Shattered Sword - Opinions?

[Rob Stuart]

Unfortunately, a significant number of folks bashing Shattered Sword wherever they can find an available forum to spout their nonsense just can't grasp that fact that the SOURCE for all this are JAPANESE scholars and experts fully versed i their own language that shared their KNOWLEDGE with some US scholars/writers in the years after AGP was written - and thus, Tony and Jon did NOT invent it - rather they were the first western writers that were able to USE it during the formation of their writing. And for those that might not realize it, Tony has - and continues to have - a tremendous relationship with those sources in Japan - including a hell of a lot MORE than was available at the time SS was formulated.

That makes the nonsense spouted here all the more ridiculous.

Anyway sir, have a good one!

Mark

What I am getting out of this post is that if someone is Japanese and knows Japanese, his words are automatically knowledge and take on oracular qualities and cannot be questioned. Is this what some people honestly believe? I would urge anyone who are tempted by such an understanding of research to try to reverse the situation, i.e. ask yourself 'since I am an American (or Canadian, or British) fully versed in my own language, should my emails to a Japanese person be unqualified Truth?'

Well, it doesn't appear that you are well versed in English. The phrase "JAPANESE scholars and experts" refers to scholars and experts who are of Japanese nationality. No one competent in the English language would equate it with the phrase "someone [who] is Japanese and knows Japanese".

[rob0274]

Oh yes. And the Picture on page 118 of SS, showing the aircraft crammed into the hanger, and mixed by type in one hanger bay.... I don't know who Mr. Hasegawa is, or why Mr. Parshall chose to include that sketch in SS, but, from a standpoint of pure logic and reason, it is terribly wrong.

A quick google search reveals that John Parshall wrote the following concerning this Hasegawa in an aircraft carrier forum:

Her elevators used cables and counterweights for operation, so you would be able to see these weights in the side walls of the elevator well. There are illustratuons of this mechanism in a Japanese book entitled "Nihon no Kokubokan" that you can probably pick up from Pacific Front Hobbies.

I think we can reasonably infer that John Parshall picked up an illustrated book at a hobby shop and decided to use it as a source for his study, source verification be damned. Now could this illustrated book, written and published for popular consumption, nevertheless convey true facts? That is certainly possible. But I don't think John Parshall can tell us whether it does or no.

[jvandenberg]

The aircraft I was involved with was the SH-2F, specifically "Seasnake 22, ridden by many, loved by few"


From Wiki:
General characteristics

Crew: 3 (Pilot, Co-pilot/Tactical Coordinator (TACCO), Sensor Operator (SENSO))
Length: 52 ft 7 in (15.9 m)
Rotor diameter: 44 ft 0 in (13.41 m)
Height: 15 ft 6 in (4.72 m)
Disc area: 1520.53 sq ft (141.26 sq m)
Empty weight: 7,040 lb (3,193 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 12,800 lb (5,805 kg)
Powerplant: 2 × General Electric T58-GE-8F turboshaft, 1,350 shp (1,007 kW) each
Rotor systems: 4 blades on main rotor and tail rotor

Still weighs more than a Kate, and the normal loaded weight is not listed, but I doubt if it is much over 12,000
Of course, I only offer this for comparison. I claim Glenn to be neither right or wrong, just that it needs to be looked at. Also, I only saw a sea state of 0 a few times, 1-3 would be considered calm, at least by the sailors running around the deck. I only saw a glass flat sea in the South China Sea, off the Phillipines. Never been off Midway, but spent a lot of time around Oahu and Maui. The sea was never calm there.
I am, respectfully,
Joe Vandenberg
Former 3rd class sonar tech
USS Sterett CG-31
198-1990

[jvandenberg]

Now to support Glenn's position, those Japanese flight deck crew were crack crews, no doubt. Although I've never been around the horn, in the Bering Sea, or in the North Atlantic; I have to say that the Sea of Japan in January has to be one of the most awful spots on earth. And that is the conditions that these guys trained in. It is no secret that the Japanese Navy accepted losses in training much more readily than the USN, still do. We were part of Team Spirit '89, where we operated as the flagship of a Japanese destroyer squadron. Had a JMSDF Admiral and his staff on board, they were very interesting to watch. Actually talked to him for a short time, told him of my interest in the IJN and he smiled and nodded his head.
Also had a pen pal in 6th grade who lived in Yokohama. Her grandfather was a signalman on Hyuga, but that's all she knew. When I asked about him, she said that like many IJN veterans, he was reluctant to talk about it.
Joe

