Matrix Games Forums

Mike_B20 wrote:Regarding Tristanjohn's posted drubbing at hands of Japanese bombers in PBEM AAR.

I really can't see anything wrong with the results.

Apparently, you sailed a surface taskforce into a hornets nest of land based aircraft and got hammered. You criticize the result as ahistorical (losing the North Carolina wouldn't have coloured your perception on this, obviously), yet Prince of Wales and Repulse had similar experiences off Singapore.

You also criticize search routines. Well, apparently your opponent was doing just fine in this area. Just out of curiosity Tristanjohn, what number of aircraft did you have in the air in the examples you cite where your own land based searches were ineffective. There was a reason that B17's were used extensively in the search role. Intelligence on enemy fleet movement is a prerequisite to intelligent asset management.

Oh, and your previous post regarding the inability of CV's to operate in coastal hexes is wrong. CV's operate at 50% ops in base hexes only (ie where there is at least a size one port of airbase). Please don't get your knickers in a twist and criticize designers and players about non-issues. You really need more experience in UV.

I knew exactly where his ships were. That's why I went into Buka. Straight after them. I also knew where his planes were.

I don't care about getting drubbed. I don't care about losing North Carolina or the 200 points that went with her. Those are the kind of concerns you'd voice. Because all you do is play games. I care about how these things happen. The mechanics aren't accurate. They're ahistoric. That is my comcplaint.

It happened again this turn. Those same bombers at Buka performed seven spearate attacks and each and every one of them scored, one amounting to 11 hits from Vals on a CLAA. I tell you it's BS. You tell me it's a fun game.

As for search routines: yes, those are off by a large margin as well. Didn't you know that? Aren't you aware that what we get in the game bears no relation whatsoever to "search routines" in the actual war?

I'd have interest to read a list of what you do know.

Still, I guess we're both right at that. It is a fun game, no doubt. It just isn't too accurate, and any approach by players that is likely to "win" will need to be designed around the game's peculiarities and not any grasp of history or sense for actual military "operational" sense that a gamer might bring to the session.

Do you understand, I mean really understand, what my message is?

As for "non-issues": a good example of the idiocy this game gives us would be the fatigue routines. They're so out of whack it strikes me as pointless to bring it up. It's a game reality, though, and so play is demanded to revolve around this reality, regardless that the gamereality intersects real-world reality at no point.

Now can you see that, or is this nicety over your head, too?

Re B-17s: I've found yet another bug.

My more faithful readers will recall my post over in the bugs section asking why my attempt to make two large groups of B-17s by disbanding individual squadrons didn't work. Here's the kicker.

At this point in time my remaining two B-17 BS sit in Port Moresby and are happily conducting airfield attacks on Buka and Rabaul. The 28th BS has 21 planes in all (that's 9 over the game's squadron limit for B-17s) with 17 operational and 4 in for repair. The 26th BS has 19 planes (7 over the limit), 16 operational while 3 are in the shop. Both performed their missions without a hitch yesterday, I expect both to do the same today, but I won't know until my Spanish friend replies, possibly later this afternoon.

By the way, has anyone every complained to the designer (Gary, what are you doing?!? ) about the inconvenient implementation of lists?

How many times have we gone into a base and tried to list all the ships or land units and found more than could fit on one list screen? So let's say we sort by type for ships and get a list of thirty-some DDs, or want to see the APs. We pick one of something we want for a TF. So far so good. But right away the list jumps either to the top or the bottom and now we have to waste time and energy clicking the list back to where we want in order to pick our next AP or DD. How many times has that happened? How was this allowed to stand through playtest, why hasn't it been addressed by v2.30? Why do we clamor for more "features" when the game we have is not yet polished?

This is sloppy programming, though it's hardly a game-breaker in its own right. But the thing is there's lots of this and similar stuff in UV and after awhile it just gets old.

TIMJOT wrote:Tristanjohn

Just curious, seeing you are an unabash fan of both Morison and Turner. Whats your stand on Morison's flip flop evaluation of Turner?

