On the afternoon of June 5th, 1942, Vice Admiral Chuchi Nagumo sat in the officer’s wardrobe aboard the destroyer Arisher, staring at a blank sheet of rice paper.
His flagship Akaji was gone, sunk beneath the Pacific ways along with three other carriers that had formed the core of Japan’s striking power.
Around him, surviving staff officers worked in silence, compiling the preliminary action reports that would eventually reach Tokyo.
But Nagumo was not writing an afteraction report.
He was composing something far more difficult.
A letter to Admiral Isuroku Yamamoto explaining how the Imperial Japanese Navy had just lost the war.
The words came slowly.
How do you tell your superior that four fleet carriers, the same ships that had devastated Pearl Harbor 6 months earlier, had been reduced to burning wrecks in a matter of minutes? How do you explain that Japan’s most experienced naval aviators, men who had trained for years and fought across China and the Pacific, were dead? How do you confess that the doctrine Japan had perfected, the carrier warfare tactics that had made the Keto Butai the most feared naval force in the world had been utterly defeated by an enemy using principles Japan had dismissed as theoretically unound.
If you’re enjoying this deep dive into the story, hit the subscribe button and let us know in the comments from where in the world you are watching from today.
What Nagumo did not yet understand, what none of the surviving Japanese officers could comprehend in those first terrible hours after Midway was that they had not simply lost a battle.
They had been defeated by a fundamentally different philosophy of carrier warfare.
American carrier doctrine, which Japanese naval theorists had studied before the war and quietly judged inferior, had proven devastatingly effective.
And in the three years of brutal combat that followed midway, Japanese admirals would write extensively about American methods, analyzing them with a mixture of professional respect and bitter envy, trying to understand how they had been so catastrophically wrong.
The roots of Japanese carrier doctrine stretched back to the 1920s when the Imperial Japanese Navy first began experimenting with aircraft carriers as offensive weapons.
Japan’s naval theorists, constrained by treaty limitations that prevented them from building as many battleships as Britain or America saw carriers as a way to project power without violating tonnage restrictions.
They studied American and British carrier operations carefully, noting both strengths and weaknesses in Western approaches to naval aviation.
By the early 1930s, Japanese doctrine had crystallized around several core principles.
First, carriers should be concentrated into a single powerful striking force rather than dispersed among battleship formations.
Second, carrier aircraft should be elite weapons operated by the most highly trained pilots in the fleet.
Third, carrier operations should emphasize the decisive first strike, achieving tactical surprise and destroying the enemy before they could respond effectively.
These principles seemed validated by every war game, every fleet exercise, every tactical problem the Japanese Navy studied.
The man who perfected this doctrine was Admiral Isuroka Yamamoto, the same officer who would later plan the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Yamamoto had served as captain of the carrier Akaji in 1928 and had watched Japan’s carrier force evolve from a collection of experimental ships into a formidable weapon.
He understood aviation in a way most battleship admirals did not.
He recognized that the carrier, not the battleship, would dominate future naval warfare.
But Yamamoto’s vision of carrier operations was shaped by Japan’s strategic situation and resource constraints in ways that would later prove critical.
Japan could not afford to lose pilots.
The training pipeline for naval aviators was deliberately narrow, designed to produce a small number of exceptionally skilled flyers rather than a large number of adequately trained ones.
A pilot entering the Japanese naval aviation program in the mid1 1930s would spend 3 years in intensive training before being assigned to a fleet squadron.
He would accumulate hundreds of hours of flight time, master formation flying, navigation, and combat tactics, and prove himself worthy of the honor of flying for the emperor.
The wash out rate was brutal.
Only the best survived the program.
This approach produced extraordinary results.
By 1941, Japanese carrier pilots were arguably the finest in the world.
They could execute precision attacks in any weather, navigate by dead reckoning across featureless ocean, and coordinate strikes with a level of skill that American observers found impressive.
The pilots who attacked Pearl Harbor demonstrated this mastery.
They launched in darkness from carriers pitching in heavy seas, flew over 200 m, maintaining radio silence and tight formation, achieved complete tactical surprise, and executed their attacks with devastating accuracy.
But the doctrine that made these pilots so effective contained a fatal flaw that would only become apparent after midway.
Japanese carrier doctrine concentrated offensive power in a small number of highly skilled individuals operating from a small number of irreplaceable carriers.
If those carriers were lost, if those pilots were killed, the entire system collapsed.
