Who would Win early 1942

[Werner]

Werner, a honest suggestion from myself and you are completely free to take it out anyway. Don't follow only US sources, specially those taken immediatelly after the war. Morison's books (with all the respect to the Admiral) and specially JANAC are plagued with faults that have been disclosed after they were released. If you can get the hands on the English version of the Senshi Sosho (the japanese version of the Pacific War - over 100 volumes, 14 years to be completed, released late 70's I guess) or any other decent book that also takes into account japanese testimonials. For starters, Kurita never made a statement on Samar after the war and only got an interview with some one many years after the war.

Since Morison had the official record and access to the Japanese officers themselves in extensive interviews postwar, I wonder what substantial evidence could have come to light in the years since the 1966 publication of the material cited.

At this remove, we only have the original record (which is JANAC and Morison's oral histories) and heresay. Likely other sources can trace themselves back to a distortion of these original documents or are simple fabrications.

I wish Jorit would step in here and speak to how fragile real history is and how a simple misquote or bar room talk can obscure the truth of the actual record.

If you feel you have a more accurate pipeline to the truth than Morison, I urge you to publish your sources and bibliography. I will read the books and documents you suggest. Unfortunately, those familiar with the history of the Pacific War see ghosts and echos of Morrison's work in almost all the other histories.

W

[JWintjes]

I'm really out of my depth here, but according to my - admittedly limited - knowledge the official Japanese history of the war, it is mainly based on documents that have been in US possession until 1958, together with a small percentage of other surviving material.

You have to bear in mind that the end of the war by and large also brought the end of the Japanese military archives about - large quantities of material were confiscated by the US, and other material was destroyed to prevent confiscation. Actually, the situation is said to have been worse than in Germany, where a sizeable number of archival material was already returned in 1949.

It is therefore at least highly unlikely that it contains new crucial technical documents (and that's what we're talking about). It's a slightly different thing with operational history.

Jorit

[JWintjes]

Just a cheap limited ASW conversion job. No real links to the Weapons or the Gallants.
See "The Postwar Naval Revolution", by Friedman, for an outline.
See Friedman's forthcoming volume on British Destroyers for a more in-depth coverage.

Thanks for the info. I didn't know about the forthcoming Friedman book.

Jorit

[JWintjes]

you don't send a battlecruiser against a battleship & win.

Depends on the battlecruiser and the timeframe. Seydlitz vs Neptune? I'd rather be on Seydlitz...

Jorit

[Werner]

I'm really out of my depth here, but according to my - admittedly limited - knowledge the official Japanese history of the war, it is mainly based on documents that have been in US possession until 1958, together with a small percentage of other surviving material.

I think one of the key differences between Morison and other histories is that he was given a large professional team including ex-Japanese officers who conducted extensive interviews of Japanese sailors starting in 1945, both officers and enlisted. Morison's staff spent several years in Japan tracing people of interest and interviewing them. They also had a regular contribution from former staff officers and NCOs of the IJN fleet staff. If there were errors and consistancies, I believe they would have been found in the correlation of this data.

Admiral Morison was not handicapped by the cost of doing research. Most of the personnel were commissioned into the Navy and given appropriate security clearances so they could go where they wanted and see what was needed without exemption. This status continued well into the 1960s.

At this point, any contradictory references probably record nothing more than axe-grinding by junior officers against their former superiors. If Morison interviewed five people separately and their stories agree, what do you say about a contradictory sixth story that comes to light 25 years later?

Almost every later book I have read about the Pacific War, especially European books, simply recapitulates Morison's work. As I said, it generated and concentrated so much of the original record, it is hard to make a history that does not rely on it.

W

[Devin]

Read "The First Team" books by Lundstrom. He has done a lot of primary research in the past decade or so of Japanese files that were supposedly not available until recently. Example: while every text has reported without question O'Hare's Medal of Honor flight downing 5 Japanese planes, Lundstrum found records that showed that 2 of those planes made it back to their bases. Doesn't diminish O'Hare's accomplishment at all, but the truth is somewhat different than has been reported in the past.

He also does a much better job of Morrison of being unbiased towards actions of both sides involved, looking at what the individuals had to work with at the time, and not condemning them for how things turned out, looked at from 20 years in the future (Morrison's universal praise for Halsey and condemnation for Fletcher are prime examples).

I can easily see how Morrison's work could have been compromised. Junior officers contradicting superiors for axe-grinding reasons, superior officers covering their own, or their friend's, asses. And for the Japanese side of things, who knows what type of info they were finding from people who were trying to keep themselves from being brought up on charges initially, to trying to save face and help with the Japanese society's inability to deal with what they had done during the war.

-Devin

[wr]

I'm really out of my depth here, but according to my - admittedly limited - knowledge the official Japanese history of the war, it is mainly based on documents that have been in US possession until 1958, together with a small percentage of other surviving material.

I think one of the key differences between Morison and other histories is that he was given a large professional team including ex-Japanese officers who conducted extensive interviews of Japanese sailors starting in 1945, both officers and enlisted. Morison's staff spent several years in Japan tracing people of interest and interviewing them. They also had a regular contribution from former staff officers and NCOs of the IJN fleet staff. If there were errors and consistancies, I believe they would have been found in the correlation of this data.

