This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Marc Mitscher article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I suspect that the reference to the "Mitscher Method" of turnip juice extraction is bogus. I can't find this anywhere else after a fair bit of Googling.
Jay Verkuilen jvverkuilen@gmail.com
NAS Miramar's airfield was called "Mitscher Field," in honor of this pioneer naval aviator.
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know the reference for the bit about Mitscher falsifying his AAR at Midway? I've never heard this before, couldn't find anything about it in the online references, and a Google search turned up nothing.
-- Arpadkorossy ( talk) 18:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. A reference is sorely needed since Mitscher was, in the words of the great John Keegan, "a master of fast carrier operations", this alleged falsification is a major blemish to his reptuation and an accusation of this gravity should not be made without sources. Jonathan Chin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.109.140.87 ( talk) 08:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Added and sourced. The material comes form Mrazek's book and is corroborated by several pieces of evidence, most notably that VF 10 pilots that ditched were found along a westerly heading, not the 239 heading in Mitscher's report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dallan007 ( talk • contribs) 17:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
This page sites 2 different dates for when he make Lieutenant Commander. Is it February 1919, as listed in Early Life & Career, or is it July 1, 1921 as listed in Interwar Assignments? I am trying to find the dates elsewhere for verification, but am having difficulty finding anything concrete.
Melissa (1/21/10) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.249.19.66 ( talk) 20:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
His actions during this battle was a major risk, and should receive more emphasis. The article on this battle give this more, and better, treatment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.214.44.131 ( talk) 23:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
The article incorrectly places Mitscher in command of the fast carrier force in the Marshalls and Gilberts operation. Admiral Pownall had command then. [1]
The timeline of Mitscher's operations in the Central Pacific is inaccurate. His first raid with Task Force 58 on the Marianas (Feb. 21-22) took place AFTER the raid on Truk (Feb. 16-17).
There is no mention that the first Truk raid, Operation Hailstone (Feb 16-17, 1944) had the strategic value of proving that Truk could be bypassed, thereby clarifying that the next amphibious operation would be in the Marianas. This should be clear in an article on Admiral Mitscher.
The entry makes no mention of Admiral Pownall at all, nor of his perceived deficiencies in command. Pownall was in command of the fast carriers during the Marshalls campaign. Mitscher replaced him in command because of Pownall's perceived deficiencies. This is significant in that Pownall's relief opened up the big job for Mitscher -- a job he would hold for the rest of the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leftdefense ( talk • contribs) 18:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
References
I'm a UK reader. This sentence appears strange to me. It needs clarification or (if anyone thinks it's loose and unencyclopaedic) deletion.
Kind regards, Notreallydavid ( talk) 14:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
We should be careful including this material into the article as it is rather speculative. Mrazek speaks of Mitcher's report as though he had authored it with intention to cover his mistakes to help keep his reputation spotless. Mitscher did not write after action reports. He assigned then to a subordinate and almost always signed them unread. The one exception was Burke's report following the Battle of the Phillipine Sea, which Mitscher was prepared to sign off on unread. However, Burke felt a chance to destroy the Japanese carrier fleet had been missed and he was critical of Spruance in his report. That being so, Burke insisted that Mitscher read the report before signing off on it. Mitscher did so, and then had Burke change the report so that Spruance was not criticized in it. This episode not only illustrates that Mitscher did not write reports, but it also shows his tendency to avoid blaming others for mistakes and missed chances. He would have been no different following Midway. He felt he had failed, but he would never have blamed his flight group leaders in an after action report that he wrote up. Gunbirddriver ( talk) 18:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Why is Ring's letter, presented on USNI's Proceeding in Aug 2000 not mentioned here? Both Symonds and Mrazek should have known about it and mentioned it, as it contradicts the "flew due west" theory. In Symonds' Proceedings article, he doesn't discuss it however. Also, a Midway vet [seemingly with 1st-hand knowlegde] in the Midway Round Table states that Mrazek is wrong in asserting that Mitscher backed Ring's choices over Waldron's protests. This vet states that Ring and Cmdr Rodee worked out the course themselves, Waldron was not present and did not protest at the time but "stuck his head in the door" briefly and didn't say anything until they were in the air. The vet also stated the feeling was that Waldron did not really disobey orders, since their orders were to find the IJN fleet, and he and Ring disagreed in how to do that. So, in that sense both Ring and Waldron were following orders, and the question of a court-martial would never have come up. I'll also note that in researching this, I find no evidence that it is "generally accepted" that Ring led his pilots on a 263 heading. Certainly some people assert this; others [having equal direct knowledge] assert the course stated in the AAR is correct. In fact, no definitive proof of the 263 heading has been found. The anecdotal evidence is split between the two headings and the written documentation favors favors the ~240 heading. The current discussion seem to be weighted rather heavily toward Symonds' and Mrazek's view. At very least Ring's letter deserves a mention. 2600:1702:28E0:EE0:106:8D39:52D7:9632 ( talk) 18:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC) CAJ
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Marc Mitscher article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I suspect that the reference to the "Mitscher Method" of turnip juice extraction is bogus. I can't find this anywhere else after a fair bit of Googling.