There was no depth, no reserve capacity, no way to rapidly regenerate lost capability.
The Japanese had built a magnificent sword, but one that would shatter if struck hard enough.
American carrier doctrine evolved along a fundamentally different path shaped by different strategic assumptions and different resource realities.
The United States Navy in the 1920s and30s had no need to compensate for treaty limitations through asymmetric tactics.
America could build as many carriers as it wanted, train as many pilots as necessary and develop doctrine based on material abundance rather than material scarcity.
This led to an approach that Japanese theorists studied and privately disdained.
American doctrine distributed carriers among multiple task forces rather than concentrating them in a single striking unit.
Each carrier operated with its own escort of cruisers and destroyers, providing mutual support but maintaining tactical independence.
Japanese analysts saw this as a waste of combat power.
Dispersing carriers meant dispersing striking capability, reducing the weight of any single attack.
The Americans seemed to be violating the principle of concentration of force, a fundamental military maxim that every Japanese officer learned.
American pilot training emphasized throughput over individual excellence.
The United States Naval Aviation Program was designed to produce large numbers of adequately skilled aviators quickly rather than small numbers of superb pilots slowly.
Training standards were lower than Japanese standards.
Flight hours before assignment to fleet squadrons were fewer.
The emphasis was on getting pilots operational and letting them develop advanced skills through experience rather than perfecting those skills before they ever saw combat.
To Japanese observers, this approach seemed to reflect American values that they found contemptable.
Americans, the Japanese believed, treated everything as a mass production problem.
They built adequate weapons in large quantities rather than building perfect weapons in small quantities.
They valued efficiency over excellence.
Quantity over quality, industrial output over warrior spirit.
American carrier doctrine seemed to embody this philosophy.
It was designed for a nation with unlimited resources fighting a long war of attrition, not for a warrior culture seeking decisive battle.
The Japanese were not entirely wrong in this assessment.
American doctrine did reflect American industrial capacity and strategic thinking, but they made a critical error in judgment.
They assumed that mass production and warrior excellence were mutually exclusive.
They believed that a system designed for quantity could never achieve quality.
They convinced themselves that their superior pilot training and concentrated striking power would overcome any American numerical advantages.
They were about to discover how wrong they were.
The attack on Pearl Harbor seemed to validate every principle of Japanese carrier doctrine.
On the morning of December 7th, 1941, six Japanese carriers launched 353 aircraft in two waves against the American Pacific Fleet.
The strike achieved complete tactical surprise.
American battleships were sunk or damaged at their moorings.
American aircraft were destroyed on the ground before they could respond.
In less than 2 hours, Japan had crippled American naval power in the Pacific and suffered minimal losses in return.
It was exactly the kind of decisive first strike that Japanese doctrine envisioned.
But Pearl Harbor also revealed the limitations of that doctrine in ways that Japanese commanders did not immediately recognize.
The American carriers were not in port.
Enterprise, Lexington, and Saratoga, the ships that actually mattered for modern naval warfare, escaped destruction.
The attack had been planned, assuming the carriers would be present.
But when reconnaissance reported they were at sea, Nagumo chose not to search for them.
His orders were to strike Pearl Harbor, not to hunt for carriers across the Pacific.
He had achieved his primary objective and withdrew, leaving American carrier power intact.
This decision reflected a deeper characteristic of Japanese doctrine.
If you find this story engaging, please take a moment to subscribe and enable notifications.
It helps us continue producing in-depth content like this.
It was oriented toward achieving specific tactical objectives rather than destroying enemy capability.
The plan called for attacking Pearl Harbor.
So that is what the Japanese did.
The possibility of deviating from the plan to pursue targets of opportunity was not seriously considered.
Japanese operational planning was detailed, thorough, and inflexible.
Once a plan was set, commanders were expected to execute it regardless of change circumstances.
American doctrine, by contrast, emphasized flexibility and initiative.
Carrier task force commanders were given broad objectives and considerable freedom in how to achieve them.
If circumstances changed, if unexpected opportunities arose, American commanders were expected to adapt.
This difference in command philosophy would prove critical at midway and in every carrier battle that followed.
In the six months after Pearl Harbor, Japanese carriers rampaged across the Pacific.
They supported the invasions of the Philippines, the Dutch East Indies, and Burma.
They raided Salon, threatening British control of the Indian Ocean.
They seemed unstoppable.
Every operation reinforced Japanese confidence in their doctrine.
Concentration of force, elite pilots, decisive strikes.
These principles delivered victory after victory.
