Japanese Production Capabilities

[JWE]

Mr Sidney has made certain representations about the Japanese economic infrastructure and production capability that are, in my view, naive, indefensible and quaintly asiocentric. Sid's views are expressed in the "IJA 'Reinforced' Divisions" thread of the Scenario Design sub-forum.

These conclusions are wrong. Sid has no understanding of how production systems work in practice.

I am opening a thread here, but since it is not a scenario design issue, I am also opening this thread on the general open board. That would seem to be the best place to put this nonsense into its appropriate dustbin.

John W. Eldredge
jw.eldredge@cox.net

aka JWE

[JWE]

Sid, unlike many others, I don't believe in blind-siding or using a self-produced 'so called' article to support my contentions.

I refer you to Yamada, Yushio, Nogaya Institute, 1961. If you really are the pro from dover that you represent yourself to be, you will recognize this thesis paper. How about W. E. Deming ? How about C. A. Blackledge ? How about Abowd and Kreuger ?

I give you these hints because I do not ambush. In a battle of wits, I do not believe in keeping the opponent in the dark; I'll give you all the benefit of what I know.

I'll even keep one hand tied behind my back. I will only use internationally recognized published sources, and cite them appropriately. I will not use any personal, apocryphal, tales or other such nonsense. You are, of course, free to claim any personal expertise you desire.

If you don't want to play, just respond with "pass"; I'll understand and back off..

John W. Eldredge
jw.eldredge@cox.net.

[el cid again]

Because I DO want to play - and to finish this work before total sanility sets in -

and because you have been insulting and disingenuious here: leveling charges only in a generic sense

I will not play.

How can one defend against a charge "crimes against God?" Similarly, how can one defend against saying things that are "indefensible"? Clearly, in both an Iranian Islamic court, and the court of your opinion, leveling the charge alone is sufficient to determine the verdict.

Note in passing that I am not an economist and that I do not read academic papers on economics in any language. This isn't quite the same thing as saying I don't have a clue how production works, or that I have not studied the economics of the autarky Japan attempted to establish. But it is to attempt to dismiss summarily the charge that I somehow represented myself to be a "pro from Dover" on economic theory. My teacher was one Alan Greenspan - at a time he was unknown outside the world of Objectivists (he was one of "the four apostles of Ayn Rand Institute"). I have been paid to represent a corporation officially at meetings of the Chamber of Commerse, I did administer a corporation for five years, and I have worked the technical side of production and support engineering. These things gave me a bit of exposure to how production works IRL. I probably know more about automotive, aircraft, ship and electronics production than I do about other economic activities - because of both exposure and interest - and I have worked in production engineering related at places like Chevrolet Engineering, Boeing (resident engineer for a contractor, not an employee) and Tektronix - so perhaps my view of practice is colored by what I saw/learned/did in such places. I am a technical generalist - and I could defend at length any statement I ever made - but I don't intend to do so. You are perfectly free to disagree with me - and almost everyone disagrees with me on one subject or another. But it is not useful - or indeed permitted - to level general insults based on non-specific issues.

You have made at least one grave error: no matter how outrageous something I say may seem to sound, I would not say it without a good reason to believe it is true. I do not waste my time saying things I do not think will be helpful to understanding a problem - and even if we are NOT participating in a scholarly activity - I could (and have) write a scholarly quality paper in any field that would be accepted as difinitive. It takes a year - and without good cause - and a receptive target audience - I won't bother. I don't have that many years left. I get involved in a lot of esoteric matters in the course of historical and technical research - and surely I know/believe many things that sound outrageous. One US Army Colonel - just before retirement - said "what we have been learning about China must make it seem we are nearly insane, to anyone not exposed to the fundamental materials we have seen." Granted that a lot of things are surprising - if you begin from the assumption I am ignorant, naive or disengenuious - you are on the wrong track.