Point out, please, where he flip-flops.

That's never been a big issue as far as I know. If you read Morison carefully and with an open mind you'll see he treats all comers with a fair hand. He is not afraid to blast a fellow navy man when he thinks this treatment is due, he is not shy about his praise for Japanese commanders who, in his opinion, distinguished themselves during the war. On balance, I'd have to say Morison's history is one of the best of its kind I've read. Along with it I would recommend equally Lee's Lieutenants by D. S. Freeman and David Chandler's Campaigns of Napoleon. Chandler, of course, is the best writer of the three by far, Freeman the least inspired in that regard, while Morison's work remains the most monumental. (Afterall, it's fourteen volumes of riveting history, with another full book devoted to an index.)

I like you TIMJOT. You're a thinker, or at least you want to be thinker. And that counts with me. So consider this.

A larger issue down over the years has been Morison's scathing (there is no other word for it) review of Admiral Fletcher's actions. And on that score I happen to walk side by side with Morison. Fletcher was not only dumb in some respects but possibly a coward. I am the last person to cast that aspersion on anyone who wears or wore the uniform. I have nothing but respect for those who serve their countries in time of war. But really, Fletcher was a very strange man.

So what do you think about that?

John Lundstrom wrote an article entitled "Frank Jack Fletcher Got a Bum Rap" in Naval History (Summer and Fall, 1992). He tries to make a case for the man by I'm tired out from authors rewriting history just for the sales and whatever notoriety it could bring. Still, the article's there for anyone with interest so I thought I'd mention it.

TIMJOT wrote:Tristanjohn

Just curious, seeing you are an unabash fan of both Morison and Turner. Whats your stand on Morison's flip flop evaluation of Turner?

By the way, you use the term "fan" to depict my "ardor" for all things Morison and Turner. So let me say this.

I am not a "fan" of S. E. Morison any more than I am a "fan" of A. T. Mahan or Edwin B. Coddington. I am not a "fan" of Admiral Turner any more than I am a "fan" of Horatio Nelson or George Washington.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Tristanjohn, you fancy yourself a highbrow and are continually deriding others as unwashed and stupid.
I've never known anyone so full of hot air and so little substance as yourself.
For a highbrow you are sure one hell of a stupid UV player.
You must keep your PBEM opponents enthralled with your anti-UV tirades every time you lose a ship.

Mike_B20 wrote:Tristanjohn, you fancy yourself a highbrow and are continually deriding others as unwashed and stupid.

When they act that way, yes, I do deride them. Am I supposed to feel sorry for these people?

Go find some manners. And get an education. Then this wouldn't come up.

I've never known anyone so full of hot air and so little substance as yourself.

You haven't lived.

For a highbrow you are sure one hell of a stupid UV player.

Care to try me in chess?

You must keep your PBEM opponents enthralled with your anti-UV tirades every time you lose a ship.

Actually, the only PBEM player I've discussed this with to any length has already tried to bring some sense and sensibility to these boards. You apparently wore this gentleman out. I prefer to think I'm made of sterner stuff, but we'll see about that. now won't we?

Have a nice day. (And take a bath.)

Hi, I don't think FJ was coward. Least not about his personal safety.
He might have had the same brand that McClellan suffered from.
Both a fear of losing, and wanting to protect those he commanded.
It's hard for a leader given the task of saving his country (real or imagined) The wieght must be enourmous. While neither man rose to great heights in achiving victory, they also did manage to win just enough of a victory to secure their cause. FJ was a pre war MOH holder.
He had no spark of daring and was cautious. Be that as it may I doubt he was a coward. I wonder who could have done better, and would another have done worse. (In games I don't use him unless I have 3 or more CV TF)
My two favorite historians are B. Catton and B. Tuchman

(Come to think of it, he had a lot in common with Nagumo)

Tristanjohn wrote:When they act that way, yes, I do deride them. Am I supposed to feel sorry for these people?