But they were victories against opponents who were unprepared, outnumbered, or both.
The Japanese had not yet faced an enemy carrier force of equal strength operating under competent leadership.
That test came at the Battle of the Coral Sea in early May 1942.
For the first time in naval history, two carrier forces fought a battle without their surface ships ever coming within sight of each other.
The engagement was tactically inconclusive.
Both sides lost carriers.
The Japanese light carrier Sho was sunk.
The American fleet carrier Lexington was mortally damaged and had to be scuttled.
The Japanese fleet carrier Shukaku was heavily damaged.
Both sides claimed victory.
But Coral Sea revealed something about American carrier doctrine that troubled Japanese analysts who studied the battle reports.
The Americans had fought with unexpected effectiveness despite being outnumbered and despite having less experienced pilots.
American damage control procedures had proven superior.
Ships that should have been lost to fire and flooding remained afloat for hours, giving crews time to abandon ships safely.
American fighter direction, using radar to guide interceptors to incoming strikes, had reduced Japanese attack effectiveness.
Most troubling, American pilots had shown a willingness to press attacks despite heavy losses, something Japanese theorists had not expected from a culture they believed was soft and individualistic.
The Battle of Midway would transform these troubling hints into catastrophic reality.
Yamamoto planned Midway as the decisive battle that would destroy American carrier power once and for all.
He would lure the American carriers into a trap, achieve the tactical surprise that had worked so well at Pearl Harbor, and eliminate them with overwhelming force.
The plan was complex, perhaps too complex, dividing Japanese forces among multiple groups spread across vast ocean distances.
But Yamamoto believed American commanders would respond predictably, sending their carriers north to defend Midway and walking into his ambush.
What Yamamoto did not know was that American codereakers had penetrated Japanese naval communications.
A team at station Hypo in Hawaii, led by Commander Joseph Rockefford, had broken enough of the Japanese naval code to determine that a major attack was planned against a location designated as AF.
When American intelligence sent a fake message from Midway reporting a shortage of fresh water, and the Japanese helpfully confirmed that AF was short of fresh water, the trap was set.
The Americans knew exactly where and when Yamamoto planned to strike.
Admiral Chester Nimttz positioned his three carriers, Enterprise, Hornet, and Yorktown, northeast of Midway, and waited.
The force was commanded by Rear Admiral Frank Jack Fletcher with Rear Admiral Raymond Spruent commanding the Enterprise and Hornet task force.
Both were experienced officers, but neither had commanded carriers in combat before Coral Sea just one month earlier.
They were about to demonstrate that American carrier doctrine, the doctrine Japanese theorists had dismissed as inferior, was far more effective than anyone in the Imperial Japanese Navy imagined.
On the morning of June 4th, 1942, Vice Admiral Numo’s carriers launched their strike against Midway Island.
108 aircraft attacked the American base at dawn, achieving tactical surprise and inflicting significant damage, but the attack did not completely suppress Midway’s defenses, and the air groupoup leader radioed back that a second strike would be necessary.
This message set in motion a chain of decisions that would doom the Japanese fleet.
Nagumo had held back 93 aircraft armed with torpedoes and armor-piercing bombs for use against American carriers if they appeared.
When the Midway Strike leader requested a second attack, Nagumo faced a choice.
He could leave his reserve aircraft armed for anti-hship attack and risk having insufficient force to suppress Midways defenses, or he could rearm them with bombs for a second land attack and hope that no American carriers appeared.
Japanese doctrine emphasized thorough planning and decisive action.
Leaving the job half done at midway would be sloppy, unJapanese.
Nagumo ordered the reserve aircraft rearmed with land bombs.
While Japanese crews were frantically moving torpedoes and armor-piercing bombs off aircraft and replacing them with land bombs, a Japanese reconnaissance aircraft reported sighting American ships.
The report was maddeningly vague.
10 ships, possibly including a carrier.
Location uncertain.
Nagumo immediately ordered the rearming operation reversed.
Bombs off, torpedoes back on.
The flight decks of all four carriers became cluttered with ordinance, fuel hoses, and aircraft in various states of readiness.
It was at this moment of maximum vulnerability that American dive bombers arrived.
The American attack had been poorly coordinated.
Torpedo bombers from all three carriers had struck first, attacking at low altitude without fighter escort.
They were slaughtered.
Torpedo squadron 8 from Hornet lost all 15 of its aircraft.
Only one pilot inside George Gay survived.
