It would be interesting to see accounts by historians from the other side of the combat. History is usually written by the victor, after all. The propaganda that each side put out during the conflict was designed to improve home morale and confuse the enemy with disinformation, and in general had nothing to do with what actually was happening.

Lots of German sources have been consulted for WW2 histories since the end of the war. It's actually the Soviet story that got silenced in the West as a result of the Cold War, but the last ten years have seen that begin to change.

I heard about a damaging but not fatal torpedo hit to the Japanese flagship at Midway (At least I think it was Midway) turning into a killing blow because the ship had a novice damage control officer true? The way I heard it the ship had ignitable fuel fumes in the damaged section so he opened all of the vents trying to get rid of them. Instead they spread through the ship, a spark set them off, and the blast damaged the vessel beyond all hope of repair. I think the torpedo was from a submarine but I'm not certain.

That was the Taiho at the Battle of the Philippine Sea (Great Marianas Turkey Shoot), 19 June, 1944. USS Albacore was the sub responsible.

Thanks I don't know why I was thinking Midway for that one.

I believe Nautilus (not the nuke one!) took a pot shot at Kaga during Midway, but, as usual, her torpedoes failed to detonate.

I seem to recall reading that the japanese 'undercommited' the Yamoto because of the cult of personality of the emperor and they were terrified of it being sunk as it was so symbolic?

I know very little about the pacific war outside of chindit operations (about which i know probably far too much) so im sure someone more into naval us/japanese warfare can enlighten me.

All of the IJNs battlewagons were undercommitted, not just Yamato, partly because they were still clinging to the hope of a decisive big-gun naval engagement. Yamato, being the most powerful battleship, and named for Japan itself, was particularly held back because of the morale blow of losing a ship named for the country (see also Deutschland being renamed to Lutzow), and because the high command didn't want to risk losing her in some sideshow. After the loss of Hiei and Kirishima in November, 1942, they were even more reluctant to commit anything larger than destroyers to operations in the area, and the IJNs battleships sat out the next two years of the war in rear areas.

Yamamoto and his successors also appear to have had a bad habit of piece-meal commitment of reserves, as evidenced particularly in the Solomons campaign.

They did not sit out in 1944. In October the IJN set out to defend the Phillipine Islands incurring the largest naval battle in modern history, the Battle of Leyte Gulf. I will spare you the awesome details of this battle for a more anecdotal list of the more significant battleship actions which can be further explored through books.

• During October 25th, two Decisive surface engagements took place.

• The first took place beginning at 0200 in the Surgaio strait. This battle is also the final engagement ever to feature Battleships firing at each other. This USN victory featured 5 battleships that had been present during the Pearl Harbor raid, 3 of which had been sunk, raised, and refitted. The U.S. lost no battleship while the UJN lost a battleship and a heavy cruiser.

• The second decisive engagement took place off Samar where the IJN's Central force, featuring the Battlship Yamato caught an USN task force by surprise. In the ensuing engagement, which has been called the most lop-sided Naval engagement of all time in the history of the USN due to the fact that the US fleet consisted of 3 escort carriers, 4 Destroyers, 5 Destroyer Escorts and a couple of sea tenders vs a dense force of battleships, CAs, CLs, DDs, and Kamikazes, the small US force was able to TURN THE IJN FORCE due to swift, deliberate, and desperate violence of action. The U.S. Destroyers and Destroyer Escorts CHARGED THE IJN FLEET and caused such mass confusion by sweeping through the Japanese ranks that the Jspanese Commander ADM Kurita withdrew his fleet from action. The U.S. forces suffered 2 sunk CEs, 2 sunk DDs, 3 sunk DEs while the IJN lost 3 CAs (Heavy Cruisers).

•One of the Destroyers sunk, the USS Johnston, literally traded blows with the Yamato until the Johnston sunk. (Most of the batteries were knocked out by that time). As far as honor and gallantry go, the action off Samar had it in spades.

Okay, sorry, next 23.5 months (I rounded).