[paulrward]

Hello All ;

There are two ways to lift an elevator: from above ( with cables and counterweights ) and from below ( with a big hydraulic ram ). From an operational standpoint, on an aircraft carrier, the best way would be to use cables and counterweights. This way, the only weight the motors are lifting is the weight of the aircraft and the deck crews.

As for moving aircraft around, I have done a lot of it myself ( Oh God my aching back ! ) You wouldnt want to move an airplane with a running engine, though, in an emergency, it could be done.

For the moving of low wing aircraft, ( which I have done, AT6s, Beechcrafts, a P51 Mustang, and a Piper twin, as well as a Rutan Variviggen, among others ) There are two ways to move it: Forwards and Backwards....

Moving them forwards, it takes one guy steer at the tail, and two guys pulling on the prop, ( yeah, believe it or not, that's how it's done ) and, with more guys, perhaps a few pushing on the trailing edge near the wing roots, where there is generally thicker skin to allow people to get into and out of the aircraft.

Moving them backwards, one or two guys pushing on the prop, a few guys pushing on the wing leading edges, and one, or better yet, two, guys at the tail steering the plane.

Three miles an hour is a 20 minute mile. That's basically a brisk walk ( I can do five miles in 79 minutes myself ) And once you get the aircraft moving, it just rolls along, kind of like one of those huge stone blocks they used to build the Pyramids of Egypt out of. In other words, don't get in the way of an aircraft that is being pushed along, cause they stop as slowly as they get started.

This is why, if you are modelling the IJN flight deck operations at Midway, the folding wings on the B5N are such an important part of the equation. It is easier to move an aircraft with the wings folded that with them extended. Perhaps this is why you see so many photos of USN aircraft going up and down on elevators with their wings folded.

I have to end this now, as it is time for me to take my Thyroid Supplement.

Respectfully ;

Paul R. Ward

[Wellgunde]

Best's 1995 account says what it says. It's a carefully constructed document, presented with the same legal authority as a witness transcript for a court of law. He clearly went through quite a bit of effort to write and record it.

Best's document may have been carefully constructed but it has no "legal authority." "Witness transcripts" as you call them are not allowed in any military or civilian court. Best's document is what is referred to as "hearsay" evidence and is not admissible (cf. Federal Rules of Evidence). Nor would it be accepted at a naval board of inquiry or as part of a Judge Advocate General investigation.

Historians are not tethered by any of these legal restraints and may use or ignore sources as they see fit.

[Wellgunde]

I have to say that the Sea of Japan in January has to be one of the most awful spots on earth. And that is the conditions that these guys trained in. It is no secret that the Japanese Navy accepted losses in training much more readily than the USN, still do.

I don't believe that any IJN carrier training was conducted in the Sea of Japan. Most of it was done in the Inland Sea precisely because of the conditions you described. Yes, the IJN was willing to accept a high level of training losses. The JMSDF, however, is an entirely different organization with a different focus and mindset and is probably less willing to take training risks than the USN. The JMSDF is outside the scope of this forum but you can PM or email me if you are interested in my thoughts on the JMSDF.

[Wellgunde]

Messrs. rob0274 and Ward: Do you discount the current Japanese scholarship which views Fuchida's book as being inaccurate? Have you read up on it?

[David Thompson]

An insulting, name-calling post from CharlesRollinsWare was removed pursuant to Forum rules and previous warnings, most recently at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 4#p1969254.

[rob0274]

Messrs. rob0274 and Ward: Do you discount the current Japanese scholarship which views Fuchida's book as being inaccurate? Have you read up on it?

Messrs. rob0274 and Ward: Do you discount the current Japanese scholarship which views Fuchida's book as being inaccurate? Have you read up on it?

