Justin Pyke
@justinpykehistory
MA in History. Studies intelligence, sea power, air power, and the Asia-Pacific War. Researching U.S. intelligence assessments of Japanese air and sea power, 1919-1941. Andor appreciator, PC gamer, mediocre miniature painter, and musician.
It's a shame this photograph was butchered by a 1980s photocopier. Still, it's interesting to see the Osaka Arsenal. I was so sick when I visited Osaka that my memories of it are about as uplifting as this photograph. I need to go back properly one day.
He brings up the Ki-36 and Ki-51. I'm close to giving up at this point. Is this malice or stupidity? He mocks the Ki-36 for its very light bombload. To translate this into aircraft people are more familiar with - this is mocking the Lysander for not being a Ju-87. Apples and oranges. See alt text.
Oh, you thought I was going to speed up? I was too. Then I hit the part where Harvey puts in another howler. Apparently the IJAAF never moved passed the tight three-plane vic, even in 1939. Um. The shotai had been reformed away from that formation from 1937 at the latest. This is completely wrong.
Harvey argues the A6M2 and Ki-43 "diverted attention" from the rest of Japanese aviation, which "with one exception were quite mediocre." This is laughably ignorant. There were mediocre types, but c'mon. I don't have the character/photo limit to list the types that blow up Harvey's claim.
"Weaker structure" is literal wartime propaganda blended with a kernel of truth. He quotes a ramming example. It's true that Allied aircraft occasionally collided with Japanese aircraft and survived. They also collided and didn't survive. Literal survivorship bias. Look upon the invincible A5M:
Let me just take a sip of water here while I look at literally the first ever combats between F4Fs and A6M2s at the Battle of the Cora... *SPITS*. I'm not going to mince words here - this is exceptionally basic stuff for somebody purporting to be an "expert" on air combat. It's embarrassing.
Harvey incorrectly states a Zero was captured by the Chinese in February 1941, repaired, and even flown to Rangoon where it "presumably examined by RAF personnel." This is fiction. The secondary source he relies upon mixes three unrelated events together. A 14 Ku A6M2 was lost over Kunming on...
superficially engaging with pre-war assessments. He carefully selects ones that skew more accurate while avoiding the bigger picture. I'll save this for my book, but the body of evidence doesn't support what Harvey is arguing here. The I-16 was a capable fighter, but comparable to the Ki-27 and A5M.
The article opens fine enough - pointing out the distinction between Japanese Army and Navy aviation and the frequent conflation of the Ki-43 (IJA) and A6M2 (IJN). There's a factual error stating only the Ki-15/C5M was shared by both services. There were others, including the Ki-67.
This thread is long overdue. There's an article in my field, one of the only published in a peer-reviewed journal in fact, that is so astonishingly bad and commonly cited that I need to warn people about it. I don't blame unassuming scholars for citing it. Expertise on Japanese aviation is rare.
Here's a teaser of the upcoming video via @milavhis.bsky.social reactions to parts of the script that brush up against the topic of Chinese warlords.
I'm getting into the post-treaty years of interwar naval construction now as I work through the NYT.
It has a spicier tone in parts than I'd personally prefer, but it makes for an interesting read.
I have another aircraft ID question. Are these Potez 25 A2s with Lorraine 12 Ed engines? They certainly look like it to me and I couldn't find anything Japanese that they resemble while going through my reference material.
Halo 2's development hell is notorious. Massive chunks of the game and story were cut. The level design and gameplay suffered from the crunch and Xbox tech limitations. Just don't change any of that existing story. Almost every line of dialogue in Halo 2 is GOAT'd. Only add to it.
(I did this in like two seconds in paint, I could do so much worse if I put effort in.)
Is this what you're thinking of? I can't recall much discussion on amphibious operations, though it could be handy for general reference as there were lots of different types of NLF. I haven't spoken to Austin in years, but last I heard he was working on something for the Shanghai SNLF specifically.
“The Development of Japanese Amphibious Warfare, 1874 to 1942,” in Till, Farrell, Grove, _Amphibious Operations_ is another. Check the alt text for the two below. The Shanghai campaigns are significant (1932 & 1937), but what's written in English is mostly Chinese PoV. Limited Japanese detail.
On a more serious note, this kind of attitude is part of what inhibited comprehension of Japanese air power capability prior to Dec 1941 despite being able to watch them operate in China for years.