Midway · Chapter 8 of 12Choose a chapter

4 June 1942 · The carrier strikes · Chapter 08 of 12

The Morning Strikes

The American aircraft did not arrive as one coordinated blow. Their scattered attacks brought terrible losses before dive bombers found an opening above the Japanese carriers.

Article · Updated 18 October 2026 · Sources for this page

Launching the American strike did not ensure that its parts would reach the enemy together. Search decisions separated aircraft that were meant to support one another. Hornet’s dive bombers failed to find the Japanese carriers that morning. Her torpedo squadron did find them, and went in without the coordinated protection of the larger striking force. M01

The Japanese carriers were still manoeuvring, defending themselves and working their aircraft. Finding them meant entering a battle already in progress.

The torpedo crews go in

Hornet’s torpedo squadron, led by Lieutenant Commander John Waldron, suffered the loss of all fifteen aircraft. Nimitz’s report records ten of fourteen lost from Enterprise’s torpedo squadron and ten of twelve from Yorktown’s. These are aircraft losses, not a count of everyone killed. Claims in the same report that torpedoes hit Japanese carriers are not accepted here as confirmed results. M01

The attacks required crews to approach a moving ship while exposed to fighters and gunfire. The lack of effective fighter protection was central to Nimitz’s explanation of the losses. Their courage did not remove the need for coordination, or make aircraft sent against a defended fleet expendable. M01

Above the carriers

Enterprise’s dive bombers had their own difficulties. Bombing Squadron Six’s report describes oxygen problems on the outward flight. Its commander, Lieutenant Richard Best, brought his formation down below the rest of the group after noticing difficulties among his wingmen. Fuel was also a concern: carrying a heavy bomb through a prolonged flight reduced the margin for getting home. M17

The squadron report lists different weapons within the same attack group. Its fifteen VB-6 SBDs each carried a 1,000-pound bomb. The sixteen VS-6 aircraft listed alongside them carried a 500-pound bomb and two 100-pound bombs apiece. A shared aircraft designation did not mean a uniform load. These are the squadron’s reported assignments for this mission, not a general specification for every SBD at Midway. M17

Once the carriers were sighted, assigning targets was another problem. Best’s report says that he understood his target to be the carrier on the left, then saw VS-6 diving on it. He redirected his own attack towards the other carrier. The immediate account conveys the confusion clearly, even though its carrier-type identification cannot safely be treated as a confirmed ship name. M17

Dive bombers from Enterprise and Yorktown set Akagi, Kaga and Sōryū ablaze. They were disabled in a short period, but they did not all sink at the moment the bombs struck. M01 M39

An opening in the defence

VB-6 reported no fighter opposition before its aircraft pulled out of their dives, followed by fighter attacks during withdrawal. Its commander believed much of the antiaircraft fire had been directed at torpedo aircraft attacking nearby. That is evidence of the opening experienced by this squadron, not a complete picture of every Japanese fighter’s position. M17

The Japanese chronological table records Akagi manoeuvring against torpedo aircraft, then responding to dive bombers. It also records fighters beginning to take off before the hits on Akagi. The defence was occupied and disrupted, but had not simply disappeared. The torpedo attacks and dive bombing should not be turned into a prearranged sacrifice in which one group knowingly died to clear the way for another. M39

Fire below the flight deck

The Japanese record follows the bombing into a rapidly worsening emergency. It notes fires aboard Kaga, hits on Akagi and damage to Sōryū. A subsequent entry records torpedoes exploding in Akagi’s hangar and orders to flood ammunition and bomb spaces. Damage to valves prevented some of that flooding from being carried out promptly. M39

The English rendering of the narrative describes fire spreading through Akagi’s hangar while preparations for another attack were under way. It should be read alongside the chronological entries, which give a more detailed sequence of damage-control attempts. Neither justifies a precise claim that a complete strike was standing on the flight deck only moments from launch. M06 M39

The bombs had struck ships containing aircraft, fuel and weapons. The ability to contain the resulting fires mattered as much as the visible holes in the flight deck.