My question is, after all, not what happened at Midway or whether Fuchida is right or wrong or lying, but whether SS is a product of a grossly flawed process. I have never claimed to have read deeply into Japanese historical literature; I have in fact affirmed the opposite. P&T, however, repeatedly claim to have read Japanese historical literature--in fact to have been the first to gain some special insight thanks to their deep immersion into it. Well, let's see what this amounts to, by looking at their bibliography:

Agawa Hiroyuki, The Reluctant Admiral -- A biography of Yamamoto written in 1979 by a fiction writer.
Attack Force Pearl Harbor -- Model kit illustrations.
Drawings of Imperial Japanese Navy Vessels -- Model kit illustrations.
Carriers and Submarines -- Model kit illustrations.
Fuchida
Fukui Shizuo, Japanese Naval Vessels Illustrated -- Picture book.
Hasegawa Toichi, Nihon no Kokubokan -- Picture book.
Hashimoto Toshio, Witnesses to the Midway Sea Battle -- A memoir by a torpedo bomber crew.
Hara Tameichi, Japanese Destroyer Captain -- A memoir by a destroyer captain published in 1969.
Hata Ikuhiko, Japanese Naval Aces -- Another infotainment book published for popular consumption in the US. According to comments, a laundry list of unverified pilot claims and hearsay knowledge.
Ikari Yoshiro, Kaigun Kugisho -- Infotainment book about IJN aircraft (as far as I can ascertain--thanks to P&T's execrable practice of using outdated romaji) by someone who also writes on automobiles.
Senshi Sousho -- P&T cite the author as "Japan." I'm not even joking.
Two books titled Japanese Warships Nos. 3 and 4 -- Another couple of hobbyist books for enthusiasts of military hardware.
Katsura Rihei, Carrier Zuiho no Sogai (sic) -- Not clear what this book should be categorized as. JP know Katsura Rihei as "author who has done some research." Highly doubtful they read the book, as they do not even know its title. On an interesting side-note, according to the internet and this forum, there was apparently an IJN officer named Katsura Rihei. Same person?
Kimata Jiro, Nihon Koukuu (sic--long accents replaced with double letters) Senshi. Not sure what to make of this one. A 1977 book whose name is 日本空母戦史, nihon kuubo senshi. I think it's hilarious that P&T do not even know how to say aircraft carrier in Japanese. Even more than the fact that they do not know the title of a book they supposedly read.

I'm going to stop here. The story basically is this: P&T have read mostly books for military hardware enthusiasts, supplemented by ancient 'classics' like Fuchida, Kusaka, and Ugaki, and the "Official, authoritative Japanese History" written by Japan itself, the Senshi Sousho. Of primary sources, P&T claim to have read what they call Japanese Microfilm Records (JD 1(a)). No indication where this came from, or who prepared them. Needless to say, I am not impressed by P&T's knowledge of cutting-edge Japanese historical scholarship.

[paulrward]

Hello Mr. Wellgunde ;

Mr. Wellgunde wrote, " Messrs. rob0274 and Ward: Do you discount the current Japanese scholarship which views Fuchida's book as being inaccurate? Have you read up on it?"

First, Mr. Wellgunde, I must make a humiliating confession: I neither speak nor read Japanese. (aside from puzzling out a few words in Kana painted on the sides of IJN warships) Sorry. I do read French, can puzzle out Spanish, and kinda sorta get the gist of some Russian.

Second, I will now embark on a vicious screed about historians.

There are essentially three types of historians: The first are Academic Historians, that is, historians who are employed as professors or instructors at colleges, universities, and secondary schools. These individuals in effect depend for their livlihood on how well their writings and opinions are received by their colleagues and superiors. Simply stated, if they do not 'get along and go along' they will not last for long. They will not have their contracts renewed, they will not get Tenure, they will not be promoted. In the US, the vast majority of academic historians, like the vast majority of academic faculty in general, are of an extremely liberal, (leftist ) persuasion. For these individuals, Industry and the Military are an anathema, representing greed, aggression, and incomes higher than most professors. Thus, when dealing with topics relating to military or economic history, these historians have a noticeable left-wing bias which is reflected in their writings, and in their opinions and reviews of other historians' writings.

