RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room



Message

Nikademus -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/27/2012 8:40:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Do you base your knowledge around a single book?


based on 10 years of observations only if he can spin it to support his arguments. If not then the author gets trashed, often along with the poster. I remember the time he disparaged Chris Shores saying he was "only a banker" which was wrong.

Shores has a new book coming out. I am very psyched and have it on pre-order. He's the best.



Historiker -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/27/2012 8:44:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus
Who the hell "doesn't like book sources"? Except for iliterates?


CSW has told me a couple times that books are misleading because anyone can write them. To an extent he's right. Just because a book says something doesn't mean its 100% truth, or more commonly that the author's interpretation or conclusions are 100% accurate. Lundstrom himself admitted to Brady that he could only do the best job he did after the whole Val "Canister" issue came up and that he might have been mistaken. In the end people have to decide for themselves what to believe.



Source criticism ftw [;)]



Nikademus -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/27/2012 8:51:41 PM)

Here' ya all go. From Lundstrom.




Coral Sea:

Shoho attack
Initial CAP = 3 (2 x A5M + 1 x A6M)
3 x A6M launch during lull in bombing...enter after bombing.

losses:

1 x A5M (Aoki or Inoue) by Flatley (bounce) pg203
1 x A5M (Aoki or Inoue) by Haas (bounce) pg204
1 x A6M (Imamura) by Haas (bounce + ambush from behind while at low alt (recently launched))pg203

Shokaku/Zuikaku attack 1
Initial CAP = 10
6 more launched after

losses:

1 x A6M (Ichinose) by McCuskey pg 233
1 x A6M (Miyazawa) by Woolen pg 234

Shokaku/Zuikaku attack 2
(Cap=13)

losses:

1 x F4F (Bull) by Abe? pg 238 - after bomb run of SBD's under his charge

1 x F4F (Peterson) by Okajima or Kominyama or Sakarda. (only F4F reported lost to a first run bounce while "throttled back")

1x F4F (Clarke) by ? pg 240 lost well *after* first bounce attack on escort or bombers.


TF 17 attack (Lex/Yorktown)
CAP = 17 x F4F + 18 x SBD

losses:

1 x F4F (Rinehart) by Shokaku pilots pg 262
1 x F4F (Mason) same pg 262
1 x F4F (Crommelin) by Zuikaku pilots pg 263
5 x SBD

No A6M's lost during this fight but several took damage. 3:0 in favor of the not so well rested Zero drivers despite being outnumbered to boot

Grand total

3 x A6M
6 x F4F

oh and the 2 x A5M' over little Shoho.
add to that the 5 x SBD's while they were on Anti Torpedo plane CAP.





mdiehl -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/27/2012 9:01:30 PM)

quote:

Do you base your knowledge around a single book?


Sometimes. It depends on the question that you want to ask and answer, and the kind of information that you need to answer it. Other than Lundstrom, who has tried to actually align which of the combatants shot down which of the other combatants? It's certainly not in that level of detail in Parshall and Tulley (which is not a criticism.... Shattered Sword is a very well-researched book), it's not in anything written by Samuel Eliot Morrison (he wouldn't know, most of the Japanese source documents weren't in his hands by the time the USN in WW2 was written), and it's not in any of the "classics" by John Toland, Walter Lord, or any of the rest.

So if you know of some other, better secondary source, please name it.



Nikademus -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/27/2012 9:08:26 PM)

FYI Historiker

Symonds "The Battle of Midway" does have good individual loss data. Parshalls and Tully's info is fairly detailed too. It differs slightly in places from Lundstrom based on newer research but its ballpark. Kind of like Dan Ford's work on the Flying Tigers when compared to Bloody Shambles vol I and II in regards the CBI

Symonds book is worth getting. Its more detailed on the US end of the battle than SS.



mdiehl -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/27/2012 9:13:10 PM)

quote:

Symonds "The Battle of Midway"


Thank you for the reference. I'll add it to my readnig list.



Terminus -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/27/2012 9:36:20 PM)

It's easier to type stuff into Google. And he's not as smart as he says.



mdiehl -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/27/2012 9:41:32 PM)

quote:

You should. There's many primary reeferences and over 20 secondary references that say same thing. If you are as smart as you say you are you may read some of them sometime? Yes?


Depends. If it's a primary reference in Japanese I won't be able to read it. If the secondary references are the same ones used by dozens before, it's probably good enough to read Lundstrom's 2 vols, Parshall and Tulley, and Sydmore's just to see if it is substantially different from Lundstrom's and P&Ts. If the secondary references predate 1990, odds are that I have read all of them.



jwilkerson -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/27/2012 10:05:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus
Who the hell "doesn't like book sources"? Except for iliterates?


CSW has told me a couple times that books are misleading because anyone can write them. To an extent he's right. Just because a book says something doesn't mean its 100% truth, or more commonly that the author's interpretation or conclusions are 100% accurate. Lundstrom himself admitted to Brady that he could only do the best job he did after the whole Val "Canister" issue came up and that he might have been mistaken. In the end people have to decide for themselves what to believe.



