Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke

[Nikademus]

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]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

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]

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]

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]

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]

Symonds "The Battle of Midway"

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

[Anonymous]

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

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?

[DuckofTindalos]

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

[mdiehl]

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]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

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]

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

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

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

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 !!! [;)]

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

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]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

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]

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

[:D]

[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

[mdiehl]

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]

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]

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]

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.