# Battle of Midway - June 4 -7, 1942



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

A day early, but better too early than not at all.

Take a moment to remember. And think how all our lives may be different if brave men hadn't done what they did for us.

----------------------------------------------------------


Hear the heroes of June 4th By David Gelernter 

Samuel Eliot Morison was one of the 20th century's most eminent American historians. His writing is vivid, but in "The Two-Ocean War" he appeals directly to his readers just once. Speaking of airmen who died at the Battle of Midway, he writes, "Think of them, reader, every Fourth of June. They and their comrades who survived changed the whole course of the Pacific War." 

As June 1942 began, Japan was on a rampage. America had yet to recover from Pearl Harbor, hit in late '41. The Japanese had just launched a campaign to grab Midway Island from the U.S. as a base for more air strikes against Hawaii and to open the central Pacific to attack. 

The two fleets faced off north of Midway, too far apart to reach each other with gunfire. The battle was fought by aircraft. There were three American carriers (virtually all that remained of the U.S. Pacific fleet) versus four large Japanese carriers. 

The first waves of U.S. warplanes attacked, disastrously. Navy Lt. Cmdr. John C. Waldron led a squadron of 15 torpedo bombers; all were shot down, and the Japanese ships remained untouched. Two more squadrons followed, one under Lt. Cmdr. Eugene E. Lindsey, one led by Lt. Cmdr. Lance E. Massey. They too suffered heavy losses and failed to scratch the Japanese. 

Silence. It looked like America had shot its wad and lost everything. "For about one hundred seconds" at the heart of the battle, Morison writes, "the Japanese were certain they had won the Battle of Midway, and the war." 

Then, one more group of U.S. warplanes suddenly appeared - dive bombers led by Lt. Cmdr. Clarence W. McClusky. In countering the previous attacks, Japanese fighter planes had been drawn downward - leaving American bombers unmolested at 14,000 feet, free to dive on the Japanese ships. Two carriers were sunk. Soon afterward a third was destroyed, later a fourth. The U.S. went on to win the battle - and the war. 

Why must we remember? Because Midway was the turning point in our war with Japan - which is central, in turn, to our understanding of the 20th century and the human race. 

World War II dislodged Europe from the center of world politics and created the U.N., the drive for European unity, Israel's rebirth - and a 50-year Cold War. One more thing. It destroyed humanity's sense of itself as basically good. 

Morality collapsed and was trampled to death in three of the world's largest nations simultaneously. Today's public understands the criminal depravity of Hitler. (Although Europe doesn't understand well enough to deny itself the pleasure of its latest round of Jew-hatred.) People understand (vaguely) the monstrousness of Stalin. But no one wants to know what Japan did to captive Asian peoples and POWs. 

I pick up Arnold Brackman's book about Japanese war crimes unwillingly. I don't want to read about the British officer at the Tamarkan camp, near the River Kwai, beaten insensible then kept four days in a trench in six inches of mosquito-infested rainwater. At war's end, he was insane. Or about prisoners of Japan on a torpedoed ship who struggled to reach a life raft, where a Japanese seaman chopped off their hands or split their skulls with an ax. Routine incidents. This is the Japan that almost won the Battle of Midway, and the war. American soldiers refused to let it happen. 

Memorial Days come and go, and Americans know less about World War II and Midway every year. While the veterans still survive, we ought to listen to them. They want to talk and (Lord knows) they deserve to. We should take Morison's advice at last and remember the day we almost lost the Pacific war, and the soldiers who turned it around for us - those who died heroically and those who lived. The president could make it happen with a stroke of the famous presidential pen - not another Memorial Day but a Day of Listening, devoted to the Midway veterans, to all our World War II veterans. How much longer are we going to wait? 
The heroism of these old soldiers doesn't erase the unspeakable atrocities of the war. It does mean that humanity has something to say in its own defense. These veterans are still our benefactors. Think of them, reader, every Fourth of June. 

Yale professor David Gelernter is a senior fellow at the Shalem Center, Jerusalem.


