Nimitz’s Midway action report

Author

Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Fleet

Date

28 June 1942

Passage

Preparations; paragraphs 13–18 on first contacts and clock convention; attack tables and salvage paragraphs; PDF / printed pp.17–21, paragraphs 48–63; PDF / printed p.25, paragraphs 72–77

What has been 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.

How to read it

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.