Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nicholas
JoeB
With respect I think you need to read the book before drawing conclusions about it. In fact I did not claim it as "definitive". I stated that it is a very balanced Australian perspective and I recommended it to Graham.
|
Also with respect I repeat, that in the 21st century, books that attempt to cover any period of WWII air combat history without accounting the actual losses of the other side, as well as the actual enemy units, their organization, strategy, tactics, operational conditions and handicaps etc., are severly limited. I didn't say not to read them, but several posts implied, "here's the real story". Without the J information, that's simply impossible.
Also let's start realistically with where Western perception of the Pacific Air War has generally been most flawed (and this includes Allied efforts in many cases, not solely the Spitfires defending Darwin by any means). The severe defiict has generally been on the side of Japanese information, the common problem is definitely not "oversimplifying" based on too heavy reliance on Japanese info.
On the guy who plays the fiddle, it's fine, but first get the total real story of what happened. Again much conventional wisdom about the Pac war IMO proceeds to the fiddle v player part without the right foundation of total facts. To go off topic a bit with your quote by Kozhedub, it could be applied to the air units he flew with or his own claims in GPW. What's was the claim accuracy ratio there? I don't know. I've closely studied Soviet claim accuracy in the Korean War (which included Kozhedub as a senior leader though not combat pilot) and found it to be quite low. "Balanced" accounts from their side bear relatively little resemblance to what actually happened, does it mean don't read them? no but it's important to realize. Others may not accept my statement about that war, again a debate for somewhere else if they don't, but the point is if those facts can't be found and agreed to begin with, the 'guy who plays' v 'fiddle' part tends toward angels dancing on the head of a pin, IMHO.
I doubt plane and other factors can ever be fully separated, but stuff like the losses on each side really happened, likewise the units on each side (when were Type 100's used, etc), likewise why per their accounts and logically based on their *real* losses did the Japanese use day and night tactics v. N Aus in 1942-43?: pretty obviously, availability of fighters for escorted raids v. other needs at different times, not losses in escorted daylight raids. The Allied fighter force at Darwin in '43 (and '42 to a lesser degree, though the real J fighter losses were a bit higher in that case) was enough to prevent *unescorted* daylight raids, and present a risk to recon planes no doubt, but whether it accomplished greatly more is open to debate.
Joe