You're numbers are a little off for Surigao, BTW. Japanese losses were:

BBs Fuso, Yamashiro

CA Mogami (sunk next morning after rippling damage)

DDs Michishio, Asagumo, Yamagumo

I heard about a damaging but not fatal torpedo hit to the Japanese flagship at Midway (At least I think it was Midway) turning into a killing blow because the ship had a novice damage control officer true? The way I heard it the ship had ignitable fuel fumes in the damaged section so he opened all of the vents trying to get rid of them. Instead they spread through the ship, a spark set them off, and the blast damaged the vessel beyond all hope of repair. I think the torpedo was from a submarine but I'm not certain.

That was the Taiho at the Battle of the Philippine Sea (Great Marianas Turkey Shoot), 19 June, 1944. USS Albacore was the sub responsible.

Thanks I don't know why I was thinking Midway for that one.

I believe Nautilus (not the nuke one!) took a pot shot at Kaga during Midway, but, as usual, her torpedoes failed to detonate.

I seem to recall reading that the japanese 'undercommited' the Yamoto because of the cult of personality of the emperor and they were terrified of it being sunk as it was so symbolic?

I know very little about the pacific war outside of chindit operations (about which i know probably far too much) so im sure someone more into naval us/japanese warfare can enlighten me.

All of the IJNs battlewagons were undercommitted, not just Yamato, partly because they were still clinging to the hope of a decisive big-gun naval engagement. Yamato, being the most powerful battleship, and named for Japan itself, was particularly held back because of the morale blow of losing a ship named for the country (see also Deutschland being renamed to Lutzow), and because the high command didn't want to risk losing her in some sideshow. After the loss of Hiei and Kirishima in November, 1942, they were even more reluctant to commit anything larger than destroyers to operations in the area, and the IJNs battleships sat out the next two years of the war in rear areas.

Yamamoto and his successors also appear to have had a bad habit of piece-meal commitment of reserves, as evidenced particularly in the Solomons campaign.

They did not sit out in 1944. In October the IJN set out to defend the Phillipine Islands incurring the largest naval battle in modern history, the Battle of Leyte Gulf. I will spare you the awesome details of this battle for a more anecdotal list of the more significant battleship actions which can be further explored through books.

• During October 25th, two Decisive surface engagements took place.

• The first took place beginning at 0200 in the Surgaio strait. This battle is also the final engagement ever to feature Battleships firing at each other. This USN victory featured 5 battleships that had been present during the Pearl Harbor raid, 3 of which had been sunk, raised, and refitted. The U.S. lost no battleship while the UJN lost a battleship and a heavy cruiser.

• The second decisive engagement took place off Samar where the IJN's Central force, featuring the Battlship Yamato caught an USN task force by surprise. In the ensuing engagement, which has been called the most lop-sided Naval engagement of all time in the history of the USN due to the fact that the US fleet consisted of 3 escort carriers, 4 Destroyers, 5 Destroyer Escorts and a couple of sea tenders vs a dense force of battleships, CAs, CLs, DDs, and Kamikazes, the small US force was able to TURN THE IJN FORCE due to swift, deliberate, and desperate violence of action. The U.S. Destroyers and Destroyer Escorts CHARGED THE IJN FLEET and caused such mass confusion by sweeping through the Japanese ranks that the Jspanese Commander ADM Kurita withdrew his fleet from action. The U.S. forces suffered 2 sunk CEs, 2 sunk DDs, 3 sunk DEs while the IJN lost 3 CAs (Heavy Cruisers).

•One of the Destroyers sunk, the USS Johnston, literally traded blows with the Yamato until the Johnston sunk. (Most of the batteries were knocked out by that time). As far as honor and gallantry go, the action off Samar had it in spades.

Okay, sorry, next 23.5 months (I rounded).

You're numbers are a little off for Surigao, BTW. Japanese losses were:

BBs Fuso, Yamashiro

CA Mogami (sunk next morning after rippling damage)

DDs Michishio, Asagumo, Yamagumo

Yeah, I was posting from my phone. Every time I would switch back over to look at the casualty lists it would sign me off of the FFG page and I would have to start the post over again. Mistakes were made. Leyte is by far one of the craziest sea battles in human history.

I think the *worst* battle of the war was the one where the US navy and army (and some canadians) attacked a largely uninhabited island but took fairly hefty casualties because of the nature of war at that point.