Jay Verkuilen jvverkuilen@gmail.com
NAS Miramar's airfield was called "Mitscher Field," in honor of this pioneer naval aviator.
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know the reference for the bit about Mitscher falsifying his AAR at Midway? I've never heard this before, couldn't find anything about it in the online references, and a Google search turned up nothing.
-- Arpadkorossy ( talk) 18:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. A reference is sorely needed since Mitscher was, in the words of the great John Keegan, "a master of fast carrier operations", this alleged falsification is a major blemish to his reptuation and an accusation of this gravity should not be made without sources. Jonathan Chin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.109.140.87 ( talk) 08:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Added and sourced. The material comes form Mrazek's book and is corroborated by several pieces of evidence, most notably that VF 10 pilots that ditched were found along a westerly heading, not the 239 heading in Mitscher's report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dallan007 ( talk • contribs) 17:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
This page sites 2 different dates for when he make Lieutenant Commander. Is it February 1919, as listed in Early Life & Career, or is it July 1, 1921 as listed in Interwar Assignments? I am trying to find the dates elsewhere for verification, but am having difficulty finding anything concrete.
Melissa (1/21/10) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.249.19.66 ( talk) 20:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
His actions during this battle was a major risk, and should receive more emphasis. The article on this battle give this more, and better, treatment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.214.44.131 ( talk) 23:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
The article incorrectly places Mitscher in command of the fast carrier force in the Marshalls and Gilberts operation. Admiral Pownall had command then. [1]
The timeline of Mitscher's operations in the Central Pacific is inaccurate. His first raid with Task Force 58 on the Marianas (Feb. 21-22) took place AFTER the raid on Truk (Feb. 16-17).
There is no mention that the first Truk raid, Operation Hailstone (Feb 16-17, 1944) had the strategic value of proving that Truk could be bypassed, thereby clarifying that the next amphibious operation would be in the Marianas. This should be clear in an article on Admiral Mitscher.
The entry makes no mention of Admiral Pownall at all, nor of his perceived deficiencies in command. Pownall was in command of the fast carriers during the Marshalls campaign. Mitscher replaced him in command because of Pownall's perceived deficiencies. This is significant in that Pownall's relief opened up the big job for Mitscher -- a job he would hold for the rest of the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leftdefense ( talk • contribs) 18:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
References
I'm a UK reader. This sentence appears strange to me. It needs clarification or (if anyone thinks it's loose and unencyclopaedic) deletion.
Kind regards, Notreallydavid ( talk) 14:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
We should be careful including this material into the article as it is rather speculative. Mrazek speaks of Mitcher's report as though he had authored it with intention to cover his mistakes to help keep his reputation spotless. Mitscher did not write after action reports. He assigned then to a subordinate and almost always signed them unread. The one exception was Burke's report following the Battle of the Phillipine Sea, which Mitscher was prepared to sign off on unread. However, Burke felt a chance to destroy the Japanese carrier fleet had been missed and he was critical of Spruance in his report. That being so, Burke insisted that Mitscher read the report before signing off on it. Mitscher did so, and then had Burke change the report so that Spruance was not criticized in it. This episode not only illustrates that Mitscher did not write reports, but it also shows his tendency to avoid blaming others for mistakes and missed chances. He would have been no different following Midway. He felt he had failed, but he would never have blamed his flight group leaders in an after action report that he wrote up. Gunbirddriver ( talk) 18:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Why is Ring's letter, presented on USNI's Proceeding in Aug 2000 not mentioned here? Both Symonds and Mrazek should have known about it and mentioned it, as it contradicts the "flew due west" theory. In Symonds' Proceedings article, he doesn't discuss it however. Also, a Midway vet [seemingly with 1st-hand knowlegde] in the Midway Round Table states that Mrazek is wrong in asserting that Mitscher backed Ring's choices over Waldron's protests. This vet states that Ring and Cmdr Rodee worked out the course themselves, Waldron was not present and did not protest at the time but "stuck his head in the door" briefly and didn't say anything until they were in the air. The vet also stated the feeling was that Waldron did not really disobey orders, since their orders were to find the IJN fleet, and he and Ring disagreed in how to do that. So, in that sense both Ring and Waldron were following orders, and the question of a court-martial would never have come up. I'll also note that in researching this, I find no evidence that it is "generally accepted" that Ring led his pilots on a 263 heading. Certainly some people assert this; others [having equal direct knowledge] assert the course stated in the AAR is correct. In fact, no definitive proof of the 263 heading has been found. The anecdotal evidence is split between the two headings and the written documentation favors favors the ~240 heading. The current discussion seem to be weighted rather heavily toward Symonds' and Mrazek's view. At very least Ring's letter deserves a mention. 2600:1702:28E0:EE0:106:8D39:52D7:9632 ( talk) 18:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC) CAJ