Source criticism ftw [;)]


I spent a year in the PhD Military History program at University of Kansas and while I had been an amateur historian for most of my life, I had a bit to learn regarding the "historical process" ... what historians do. Actually it is quite simple to relate:

01 - Ask the Questions
02 - Find the Sources
03 - Answer the questions (while being true to the sources)

While being true to the sources also includes the idea that you must fully represent all the data provided by the sources - you cannot cherry pick every third fact, for instance, to suit your agenda. In fact, we are not supposed to have an agenda. That is why we are supposed to start by asking the questions.

All humans have a lens, even historians. But historians should strive to be aware of their lens and discuss it openly, perhaps in the preface of their books.

Historians rarely disagree about the data - they often disagree about the interpretation of the data.

{EDIT}
Oh regarding sources, we evaluate sources, based on THEIR sources, as well as the credentials of the writer(s), the completeness of the text several other factors ... but the sources listed in a potential sources, in some cases, maybe the primary value of the source!
Often internet pages do not cite sources - but sometimes book do not cite sources either. A book which does not footnote all appropriate statements in the text, back to an authoritative source are weak candidates for sources themselves.




mdiehl -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/27/2012 10:30:25 PM)

quote:

03 - Answer the questions (while being true to the sources)


Corollary: Often the answers are complex and not easily distilled into simple generalizations.



jwilkerson -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/27/2012 10:34:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

03 - Answer the questions (while being true to the sources)


Corollary: Often the answers are complex and not easily distilled into simple generalizations.


Sure but that is why historians write books and not just Haiku !!! [;)]



Terminus -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/27/2012 10:35:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus
Who the hell "doesn't like book sources"? Except for iliterates?


CSW has told me a couple times that books are misleading because anyone can write them. To an extent he's right. Just because a book says something doesn't mean its 100% truth, or more commonly that the author's interpretation or conclusions are 100% accurate. Lundstrom himself admitted to Brady that he could only do the best job he did after the whole Val "Canister" issue came up and that he might have been mistaken. In the end people have to decide for themselves what to believe.




Books can not be dismissed in total like that. Especially if one DOESN'T READ THEM.[:-]



Historiker -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/27/2012 10:45:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson


quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

03 - Answer the questions (while being true to the sources)


Corollary: Often the answers are complex and not easily distilled into simple generalizations.


Sure but that is why historians write books and not just Haiku !!! [;)]

I write Haiku as well!

superiority convinced
lacking knowledge
facepalm!

[;)]



mdiehl -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/27/2012 10:48:09 PM)

quote:

Sure but that is why historians write books and not just Haiku !!!


[:D]



Commander Stormwolf -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/27/2012 10:50:17 PM)



good books are written close to the event, and have primary sources

bad books are written many years after events occur, to make money



mdiehl -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/27/2012 10:52:32 PM)

Good books have primary sources I agree. But proximity to events is not worth much, IMO. Consider "My Life on the Plains" by George Custer.



Historiker -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/27/2012 11:07:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf



good books are written close to the event, and have primary sources

bad books are written many years after events occur, to make money

You obviously don't know the slightest bit what you're talking about. Many informations only surface decades or even centuries after events occur. Either by new archive discoveries or by new means to gather informations out of existing sources.
The account of eye witnesses is valuable, but every primary source has to undergo source criticism to question the intentions of the writer, his knowledge, overview, etc. Eye witnesses very often lack a total oversight and will thus give faulty informations. They can also have sympathies about something which prevents an accurate data.
While it is likely - and in fact almost guaranteed - that someone will not only already have an opinion but will be on one side regarding something like the balkan wars - it is highly unlikely that someone feels a national obligation to write history in favour of his people - that might not even exist any longer...

I could go on and on, and into details, but that would propably be in vein...



DD696 -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/27/2012 11:09:41 PM)

General George Armstrong Custer
His yellow hair had luster
But the General he don't ride well anymore

To some he was a hero
But to me his score was zero
And the General he don't ride well anymore

He killed children, dogs and women.....

can't remember the rest of the song....Johnny Cash.

God help me. I have posted in the War Room...home of the thread.



LoBaron -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/27/2012 11:13:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf

good books are written close to the event, and have primary sources

bad books are written many years after events occur, to make money


Wrong.

The quality of books is dependent on how information is aquired and interpreted, sources verified and cited, and
the way the conclusions are presented.

Shattered Sword is among the best books ever written about the battle of Midway, and it was released in the 21st century.



jwilkerson -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/27/2012 11:54:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf



good books are written close to the event, and have primary sources

bad books are written many years after events occur, to make money



This may be the view of some. In my PhD History program, I was taught the true objective history is written >50 years after the events.