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

*Thank you, Fenway!*

How moving, and how approprate, Fenway.

Very few people alive realize how close we came to losing WWII.
Certainly, Midway was curcial, no question.

FDR coming to the aid of the UK, and commiting what he considered impeachable offenses, to keep the UK in the fight, while we were still neutral.
The Battle of Britain. If the UK had fallen, the longest range bomber that we has was the B-17, with a 1000 mile range.Hitler would have had Europe to himself.

The German scientist, Niels Bohr with the ability to orchestrate the atomic bomb, in Nazi occupied Denmark, being smuggled out of Denmark to the UK, and then to the US, by the British secret service.

The insanity of Hilter in attacking USSR when the UK was on the ropes.

Thank you so much for reminding us of these close calls, that we take for granted, today!


----------



## GT3 (Mar 29, 2006)

Intrepid said:


> The German scientist, Niels Bohr with the ability to orchestrate the atomic bomb, in Nazi occupied Denmark, being smuggled out of Denmark to the UK, and then to the US, by the British secret service.


Actually Bohr was danish. Werner Heisenberg was the man behind the german efforts. The two were close friends until the war. There was even a play about their relationship called "Copenhagen."


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

Admiral Chester Nimitz took a chance at Midway, coupled with brilliant use of enemy code de-crypts, which looked insane at the time. With on-scene commanders' ballsy execution, and sheer luck, he probably strategized the greatest win in naval history. He was short his best tactical commander in Admiral William Halsey, and had to rely on relatively untested Admiral Raymond Spruance.

I've read Morison's history, as well as several others, including Gordon Prange's account. To label the U.S. Navy's effort as heroic, understates their resolve and execution. Admiral Nimitz was also criticized for not searching out and attempting to destroy the last of the Japanese carriers in VADM Nagumo's task force. Fortunately, Admiral Nimitz's cooler head prevailed.

To be fair, the Japanese were also victims of their own early successes. They ignored the resolve of American commanders; they underestimated the ingenuity and tenacity of the American sailor. For LCDR McCluskey's success, required the utter sacrifice of LCDR's Waldron's, Massey's, and Lindsey's torpedo squadrons.

Midway, like most battles, hinged on the fickleness of the gods of war. Japanese carrier deck crews failing to clear ordnance from the decks; radio failure of a Japanese scout plane; poor flight discipline of U.S. flight crews, leading Japanese bombers and torpedo planes back to U.S. carriers, causing the loss of USS Yorktown; poor scouting reports by American Catalina scout planes, not pinpointing Japanese ship strengths as the battle developed.

I could go on, and on, and on. Midway is one of the most fascinating events in U.S. military history, and I agree completely with Fenway - Too few people remember Midway. People also forget the preceding battle, Coral Sea. That was a tactical victory for the Japanese, in that we lost more ships than they; but it represented a strategic victory for the U.S., in that the Japanese failed to convincingly win a battle which they should/could not lose.


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

*Good Correction*



GT3 said:


> Actually Bohr was danish. Werner Heisenberg was the man behind the german efforts. The two were close friends until the war. There was even a play about their relationship called "Copenhagen."


You are absolutely right about Bohr being Danish. Thank you.


----------



## jcusey (Apr 19, 2003)

pendennis said:


> I've read Morison's history, as well as several others, including Gordon Prange's account.


If you have not already done so, I strongly recommend that you read _Midway_ by Mitsuo Fuchida and Masatake Okumiya. As the authors' names might suggest, it recounts the battle and the planning leading to it from the Japanese perspective. Fuchida and Okumiya both served during the Midway campaign, Fuchida as a senior wing commander on _Akagi_, Okumiya as an officer aboard _Ryujo_ in the force that attacked the Aleutians. Fuchida was also the officer in charge of the Japanese Navy's post mortem after the battle. In any event, it provides excellent insight into how the battle unfolded at Midway, about the strategic miscalculations that led to the Japanese undertaking the Midway campaign, and the factors that brought the Japanese Navy low during the battle.