Of the 41 American torpedo planes that attacked the Japanese fleet that morning, only six returned.
Not a single torpedo struck its target.
It appeared to be a catastrophic American failure.
Exactly the kind of result Japanese doctrine predicted when inadequately trained pilots faced superior Japanese defenses.
But those torpedo attacks had drawn Japanese fighter cover down to low altitude and disrupted Japanese carrier operations at the critical moment when dive bombers from Enterprise in Yorktown arrived minutes later.
They found the Japanese carriers exposed and vulnerable.
Lieutenant Commander Wade McCcluskey led 37 dive bombers from Enterprise.
He had been searching for the Japanese fleet and was running low on fuel when he spotted a Japanese destroyer and followed it back to the main force.
At 10:22 in the morning, McCcluskkeyy’s dive bombers rolled into their attacks.
What happened next would be analyzed by Japanese naval officers for the rest of the war and long after it ended.
In approximately 6 minutes, three Japanese fleet carriers, Akaji, Kaga, and Soryu were transformed into burning wrecks.
American bombs penetrated to hanger decks crowded with fueled and armed aircraft.
Secondary explosions ripped through all three ships.
Fires spread with terrifying speed through passageways filled with aviation gasoline vapor.
Damage control parties were overwhelmed almost immediately.
Within hours, all three carriers would sink, taking with them hundreds of highly trained pilots and crewmen who represented years of training investment.
The fourth Japanese carrier, Hiyu, had been separated from the others and escaped the initial attack.
Her captain, Tomioaku, immediately launched a counterattack against the American fleet.
Hiu’s aircraft found Yorktown and hit her with bombs and torpedoes, inflicting damage that would eventually prove fatal.
But American dive bombers found Hiu later that afternoon and subjected her to the same treatment her sister carriers had received.
For direct hits, set her ablaze.
By evening, all four of Japan’s Pearl Harbor carriers were gone.
Aboard the destroyer Arasure Nagumo struggled to comprehend what had happened.
His carriers had been the most powerful naval striking force ever assembled.
His pilots were the finest in the world.
His doctrine had been proven in war game after war game, validated in battle after battle.
Yet in a matter of minutes, American carrier aircraft operating according to principles Japanese theorists had studied and dismissed had achieved what should have been impossible.
They had concentrated their striking power despite being dispersed across multiple task forces.
They had coordinated attacks from different carriers despite communication difficulties.
They had pressed home their attacks with determination despite catastrophic losses and they had destroyed Japan’s carrier striking power in a single morning.
The preliminary reports Nagumo’s staff compiled that afternoon made grim reading for fleet carriers lost.
109 aircraft destroyed on the carriers or shot down during strikes.
Over 3,000 officers and men killed, including dozens of the most experienced carrier pilots in the Imperial Japanese Navy.
The Americans had lost one carrier, Yorktown, which had survived the initial Japanese strikes, but was finished off by a Japanese submarine 2 days later.
They had lost approximately 150 aircraft and 307 men.
The exchange rate was catastrophic for Japan.
But the true catastrophe went beyond the immediate losses.
Japanese carrier doctrine had been built on the assumption of qualitative superiority.
Elite pilots operating from concentrated carrier forces would always defeat numerically superior but less skilled opponents.
Midway shattered that assumption.
American pilots, despite having less training and less experience than their Japanese counterparts, had executed their attacks with deadly effectiveness.
American carrier doctrine, despite violating Japanese principles of concentration, had proven flexible and resilient.
An American damage control, despite Japanese confidence in their own superior techniques, had kept Yorktown afloat for hours under attacks that would have sunk a Japanese carrier in minutes.
The reports from Midway eventually reached Tokyo and were distributed among the senior officers of the naval general staff.
The initial reaction was disbelief.
Some officers suspected the reports were exaggerated, that the losses could not have been as catastrophic as described.
Others blamed Nagumo for tactical errors, arguing that he should have launched his reserve strike immediately upon sighting American ships rather than wasting time rearming for a second strike on Midway.
Still others blamed bad luck, noting that if American dive bombers had arrived 10 minutes earlier or 10 minutes later, they would have found Japanese carriers with their decks clear and their combat air patrol at altitude, ready to intercept.
But a few officers, particularly those who had studied American naval doctrine carefully, recognized that something more fundamental had occurred.
Captain Tamichi Har, a destroyer commander who would later write extensively about his wartime experiences, noted in his private journal that the Americans had demonstrated an approach to carrier warfare that Japan had not anticipated.