Go find some manners. And get an education. Then this wouldn't come up.



You haven't lived.



Care to try me in chess?



Actually, the only PBEM player I've discussed this with to any length has already tried to bring some sense and sensibility to these boards. You apparently wore this gentleman out. I prefer to think I'm made of sterner stuff, but we'll see about that. now won't we?

Have a nice day. (And take a bath.)

I have an education and I can play chess.
I've won several local chess championships.
In fact I've won the qualifying tournament for the Australian Correspondence Championships and played in the Australian National Championships and Australian Correspondence Championships.
I used to play without looking at the board and win against strong opponents.
How about you?

I get it...whenever anyone insults you they need to get some manners but you can insult others at will because you are so superior.
Your posts so far have proved your immaturity (could have sworn you were pre-pubescent), rudeness and ignorance but I've yet to see anything which supports your claim to 'highbrow'.
Oh yes, and I have bathed today thank you.

Hi, Did I lose 3 days again, I often forget what day it is (or even month) it's not saturday is it?

I use the KID and Pirc in chess when I have the black pieces and the KIA as white. (I don't like the French and the Sicilian has too many lines for me. I can play the Ruy Lopez (I never open with my queen pawn(d4))

Mogami wrote:Hi, Did I lose 3 days again, I often forget what day it is (or even month) it's not saturday is it?

I use the KID and Pirc in chess when I have the black pieces and the KIA as white. (I don't like the French and the Sicilian has too many lines for me. I can play the Ruy Lopez (I never open with my queen pawn(d4))

You like fianchettoed bishops huh?
I like the Kings Indian as black against the queens pawn and the French against the kings pawn (mainly because I know it but the queens bishop often ends up blocked).
I am fond of opening with the kings pawn.
My favourite players are Bobby Fisher and Capablanca.

Hi, I missed Bobby's exploits, back then my only interest was baseball.
I love the history of chess and have many favorites. My sons middle name is Tigran. I also enjoy watching Walter Browne play (but this might be because he is the only Grand Master ever to sit and drink beer with me. (aside from playing poker with the "Bear" at several World Open's in Philadelphia.) I carried a copy of the 1966 Piatagorsky Cup games around for over 10 years. (I carry my chess board every time I leave the house no matter where I am going)
I've never claimed top spot in an Open but I have won my class prize many times. I paid my rent for several years playing chess and darts in bars. I've won class money a few times while on the road just to eat and put gas in my motorcycle.
The first opening I tried to learn was the French (using Botvinnik's book)
I decided it was too complex for me and replaced it with the Pirc (since it was close to my queens pawn defense the Kings Indian)
In round 1 of my first tourny I had white and pushed e4 and was met by a French defense (I cleaned his clock it was too hard for him as well)
The King Indian Attack works against almost any black response (you just have to alter your move order a bit) So this makes it easier to prepare for tourny.

My two favorite chess stories: Alekhine and Capa were invited to a show during their match for the World Championship. The whole night Capa never took his eyes off the dance girls and Alekhine never took his eyes off a little pocket chess board he carried.

Morphy-Anderson Morphy makes his move and waits for Anderson. (this is before chess clocks were used) hours go by. Both players sitting at the table watching the shadows move across the wall. Finally Morphy (an ultra polite man) asks "Excuse me, aren't you going to move?" Anderson comes to with a start "What is it my move?" (how does one of the all time great players not know it is his move on move 1?)