----------



## GT3 (Mar 29, 2006)

Intrepid said:


> You are absolutely right about Bohr being Danish. Thank you.


I almost became a physicist until I was falsely informed that jobs were few and far between, so I became a chemist. I still follow the physical literature. Bohr was amazing for the times he lived in, he came up with one of the first models of the atom - it go him a Nobel Prize.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

Certainly not of the importance of Midway but the Falklands is perhaps the only serious Naval engagement in the modern era. The Brits lost 6 or 7 ships and another sinking might have cost them the war and Thatcher the election in 1983. Its ironic to think that the course of European history might have been changed (a Neil Kinnock government in 1983 probably would not have backed the deployoment of the Pershings in Europe and the CDU government of Kohl would have fallen, easing the pressure (pressure which led to Gorbachev and perestroika) on the Soviet Bloc had Argentina been able to hold out a bit longer. History is full of these near misses and miniscule events can often dramatically alter history.

Karl


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

*Falklands*



Karl89 said:


> Gents,
> 
> Certainly not of the importance of Midway but the Falklands is perhaps the only serious Naval engagement in the modern era. The Brits lost 6 or 7 ships and another sinking might have cost them the war and Thatcher the election in 1983. Its ironic to think that the course of European history might have been changed (a Neil Kinnock government in 1983 probably would not have backed the deployoment of the Pershings in Europe and the CDU government of Kohl would have fallen, easing the pressure (pressure which led to Gorbachev and perestroika) on the Soviet Bloc had Argentina been able to hold out a bit longer. History is full of these near misses and miniscule events can often dramatically alter history.
> 
> Karl


Superb point! Much of the world watched this campaign with a lot more interest than would have seemed apparent, at the time. It is easy to see how the free world benefited from Mrs Thatcher deciding that cowardly appeasement was not the approach to take in this situation.

It might also be argued that the stand taken by Pres Reagan in the air traffic controllers strike, convinced the Iranians, and the Russians, that this guy might just be nuts enough to cause us to behave differently.


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Gents,
> Certainly not of the importance of Midway but the Falklands is perhaps the only serious Naval engagement in the modern era. The Brits lost 6 or 7 ships and another sinking might have cost them the war and Thatcher the election in 1983. Its ironic to think that the course of European history might have been changed (a Neil Kinnock government in 1983 probably would not have backed the deployoment of the Pershings in Europe and the CDU government of Kohl would have fallen, easing the pressure (pressure which led to Gorbachev and perestroika) on the Soviet Bloc had Argentina been able to hold out a bit longer. History is full of these near misses and miniscule events can often dramatically alter history.
> Karl


Karl, agreed. I would like to point out that Britain's losses would have certainly been less had they adopted, and paid for, a better protection system for their ships. The lack of a real aircraft carrier, and the use of the Harrier jets certainly opened their fleet up to very serious damage. The Harriers were just no match for the Mirage jets of the Argentinians. Evidently, Britain didn't remember enough from WWII.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

pendennis said:


> The lack of a real aircraft carrier, and the use of the Harrier jets certainly opened their fleet up to very serious damage. The Harriers were just no match for the Mirage jets of the Argentinians. Evidently, Britain didn't remember enough from WWII.


Garbage.

Not a single Harrier was lost in air to air combat during the Falklands war.

Thatcher was a fool and the tragedy of the Falklands is that it condemned us to another 8 years of her lunacy. Good riddance to bad rubbish.


----------



## malinda (Aug 25, 2002)

gmac said:


> Garbage.
> 
> Not a single Harrier was lost in air to air combat during the Falklands war.
> 
> Thatcher was a fool and the tragedy of the Falklands is that it condemned us to another 8 years of her lunacy. Good riddance to bad rubbish.


What did I say about not tolerating this forum reading like the comments section of a third-rate political blog? There are many ways to make this argument, such as it is, without writing like an offensive ass.


----------



## Garfield (Jan 29, 2006)

Another, newer book on Midway, is "Shattered Sword". It just came out, and offers a different view on what happened at Midway (basically Fuchida's story might not be totally accurate). 