[JWE]

Allah el Akbar

ç õðåñïøßá åßíáé Üãíïéá

Why aren't I surprised that you represented and administered corporations and know so much about automotive, aircraft, ship and electronics production. And besides which you were taught by Alan Greenspan; an excellent trick, unless, of course, you went to ... (ah, but that would be telling, wouldn't it). You are truly the ultimate rennaissance man.

Ciao.

[JWE]

Sorry; the second sentence was in Greek. I guess it didn't post through. Oh well.

[el cid again]

It will post IF your Microsoft Internet Explorer is set to support the appropriate alphabet (and there is more than one Greek alphabet in the set). Similarly, you can display Japanese, a whole bunch of forms of Chinese (e.g. Big 5, Simplified, etc), Korean, Hebrew, Pharsi - name it - but ONLY if you set up your Internet Explorer to support the symbol set.

And, if I don't exactly see eye to eye with Islamic militants, I do agree with you and them,
God is Great.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: JWE

Allah el Akbar

ç õðåñïøßá åßíáé Üãíïéá

Why aren't I surprised that you represented and administered corporations and know so much about automotive, aircraft, ship and electronics production. And besides which you were taught by Alan Greenspan; an excellent trick, unless, of course, you went to ... (ah, but that would be telling, wouldn't it). You are truly the ultimate rennaissance man.

Ciao.

One classmate of mine - a career librarian at the University of Montana - just retired - often told people I am the nearest thing to a rennaissance man he ever met. My daughter complains that we can debate endlessly over an impossibly vast range of topics. You no doubt believe no one can be such a thing in our age - and probably you are right - but it would not surprise anyone who knew me over a long period to hear Chris Mullin's view that I am the closest we have. The problem is not energy, interest, or tools to work with: the problem is time. It is the most valuable thing any of us has, and I am beginning to understand I don't have an unlimited amount of it. While I don't mind helping out a fellow traveler along the way (trying to come to terms with the way things work/worked), I have a lot less time than I used to for arguing with those who already know I am wrong. [Maybe you can blame it on Big T. Seems he managed to teach me that no amount of facts will ever be sufficient for some people to get beyond their preconceptions.] But I really did drive to the New York City of Ayn Rand to take classes - from three of the four apostles - along with a whole carload of sailors from Norfolk Naval Station - as often as we could work out the logistics. I became active in what later was called Libertarian politics, and was a charter member of the party at its foundation in Michigan, Montana and Washington. I am invited to join in Alaska, but the Libertarians have become dominated by former New Left types (old hands are New Right) and I don't think they are serious about politics - so I play mainly with the big boys - and out of personal loyalty to Adm Stockdale - I supported Ross Perot. It is said I am the last person in the USA who believes in non-partisan, or bi-partisan, or center foreign policy - and I cannot be trusted to protect some partisan point of view: only when they want to get together am I asked to conduct the meeting. I think the real "right" is what is logical, factual, and respectful, not partisan, hostile, or illogical. A white man from Michigan, almost wholly unexposed to any other culture as a child,
I have been asked to co-chair the Minority Education Concerns Committee (and did some years ago) and now serve on the Minority Concerns Committee of my employer - because in spite of my monolingual and all Eurocentric background -
I have become able to effectively cross the lines of culture, race, nationality and even religeon. I did so by learning how to be respectful - even with I might disagree with someone. [Also by learning a few languages - although I nearly died learning my second - which was German]

[DuckofTindalos]

Bump, so this thread isn't "accidentally" moved off the front page. Can't have that...

[el cid again]

For clear examples of how production lines worked in pre war and wartime Japan, see Rene Francillon's difinitive Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War. He cites repeatedly cases where production was substituted on the line for similiar airframe machines, including the interesting case of a Lockheed transport (passenger) that for many months in 1941 and 1942 was produced SIMULTANEOUSLY with a Japanese derivitive (air cargo) design of a different designation - on the same line. Japan not only had lines as such - and could substitute a derivitive for the primary type on the line (by putting in a larger engine and any other changed parts) - but it could also produce different models at the same time.