Oh but my favorite all time player has to be Aaron Nimzowitz

Mogami wrote:Hi, I missed Bobby's exploits, back then my only interest was baseball.
I love the history of chess and have many favorites. My sons middle name is Tigran. I also enjoy watching Walter Browne play (but this might be because he is the only Grand Master ever to sit and drink beer with me. (aside from playing poker with the "Bear" at several World Open's in Philadelphia.) I carried a copy of the 1966 Piatagorsky Cup games around for over 10 years. (I carry my chess board every time I leave the house no matter where I am going)
I've never claimed top spot in an Open but I have won my class prize many times. I paid my rent for several years playing chess and darts in bars. I've won class money a few times while on the road just to eat and put gas in my motorcycle.
The first opening I tried to learn was the French (using Botvinnik's book)
I decided it was too complex for me and replaced it with the Pirc (since it was close to my queens pawn defense the Kings Indian)
In round 1 of my first tourny I had white and pushed e4 and was met by a French defense (I cleaned his clock it was too hard for him as well)
The King Indian Attack works against almost any black response (you just have to alter your move order a bit) So this makes it easier to prepare for tourny.

Ah, Tigran Petrosian is another of my favourite players.
He was a bona-fide genius.
I have a book of his best games around here somewhere. He could demolish an opponents position with a few prophylactic thrusts.

Walter Browne a beer buddy!
Mogami the chess bum...I am amazed
Walter Browne is an ex-patriot Australian if I recall.

Very logical to adopt opening strategies that can transpose into systems you know.
One of my favourite chess dictums is 'Reserve the wider option'.

Hi, Yes Walter is an Aussie.

Roman Dzindzichashvili (The Bear) spends more time playing poker or backgammon then chess and I also enjoy watching Igor Ivanov play (he likes to consume adult beverages while playing as do I)
I played in a class tourny in Jacksonville Fla when I was still in the Navy. The Hotel had a beer machine in the hall outside the chess room.
I kept fetching beers. In round 5, I was a half point behind my opponent.
So all he needed was a draw. After 10 or so moves he left the room and came back with a beer for me. He bought me 3-4 more during the game. I beat him like a step-child.
Chess Life reported the tourny and spelled my name wrong.

Oh now I am recalling that year. It was the best of times and the worst of times. My ship USS Halyburton FFG-40 had been deployed as part of the "America" battlegroup during the first Gulf War. My best friend and I planned to take leave and play in several chess events before splitting up and going to our homes. Before we returned he changed his mind and went home while I went to the tournys alone. I won 1st place class money in Jacksonville, Cleveland, and Dayton. It was my moment of glory. When I returned to the ship ready to bragg I found he had drowned while saving another person. (he save the man but was swept away and drowned)

Mogami wrote:Hi, I don't think FJ was coward. Least not about his personal safety.
He might have had the same brand that McClellan suffered from.
Both a fear of losing, and wanting to protect those he commanded.

That's quite excellent, Mogami. Maybe I've sold you short.

Carry on.

It's hard for a leader given the task of saving his country (real or imagined) The wieght must be enourmous. While neither man rose to great heights in achiving victory, they also did manage to win just enough of a victory to secure their cause.

This is also accurate.

FJ was a pre war MOH holder. He had no spark of daring and was cautious. Be that as it may I doubt he was a coward. I wonder who could have done better, and would another have done worse.

Fletcher won his MOH at Vera Cruz in 1914. I'm not sure that says a whole lot, but in all decency I'll let it pass.

As for who might have performed better or worse: a topic for future discussion? Anyone care to inaugerate such a thread?

(In games I don't use him unless I have 3 or more CV TF)
My two favorite historians are B. Catton and B. Tuchman

I never use him, period. One day I may have to. God help me when that day comes.

Catton's somewhat lightweight but valuable nevertheless--about the same as Foote for the period. He's on my shelf, though. Barb was a good writer, maybe better than that. A former journalist and Pulitzer Prize winner, someone with a similar background as my own, I just don't have a lot of interest in her stuff, mostly because of her subject materials, but yes, she qualifies as a very competent historian.

Before you brought her up I hadn't thought of her in years. (See what all this discourse can do to man?)

Come to think of it, he had a lot in common with Nagumo)

That might be as well, though at least Nagumo got to Pearl and made some decent noise whereas Fletcher somehow missed his boat to Wake (as well as other boats, not to mention his ship at Midway) completely. I think I'd take Nagumo. In fact I know I would.