I have not read it yet, (it's on the way to me now), but has gotten good reviews from some other people that have read it.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Easy for you to say. You didn't grow up in Thatcher's Britain.

I'm interested - why am I being picked out for the scolding? Plenty of others being far more offensive than me but twice you've quoted me while telling us to behave.


----------



## malinda (Aug 25, 2002)

gmac said:


> I'm interested - why am I being picked out for the scolding? Plenty of others being far more offensive than me but twice you've quoted me while telling us to behave.


You are being picked out for scolding because you are by far the party most responsible for the tenor of discussion on this forum. As I have said, my patience is exhausted.

And that goes for everybody here.


----------



## GT3 (Mar 29, 2006)

*Edited by malinda. I'm not in the mood, GT3. I'm really not.*


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gmac,

I think you need to reread the Falklands history by Max Hastings. The point is not that no Harriers were lost to air combat (I have recheck that but you may be right.) the point that Pendennis was trying to make was the Harrier lacks very little offensive or defensive firepower and is a poor platform for air superiorty missions. The Harriers were unable to domainate the skies the way say the F-14 could (I don't think the F-18's were in service yet in 1982) and thus could not prevent the Argentines from getting in Exocet strike range. I believe all the British lost ships were due to the Exocet. 

If the Royal Navy had a real aircraft carrier that could have launched air superiority aircraft they probably would lost fewer ships. The US Navy is really the only navy with a true carrier though I belive the French are building a carrier that will shortly be able to deploy the Rafale (which is the best non-US aircraft) The Soviet aircraft carriers wre merely missile platforms with a very weak Yakolev VSTOL aircraft that make the Harriers look like world class aircraft (which they are not!)

Gmac you may disagree with me on a lot of things (and I may even be wrong) but trust me on this.

Karl


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

Prime Minister Thatcher went to war with what she had available. Years before Margaret Thatcher took office, Great Britain opted for the cheap solution to aircraft carriers. They could not afford socialized medicine, welfare, a loss of employment base; and defend the country, too.

When the Argentinians invaded the Falklands, she "danced with the one that brung 'er".

My brother was in a U.S. Navy patrol squadron at the time of the Falklands War, and they picked up Britain's NATO air patrols in the North Atlantic, because the British were stretched extremely thin - devoting almost all their available military resources to the South Atlantic.


----------



## Mr. Checks (Dec 21, 2005)

Returning to Midway...

Thanks for the reminder. 

IIRC, they still teach the history of that battle in the US Navy courses which are required for promotion, as well they should.


----------



## I_Should_Be_Working (Jun 23, 2005)

Though young, I remember the shock when the Sheffield was sunk.

Gmac, the point regarding the aircraft carriers is right on the mark. Though they have questionable lifespans in a tactical nuclear environment, nothing projects power like the modern US carrier. While the Harrier enabled ships to carry something beyond a helicopter, they are not comparable with the intercept and/or attack capabilities of aircraft found in US naval service.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

I_Should_Be_Working said:


> Though young, I remember the shock when the Sheffield was sunk.
> 
> Gmac, the point regarding the aircraft carriers is right on the mark. Though they have questionable lifespans in a tactical nuclear environment, nothing projects power like the modern US carrier. While the Harrier enabled ships to carry something beyond a helicopter, they are not comparable with the intercept and/or attack capabilities of aircraft found in US naval service.


Understood, but I don't think the British fleet is planning on taking on the US navy any time soon.

In the context of projecting military strength as a middle power, the Falklands War was a remarkable success for the UK.

Harriers shot down 23 enemy aircraft in air combat for no losses and performed their primary role, close support of the ground forces, so succesfully that 3,000 troops were able to be put ashore at San Carlos with no casualties.

Would I fancy a Harrier against an F16? No, but that doesn't mean they didn't perform their role admirably in the Falklands. Most of the damage cause to British ships was due to Exocet missiles fired from up to 100 miles away.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gmac,

Exactly! The Harrier cannot provide an effective air defense perimeter of the kind needed to defende against the Exocet. The UK did an admirable job in the Falklands and the conflict had the unexpected but not unwelcome result of leading to the downfall of the military dictatorship in Argentina.