They had not concentrated their striking power in the Japanese manner, yet they had achieved devastating concentration of effect.
They had not relied on superior pilot skill, yet their attacks had been executed with precision.
They had suffered terrible losses in their initial torpedo strikes.
Yet they had continued attacking until they achieved their objective.
This was not the behavior Japanese doctrine predicted from American forces.
American pilots were supposed to break off attacks when faced with determined resistance.
American commanders were supposed to be cautious, husbanding their forces and avoiding risks.
American carrier doctrine was supposed to be inflexible and bureaucratic, unable to adapt to changing circumstances.
Yet at midway, American forces had demonstrated flexibility, determination, and effectiveness that contradicted every Japanese assumption.
The most troubling aspect from a Japanese perspective was that American carrier doctrine seemed designed for exactly the kind of war that was now developing.
A war of attrition in which both sides would lose carriers and pilots, but in which one side could replace those losses and the other could not.
Japanese doctrine optimized for decisive battle with irreplaceable elite forces.
American doctrine optimized for sustained operations with replaceable adequate forces.
And in the Pacific War that was now entering its grinding middle phase, the American approach would prove far more sustainable.
In the months following Midway, Japanese naval analysts began a systematic study of American carrier operations.
They obtained copies of American naval manuals that had been captured in the Philippines.
They interrogated American prisoners who had served aboard carriers.
They studied photographs and newsreel footage of American carriers and aircraft.
and they attempted to understand how American doctrine worked and why it had proven so effective.
One document that circulated among Japanese naval officers in late 1942 was a translation of portions of the United States Navy’s carrier operations manual.
The manual had been found in Manila among captured American documents and it provided detailed insights into how the Americans organized, trained, and employed their carrier forces.
Japanese officers who read it were struck by how different American procedures were from Japanese practices.
American carrier doctrine emphasized standardization and redundancy.
All American carriers used the same signal procedures, the same air traffic control methods, the same damage control organization.
This meant that pilots could operate from any carrier in the fleet without retraining.
It meant that ships could easily transfer personnel between vessels because everyone used the same procedures.
It meant that if one carrier was damaged, its aircraft could land on any other American carrier and continue operations without delay.
Japanese carriers, by contrast, each had their own unique procedures and traditions.
Pilots trained on Akaji used different hand signals than pilots on Kaga.
Air traffic control procedures varied from ship to ship.
Damage control organizations reflected each captain’s preferences.
This gave each ship an individual character that its crew took pride in, but it made it difficult to transfer pilots between carriers or to coordinate operations across multiple ships.
American doctrine also emphasized distributed decision-making.
Carrier task force commanders gave broad guidance to subordinate commanders who were expected to use their initiative in achieving objectives.
If communications were disrupted, if circumstances changed unexpectedly, American commanders at every level were authorized to make decisions independently.
The doctrine explicitly stated that a commander who failed to act because he was waiting for orders would be held more culpable than a commander who acted on his own initiative and made mistakes.
Japanese doctrine worked in the opposite direction.
Plans were developed in detail at the highest levels and subordinate commanders were expected to execute them precisely.
Deviation from the plan required authorization from higher authority.
Initiative was valued but only within narrowly defined parameters.
A Japanese commander who deviated from the plan, even if his deviation led to success, would face criticism for breaking discipline.
These different approaches to command philosophy produced very different results in combat.
At midway, when American dive bombers became separated from their torpedo bombers and from each other, individual squadron commanders made independent decisions about when and how to attack.
Wade McCcluskey of Enterprises dive bombers followed a Japanese destroyer back to the main fleet without asking permission.
Max Lesley of Yorktown’s dive bombers attacked immediately upon sighting the Japanese carriers without coordinating with other squadrons.
These independent decisions made by relatively junior officers acting on their own initiative produced the concentration of attacks that destroyed the Japanese carriers.
Japanese doctrine would not have permitted such initiative.
Squadron commanders were expected to follow the air groupoup leader instructions.
Deviating from the planned attack sequence even to exploit an unexpected opportunity would be considered a failure of discipline.
The irony which Japanese analysts recognized was that American doctrine had achieved concentration of force through distributed decision-making while Japanese doctrine’s emphasis on centralized control had produced dispersed ineffective attacks.
Another aspect of American carrier doctrine that Japanese officers found particularly notable was the emphasis on defensive capabilities.
American carriers were designed with extensive armor protection, multiple anti-aircraft gun mounts, and sophisticated damage control systems.