Mike_B20 wrote:I have an education and I can play chess.
I've won several local chess championships.

In fact I've won the qualifying tournament for the Australian Correspondence Championships and played in the Australian National Championships and Australian Correspondence Championships. I used to play without looking at the board and win against strong opponents.

How about you?

e2-e4.

I get it...whenever anyone insults you they need to get some manners but you can insult others at will because you are so superior.

Please. Don't be stupid. Don't say things that are not true and can be demonstrated to be not true. Think deeply before you write, and do not write when you are angry. If you must write when you are angry, as a warmup of sorts, then count to ten and go back and erase everything you wrote . . . and then continue.

That's my advice to you, or to anyone else in your shoes. And you can take it from me this is very good advice. In fact the best.

But do what you want.

Your posts so far have proved your immaturity (could have sworn you were pre-pubescent), rudeness and ignorance but I've yet to see anything which supports your claim to 'highbrow'. Oh yes, and I have bathed today thank you.

"Highbrow" is a state of mind. An age-old definition runs something like, "When you mention Austria a highbrow envisions of a Stradivarius, a middlebrow the Danube and a lowbrow Vienna sausage."

As for rudeness, that has a lot to do with one's perceptions, but as long as you bring it up: I choose to believe that I'm never (or seldom, and never consciously) rude to gentlemen who are never rude to me; once that line is crossed, however, the gloves drop off and it's every man for himself. Now if you don't like that take another bath.

Mogami wrote:I use the KID and Pirc in chess when I have the black pieces and the KIA as white. (I don't like the French and the Sicilian has too many lines for me.

I play by the seat of my pants, steer the game into whatever opening "seems right" at the time, and if I don't drop a piece in the first 20 moves I usually do all right.

I can play the Ruy Lopez (I never open with my queen pawn(d4))

So you enjoy a more active game then? I like the queen's-pawn openings from white's point of view. They seem harder from black's, but maybe that's just my personality at work.

Tristanjohn,


I have to say I agree with the way you approach a wargame. I can't say I've read everything you've posted here, and I may be wrong, but somewhere I got the impression you, just as I, play a wargame with emphasis on historical accuracy and realism. I think your focus should be more on the actual people who use game flaws just for the satisfaction of winning rather than the game design. UV is defiantly the best we have right now, and there is no doubt in my mind the creators had to make sacrifices here and there for whatever reason, or maybe some things are just impossible.

One of these days hopefully we'll have a game like WitP that requires 10GB just to install the game, and calculates every small detail all the way down to the pilots mood for the day. I really think the idea of being unpleased by a battle on UV not resulting in the exact same historical outcome is ridiculous. There are just too many details that have to combine to make the exact outcome. Say for instance a single pilot during a battle was a little tired, so his reaction time to a zero was 1 second off, which resulted on a non-kill where had he not been tired he'd have had the kill. So many little tiny things have to come together to produce the end result. Just to emphasize the point it's like trying to recreate a beach from the 40's. There's absolutely no way you can get every grain of sand in the same spot as it was in the 40's, so it cant be THAT beach, but you can still have a 1940's beach. (pretty lame analogy eh?)

Aside from that, valid game flaws are, from what I’ve seen, encouraged here. And if you've found one, or some, then you have every right to point it out. Just don't react as if an explanation to your problem is a direct insult to your intelligence.

I personally think you get off fancying " yourself a highbrow and continually deriding others as unwashed and stupid ", as Mike put it so well. If you like conflict and are under constant pressure from your personality to try and make yourself look better than everyone else, I'm sure there are many other forums where attitudes like that are accepted if not welcomed. But here, and to me especially, you're just a punk. If I were somewhere having a discussion with people and you came up with that kind of attitude I’d want to punch you. I'm not trying to be a tough guy or get into it with you but your tone is that of a cocky punk who in grade school might have been something to admire, but around adults it's a character flaw and rather bothersome... which is why I'd probably punch you.