Karl


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Gmac,
> 
> Exactly! The Harrier cannot provide an effective air defense perimeter of the kind needed to defende against the Exocet.


I think we are agreeing here - the Harrier was never supposed to provide that sort of perimeter defence. The British had other defences against Exocet missiles which were not particularly successful.

The Harriers performed their close support and troop protection roles very well indeed. 23 downed for none lost on our side is pretty impressive by any standard.


----------



## I_Should_Be_Working (Jun 23, 2005)

As close support aircraft, Harriers performed well. The US Marines adopted these for some time.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gmac,

6 Harriers were lost. 3 to enemy AA fire and 3 to operational accidents. The Harriers were not exactly reliable. I think what I an Pendennis are saying is that had the RN possessed a true carrier with true air superiority aircraft they would have lost less ships. Couple that with a more advanced CIWS (Close In Weapons System) and they might not have lost any ships.

Karl


----------



## I_Should_Be_Working (Jun 23, 2005)

I seem to recall the US Navy adopted new systems following the Falklands. Didn't the 20mm Gattling, topped by the tracking dome, appear on ships about that time. Perhaps not a direct result, the Navy did seek to improve ship defenses against the 100 + mile away attacker.


----------



## Garfield (Jan 29, 2006)

Just to note, the Exocet was never a long range missile. I believe it only had about a 35-ish mile range.

Also the 20mm vulcan cannon (CIWS) started being added to USN ships in the late 1970's/ early 80's I believe, before the Falklands battle. The primary reason I believe was the large Air to Surface missles that the Russian Badgers (and later Backfires) carried to attack US CV's.


----------



## I_Should_Be_Working (Jun 23, 2005)

Garfield said:


> Just to note, the Exocet was never a long range missile. I believe it only had about a 35-ish mile range.
> 
> Also the 20mm vulcan cannon (CIWS) started being added to USN ships in the late 1970's/ early 80's I believe, before the Falklands battle. The primary reason I believe was the large Air to Surface missles that the Russian Badgers (and later Backfires) carried to attack US CV's.


These things likely were in development/implementation for some time. I think, though, that the Sheffield exemplified what would happen to ships lacking such systems, and there was increased public emphasis on ship defenses thereafter.

Also, wasn't this one of those items that entered the noise during the defense budget debates of the 80's? Not anything like the B1 or Bradley, but it seems I recall hearing critiques of these, as detractors would say, "expensive machine guns".


----------



## Garfield (Jan 29, 2006)

I'm going from memory, sinec I read about this many years ago, but I believe that after the Falklands, there was an increased appreciation for the danger that AS/SS missiles to inflict.

I believe that the use of aluminum on the ships, that burned easier then steel, was a big problem, as well as spalling from the warhead blast (the blast can melt the aluminum, which then showers sailors with droplets of liquid metal). I thought afterwards, kevlar was used as an inside liner to help prevent this from happening. The USN has always had pretty good damage control/fire fighting capability, but the Falklands reinforced the need for good fire fighting equipment and training.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> had the RN possessed a true carrier with true air superiority aircraft they would have lost less ships.


Undoubtable, but it is really expensive to have true CVs (to have one constantly operational you need two). The RN is finally getting a pair in a few years, but for a long while only the US, Russia and France had any (although there is of course no comparison, the US fleet is far above any other in capacity). I rule out the "prestige" CVs (some developing countries buy old CVs just to be able to say they have one, as Brazil and India did).


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Karl89 said:


> The US Navy is really the only navy with a true carrier though I belive the French are building a carrier that will shortly be able to deploy the Rafale (which is the best non-US aircraft) . .. .