Admiral Morison was not handicapped by the cost of doing research. Most of the personnel were commissioned into the Navy and given appropriate security clearances so they could go where they wanted and see what was needed without exemption. This status continued well into the 1960s.

At this point, any contradictory references probably record nothing more than axe-grinding by junior officers against their former superiors. If Morison interviewed five people separately and their stories agree, what do you say about a contradictory sixth story that comes to light 25 years later?

Almost every later book I have read about the Pacific War, especially European books, simply recapitulates Morison's work. As I said, it generated and concentrated so much of the original record, it is hard to make a history that does not rely on it.

W

THere are two aspects of Morison that call out for comment.
One - the minimal technical coverage, which is understandable.
Two - the complete lack of the code breaking side; again this is understandable.
Although Morison presents the campaigns in a readable form, which has held up over the years, I find myself asking many questions which beg to be addressed by the author and are not. Two of these are aspects of the Solomans and the Southwest operations in 1942 into 1943.
To put these questions well, demands that I spend some time on them. Maybe in a few days.

PS I have tried twice unsucessfully to reply to the posting on the Japanese technical reports. My point was that there exist several technical volumes prepared by the Admiralty on the German Navy. I looked at the one on German guns and firecontrol in the seventies and found it interesting. I do not think that these have been used by any historian to date.

[JWintjes]

PS I have tried twice unsucessfully to reply to the posting on the Japanese technical reports. My point was that there exist several technical volumes prepared by the Admiralty on the German Navy. I looked at the one on German guns and firecontrol in the seventies and found it interesting. I do not think that these have been used by any historian to date.

Interesting indeed - I suppose they haven't been published, but are only accessible via archives, are they? Incidentally, have you come across any material relating to the quality of the German Funkmess gear? This is another field where information seem to be a little bit scarce.

Jorit

[Werner]

I think because Admirals Layton, Kemp Tolley and the other "Roosevelt conspiracy" crowd were already making noise about the aspects of intelligence in the 1960s and because the methods and procedures were still (even in the 1960s) considered "national technical means", Morison rightly alluded to it (and devoted a section of Vol. IV, Midway to it) but stepped aside from the controversy.

W

[Filipe Ramires]

Well, I guess Devin answered most of the things I was about to said on Morisson's volumes. Morisson's books were the first big works on the USN Operations during WWII and he had green card from Roosevelt and Trumman to have access to certain documents. He did an excellent and valuable job in fact but like most of historian he haves faults. JANAC, ONI reports are raw material documents that need a lot of filter operation. I can say for starters that the ONI on Java Campaign tells you that there were at least 2 japanese battleships on the Java Sea Battle and that a couple of japanese heavy cruisers and other smaller ships were destroyed during the battle....none of those ever took place. Therefore I consider some of these early sources very doubtful sometimes! On the japanese officers statements and interviews it's just like Devin said...they lost the war and started a counter-information war. Most of those who managed to survive to the 60's or later would provide different versions of what they have told before or only started speaking by that time...Hara, Kurita, Mikawa and other cases are such examples. Books you might want to have a look: Toland, Willmott and a brand new book by Anthony Tully that it is coming out very soon about Midway are a small example of what can be said. If Morisson's books are still used today, I also quote him very often, is because that he did a fine job indeed but he is not always 100% correct...other way we could just buy his collection of books and we have all the true Pacific War Campaign.

[Werner]

I can say for starters that the ONI on Java Campaign tells you that there were at least 2 japanese battleships on the Java Sea Battle and that a couple of japanese heavy cruisers and other smaller ships were destroyed during the battle....none of those ever took place.

I don't see what bearing this has on Morison as he didn't state them.

I'd like to see the sources for your O'Hare example. One of the most flagrant problems with Japanese records is reconciling air reports. Frequently Japanese records cannot even foot to within a few days of an air battle. It's almost as if the Japanese had taken General Kenney's idea of simply "making it up" and carrying it to the next level.

This is one area where Morison actually attempted to reconstruct the record by speaking with the surviving pilots. Someone "finding" WW.II history in 1990 simply cannot do that.

Toland is OK for the entertainment it is. Tully makes it up as he goes. Tolley is on an "anti-Roosevelt" crusade. I suggest you check the depth of their bibliography and notes. As far as I know, Toland is the only one of these who expended a significant effort in Japan collecting data.

W

[dab]

To Devin

You Wrote:

Read "The First Team" books by Lundstrom. He has done a lot of primary research in the past decade or so of Japanese files that were supposedly not available until recently. Example: while every text has reported without question O'Hare's Medal of Honor flight downing 5 Japanese planes, Lundstrum found records that showed that 2 of those planes made it back to their bases. Doesn't diminish O'Hare's accomplishment at all, but the truth is somewhat different than has been reported in the past.

The Japanese used 18 Nell bombers in their attack on the Lexington. O'Hara flying a F-4F-3 attacked this group of bombers alone. He shot down five of them before running out of ammo.

