ORIGINAL: mdiehl
I've already presented it in these forums. Twice. The first time when you ran away from the discussion back in the GGPW thread. The second time a long time ago in this forum. Selective amnesia seems to be the only kind of memory you have.
Sure i did.
Fair enough. But I'd guarantee that it I wrote a rebuttal to Shores et al. with no bibliographic citations in the footnotes, end notes, or text, it would not get published, because those sorts of things are the benchmark standard for most publications.
You won't get published period, because googled weblinks for sources don't count for any kind of benchmark save bullshit.
Tell you what. Why don't you contact Mr. Shores and ask him since your so concerned.
That is the only intelligent statement you have offered in five years of your participation in these threads.
Your attempt at an insult not withstanding, does that mean your going to do it? You'll of course cc' me in the email.
Go into that a little further. Was their book peer-reviewed? Do you know it for a fact. The press is a rather obscure one, and there's the pesty problem of lack of notes. Are they accredited? At what? By whom? As I recall, Shores is an accountant or a banker or something. By training he's no more (or less) qualified than I am.
Yes. I do know it. Can you prove that Shores' and his associates research is faulty? I've asked you several times now to provide
specific documentation proving that his work is flawed. You have so far failed to produce anything more than implying that his work is less than valuable because you feel his footnoting is not up to specs. You also claimed, incorrectly, that Shore's work does not contain proper references. I answered that he did....in vol III, a book you apparantly don't own.
Lets see your credentials?
Asked and answered already.
Translation: None worth mentioning. No books, no published papers. zilch.
The inclusion of an end of text biliography does not a "reference make."
Yes. It does. But again, i'm waiting for your specific evidence that Shores, Cull and Izawa's work is faulty.
Again, the web site link is a copy of the USAAF official history. So at this point, you're just sort of whimpering around a technical claim that the source I provided wasn't a published piece of paper that you may not be able to read (because you may not own a copy), but instead an internet copy (that you can read) of a piece of paper that was in fact part of a published, peer-reviewed volume.
No, its a website, and has not been peer-reviewed, period. Nor have you verified it's authenticity. All you have done is googled it. More interestingly, you misquoted it.
ORIGINAL: mdiehl
Shores et al. describe the 19 February combat over Java as 1 Zero lost in exchange for 7 P-40s shot down. The official US Hisotry of the Army Air Forces of WW2 (p.391) (see:
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/I/AAF-I-10.html ) has
no P-40s shot down and claims 4 Zeros shot down (over Malang, Java).
What the website actually stated was:
The 19th had been marked by heavy blows directed against Java from the west as well as the east. Thirty enemy fighters roared over the Buitenzorg airdrome to destroy two transport planes and three Hudsons caught on the ground. Another formation of thirty planes hit Bandoeng, where five of the few remaining Dutch pursuits were shot down and two B-17's just in from the United States were destroyed on the field. The American P-40's met with some success in breaking up a bomber formation headed for
Malang. They counted no bombers shot down, but in a furiously fought engagement they destroyed four enemy fighters and
lost three of their own. Here and there the Allies could take pride in an individual victory, but the day clearly belonged to the Japanese
whoops.
Well at least then, again going by your stated criteria for validating sources, we're still left with a 3:1 victory for Tainan.
Are you suggesting that the USAAF's official history is not a credible source because it is likely to be "distorted" somehow but Shores et al. is less likely to be distorted?
Again, depends. Thats where the research part comes in, and the comparison/authentification part....and it'll take more than comparing information you've been fed about Shores and then doing an online google search for alternate or dissimilar information to provide a credible dispute to what Shores research has revealed.
This conversation is becoming Python-esque. Am I to ask you now whether or not a coconut can migrate?
No, but I have a wafer thin mint for you to try.
Heh. I'll trust my own instincts, thanks, on what "true researchers" need to do. [:D]
Which apparantly doesn't include waiting for any actual true research to be done before you start crapping all over the results of another's.
In this case, your claim that Sakai and company were afraid to engage P-39's at lower altitude was not verified.
Except that I made no such claim.
ORIGINAL: mdiehl
Except that in his book he writes of the frustration of his wingmen that the P-39s refused to climb to the A6Ms altitude to engage. Which is a clever way of avoiding saying that the A6Ms refused to descend to 10,000 feet to engage the P-39s
tm.asp?m=1509971&mpage=2&key=
Twist it anyway you want. Its unverified in either Sakai or Bergerud.
The point was one about the logical construction of the claim made about P-39's pilots perceptions of the Zero.
That'd be an observation about methods, by the way.
If you can't dazzle em with Brilliance.....Baffle em with Bullshit.
This is not particularly different from the pilot fatigue experienced by USAAF fighter pilots in the ETO. Indeed, since it's pretty much solely a discussion of airtime, it's the exact same kind of fatigue.
Nope. The number of Japanese planes and pilots was signifgantly less and inadequate for the task at hand coupled with the fact that there was only one appreciable target and the defender knew roughly the time and place that they must arrive on scene.
Frank and Lundstrom both mention fatigue. Neither of them mention inordinate post-combat air losses resulting from it.
That is incorrect.
it [the 565 mile flight back to base] turned many damaged aircraft into outright losses
Richard Frank - Guadalcanal.
Lundstrom also mentions specifically the immense problems faced by the Japanese and documents aircraft that failed to return on the long flight back, some had damage, others unknown but MIA.
Actually, it is a very robust comparison to which you responded with a weak effort at subject substitution. The subject was fatigue caused by long-duration flying, not force ratios, as you have tried to make it.
Incorrect. Force ratios are crucial to the success of the mission and also allow the ability to rest and rotate pilots. Frank mentions this in his book.
The real trick, methods wise, is to figure out what weight to give fatigue, or fatigue vs. the combination of fatigue and battle damage, that may have affected retiring Japanese a.c.
Frank and Lundstrom figured it out pretty quickly. I agree with them. Looks like Elf agrees with them too.
[/center]