Now the French will REALLY be able to take on Greepeace! A couple of good air strikes and Greenpeace is done for.....

https://www.greenpeace.org.nz/about/rainbow-warrior.asp


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> The US Navy is really the only navy with a true carrier though I belive the French are building a carrier that will shortly be able to deploy the Rafale


For a long while the French were the only ones with real carriers (Foch and Clémenceau) outside of the US (except if you count the Soviet CV). One was decommissioned, the other was sold a few years ago to Brazil. The carrier you are speaking of was finished in 1999 (Charles De Gaulle). A second one is due around 2015. Right now you could still claim that the French are the only ones with a true carrier apart from the US.

Meanwhile the Royal Navy is building two carriers, due around 2012-2015. To be complete, Brazil and India have very old carriers, bought from European powers, which are not really usable.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Rocker said:


> Now the French will REALLY be able to take on Greepeace!


Excuse me, but what exactly has this to do with the subject at hand?


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Etienne,

The Soviet carriers, the Kiev and the Minsk I believe, were really only missile platforms. Their air component, the Yak-37, was a very limited aircraft. The decline in the Russian Navy since 1991 is only matched by the decline of the Russian Army. It will interesting to se if the PRC decides to develop a carrier - once they decided to develop a Blue Water navy capabale of progecting force outside of the Tawain Straits then we will know that we have a problem.

Karl


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/

It seems the new British CVF class carriers will come in at 55-65,000 tonnes, somewhere between the 42,000 tonne Charles De Gaulle and the 100,000 tonne Nimitz class carriers.

Interesting, it appears they will be set up for short take off, vertical landing aircraft (Harriers and joint Strike Fighter) with the capability to convert to conventional take off and landing as the carrier lifespan is longer than that of the aircraft. Actually, seems to have the ability to have botth types of runways operating simultaneously.

Disappointed to see they have cheaped out on propulsion and armour - bloody typical of the British government and will probably cost lives if not battles.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

There is an excellent analysis of the Battle of Midway in Victor Davis Hanson's "Carnage & Culture." Its not so much an analysis of tactics but more how the different cultures tended to view combat and how that influenced tactics used.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> The Soviet carriers, the Kiev and the Minsk I believe, were really only missile platforms. Their air component, the Yak-37, was a very limited aircraft.


The Soviet did have real carriers in production at the end of the 80's. They finished one (it became the Kuznetsov for Russia, launched in 1995, deployed only once, using Su-27). The second one was complete but not armed in 1991 when its ownership passed to Ukraine. It is still rotting on a yard somewhere.

Edit : I checked. That second hull (The Varyag) was actually bought by the Chinese (under pretence to make it an amusement park or casino as they had done for other former Soviet vessels) who are discreetly examining it, presumably to copy its design.

So you could argue that three powers have real carriers nowadays : the US, Russia and France (not counting the second-hand carriers bought by India and Brazil as fully functional).


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

gmac said:


> It seems the new British CVF class carriers will come in at 55-65,000 tonnes, somewhere between the 42,000 tonne Charles De Gaulle and the 100,000 tonne Nimitz class carriers.


Reportedly some officers said "steel is cheap and air is free" to justify the added bulk.



> Interesting, it appears they will be set up for short take off, vertical landing aircraft (Harriers and joint Strike Fighter) with the capability to convert to conventional take off and landing as the carrier lifespan is longer than that of the aircraft. Actually, seems to have the ability to have botth types of runways operating simultaneously.


They hesitated for a long time... Si they decided not to choose in the end? The French have decided that their second carrier will not be of the Charles De Gaule class and were entertaining the notion to build it in cooperation with the British, but that requested conventional take-off and landing.



> Disappointed to see they have cheaped out on propulsion and armour - bloody typical of the British government and will probably cost lives if not battles.


Don't get me started on the various design and execution problems the French government put on the Charles De Gaulle... Just an example : it has a propulsion speed of 27 knots (though it was planned to be faster) when the US Nimitz class achieve 30 knots and the former Clémenceau achieved 32 knots...