Getting home—and fighting on

Success over the target did not guarantee survival on the return flight. VB-6’s report records five of its fifteen aircraft returning, crews from four others rescued, and six crews still unaccounted for at the time of reporting. Those categories must remain separate. M17

One returning aircraft carried the wounded rear gunner Stuart Mason. The report credits him with continuing to defend the aircraft and repairing its damaged radio, helping it locate its carrier. The morning’s result depended on people enduring the journey back as well as delivering their bombs. M17

Three Japanese carriers had been crippled, but Hiryū remained able to attack. The Japanese command transferred away from the damaged flagship, and Hiryū sent aircraft against the American carriers. The next chapter follows that counterstroke—and why the Americans’ extraordinary success had not yet made their own ships safe. M14

Evidence within reach

Sources for this page

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

M01Nimitz’s Midway action report

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

Passage: Paragraphs 27–36: separated attacks, torpedo-squadron losses and carrier damage; modern transcription, early hit claims qualified

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 →
M17Enterprise’s dive-bomber squadron reports

Contemporary squadron reports · third-party hosted scan extract

Passage: PDF pp.2–4: VB-6 report, printed pp.1, 2 and 4; PDF p.10: VS-6 report, printed p.2; bomb loads, attack and return

Reported bomb loads, oxygen difficulties, target-allocation confusion, fighter opposition, aircraft returns and Stuart Mason’s actions. Afternoon opposition, attacking squadrons and observations of a burning carrier still underway.

Checked: PDF pp.2–4 and 10 rendered and visually inspected on 18 October 2026. Forwarding heading previously inspected; full 15-page research copy retained. PDF p.5 rendered and visually inspected for the afternoon attack and withdrawal. PDF pp.6 and 13–15 rendered and visually inspected for 5–6 June operations and personnel accounting. PDF pp.2 and 9 re-rendered and visually inspected for aircraft variants, in-commission counts and morning loads. Cruiser-profile review, 18–19 October 2026: PDF pp.13–14 visually rechecked; p.13 supplies 5 June context, while p.14 / VS-6 printed p.6 supplies the 6 June afternoon sortie used in the profile.

Limits: VB-6 printed page 3 is absent between printed pp.2 and 4. Carrier identities, hit estimates and aircraft identifications are contemporary claims, not confirmed results. Aircraft returning, crews rescued and crews unaccounted for are distinct report-date categories. Times are not silently combined with the island or Japanese clocks. Not the separate Enterprise ship action report. The roster headed 2 June contains later loss/rescue annotations, not pre-battle knowledge; a missing entry is not proof of the circumstances of death. The 5 June cruiser in the VS-6 narrative is not identified here as Mogami or Mikuma. The 6 June target classifications and hit claims are not individually mapped to confirmed ships.

View full source record →
M39First Air Fleet report: chronological table

Contemporary Japanese command report · archival scan, part 2

Passage: JACAR C08030023900 · PDF pp.25–28 / stamped 0078–0081: attacks, fighter take-offs, fires and damage control

The recorded sequence of changing armament orders, contact reports, carrier identification and recovery operations. Dive-bombing damage, fighter launches and Akagi’s damage-control efforts.

Checked: Selected Japanese entries on PDF pp.9–18 visually inspected on 18 October 2026 and compared with M14 PDF pp.32–33. Full 54-page research copy retained. For The Morning Strikes, PDF pp.21–28 / stamped 0074–0081 visually inspected, with attack/fire anchors on pp.25–28. Cruiser-profile review, 18–19 October 2026: PDF pp.10 and 14 / stamped 0063 and 0067 visually rechecked for initial sighting and carrier identification.

Limits: Selected working readings, not a complete certified translation. Same report family as M14 and M06, not independent corroboration. Its initial-contact entries differ from the narrative timing; neither is silently corrected. The report’s clock is not the American island clock. Early identifications are reports, not a final force inventory. The table records fighter take-offs and torpedo threats around the bombing; it is not a complete fighter-position plot. Precise bomb-hit counts and a complete internal damage reconstruction remain unverified.

View full source record →
M14First Air Fleet detailed battle report

Contemporary Japanese command report · archival scan

Passage: JACAR C08030023800 · PDF p.34 / stamped 0036: damaged ships, command transfer and Hiryū’s counterattack

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, detailed Akagi damage and Hiryū response passages; English rendering of the Japanese report family

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 ↗