In the automotive field, even tiny Tokyo Gas and Electric - a company NOT a primary manufacturer - was able to produce a very useful vehicle by production line methods: the famous "black model" - a sort of Japanese jeep. One version - rarely made - had no less than three engines! [It was a snow cat and had a snow blower at the front] There was also a civilian micro truck version made alongside the military/utility passenger version. This is easily identified in Japanese by the name Kerogane.

Tanks are a special case: early attempts were done by an IJA R&D team - years per vehicle - and not one of them ever made the cut. Some of this work (amphibious) passed to IJN R&D - and some of that eventually did make the cut - but probably it was not built on a line as it was not farmed out to a commercial concern. A few AFV makers were small - Hino and Isuzu are examples. I am not sure how they made their vehicles - but so few were ever made that lines seem unlikely. The vast majority case was Mitsubishi - and it focused its efforts sensibly on standardized chassis - producing something like 6600 of them. Not all are tanks per se - some were SP artillery or SP AAA. It appears from photographic evidence some may have been the basis for some other vehicles - it may be that basic chassis were made by Mitsubishi and then modified by contractors: otherwise it is hard to explain identical tracks and engines.

[JWE]

Rene Francillon is not definitive with respect to pre-war Japanese production techniques. No one is. It is so involved in the dichotomy between pre-industrialization piece-work and modern (1930s style) modular techniques, and the cultural imperitives impacting on the Japanese, that no one has even attempted an analysis. Perhaps, since you are so much of an expert on these matters, you could prepare a thesis paper on the subject. I think the Univ. of Chicago would likely award you an honorary degree.

For the rest of it; nonsense ! Like everyone else, the Japanese knew how to build things that could be put to different uses; much like the French, the British, and the Germans. Like the French, the British, and the Germans, they had no clue about 'assembly line' techniques. All you gotta do is look at how pathetic their efforts were in attempting to 'mass produce' standard merchant ships in 1943 and beyond.

Please, oh please, oh please, start quoting your hero, Mark Parillo. Unlike you, I have read Mark's books, as well as much of his other work. He's still around, and still a Prof at K State, and he reads his emails. I doubt you would want him to comment on your distortions of his conclusions.

[el cid again]

I will not again comment on any matter in which you display generally disrespectful language about the Japanese (see pathetic) or myself (see distortions). Having visited many kinds of assembly lines (and preserved facilties like the Boeing Red Barn), and having some exposure to industrial matters professionally, I can only say that if you bothered to research Japanese production facilities with an open mind you could not help but be impressed. There are lots of pros and cons to everythign you see everywhere - in our country and theirs - but "pathetic" is not an appropriate response to the Japanese WWII era industrial effort. Japan did better than Germany did, relative to its size, measured by output of aircraft, engines, and airframes - and also was more productive - which is remarkable for a smaller industry. No one calls German efforts "pathetic" - and no honest and competent student would do so about the Japanese. If you cannot rise to that level - we have nothing to talk about. In the end you are upset I dare contradict your "knowlege". But at no point do I contradict Parillo - or disagree with him - and he is indeed still around.

[jwilkerson]

ISSUES NOT PEOPLE

===

As some are straying from the above cited path in this thread, I though I would take this opportunity to re-explain the idea.

In the Journal of the Society of Military History, professional, degreed historians write articles. If another professional degreed historian disagrees with an article s/he might be given an opportunity to submit a "criticism". Now this is not a whiny, fanboy-calling attack, but instead a presentation of data which would contradict the conclusions of the original author or an argument about why the interpretations of the original author might not be valid. The original author then may also be given an opportunity to rebut the critical article. But these back and forths are done in a progressional manner focusing on the data and or the interpretation of the data and NOT on the person writing the article. So this is the standard I am holding us to. let ME know if you don't like this standard.

===


Locked.