Midway · Chapter 6 of 12Choose a chapter

4 June 1942 · The morning attack · Chapter 06 of 12

Midway Under Attack

The raid shattered buildings and aircraft. Whether Midway could keep fighting depended on what its people could preserve, repair and send back into the air.

Article · Updated 18 October 2026 · Sources for this page

The Japanese strike approached a defended island. Marine fighters went out to meet it; gun crews waited below. Colonel Harold Shannon’s report records a stream of warnings, bearings and distances reaching the Sixth Defense Battalion as the aircraft closed. At 0631 in its chronology, the antiaircraft batteries had opened fire. M31

The first-warning times differ between this local report and Nimitz’s later summary. They are not forced into a single minute-by-minute sequence here. What the accounts establish is that Midway had warning and launched aircraft before the bombing began. M31 M01

The fighters meet the raid

Midway’s Marine fighter force included F2A-3 Buffalos and F4F-3 Wildcats. The surviving pilots’ accounts, collected in the Marine Aircraft Group 22 report, describe attacking the bombers and then struggling to escape the escorting Japanese fighters. Some used cloud cover or steep dives to break contact. Their combat experience is more useful here than treating their estimated performance differences as measured aircraft specifications. M32

The cost was severe. At 0730, the group’s executive officer recorded eight fighters on the field, only two in flyable condition. Those two were serviced, rearmed and placed on alert. This was a report of what could fly at that moment, rather than a final total of aircraft permanently lost. M32

The Japanese report describes the strike under Hiryū’s air officer, Lieutenant Jōichi Tomonaga, with fighters, dive bombers and attack aircraft contributing to the assault. Its account acknowledges air combat on the approach and losses during the mission. The two sides’ claims of enemy aircraft destroyed cannot simply be added together as confirmed results. M14 M06

Under the bombs

High-level bombing was followed by dive bombing and strafing. Shannon’s chronology records fires at the hospital, canteen and hangar, and damage on both Sand and Eastern Islands. Burning oil tanks near the Marine dock produced smoke that hindered observation and gunfire. M31

The defenders used several kinds of weapon. The battalion report lists 3-inch antiaircraft shells alongside 37 mm and 20 mm ammunition and machine-gun rounds. When a battery’s heightfinder was put out of action, its 3-inch guns used improvised open sights against dive bombers. The defence depended on crews adapting as equipment was damaged, as well as on the weapons installed before the attack. M31

On Eastern Island, the power house was hit and electricity failed. Auxiliary power restored radio and command-post service, but telephone connections were badly disrupted. Bombs broke fuel lines, damaged buildings and scattered debris across the airfield. A direct hit on a rearming pit detonated stored ammunition. M32

Keeping the airfield working

The raid had not made the airfield unusable. Crews cleared debris with a bulldozer and road scraper and filled a crater beside a runway. The executive officer’s chronology records runway number two fully operational at 0745. Five minutes later, five fuel outlets were working from reserve storage through an engine-driven pump, although fuel in the main storage remained unavailable. These are the local report’s times, retained as such. M32

Shannon also credited men from the Raider companies with handling drums of petrol after the normal refuelling facilities were damaged. Repair, fuel delivery and rearming were part of the battle: an intact stretch of runway alone could not keep aircraft operating. M31

Midway had therefore survived as an air base while suffering a serious loss of immediate fighting strength. Its ability to receive aircraft and support further operations should not obscure the men killed, the damaged machines or the shortage of usable fighters.

The island strikes back

Aircraft from Midway were already carrying the battle towards the Japanese carriers. Six Navy TBFs and four Army B-26s carried torpedoes. Marine SBD-2 and SB2U-3 scout bombers also attacked, while Army B-17s made high-altitude bombing runs. Different aircraft and attack methods did not automatically produce a coordinated blow. M01 M32

Japanese fighters and antiaircraft fire inflicted heavy losses. Nimitz’s report records only one of the six TBFs returning, badly damaged; two of the four B-26s returned, both unserviceable. The Marine SBD attack used glide bombing, with insufficient time to train on the recently received aircraft given as the reason in the report. M01

American accounts claimed hits on carriers and other ships. Those claims do not establish that the early island attacks disabled a Japanese carrier. The Japanese narrative records the force continuing to operate through these attacks, before the later carrier-launched dive bombers struck. The island’s effort had not removed the threat at sea. M01 M14

Another attack required

Tomonaga’s command aircraft reported that Midway needed a second attack. The First Air Fleet report records the decision to prepare one and an order to replace torpedoes on the standby attack aircraft with land bombs. The request shows that the first raid had not satisfied the strike commander’s assessment of what was needed. It was not a second raid already on its way. M14 M06

Nagumo still had to support the island operation while responding to new reports of American ships. The Japanese report uses a different date and clock convention from the American accounts; its times are not mixed into the island chronology. The next chapter follows the searches and decisions that brought the American carriers into the centre of the battle.