The new Essexclass carriers coming into service by late 1942 carried over 100 anti-aircraft guns of various calibers.
They had armored flight decks that could absorb bomb hits.
They had redundant power systems so that damage to one section would not the entire ship.
They had fire suppression systems that could flood magazines and aviation fuel tanks if necessary.
Japanese carriers, by comparison, were designed to maximize offensive striking power at the expense of defense.
They carried more aircraft than comparable American carriers, but had lighter armor protection and fewer anti-aircraft guns.
Japanese designers believed that the best defense was a strong offense.
If Japanese carriers struck first and struck hard, they would destroy the enemy before he could attack.
This philosophy had worked in China and in the early Pacific battles against unprepared opponents.
At Midway, it had failed catastrophically.
Lieutenant Commander Yahachi Tanabay, captain of the submarine I 168 that delivered the final blows to Yorktown after Midway, wrote a detailed report on the American carrier’s damage resistance.
His submarine had stalked Yorktown for two days as American salvage crews attempted to save her.
Tonabay watched through his periscope as American sailors worked to contain fires, pump out flooded compartments, and restore power.
The carrier had already survived multiple bomb and torpedo hits from Hyia’s aircraft.
She was listing heavily dead in the water, apparently finished.
Yet, American damage control teams had stabilized her and were preparing to tow her back to Pearl Harbor when Tonabay’s torpedoes found her.
Even then, Yorktown refused to sink immediately.
Two torpedoes struck her on the port side, opening massive holes below the waterline.
One torpedo struck the destroyer Hammond, which was alongside providing power to Yorktown, breaking the destroyer in half.
Heman sank in 4 minutes, but Yorktown remained afloat throughout the night and into the next morning before finally capsizing and sinking.
Tonabay’s report noted that an equivalent Japanese carrier would have sunk within an hour of receiving such damage.
American construction methods and damage control doctrine provided a degree of survivability that Japanese carriers simply did not possess.
These observations began appearing in Japanese naval journals and staff college lectures in late 1942 and throughout 1943.
Officers who had studied American carrier operations before the war returned to their notes and reassessed their earlier judgments.
Papers were written analyzing American carrier doctrine strengths and proposing modifications to Japanese doctrine to incorporate useful American methods.
But these academic discussions could not change the fundamental strategic reality.
Japan had lost four fleet carriers at midway and could not replace them quickly.
America was building carriers faster than Japan could sink them.
By mid1943, the disparity in carrier construction had become undeniable.
American shipyards launched the Essexclass carrier Lexington in February, replacing the carrier of the same name lost at Coral Sea Yorktown.
Another Essex class ship named after the carrier sunk at Midway was launched in April.
Intrepid followed in August.
Then Hornet in September, replacing the carrier lost at Santa Cruz.
Then Franklin in October.
Five fleet carriers in 8 months, each more capable than the carriers they replaced.
And the production rate was accelerating.
Japan commissioned exactly two fleet carriers in 1943.
Taihaho, the most advanced carrier Japan had ever built, incorporated many lessons from earlier battles, including an armored flight deck.
Enriou was a smaller fleet carrier designed for rapid construction.
Both were fine ships built with the skill and attention to detail that characterized Japanese naval construction.
But two carriers could not replace four, and Japan lacked the industrial capacity to match American production rates.
Japanese naval officers who understood these numbers reacted with a mixture of professional admiration and existential dread.
Admiral Somu Toyota, who would later command the combined fleet, wrote in his diary that American industrial capacity was beyond anything we imagined before the war.
He noted that Japan was attempting to fight a war of attrition against an opponent who could afford to lose ships faster than Japan could sink them.
We trade carriers one for one, he wrote.
And they replaced theirs in months while ours take years.
The mathematics of this are unbearable.
The mathematics became even more unbearable when carrier aircraft were considered.
American factories produced the F6F Hellcat fighter in quantities that stunned Japanese intelligence analysts.
The first Hellcats reached fleet squadrons in January 1943.
By the end of the year, Grumman had delivered over 2,000 of them.
Production continued through 1944 and 45 at rates approaching 400 aircraft per month.
Japan’s entire fighter production in 1943 was approximately 4,000 aircraft of all types, including obsolete models.
Grumman alone was producing Hellcats faster than Japan could produce fighters.
The Hellcat was also a better aircraft than anything Japan had in service.
It was faster than the Zero, could outdive it, and was far more rugged.