A few things that bothered me:

"When they act that way, yes, I do deride them. Am I supposed to feel sorry for these people?
Go find some manners. And get an education. Then this wouldn't come up"

Been there, done that. Then I bacame happy with myself and no longer felt the desire to put people down I thought of as inferior. I'd say that would be a charactor flaw, but I didnt know it then just as you can't see it in yourself now. You seem well educated "in the books", try and use your intelligence to become educated on life.

"Think deeply before you write, and do not write when you are angry. If you must write when you are angry, as a warmup of sorts, then count to ten and go back and erase everything you wrote . . . and then continue."

This tells me you have experience in what I call "Forum S*#t talking." This is not the place for that, it's a f*&$ing wargame forum.. jezz.

Get it together man, I know what you're all about. You seem smart and educated yet you use it in such a childish manor. You HAD the opportunity to be well recieved, and your UV complaints, if they are genuine, could have been addressed seriously. Now you've lost credibility, as far as your intentions, so what's to come of it all? Whats the point Tristanjohn... maybe YOU should count to ten, sit back and realise how stupid and pointless what you're doing actually is.

Tristanjohn, my apologies for the tardiness of my reply

(quote)Tristanjohn
----------------------------
Here's the deal. Japanese records were notorious for their outright inaccuracies in numbers, whole gaps of data missing, dates screwed up, you name it. I could go into some detail on this but I don't care to spend a lot of time on an issue I've already resolved the first time around.
----------------------------



Actually I am quite interested in the details on how you came by that opinion if you don't mind.

"Here's the deal", to coin a phrase. Japanese record keeping practices were not "particularly" poor or inaccurate. In fact in some ways they were obsessively detailed. The difficulty with them are two fold. One is the wholesale distruction of thousands of important documents, both delibrately and as a consequence of the US strategic bombing campaign. This accounts for much of the "gaps" and "missing" data you refer to. Second is language, structural and certain cultural differences that many "western" researchers fail to remedy for one reason or another. A few researches have gone the extra mile so to speak and have been able, through meticulous effort to surmount these obsticles.

Wakarimasu-ka?




(quote)
-----------------------------
I suggest you start with Morison and read him closely, his entire work, check his sources, refer to them if necessary, then get back to me. It'll take you a year if you start in the morning . . . but the effort is worth the benefit.
-----------------------------



Since we are makeing suggestions. May I suggest you read Frank before you cast apersions toward a well respected source.

For my part, I have read Morison, not all 14 volumes, but Volumes III, IV, V and XII. as well as Two Ocean War.




(quote)
------------------------
A dead Japanese to a Japanese was a bad Japanese, a Japanese who hadn't done much for his Emperor. That's the way it was.
------------------------



Quite the opposite actually, Dying for the emperor was the highest honor one could achieve. Death in the service of the Emperor was the epitamy of being a "GOOD" Japanese. That's the way it was.





(quote)
------------------------
If Frank is using Japanese records to prove anything then he doesn't sound like a researcher to depend on.
------------------------



Thats a highly speculative arguement to say the least. Most reputable scholars will treat first and second person narrative with suspicion with out corroborating documented evidence.




(quote)
---------------------------
Frank strikes me as fishy from what you've told me about him thus far. And he certainly is nobody to be contradicting the work of someone of Morison's stature unless he is able to definitively cite reliable sources which indisputably prove (show how and why) Morison was in error.Now I doubt Frank can do this, or even tries. But if he can and does, bring him on by all means. (With the proof, of course. )
----------------------------



For one he sites the "Kodochushos" (IJN air squadron diaries) of the 25th air flotilla and the Misawa Air Group. The Japanese SDA War history series documents. Previously classiffied USN intelligence reports and radio intercepts. As well as Lundstrum, Morrison and Yamada.

BTW, would you be so kind to point out to me where exactly does Morrison specifically sites Yamada in Volume V. It would save me some time and effort, since I have been unable to locate it.