If as you say only two bombers returned? O'Hara and Triple AAA gunfire from the Lex did more damage than they thought?

[Devin]

If as you say only two bombers returned? O'Hara and Triple AAA gunfire from the Lex did more damage than they thought?

I'd have to read it again to recall precisely. The 5 that O'Hare intercepted were not part of the main attack, they came from a different vector, which is why O'Hare was the only one to intercept. Of those 5, 2 made it back to base. Again, I'm going off of memory, but I've read that book 3 times, and his arguments make perfect sense when read.

-Devin

[Filipe Ramires]

I don't see what bearing this has on Morison as he didn't state them.

He doesn't go that way for sure but he uses other ONI reports which are also plagued with early mistakes.

I'd like to see the sources for your O'Hare example.

Is that one for me? I wasn't speaking of O'Hare but of Captain Hara Tameichi CO of Yugumo; Skipper of Amatsukaze and Flottila Leader on Yahagi and authot of the famous book "Destroyer Captain"!

This is one area where Morison actually attempted to reconstruct the record by speaking with the surviving pilots. Someone "finding" WW.II history in 1990 simply cannot do that.

There was still plenty of people alive on the 90's! Isn't George Bush father still alive for instance!?!?!

Toland is OK for the entertainment it is. Tully makes it up as he goes. Tolley is on an "anti-Roosevelt" crusade. I suggest you check the depth of their bibliography and notes. As far as I know, Toland is the only one of these who expended a significant effort in Japan collecting data.

I always give a look on the bibliography and you may note that there is plenty of stuff made by the Japanese Defense on their own. Perhaps you would like to have a look on the new book of H.P. Willmott on the Leyte Gulf Battle. It happears to be a very good book from the opinions I got from other historians.

[Werner]

This thread is degenerating into a discussion of who's second source conclusions are better than the primary sources.

I do not understand what Japanese destroyer captains have to say about O'hare's record of five bombers shot down at Coral Sea.

The distinct advantage of Morison's history is the plethora of cross reference that went into removing spurious reports. Read the Appendix (which is 300+ pages of Volume XV).

W

[Filipe Ramires]

This thread is degenerating into a discussion of who's second source conclusions are better than the primary sources.

I do not understand what Japanese destroyer captains have to say about O'hare's record of five bombers shot down at Coral Sea.

The distinct advantage of Morison's history is the plethora of cross reference that went into removing spurious reports. Read the Appendix (which is 300+ pages of Volume XV).

W

Yes, I guess we should stick to the original subject instead. I am far from being an expert of Pacific War and IJN, still, if you really want to get on with this discussion I would advise you to put it on the Nihon Kaigun board...the experts are there and you easily can get answers to your questions and theories!
On O'Hare there is some confusion since I believed that you confused that name with the one I quoted which is Captain Hara.

[Werner]

f you really want to get on with this discussion I would advise you to put it on the Nihon Kaigun board...the experts are there and you easily can get answers to your questions and theories!

I believe the CombinedFleet.Com (Nihon Kaigun) authors are largely in agreement with your humble correspondent. Certainly their article on the best battleship is in close accord with my views.

W

[WR]

PS I have tried twice unsucessfully to reply to the posting on the Japanese technical reports. My point was that there exist several technical volumes prepared by the Admiralty on the German Navy. I looked at the one on German guns and firecontrol in the seventies and found it interesting. I do not think that these have been used by any historian to date.

Interesting indeed - I suppose they haven't been published, but are only accessible via archives, are they? Incidentally, have you come across any material relating to the quality of the German Funkmess gear? This is another field where information seem to be a little bit scarce.

Jorit

I am not familar with Funkness gear, but I assume that it is electronic in nature.
There is I know a volume on German radars and associated gear but I never saw it and never asked to see it.
I did go over a fully detailed set of Bismarck plans that had been marked up by the DNC's department showing some of the hits that the ship had taken from KGV and Rodney along with notations. The sort of material that some on this board would give a lot to see. I did not take notes.
There was in the NMM many tears ago, several boxes of French documents that had been captured by the British at Toulon. David Lyon (now deceased) was good enough to translate some of these for me, and some of the data I used in the Cruiser book. All good stuff.
I realise that these words are removed from the original topic, but they may be of small interest to some.
My favourite in respect of non RN material was going through the bundles of detailed German ship plans held at Naval Historical (MOD). God knows where they are now.

[Tracy White]

your humble correspondent.

[Mark Petersen]

Back to the original question. Given the constrainsts of no radar directed fire control beyond what the USN or the RN had in 1942 (still pretty much a poke and hope IMO) the victor im my opinion would be just who could control the range of the engagement. I think that the optical phase of fire control was pretty much even. After all we are dealing with the universal laws of physics and the behaivor of light. The question is just what do you do with the data after aquiring the data. In a shorter range slugging match I would still go with Yamoto (this would almost have to be a situation in which they stumble into one another) At longer range IMO Bismark holds a decided edge all else being equal. Of cours that is provided that her opponent decides to stay in the fight. perhaps for this poll the ships should of also been listed with their maximum speed.