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Etienne,

I was not aware of the Kuznetsov experiement. The Sukhoi-27 Flanker is a very good strike aircraft but its lack of top gear avionics would put it at severe disadvantage in an any engagement with US or modern NATO aircraft. The Su-31's have largely corrected this deficiency but are still no match for the JSF or the Rafale. The utter collapse of the Russian military and its lack of ability to project conventional force - both abroad and within Russia itself -is a very unsettling development. A weak Russia is always a dangerous Russia and the fact that Russia must rely on its aging nuclear deterrent for security would present it with an extremely limited set of options if a security crisis develops.

Karl


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> I was not aware of the Kuznetsov experiement.


I am still not sure myself if that carrier should be counted as functional (I don't think they plan on any future deployment - a shame for an almost-new vessel).

If you like experiments, you will like the very last one they had. They had planned a 80,000-tonnes nuclear-propeled carrier called the Ulyanovsk. When construction was abandoned in 1992, the hull was 40% complete.



> The utter collapse of the Russian military and its lack of ability to project conventional force - both abroad and within Russia itself -is a very unsettling development.


I agree completely with you on that point. The state of their nuclear submarines, for example, would be enough to worry anybody.


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

God bless all of those who invaded France's shores 63 years ago today and those who served in that Pacific battle 65 years ago this week.

Oh, hell. Bless all of those in uniform.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

gmac said:


> Thatcher was a fool and the tragedy of the Falklands is that it condemned us to another 8 years of her lunacy. Good riddance to bad rubbish.


You might very well think so, but I couldn't possibly comment.

In the last episode of the BBC drama (satire?) House of Cards (the Final Cut), Prime Minister Francis Urquhart (Ian Richardson) wants his own little war just like Thatcher had. A little war always helps your popularity and your legacy (as long as you win).

As to Midway, my grandfather (a retired US Army General who fought inthe Pacific and was a military Governor in Japan after the war) knew Lt. Cmdr. Clarence W. McClusky outside of Baltimore. I met him a few times and I remember him as a very nice man. My older brother and sister knew his son pretty well and he was quite wild in High School though (for the time anyway).


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

The first plane I flew in was a classic JN 4 Jenny at the Van Nuys airshow that took a year's advanced allowance for a 15 minute hop. Years later I spotted a rare SBD- 5 Dauntless, AKA 'slow but deadly' at a local airport hidden among the lemon orchards and famed for it's vintage aircraft. I walked over to admire it and met the owner/pilot talking with no less than Cliff Robertson, who owned 3 vintage biplanes hangered across the tarmack. A day of handing wrenches and holding a flashlight resulted in an invite to fly in it the next day. Next day took forever until the big radial engine coughed into life and the wheel chocks were pulled out. We headed out to the Pacific easily passed by modern news helicopters and seeing the coastal traffic of commercial jets from LAX winging north and south. And then my new friend asked if I had my harness on nice and snug, which I did. I felt the coffee in my stomach shift like fluid in a carpenter's level and we were in a comitted dive. I could see the huge perforated dive flaps extend and peering over my shoulder inside the slipstream a HUGE container ship. we pulled out at a safe and sane altitude and I could make out the bridge crew obviously agitated. We did some rather artfull manuevering to keep the sun in their eyes and registration numbers hidden as we turned inland. I could just see the big white letters ________Maru JAPAN on the port bow. I think it's on static display at some museum now. I see a steady stream of warbirds at our airport, but nothing can replace that flight.


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

Time for my yearly . . .

God bless all of those who invaded France's shores 64 years ago tomorrow and those who served in that Pacific battle 66 years ago this week.

And thanks for letting me bump this.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

It's appropriate to remember their sacrifice.


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

Bumped in honor of the 67th anniversary of the Battle of Midway tomorrow. 

My thanks for your indulgence and a prayer for those involved in the battle.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Thanks, fenway.

This period of end of May through 1st week of June includes the anniversary of several very important events that deserve remembrance and honor, the Battle of Midway very special among them.

My daughter visited Normandy last weekend. I was very jealous. I hope she was able to absorb the enormous importance of it all.


----------



## RebelLaw (Apr 10, 2009)

Agreed, Thanks Fenway for the bump. I know it gave me pause to recall the sacrifice made by so many.


----------