Commander Stormwolf -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/28/2012 12:31:00 AM)



PacWar designers: everyone knows the japanese pilots were a lot more experienced than the allied, from the 4 years they fought in china
- especially the sally and lily units, despite their small payloads, from their thousands of flying hours they had the skill
to destroy a big part of the allied air forces in the far east on the ground, let's give them 80 exp. by contrast the allied pilots
had almost no combat experience, and only limited training, let's give them 40 exp

WITP Designers : maybe the japanese had a small edge in pilot skill, but it was pretty close, let's give them 70exp and the allies 50 exp

AE #2 designers: new research indicates that allied pilots were just as good as the japanese, they just had poor logistics, let's give them all 60 exp


not to poke at AE, it is truly the best wargame ever made, just making a point about how the accepted history changes with time



Historiker -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/28/2012 1:08:27 AM)

So you take witp as a reference? [:)]



wdolson -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/28/2012 1:15:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf

good books are written close to the event, and have primary sources

bad books are written many years after events occur, to make money



quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
This may be the view of some. In my PhD History program, I was taught the true objective history is written >50 years after the events.



There are different utility to accounts written at different times. Accounts written right after things happened will contain detail that will fade over time. But anything near the events that tries to synthesize the details into a whole will be of lower quality than something written many years later by someone who is too young to have first hand memories. The later authors have more objectivity over the data than someone closer to the event. The more first hand accounts written close to the event the better job later authors can do.

There is value in both. If I was writing my own book, I would want all the source material written by witnesses I could find. The sooner after the events the better. As a consumer who is reading for my own interests, I want the later written stuff written by someone who did dig up all the original sources.

Bill




Historiker -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/28/2012 1:16:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

FYI Historiker

Symonds "The Battle of Midway" does have good individual loss data. Parshalls and Tully's info is fairly detailed too. It differs slightly in places from Lundstrom based on newer research but its ballpark. Kind of like Dan Ford's work on the Flying Tigers when compared to Bloody Shambles vol I and II in regards the CBI

Symonds book is worth getting. Its more detailed on the US end of the battle than SS.

Is it worth reading, when I already have Shattered Sword? This isn't my workfield, so I have less ambition to be fully informed. Unless I start learning Japanese, it hardly makes sense to fully occupy my time with this scenario. Being only able to work with english sources limits me to an unacceptable extend.



mdiehl -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/28/2012 2:06:59 AM)

Here you go, CDR:

How did the U.S. Pacific Fleet's fighting squadrons fare in the first six months of the war? From 1 February to 4 June, USN fighter pilots shot down 74 Japanese aircraft.... Yet in direct confrontations between the two fighters, fifteen Zeros succumbed as opposed to ten F4Fs (seven pilots killed). (Lundstrom 1994:4).

Lundstrom, John B.
1994 The First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaign: Naval Fighter Combat from August to November 1942. Naval Institute Press, Annapolis.

It and the predecessor are outstanding sources. The claim supported by Nik and others that the Zeros swept the skies before them, winning victory after victory until 1943-44, until the toll of slow attrition despite greater enemy losses dragged them down, is utterly and fatuously false.



Nikademus -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/28/2012 5:07:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Here you go, CDR:

How did the U.S. Pacific Fleet's fighting squadrons fare in the first six months of the war? From 1 February to 4 June, USN fighter pilots shot down 74 Japanese aircraft.... Yet in direct confrontations between the two fighters, fifteen Zeros succumbed as opposed to ten F4Fs (seven pilots killed). (Lundstrom 1994:4).

Lundstrom, John B.
1994 The First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaign: Naval Fighter Combat from August to November 1942. Naval Institute Press, Annapolis.



page 4....yes?




[image]local://upfiles/452/EC411571E348486C9ED5EB465BA407D4.jpg[/image]



Nikademus -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/28/2012 5:10:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
It and the predecessor are outstanding sources. The claim supported by Nik and others that the Zeros swept the skies before them, winning victory after victory until 1943-44, until the toll of slow attrition despite greater enemy losses dragged them down, is utterly and fatuously false.


Except that Nik made no such claim in this Thread.



[image]local://upfiles/452/D0165E47347B4BD59CC602CAB4F31755.jpg[/image]



Nikademus -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/28/2012 5:11:16 AM)

Nik's reply:

(my apologies to the rest of the forum for my gramatical boo boo. I neglected to mention that the 3 Zero losses to 6 navy Wildcats was specific to Coral Sea though my subsequent posting of Lundstrom's estimates from said Coral Sea battle made that obvious.)


[image]local://upfiles/452/9F48F116CCE04E35A368FC348E1D7044.jpg[/image]



Nikademus -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/28/2012 5:52:08 AM)

For those still interested in the original subject of the Thread: Here's a breakdown of how the Ki-43 did between mid/late 42 and 1945 vs the two aircraft of the OT.

Ki-43
Kills:

Hurricane: 80 (includes 2 x Hurricane IID)
Mohawk: 6


Losses:

to Hurricane: 15
to Mohawk: 4

bulk of these actions occurred later in the war 1943 onward. RAF logistics were fine. JAAF logistics were thin but adequate for 42/early 43 but declined steadily the face of mounting Allied pressure. Burma was considered a secondary theater to Imperial GHQ.....even during the Imphal offensive where Mutuguchi's plan included a promise to continue the offensive using captured enemy supplies.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.578125