Evidence within reach

Sources for this page

Open a note for the passage, inspection status and limits. Source records link to the available documents.

M31Sixth Defense Battalion action report

Contemporary unit report · modern web transcription

Passage: Paragraphs 1–4, 6 and 9–11: warning, bombardment, weapons and recovery work; modern transcription

Local warning chronology, island bombardment, antiaircraft weapons and improvised recovery work.

Checked: Selected chronology, weapons, damage and recovery passages reread on 18 October 2026. Original page images not inspected.

Limits: Early warning entries differ from M01; not reconciled with original scout messages. Enemy aircraft claims are not confirmed losses. Unit casualty and damage scope must not be expanded to the entire battle.

View full source record →
M32Marine Aircraft Group 22 executive officer’s report

Contemporary aviation report · modern web transcription

Passage: Report pp.5–8: aircraft assignments, interception, damage and runway/fuel recovery; surviving-pilot summaries; modern transcription

Aircraft assignments, fighter combat, Eastern Island damage and recovery of runway and refuelling services.

Checked: Heading, foreword, selected aircraft tables, 4 June entries and pilot summaries reread on 18 October 2026. Original page images not inspected.

Limits: Readiness is a dated snapshot, not final aircraft loss accounting. Runway availability, aircraft serviceability and fuel access are distinct. Pilot performance estimates and enemy-loss extrapolations are not adopted as measured specifications or confirmed results. Clock entries retained as the report’s own.

View full source record →
M01Nimitz’s Midway action report

Contemporary command report · selected scan pages checked; earlier passages read in transcription

Passage: Paragraphs 19–25: island aircraft attacks and American losses; damage claims not adopted as confirmed results

The broad course of the battle and the report’s explicit clock convention. Later pursuit, cruiser attacks and rescue from Yorktown.

Checked: Earlier preparation, timing and attack passages read in modern transcriptions; paragraphs 13–18, 19–25 and 27–36 rechecked on 18 October 2026. For the aftermath chapters, a 28-page scan of serial 01849 was retained and PDF / printed pp.1 and 17–21 rendered and visually inspected. Earlier chapter passages have not all been compared with these images. The report date is taken from the transcription; it is not legible on the inspected first-page image. PDF / printed p.25 visually inspected for fighter assessment, replacement groups and training. Aircraft expansion: PDF / printed pp.6–12, 23 and 25 visually inspected on 18 October 2026; night attack, scout reports, TBF/TBD operations, fighter allocations and equipment assessments. Supporting-ship update: PDF/printed pp.21–22 visually inspected for paragraphs 62–65, including the continuation of paragraph 63. Cruiser-profile review, 18–19 October 2026: PDF / printed pp.20–21 visually rechecked for 6 June attacks and the erroneous two-cruiser sinking claim.

Limits: Preliminary enemy identifications and loss estimates are not final accounting. The report uses Zone plus 12; task-force reports can use a different clock. Both web copies transmit the same report. The apparent 126 B-17 transcription error is not adopted. Early hit claims and a possible fifth carrier are not accepted as established facts. Early warning times differ from M31. The statement implying deliberately spared runways is not adopted; M32 records actual runway damage and repairs. Torpedo hits, early Sōryū damage, additional ships claimed hit and precise deck conditions are not adopted as confirmed facts. Aircraft losses are distinct from personnel losses. Its retrospective sacrifice explanation is not treated as a deliberate attack plan. Its claim that both Mogami and Mikuma sank is rejected; its preliminary personnel total is not a final casualty roll. The scan does not include the separately listed enclosures. Paragraph 74’s claimed fighter exchange ratio is not treated as a verified loss total or controlled performance comparison. Early damage and hit claims on these pages are not adopted as confirmed results. The retrospective sacrifice explanation is not an order for a planned diversion. The reported two hits on Hammann differ from the captain’s account; post-sinking explosion explanations remain tentative. Ships dispatched to assist are not all treated as having arrived.

