
Don't know if it is the Hollywood treatment or the compromises that turn me off the most. TTT did a good job of life size model making and aircraft conversions, then they screw it up showing a nest of mothballed DDR's in storage at Pearl representing a destroyer division. Midway had its moments but the stock footage and an Angled deck Yorktown turned me completely off.
I suppose if I want to enjoy movies like this more I should read much less, so as to be not that well informed.
Case in point for me. I am also an Alamo and Texas Revolution student. The Alamo movie made in 2004 was by far the most accurate portrayal of both the battle, and several of the personalities involved. If anyone would ever tell me that Billy Bob Thornton, would do the best David Crockett (never Davy, he hated it) on film, before I saw the movie, I would have laughed. He did.
The John Wayne extravaganza of 1960 was not about the Alamo at all. It was anti-communist propaganda. So that one I consider a stinker, except for the cinematography which was exceptional.
That leaves the Last Command. Fairly inaccurate for the most part. Low budget, a typical Republic Pictures product. Love interest was present. What a surprise it was for me to conclude though that it was the most entertaining of the three. I have watched it at least 50 times, and if I live long enough it will probably be fifty times more
I don't really have a dislike for this type of movie per say. I watched the original Midway and Tora Tora Tore in the theaters, and I was entertained. I never bothered with Pearl Harbor when it was first out, but I did start to watch it on TV, and turned it off in the first fifteen minutes, deciding that it was pure smaltz, and not worth my time.
Don't know if it is the Hollywood treatment or the compromises that turn me off the most. TTT did a good job of life size model making and aircraft conversions, then they screw it up showing a nest of mothballed DDR's in storage at Pearl representing a destroyer division. Midway had its moments but the stock footage and an Angled deck Yorktown turned me completely off.
I suppose if I want to enjoy movies like this more I should read much less, so as to be not that well informed.
Case in point for me. I am also an Alamo and Texas Revolution student. The Alamo movie made in 2004 was by far the most accurate portrayal of both the battle, and several of the personalities involved. If anyone would ever tell me that Billy Bob Thornton, would do the best David Crockett (never Davy, he hated it) on film, before I saw the movie, I would have laughed. He did.
The John Wayne extravaganza of 1960 was not about the Alamo at all. It was anti-communist propaganda. So that one I consider a stinker, except for the cinematography which was exceptional.
That leaves the Last Command. Fairly inaccurate for the most part. Low budget, a typical Republic Pictures product. Love interest was present. What a surprise it was for me to conclude though that it was the most entertaining of the three. I have watched it at least 50 times, and if I live long enough it will probably be fifty times more
Kevlar06
Joined: March 15, 2009
KitMaker: 3,670 posts
Model Shipwrights: 173 posts
Posted: Friday, November 15, 2019 - 08:03 AM UTC
If it’s visual and historical accuracy you’re after (as in aircraft and ships— except for the aforementioned Nells) I’d give this movie a B++ grade. This is because they got the insignia wrong in a few cases, some of the aerobatics and flying scenes are a bit unbelievable and again, the strange elongated Nells. The ships look great by the way. As for big picture historical fact, I’d have to say the movie has earned a solid A in my book. It’s definitely not a rehash of old footage, it covers many of the formerly obscure details, and is realistic in its portrayal of the characters— even in their private lives (with a few exceptions— as I said, I don’t think Layton ever met Dick Best in a wheelchair as he was being brought off the Enterprise after the battle— that I think is pure Hollywood). But there are lots of historic facts in the movie that have never been previously portrayed on film.
I only added to this string of comments because there were many negative comments last summer about the previews. I was one who added to that. I even groaned when my wife presented me with the tickets— I had no previous intention of going. Many of us were expecting another 2003 “Pearl Harbor” or the 1976 Midway abominations—but that’s not the case, it’s just the opposite. So, by way of paying my penance for my earlier slight of this movie based just on hokey short clips, I’ll say I was wrong, and I’d add that if you are interested in the War in the Pacific, go see the movie. Wait for the DVD to come out if you want, but definitely see it in its entirety— it’s not nearly as bad as some of us thought it would be— just the opposite in fact (unless you’re looking for a completely dramatic human interest/love story— you’ll be disappointed if you want that). I’m sure the Hollywood pundits and movie reviewers will chew it up, because it’s not a love triangle drama— but it’s still a good realistic portrayal of key events.
VR, Russ
I only added to this string of comments because there were many negative comments last summer about the previews. I was one who added to that. I even groaned when my wife presented me with the tickets— I had no previous intention of going. Many of us were expecting another 2003 “Pearl Harbor” or the 1976 Midway abominations—but that’s not the case, it’s just the opposite. So, by way of paying my penance for my earlier slight of this movie based just on hokey short clips, I’ll say I was wrong, and I’d add that if you are interested in the War in the Pacific, go see the movie. Wait for the DVD to come out if you want, but definitely see it in its entirety— it’s not nearly as bad as some of us thought it would be— just the opposite in fact (unless you’re looking for a completely dramatic human interest/love story— you’ll be disappointed if you want that). I’m sure the Hollywood pundits and movie reviewers will chew it up, because it’s not a love triangle drama— but it’s still a good realistic portrayal of key events.
VR, Russ
amoz02t
#192
Joined: November 25, 2009
KitMaker: 1,383 posts
Model Shipwrights: 3 posts
Posted: Saturday, November 16, 2019 - 05:31 AM UTC
I agree it was an ok movie. Best review was my teenage grandson saying "interesting" like he might want to know more about the actual history. He did not mind as much as I the Norden bombsight shown in the Doolittle raider B-25 vs the 20 cent "Mark Twain" sight. Lots of SBD action. Go judge for yourself
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 Model Shipwrights and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.