Australian Spitfires

[rldunn]

As previously noted, the kodochoshos ("action reports" as mentioned in the quote above) have been summarized in English. Material is currently available to tell the story of the Zero versus Spitfire and other aspects of air action over Australia. Unfortunately as shown in this thread of comments, there seem to be folks who will question whatever information challenges their preconceived notions.

Information from downed aircraft, radio intercepts, POWs and other sources which are not necessarily available at NIDS (or to Japanese researchers generally) also provide valuable information on Japanese operations. No one source provides all the answers. Western writers/historians have generally failed to exploit wartime intelligence sources such as those just mentioned much less overlooking original sources from Japan. While this might have been acceptable a few decades ago, recent recantations of inaccurate information (even if providing interesting detail from the Allied side) can only be considered shoddy history and over-priced book selling. On the other hand, if the reader enjoys the book and thinks he has paid a fair price, good for him.

RLD

[Jim Oxley]

Hi Rick,

I have been looking through the list of Japanese Monographs here:
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/monos/guide.html#II-1
till I'm going blind. And I still can't see which one of the 185 deal with air operations over Northern Australia.

Could you please put me out of my misery and say which one it is? Then I can get it through either the AWM or the AJRP. Cheers.

[Nicholas]

Originally Posted by rldunn

Unfortunately as shown in this thread of comments, there seem to be folks who will question whatever information challenges their preconceived notions.

While this might have been acceptable a few decades ago, recent recantations of inaccurate information (even if providing interesting detail from the Allied side) can only be considered shoddy history and over-priced book selling. On the other hand, if the reader enjoys the book and thinks he has paid a fair price, good for him.

RLD

Oh, come on Rick. Call a spade a spade! What are the "recent recantations of inaccurate information"?

The tone of superiority so typical of some American researchers and writers is not worthy of you! Any disagreement, it appears, must be "put down" with a patronising sneer. Poor children, they know not what. Please don't you go down this route too - please respect the other guys view even if you don't agree with it. You won't change his mind with the intellectual equivalent of a battering ram.

"As is the case with any such records, however, it is probably preferable to check the results of the aerial combat or bombing reported therein with Australia records for greater accuracy."

Oh yea! What makes the Japanese records so accurate and the Australian records so inaccurate? A "preconceived notion" maybe?

[Six Nifty .50s]

Originally Posted by Nicholas

Oh, come on Rick. Call a spade a spade! What are the "recent recantations of inaccurate information"? The tone of superiority so typical of some American researchers and writers is not worthy of you!

British researchers of official RAF book-keeping indicates that many aircraft losses were not recorded properly, or not reported at all. Hundreds of previously uncounted RAF losses were found by cross-checking official records for discrepancies and turning to other sources like pilot log books, army or police reports, postwar interviews, and crash sites examined by aviation archeaologists.

Often the information in various official files does not match. Sometimes an airplane was written off or stricken off charge long after it was destroyed or seriously damaged, making it difficult to determine the cause. Perhaps the Australians can claim more accurate accounting than the British or Japanese air forces, but you'll have to prove it.

[Nicholas]

Originally Posted by Six Nifty .50s

British researchers of official RAF book-keeping indicates that many aircraft losses were not recorded properly, or not reported at all. Hundreds of previously uncounted RAF losses were found by cross-checking official records for discrepancies and turning to other sources like pilot log books, army or police reports, postwar interviews, and crash sites examined by aviation archeaologists.

Often the information in various official files does not match. Sometimes an airplane was written off or stricken off charge long after it was destroyed or seriously damaged, making it difficult to determine the cause. Perhaps the Australians can claim more accurate accounting than the British or Japanese air forces, but you'll have to prove it.

Wel, I don't have to prove anything. In fact the points you articulate above reinforce exactly why I'm sceptical about the admitted Japanese losses!

Eight twee .303s

[rldunn]

I think we have beaten this one to death. Some will never accept data that does not accord with their opinions.

"Recantations": such as Graham Boak's in this very thread (and on many other occasions) and more than one internet article and book.

"Monograph": not the post-WW2 "Japanese Monograph series" but Capt. Kawano's monograph as mentioned in a post earlier in this thread. Jim, if you missed the cite to Kawano's monograph you have missed a good (though not perfect) summary of available Japanese data.

Apparently some of us are so hasty to post a questioning or opposing reply (possibly me, too), we fail to absorb the other guy's point. Whether this comment is accurate or otherwise, I think I'll sign off for now. I remain bemused at how emotional (as in contrary to fact and reason) this issue remains.

Good wishes guys.

[Frank Olynyk]

RLDunn,

Could you supply details of the monograph by Capt. Kawano? Where and when was it published? Any suggestions on how to obtain a copy? Is it in English or Japanese? Is it part of a series, and if so, how can one learn details of the other monographs?

Can you also give details on obtaining the English language summaries of the kodochoshos that you mentioned?

Frank.

[Jim Oxley]

Frank,
The Monograph that Rick refers to is, believe a stand alone effort. Captain Teruaki Kawano (Retired MSDF) prepared the Monograph on August 29, 1997 whilst he was with the Military History Section National Institute for Defense Studies, 2-2-1 Nakameguro, Meguro-ku, Tokyo Japan.

As I understand it it is a English summary of the kôdô chôsho (action reports) of the Air Groups involved in the '43 raids. The actual kôdô chôsho themselves are only available in Japanese. Until I see them I cannot say one way or the other how accurate they are, but 15 pages does seem rather brief.

However here in Oz there is a historical research group that goes by the name of 'Australia Japanese Research Project'. It is officially funded through the Australian War Memorial and includes many notable Australian and Japanese historians. They have a number of articles available to the general viewer, many absolutely fascinating. Their site is here:
http://ajrp.awm.gov.au/ajrp/ajrp2.ns...e?OpenDocument

I have written to them asking if they have the above monograph and if it is possible to obtain a copy. I will post here when/if I obtain any more information.

[Frank Olynyk]

Jim,
Thanks for the information on the monograph. I hope you can get more details, and find out how to obtain a copy.

Nicholas,
Thanks for the information on the Bargh book. I am trying to obtain copies; Aviation Bookshop does not list it.

Frank.

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by rldunn

Western writers/historians have generally failed to exploit wartime intelligence sources such as those just mentioned much less overlooking original sources from Japan. RLD

This Western writer, at least, has based what could laughingly be termed his "career" on wartime intelligence and radio interception sources. The Luftwaffe is my area but I have noticed recently that there is a mass of Japanese material in the Government Code & CIpher School's files in the British National Archives. Go to their website www.nationalarchives.gov.uk and browse through the various HW file series.

I haven't gone into this material, but there seems to be a great deal of it.