No blame on the allies really, just the fact that naval support gunnery, close air support etc was hopelessly inaccurate by modern standards so all the 'normal' procedures to save lives ended up costing a lot of mens there couple of hundred KIA and a few thousand wounded i think

I think most casualties were caused by allied units firing on each other because of the weather. I know not a single japanese soldiers died... mainly because they had all gone home ages ago.

I cant remember the name of the island off hand.

Might be Kiska or something like that

edit: ah it was here we go

https://unitedcats.wordpress.com/2012/09/07/onward-through-the-fog-the-battle-of-kiska/

I think I've been out-nerded.....

But if we're talking last stand battles, the Spartans and Thespians trump you all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae

I've actually seen Samar compared to Thermopylae in a couple of places. Only difference being the "Greeks" turned back the "Persians" (and had a few survivors)...

I've actually seen Samar compared to Thermopylae in a couple of places. Only difference being the "Greeks" turned back the "Persians" (and had a few survivors)...

I've actually seen Samar compared to Thermopylae in a couple of places. Only difference being the "Greeks" turned back the "Persians" (and had a few survivors)...

the "Greeks" weren't 100x outnumbered buy the Persians :)

If you believe the Greek sources they were.

I seem to recall the 'accurate' version of Thermopylae is that 300 spartans and about 6000 well motivated greek auxillaries fought a persion slave army trying to cross a watercourse while chained ankle to ankle.

I think accounts vary wildly depending on how much 'mythology' you like.

I seem to recall the 'accurate' version of Thermopylae is that 300 spartans and about 6000 well motivated greek auxillaries fought a persion slave army trying to cross a watercourse while chained ankle to ankle.

I think accounts vary wildly depending on how much 'mythology' you like.

It was an army of 7000 Greeks of various states vs. an army of 70-300k Persians (depends on what source you believe), including experienced combat units such as the Persian Immortals. On the 5th day at Thermypolae, a Persian force of about 20k strong advanced on the Greek position but was repelled. The Immortals went in on the 6th backed up by other Persian units, but were practically wiped out. The Persian king was surprised and angry. Then a local revealed a small pass around the mountain he could use to surround the Greeks. It was lightly guarded by a Northern Greek state (the Phocians), he sent what was left of the Immortals down the path and to sandwich the Greeks on the 7th day. The Phocians were taken by surprise and fled, but Leonidas (the Spartan king and head general) was informed and he dismissed his army. However, he knew if they tried to retreat, the famed Persian Cavalry would run them down, so he stayed behind with his 300 Spartans, and 700 Thespians (who refused to retreat), and on the 7th day, instead of waiting for the Persians to surround him, he charged out with his men, and they fought bravely, but he was killed by a stray arrow, and the Greeks retreated to a hill where the Persians surrounded them and fired volley after volley of arrows until all the Greeks were dead.

The Persian king was so angry at Leonidas' bravery that he had his dead bodies head chopped off, and crucified. The Greeks killed 20,000 Persians while losing the 1000 rearguard that stayed behind.

I've actually seen Samar compared to Thermopylae in a couple of places. Only difference being the "Greeks" turned back the "Persians" (and had a few survivors)...

the "Greeks" weren't 100x outnumbered buy the Persians :)

If you believe the Greek sources they were.

I was comparing Samar to Thermopylae with the "Greeks" being the Americans.

I've actually seen Samar compared to Thermopylae in a couple of places. Only difference being the "Greeks" turned back the "Persians" (and had a few survivors)...

the "Greeks" weren't 100x outnumbered buy the Persians :)

If you believe the Greek sources they were.

I was comparing Samar to Thermopylae with the "Greeks" being the Americans.

Ah gotcha. Not that the actual Greeks were that badly outnumbered either.

The Greeks were still outnumbered between 10 to 1 and a little over 40 to 1 though and the rear guard might have hit 100 to 1 depending on just how much of the Persian army they engaged.

The Greeks were still outnumbered between 10 to 1 and a little over 40 to 1 though and the rear guard might have hit 100 to 1 depending on just how much of the Persian army they engaged.