American pilots quickly learned to avoid turning dog fights where the Zero’s superior maneuverability gave it an advantage and instead used the Hellcat’s speed and diving ability to execute hit and run attacks.
The tactics were devastatingly effective.
By late 1943, American fighter pilots were achieving kill ratios exceeding 10:1 in some engagements.
Japanese pilots who survived encounters with Hellcats reported back to their commands with descriptions that often sounded more like excuses than accurate intelligence assessments.
The American aircraft were too numerous, they said.
American pilots were too aggressive.
American tactics were too effective.
But Japanese Navy analysts who studied these reports carefully recognized them as accurate descriptions of how badly the air war was going.
Japan was losing not just individual battles but the entire struggle for air superiority.
The battle of the Philippine Sea in June 1944 demonstrated the complete collapse of Japanese carrier aviation.
Vice Admiral Jisuro Ozawa commanded a force of nine carriers with 473 aircraft.
He faced task force 58 under Admiral Mark Mitcher with 15 carriers and 900 aircraft.
The numbers alone suggested the outcome, but the qualitative disparity was even worse than the quantitative one.
Ozawa’s pilots were inadequately trained.
Japan’s aviation training pipeline had been designed to produce small numbers of elite pilots over years of intensive training.
It could not rapidly generate replacement pilots after the heavy losses of 1942 and 43.
Training programs were shortened, flight hours were reduced, standards were lowered.
The pilots launching from Ozawa’s carriers on June 19th, 1944 averaged fewer than 300 hours of flight time.
Many had never practiced carrier landings at sea.
Some had never fired their weapons except on training ranges.
American pilots averaged over 600 hours of flight time and had benefited from comprehensive training programs that the United States had dramatically expanded after Pearl Harbor.
They flew superior aircraft equipped with radar, better gun sights, and more reliable radios.
They operated from carriers with sophisticated air traffic control systems that could guide them to targets and back to their ships even in poor weather.
And they were supported by a logistics system that provided spare parts, fuel, ammunition, and replacement aircraft in quantities that seemed unlimited.
The battle became known as the Great Marianis Turkey Shoot.
American fighter pilots guided to incoming Japanese strikes by radar intercepted them far from the American fleet.
Japanese formations, many led by inexperienced pilots who had never commanded formations in combat, were torn apart.
Hellcats darted through Japanese formations, firing short bursts that sent aircraft down in flames.
American pilots described shooting down inexperienced Japanese pilots as unsportsmanlike because the opposition was so weak.
Over the course of two days, Ozawa lost three carriers sunk, including Taiho, Japan’s newest and most advanced carrier, which exploded due to poor damage control after a single submarine torpedo hit.
Approximately 650 Japanese aircraft were destroyed.
Most shot down by American fighters, but many lost to fuel exhaustion when they could not find their carriers in darkness.
American losses were approximately 123 aircraft.
Most lost to fuel exhaustion rather than enemy action, and fewer than 50 pilots killed.
The kill ratio exceeded 10:1.
After the battle, Task Force 58’s air group commanders reported to Admiral Mitcher that the engagement had been almost embarrassingly one-sided.
Japanese pilots had flown in predictable patterns, failed to execute effective evasive maneuvers, and demonstrated poor gunnery when they managed to engage American aircraft.
It was not the performance expected of the Imperial Japanese Navy’s carrier aviation.
In the aftermath of the Philippine Sea disaster, Japanese naval officers who had studied American carrier doctrine for years finally confronted the full magnitude of their earlier errors in judgment.
What they had dismissed as theoretically inferior had proven operationally superior.
What they had criticized as mass production mediocrity had defeated carefully crafted excellence.
What they had believed was America’s weakness, its industrial approach to warfare, had turned out to be its greatest strength.
Captain Mitsuo Fuca, who had led the air attack on Pearl Harbor and survived the war despite participating in most major carrier battles, spent much of his time after the Philippine seas studying American carrier tactics.
He obtained copies of American afteraction reports through intelligence channels.
He interviewed pilots who had faced American carriers.
He tried to understand how American doctrine worked and why Japanese doctrine had failed.
Fuca wrote a lengthy analysis that circulated among senior naval officers in late 1944.
The document preserved in Japanese naval archives reveals how completely Japanese thinking about carrier warfare had changed.
Fuca began by acknowledging that Japanese pre-war assessments of American carrier doctrine had been fundamentally wrong.
The Americans had not been inflexible or doctrinire.