(quote)
------------------------
When Morison resorts to conjecture he states so in no uncertain terms. Again, Japanese records are unreliable for the most part, and have been shown to be so. I hear nothing about Frank to lead me to believe he knows more about his subject, even this many years down the line, than did Morison just after the war.
-------------------------



Morison undoubtly had unprecedented access and as such is a very good source, but do you have any idea how many US intel documents were not yet declassified at time of his writtings? Not to mention the volumes of enemy documents not yet deciphered? There is certainly something to be said for well researched more contempory treatments on the subject.

TIMJOT wrote:BTW, would you be so kind to point out to me where exactly does Morrison specifically sites Yamada in Volume V. It would save me some time and effort, since I have been unable to locate it.

You were in the wrong volume. Check Vol. IV p295. Better still, get the index if it's available as then you'll have the whole road map. If that's not available to you no problem, let me know and I'll send you where you want to go in the work.

Morison's available (Castle Books), by the way. I don't know what the price is but if I recall it doesn't go for much more than $125.00 these days, probably less at Amazon. For what you get that's a terrific deal.

TIMJOT wrote:------------------------
When Morison resorts to conjecture he states so in no uncertain terms. Again, Japanese records are unreliable for the most part, and have been shown to be so. I hear nothing about Frank to lead me to believe he knows more about his subject, even this many years down the line, than did Morison just after the war.
-------------------------

Morison undoubtly had unprecedented access and as such is a very good source, but do you have any idea how many US intel documents were not yet declassified at time of his writtings? Not to mention the volumes of enemy documents not yet deciphered? There is certainly something to be said for well researched more contempory treatments on the subject.

I don't know, but Morison had Roosevelt opening just about any door you'd care to mention. The problem wouldn't be access to classified documents so much but, as you pointed out, material which had not yet been translated, or not translated properly. Of course, Morison then went back in the 1950's and corrected his work when much of this material did come to light.

How much did he miss? Beats me.

Look. I don't pan Frank. Haven't read him. For all I know he's the best historian to ever come down the pike. He doesn't sound like it, but until I read his work on Guadacanal I couldn't say for sure.

By the way, I was amused when Mogami posted that little item from our government. If there is a source you don't want to trust just on its lonsome it would be anyone's government, and probably least of all the government on the winning side. That's in general.

Specifically, governments are run by bureaucrats (middlebrow and lowbrow types) who aren't as a rule awful concerned with accuracy. If an odd i goes undotted or a t is failed to be crossed, who's to reprimand anyone? "No one" is the answer.

Anyway, Morison you can count on. He didn't get to be a legend for nothing. I'm certain his work has error in it as all work (by human beings) tends to be flawed in one respect or another. However (and this is big however), Morison was a respected professional historian before Roosevelt gave him the go-ahead; also, Morison's work has been under incredible scrutiny ever since it came out, yet he and the work he produced is still a legend.

Now if Frank and his work can make a similar claim 50 years hence I'll be surprised, but if I'm still here I'll also be the first to give him a nod. That sound fair to you?

TIMJOT wrote:Quite the opposite actually, Dying for the emperor was the highest honor one could achieve. Death in the service of the Emperor was the epitamy of being a "GOOD" Japanese. That's the way it was.

Only if you died the right way. Example: the survivors from Guadacanal were dumped on some forgotten corner of Bougainville and left to die. Perhaps then they became "good" Japanese, but I don't know. What do you think?

My point was the Japanese, as anal as they tend to be in many respects, did not keep the sort of records the USN kept, just for example. There are many Japanese records, probably offical records and diaries and whatnot as yet uncovered or not properly pored over. Maybe someone sometime will stumble across this stuff and make sense of it and write a whole new better-still with years-ahead-styling Morison-like work. Anything's possible. But don't hold your breath, because I think we're about as close to the "truth" regarding World War II as we're ever likely to get.

Just thank God you speak English and you've a Morison to go to. If we didn't, nobody 'round here'd know nothing. (And now let's see how long it takes for one of our little cretins to presume to correct me on that double negative. )