I'm actually not convinced the Persians even brought 100,000 men to the battle. It's possible I suppose. But it's unlikely that size force was ever deployed at Thermopylae in a way that it could have engaged the Greeks all at once.

Yeah, the terrain (in Greece in general) makes those kinds of numbers unwieldy. Part of the reason for the choice of intercept point.

I'll have to check the version Herodotus gives in 'the histories', its been ages since i've read it and while you can never tell with him whats made up and whats utter tosh (gold eating ants the size of dogs etc) I seem to recall that his version actually holds up well to 'modern historical acounts'.

Again its about five years since i last dipped into 'the histories' or read my books on the greek city states of that era (i dont wargame that period anymore, i do imperial rome now) so i could be misremembering.

If you've not read 'the histories' its worth reading, but read it with an open mind. Herodotus is not called 'the father of history and the father of lies' for nothing. While a lot of it is dubious and undoubtedly second hand folklore its interesting to read for a perspective on life and how tales were accounted and recounted at the time.

But dont try and read it all in one go. I did and its a real slog. Its really the sort of book you dip into now and then, read a 'legend/history' then put it back.

A fave of mine is the one where creseus tells a man he can have all the gold he can carry and his inventive solution.

I also always liked the philospohy of Solon that Herodotus recounts:

"Call no man unhappy until he is dead"

That fits perfectly with my Taoist views.

(unfortunately Neil Gaiman wrongly accredits Herodotus with that line, its not his, he's reporting what Solon is supposed to have said and most people having only read that in 'American Gods' think its Herodotus' own writing/view)

But.... can we get back to myths of WWII ?

Here's a good one: 75% of aircraft losses in the Pacific were due to non-combat causes (weather, operational accidents, fatigue, etc). This increased to 87% in the Aleutian Campaign.

Is that a myth or a fact?

I can believe it to be a fact. IN the 80s the standard UK APC usually spent more time being repaired than driven.

Fact. I was having trouble thinking of myths, and wanted to help prod back to WWII.

The germans had picked up on this and realised it was the way forwards. Guedarian and other german generals (post war) claim the theories of men like Liddel-Hart on tank warfare shaped his own that he extols in 'acthtung panzer' his guide to armoured warfare.

Would that be the same Liddel Hart that had rubbed the British Brass that wrong way so badly that they sidelined him and later after the war translated the German generals memoirs with out a hint of writers bias?

Liddle Hart thought of the idea and was ignored. The Germans (Heinz Guderian mostly) came up with the idea independently and only due to a fortuitous conversation with Hitler (Whom loved technological/ Mechanical "marvels") got the idea realised.

The other real thing that happened in both events is the "old guard" Generals not liking the fact that they were being told by an "upstart" their Cavalry way of fighting was over.

I'd dispute Liddel Hart was 'ignored'. The experimental armoured battlegroup was formed and tested. Years before germany was doing it, like i say 37 pattern webbing is designed for mechanised warfare, not positional warfare but the UK top brass were convinced WWII would be a case of digging in for years like WWI had been.

The problem was noone believed him that rapidly moving self supporting , all terrain armoured formations not shackled to railheads for ressuply was the key.

Myth: The Russians introduced slopped armor and with the T34

Truth: The T34 is an enlarged version of an American design, the Christie tank.

I was under the impression the only thing the T34 (and the BT7 took from the Christie was the drive/suspension system). I think it was also used on the tetrarch UK airportable tank used in small numbers on D-day and even smaller numbers by the russians as a training tank.

edit: googling for pics of the christie i can see your point but its not *quite* the same principle as the sloped armour on say a t34 or panther. Its far more upright an not that much more 'slanted' than a lot of other early tanks.

Sure its not totally vertical like a tiger tank but its not massively sloped either on most places.

The T-34 traces its lineage back to the BT-2 which was the production model based on the M1931 smuggled into Russia. Whether Christie consciously included it as a design feature isn't documented, but the trait was included from the beginning.

Don't get me wrong, the Russians certianly refined the design. They removed some features that really weren't optimal, like the ability to drive around without the tracks. It's just that a lot of people are unaware of the American lineage it has.