Their dispersed carrier deployments had not reduced combat effectiveness, but had instead made their forces more resilient and harder to destroy.
Their emphasis on adequate training for many pilots rather than perfect training for few had proven more sustainable in extended combat.
Most significantly, Fuca argued American carrier doctrine reflected a mature understanding of modern naval warfare that Japanese doctrine lacked.
Americans designed their carrier operations for sustained combat over years, expecting to lose ships and pilots and building systems to replace both quickly.
Japanese doctrine designed for decisive battle, betting everything on achieving perfect execution in a single engagement.
The Americans had treated carrier warfare as a campaign.
The Japanese had treated it as a duel.
And in the Pacific War, campaigns mattered more than duels.
Fuca’s analysis included specific observations about American practices that he believed Japan should adopt.
American fighter direction using radar, American damage control organization, American emphasis on redundant systems, American standardization of procedures across all carriers.
These were all superior to Japanese practices.
But Fuca also noted that adopting these practices would require fundamental changes to how the Japanese Navy operated.
changes that were probably impossible given Japan’s resource constraints and cultural traditions.
The document concluded with a somber assessment.
Japan had developed carrier doctrine based on false assumptions about American capabilities and American character.
Those assumptions had been proven wrong at Midway, wrong at the Eastern Solomons, wrong at Santa Cruz, wrong at the Philippine Sea, wrong in every carrier engagement since Pearl Harbor.
American carrier doctrine, which Japanese theorists had studied and dismissed before the war, had proven devastatingly effective, and there was nothing Japan could do at this stage of the war to close the gap.
Other Japanese officers wrote similar assessments as the war entered its final year.
These documents, preserved in various archives and published after the war, reveal a consistent theme.
Japanese naval officers had developed tremendous respect for American carrier doctrine despite spending years before the war criticizing it.
They recognized that American methods were better suited to modern carrier warfare than Japanese methods.
They understood that Japan’s emphasis on elite performance by irreplaceable individuals could not compete with America’s emphasis on adequate performance by replaceable masses.
and they acknowledged with varying degrees of bitterness that they had been wrong about American capabilities from the beginning.
Admiral Matagaki, who served as Yamamoto’s chief of staff and later commanded battleship forces, kept a detailed diary throughout the war.
His entries from 1944 and early 1945 are filled with observations about American carrier operations.
After one engagement, he wrote that American carriers appeared and disappeared at will, striking Japanese positions, then withdrawing before Japanese forces could respond.
Their mobility and flexibility made them nearly impossible to pin down for a decisive engagement.
Agaki noted that this was exactly opposite to what Japanese doctrine predicted.
American carriers were supposed to be tied to slowmoving task forces, easy targets for Japanese submarine and air attacks.
Instead, they operated with a freedom of movement that Japanese carriers had lost.
American carriers could strike targets hundreds of miles in land using their aircraft, withdraw before Japanese land-based aircraft could retaliate, then strike again days later from a different direction.
Japanese carriers, by contrast, were forced to remain near major naval bases where they could be protected by land-based air cover because Japan no longer controlled enough of the Pacific to safely operate carriers in open ocean.
This reversal of strategic mobility was particularly gling to Japanese officers because it represented a complete inversion of pre-war expectations.
Japan had designed its carrier doctrine for aggressive forward operations across vast distances.
America had designed its carrier doctrine for defensive operations near its own bases.
Yet by 1944, American carriers were the ones ranging freely across the Pacific while Japanese carriers huddled near the home islands.
The final humiliation came in July 1945 when American carrier aircraft struck Japanese naval bases in the home islands themselves.
Task Force 38 with more than a dozen carriers launched strikes against targets that included Yokosa Naval Base where Japan’s remaining carriers were mored.
American aircraft attacked with impunity, destroying Japanese ships in their own harbors, bombing naval facilities that had been built to support the very carrier doctrine that was now completely defunct.
Japanese naval officers watching American carrier aircraft roar overhead recognized that they were witnessing the final reputation of everything Japanese carrier doctrine had been built upon.
The Americans had not relied on a decisive first strike.
They had absorbed Japan’s opening blows and kept fighting.
They had not concentrated their carriers in a single striking force, but had instead deployed them in multiple task groups that could support each other or operate independently.
They had not depended on elite pilots flying perfect missions, but had instead relied on adequate pilots flying sufficient missions.
And they had won.
Thank you for watching.
For more detailed historical breakdowns, check out the other videos on your screen now.
And don’t forget to subscribe.