The second type of historians are Popular, or Amateur Historians. These individuals are not affiliated with an academic institution as historians, and either suplement their 'day job' or make their entire living, by publishing historical articles in non-academic journals, or books for the general consumption. These individuals have a bias towards being published, as it is, in effect, their paycheck. Thus, they have to create works that are publishable. For the average editor, what he wants is more sales, and an article or book that presents a new, perhaps revolutionary viewpoint on a historical event will be more publishable than one which merely rehashes previous writings by earlier historians.

Finally there are Military Historians. These are a subset, for the most part, of the Popular or
Amateur Historians. These individuals are not ordinarily employed by universities, as very few university department heads would ever be willing to employ a historian who is NOT anti military. Thus, they, like the rest of the Popular or Amateur Historians, supplement or make their income by publishing for a non academic audience. And, like the other Popular and Amateur Historians, if they do not come up with something 'new' to publish, they will not be published. Regretably, what they publish may be new, but may not be true.



Now, Messrs. Parshall and Tully are Military Historians and have published a book that had many new things, in terms of both facts and conclusions. Some of the things that they wrote I agree with totally, and in fact, they answered some very vexing questions that had afflicted me for a number of years. Other things in SS I found that I disagreed with, and in some cases, they made statments of fact that I quickly proved to be incorrect ( note that I use the word incorrect, and not false ! )

In some cases, the incorrect statements of fact in SS seemed to lead to incorrect conclusions. And these incorrect conclusions are pyramided into even more incorrect conclusions. This is the only problem I have with SS. Messrs. Parshall and Tully did a LOT of VERY good work. They just seemed to make mistakes that have left me very dissatisfied with SS.



As for Japanese historians: I have read few japanese historians, and those only in English translations. What I would have liked in SS would have been a list of Japanese Historians who, collectively or individually, dispute the accounts given by so many Midway veterans, both Japanese and American, as well as the professional affiliations of these historians. It would also have been helpful if a list of the publications they had made in support of their theses were also made available.


And, as for Japanese historians. There is at present in Japan a controversy regarding the incident usually referred to as the ' Rape of Nanking '. There are japanese scholars on both sides of the controversy, depending on their political or social viewpoints, and both sides attempt to prove their points. Obviously, both sides cannot be correct. And, equally obviously, Japanese Historians are just as vulnerable to their own personal biases as are the Historians of other nations.

The question I would pose to the readers of this thread is, Do the Japanese Historians who are detractors of the accounts of so many of the veterans of Midway have a political, social, or economic agenda?


Respectfully ;

Paul R. Ward

[Wellgunde]

The question I would pose to the readers of this thread is, Do the Japanese Historians who are detractors of the accounts of so many of the veterans of Midway have a political, social, or economic agenda?

Every historian from Manetho to Thucydides to Suetonius to Gibbon has had one form of agenda or another. Looking at the Japanese perspective, from the end of the war until 1952 everything in Japan from books to movies to radio was censored by SCAP. SCAP was very particular about what could or could not be said about Japanese wartime history. Nothing could deviate from SCAP's accepted history. From the signing of the peace treaty until around 1965 the Japanese public and by extension Japanese scholars were unwilling to question some of the accepted assumptions about wartime events. Since then There has been a sort of renaissance with regard to scholarship of the Pacific War. Japanese historians today are now willing to cast a more critical eye towards some of the long accepted Pacific War shibboleths. I think that's a healthy thing. Since you admit you have no knowledge of any of these writers and do not read Japanese I think it is unfair to accuse them of being a part of some sort of cabal to discredit some veteran accounts. After all, American historians are still arguing about what Longstreet and Sickles had to say about the Battle of Gettysburg. I don't hear anyone accusing those writers of having an "agenda."

[Wellgunde]

My question is, after all, not what happened at Midway or whether Fuchida is right or wrong or lying, but whether SS is a product of a grossly flawed process. I have never claimed to have read deeply into Japanese historical literature; I have in fact affirmed the opposite. P&T, however, repeatedly claim to have read Japanese historical literature--in fact to have been the first to gain some special insight thanks to their deep immersion into it...