View full source record →
M14First Air Fleet detailed battle report

Contemporary Japanese command report · archival scan

Passage: JACAR C08030023800, PDF pp.29–33 / stamped 0031–0035: strike, second-attack request and changing preparations; selected Japanese readings

The carrier command’s reported assumptions, force organisation and the division of air attack, reconnaissance, support and supply tasks. The opening island strike, request for another attack and changing armament preparations. Hiryū’s counterattack aircraft, remaining strength and later fire emergency. Akagi, Kaga and Sōryū damage and evacuation; opening island-strike allocations.

Checked: Selected Japanese passages on PDF pp.10–11 and 14–15 visually checked for chapter 1. For chapter 4, pp.16–20 visually inspected and compared with M06’s English organisation tables; pp.21–22 inspected for context on 18 October 2026. For Midway Under Attack, PDF pp.29–33 / stamped 0031–0035 visually inspected and selected passages compared with M06; pp.23–26 sampled for context. For Search and Decision, PDF pp.32–33 / stamped 0034–0035 rechecked against M39’s chronological table. PDF pp.34–35 / stamped 0036–0037 visually inspected for The Morning Strikes; p.34 supports command transfer and Hiryū’s continued ability to attack. PDF pp.35–43 rendered and visually inspected for Hiryū Fights Back: pp.35–38 cover counterattack strength, claims and Hiryū’s bombing; pp.42–43 cover fire, propulsion failure and abandonment preparations. Intervening Akagi/Kaga passages inspected for context. PDF p.44 / stamped 0046 visually inspected for the continuation of Hiryū’s evacuation to destroyers. PDF p.18 / stamped 0020 re-rendered and visually inspected for Hiryū counterattack organisation. Ship-profile expansion: PDF pp.17, 39–42 and 44–46 rendered and visually inspected; selected damage passages compared with M06. Cruiser-profile review, 18–19 October 2026: PDF pp.32–33 / stamped 0034–0035 visually rechecked for the successive Tone No.4 reports and decisions. PDF p.45 / stamped 0047 visually rechecked on 21 October 2026 for the Isokaze profile: rescue, treatment and transfer to Hamakaze and Isokaze. The already retained scan was used; a fresh JACAR viewer request returned HTTP 403.

Limits: Working readings, not a certified full translation. The report was compiled after the battle and some tables include actual results, not just pre-battle plans. The English table’s Haruna aircraft type differs from the Japanese image; no type is assigned here. M06 transmits the same report family. Opening narrative compresses later attacks into the same paragraph. Its dates and times are not silently merged with the American chronology; message timing and flight-deck readiness require further records. Initial-contact timing differs between the narrative and M39’s chronological table; no fixed message delay is inferred. Predicted aircraft readiness is not a completed launch. Japanese counterattack target identities and claimed damage on these pages are not confirmed outcomes. Evacuation entries are not a complete personnel roll; scuttling orders and final sinking times remain distinct. Exact bomb-hit counts and the compressed Kaga/Sōryū terminal sinking passages do not settle scuttling contributions. Akagi command-transfer times differ within the report; no single minute is adopted. Sōryū evacuation: M14 PDF p.45 / stamped 0047 names Hamakaze and Isokaze (磯風); M06 renders the second as Isonami. The profile follows the original Japanese name.

View full source record →
M06The Japanese Story of the Battle of Midway

Contemporary Japanese report · postwar English translation in modern web transcription

Passage: Part III, section 1: opening strike and decision to prepare a second island attack; compared with M14

The Japanese carrier command’s reported assessment of Midway and its expectation of an American response.

Checked: Selected opening passages compared with M14. Force, attack and reconnaissance tables compared with Japanese images on 18 October 2026; Haruna aircraft-type discrepancy recorded in the chapter-four audit. Opening strike and second-attack preparation passages compared with M14 PDF pp.29–33 on 18 October 2026. Part III section 1 contact and recovery passages rechecked for Search and Decision. Akagi fire and Hiryū response passages compared with selected M39 and M14 images for The Morning Strikes. HIRYU damage subsection reread for evacuation; selected fire passages compared with M14 PDF pp.42–43. AKAGI, KAGA and SORYU damage subsections reread for the ship profiles and compared with selected M14 images; this is the same report family.

Limits: The translation and Japanese scan transmit the same report, not independent accounts. Cover numbering differs: English No.6-38, Japanese No.6-37. A retrospective command account; enemy estimates and editorial additions are not accepted as established facts. Sōryū evacuation: M14 PDF p.45 / stamped 0047 names Hamakaze and Isokaze (磯風); M06 renders the second as Isonami. The profile follows the original Japanese name.

View full source record →

Photograph

Enlarged historical photograph

Web copy resized and compressed; original framing retained. Open image file ↗