[Nicholas]

Er . . . . OK. I agree that factual losses (and linking actual losses to claims) for both sides is fundamental. But the starting point has to be available and accurate records. For the RAAF we have these - for the IJN/JAAF less so. Also let's not forget the implication of each force's practice in categorisation of damage/loss and eventual fate - an area where much may be concealed.

Grant's book is not a defence/promotion of Spitfire superiority, but an analysis (amongst other things) of why they were not more effective in air combat. This transcends the simplistic judgement of whether Zeros were better than Spitfires because it makes clear that the Spitfires were operated at a technical and tactical disadvantage on several counts. Hence the holistic element I stressed. The study is therefore still important to a full understanding of the situation, even without the accurate Japanese records. The discussion was not about generalisations on the limitations of 21st century books but about this specific book, which, not having even read, you appeared to dismiss by those generalisations!

The violin (not fiddle) analogy is merely about why one on one assessments of aircraft (technical) superiority are fruitless. Much will depend on the pilot and the tactical situation. That is all. A classic example of this is Schilling's AVG P-40 thrashing Brandt's RAF Buffalo, an incident much touted by the anti-Buffalo/British faction but about which 'Kitchie' Bargh's recent biography throws new and surprising light.