Okay, I'll accept that but why has this particular book so aroused your ire? Do you have some personal animus towards P&T? I have to ask because there are some who do. Have you shared your views in other venues? Are there other books that you detest?

P.S. What is "outdated" Romaji? As a Japanese speaker I would be interested to know.

[glenn239]

OK. How about this: Because the three A6Ms were out of ammo and low on fuel after wiping out two TBD squadrons. You either let them land, or toss them each an inflatable rubber sea horse....

I checked the records – two of the three Zeros had been aloft for 2 hours and if Akagi was closing the flight deck to landings to spot a strike at 1015, 1010 might be the last opportunity to land and refuel until maybe 1130. My brother moves Harvards (5,400lbs) around airfields routinely with three or four people. It’s not a big deal if you’re not pushing uphill. Planes on deck can be moved - fast. A recovery at 1010 and launch at 1006 might prove that 18 or 24 planes were not on deck, but it says nothing about small numbers.

Thus, the start of the great IJN Deckloading Olympic race begins, not at 10:15, but at 10:13. ( one minute after the final A6M touches down )

I figured 1015 because that the time Fuchida states the spot was underway and Akagi was coming out of a hard turn to port to settles onto course 300 degrees. (Interesting how the "liar's" account perfectly squares with the records, eh?)

Thus, in 12 minutes, from 10:13 to 10:25, you would have 6 B5Ns ( 6 cycles ) brought up on the Stern elevator, and 8 B5Ns ( 4 cycles ) brought up on the Midships elevator, for a total of 14 out of the plannned 18 B5Ns set for the carrier strike

Interesting.

and the B5Ns can be moved with their wings folded, making them quicker to handle on deck and easier to slide one aircraft between two others.

The folded wings on the B5N2 really allowed a spot to be thrown around the deck fast, IMO. A 5,400lbs Harvard can be moved by 4 men at over 3mph. An 8,000lbs Kate with ten men should be no harder to move, provided the ship isn't turning, (and it wasn't).

[glenn239]

My cub weights 808 pounds empty with a gross weight of 1,450 pounds. I seldom move it with the propeller spinning with any people around the plane at all.

Rob suggested moving airplanes earlier with the engines running. I have no idea why he mentioned this, as this would obviously not be done. In terms of starting engines and what not, yes, any deck team has to know what it's doing.

3.) You state that a loaded B5N2 weighs more than 4 tons. Even with a propeller to provide the power to move, it takes a BUNCH of people to more a 4 ton aeroplane when their job is to arrest any inappropriate movement, let alone actually move it.

Ten men, so about 800lbs per man. The Harvards are moved by teams of four men, or about 1,300lbs per man. Looks like the IJN put more men on their planes to move them fast.

7.) While the first plane can taxi where it wishes with little to worry about, the next one needs to be guided into place very carefully. And since the next plane to be moved must wait until the previous plane is fully stopped and chocked, its movement is, by necessity, delayed.

I checked the B5N2 with folded wings on the Akagi deck plan. The planes are less than half the width of the flight deck, meaning that they can be thrown forward fast two at a time, one to the left of the centre line and one to the right of the center line. The Akagi's deck forward of the crash barrier is so big that six or nine Kates easily fit without much fiddling.

9.) Walking speed is not any 3 miles an hour.

https://www.google.ca/#q=walking+speed

Although walking speeds can vary greatly depending on a multitude of factors such as height, weight, age, terrain, surface, load, culture, effort, and fitness, the average human walking speed is about 5.0 kilometres per hour (km/h), or about 3.1 miles per hour (mph).

10.) Do I know for sure how long it would take - nope. But I do know all the risks of moving aeroplanes - and so did they. Look at any video (they are out there) of a WWII US carrier with airplanes moving on deck. Speed is the ONE thing you never see - the second thing you don't see is multiple planes moving anywhere near each other - speed and proximity causes accidents - and accidents kill people and close flight decks.

IMO, four minutes is enough time to throw a deck park of 6 or 9 Kates forward of the crash barrier. I thought they would move at 100 feet separation, but actually it could even be two rows moving at 100 feet separation, one on the left side of the deck, one on the right side of the deck.