- REFERENCES
Topics:
What References to Believe
New Books
Model Art Thumbnail Reviews
Posted By: Dave Pluth <dave@j-aircraft.com>
Date: Sunday, 13 August 2000, at 4:06 p.m.
Hello all,
This question is mainly directed to the researchers in our midst, but also to the modelers out there that are doing research for projects. How do you determine what research that you trust? What I mean by this is I've been reading through some newly published publications and I find things that I'm relatively certain aren't correct. Now that is based on other information that I've collected or read. How do you determine what to believe and what to discard when researching a question?
-Dave
Posted By: Mike Gawell <rockavenger@hotmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, 22 August 2000, at 8:02 a.m.
All
Since my time is limited, I utilize a descending scale of reference, and cross-reference. Some of the things I consider are
1 Reputation of the publication, and the author.
2 Actual specimens (they do fade/weather with time.)
3 Available cross references with an equally good reputation
4 My own military experience, and field expedient sense
5 Best Guesses, and my own personal opinion.
The resources that are good are dependant. This site is very good for best up to date info on Japanese A.C., or pointing to a good reference that is trusted. There are other sites that promote myth and conjecture. Tread carefully out there!
Mike
Posted By: Ted Bradstreet <tbstreet@uninets.net>
Date: Friday, 18 August 2000, at 12:34 p.m.
I rank sources as follows:
1. Specimens
2. Photographs
3. Primary documents (documents from the time and place of the event). They may be wrong, even deliberately so, and must be compared and evaluated carefully, especially if they are translations. 3. Secondary documents (documents from after or away from the event)
A. Wartime Allied intelligence reports. This material is compiled from the sources above and often has serious errors and omissions. TAIC Manual No. 1 is an example.
B. "Serious histories." Compiled from all the above sources, these often contain major errors of technical interpretation and tend to gloss and generalize. Francillon is an example in English.
C. All others: these last are least reliable, often simply compilations from other secondary sources filled in with speculation. If they cite their sources, one may judge their quality -- if not... Even though they may present previously unpublished photos (their main value), the photos are often mislabeled. Unfortunately, these are the majority of available references. Even the worst source can lead to discovery, however, if one can confirm its leads by specimens, photos, or primary documents. In our area of interest, the most important primary documents are written in pre-war technical Japanese, something even many modern Japanese cannot read well. I therefore also depend on several generous Japanese correspondents for my access to Japanese documents.
Posted By: Dennis Klepper <Dennis.Klepper@FAA.GOV>
Date: Thursday, 17 August 2000, at 9:16 a.m.
Dave,
Research is like "Murphy's Law", it will go wrong & frequently does. I have an extensive library on Japanese aircraft and there are so many contradictions between authors & researchers that it's unbelievable. If you peruse the early titles & then compare them with more current work, you will find night & day right before your eyes. I believe that this work started out well intended, however, some conclusions were reached became self- serving to the researcher for the lack of conclusive data. Not knowing the habits of some researchers, I cannot conclude that their efforts were totally accurate. Paint schemes to me are a big joke since after 1944 & possibly earlier the Japanese threw away the book as evidenced by the existence of the many color variations that were obviously running rampant. When you are getting your arse kicked, expediency is the word of the day and with it goes maintenance practices, training, and paint work. Now, here we are 50 plus years later and what do we have for our research efforts, the "COLOR POLICE", whom for obvious reasons haven't got their head of some book written by some guy who says without reference that this is the way it was. Get Real!!!!
Don't get me wrong, I have conducted quite a bit of research myself and you know what, the vast majority of it is inconclusive because someone else was doing the same thing & discovered something I didn't. Who's right? We both are because of the hodge-podge calendar of events that took place in the war because of necessity and the lack of the right materials to adhere to the "standards". Personally, I press on with what "Floats my Boat". So when I build that grey-green "Zeke" with pink flowers on the rudder & a yellow anti-glare cowling (just joking) send in the "Color Police" ,but tell them to come armed with evidence instead of a book of opinions.
Posted By: Don Marsh <marsh44@fuse.net>
Date: Monday, 14 August 2000, at 11:59 p.m.
Hi Dave;
I agree with the gentlemen answering before me, that everything must be taken with a grain of salt. Most people are too eager to believe something is true just because it has appeared in print. A friend of mine in the ad biz calls this the "Gutenberg Principle"..."If it's written, it must be true!"
For the projects that I've been researching over the years (markings), I've come across so many errors that I determined early on to accept nothing as fact but a photo, all else is speculation... and I never work from another person's art work, no matter how good it is. Also, inferring color from b&w photos is always speculation. Of course, I have the luxury of working in a visual medium and I'm more interested in the actual designs than the colors.
Other areas, such as technical information (as opposed to visual), become more problematic. In this arena, I only accept research in the fashion of Mr. Lansdale's approach... independent original research, from scientifically verifiable historic relics or records. Too many books claiming to be factual merely quote each other and perpetuate myths and inaccuracies via a ring of logic with no link to original research. I suppose all one can do without the benefit of original research is compare the works of others and see what seems to make the most sense while realizing this is merely a best guess. Again, these sorts of resources are of limited veracity if they reference one another. So, after such prolixity, to answer your question: I only trust my own eyes, though they've been known to deceive as well. But at least I trust them more than I trust blind quotes of speculation based on other's speculation.
Happy researching to all.
-Don
Posted By: Bill Turner <wturner@rclco.com>
Date: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 10:06 a.m.
Hi Don,
I've learned a good lesson about the fruits of independent research. I'm doing an AM TBF Avenger, with a conversion to the early TBF-1 model. All the printed data (including that from Grumman) was "definite" that the rear cockpit of the TBF-1 was fitted with a seat (all later models had the rear seat replaced by radio gear). Well, several veterans I've talked to who flew the TBF-1 at Guadalcanal specifically state that their aircraft had the rear seat removed before the squadron received them (the seat position was filled with radio and electronic gear). This just drives home the point that what you read "ain't necessarily so."
Posted By: Bill Turner <wturner@rclco.com>
Date: Monday, 14 August 2000, at 12:21 a.m.
I tend to rely on a photo(s) of specific aircraft as the only really "accurate" source of markings. I find the best photo(s) of a particular aircraft, and that's the one I model with respect to markings. It's not totally reliable, of course, since you usually have photo(s) of only one side of the aircraft.
Posted By: Bill Leyh <hawk81@pacbell.net>
Date: Sunday, 13 August 2000, at 10:19 p.m.
Hi Dave,
Short answer - None.
I've become an obsessive-compulsive cross-referencer. I've found so many errors in so many publications that I take them all with a HUGE grain of salt. I'm with Mr. James on this one - I look for the author's references. If it's not based on direct artifact examination, personal daily diaries, unit logs, etc. it goes in the 'maybe' category. Official histories I use only for the pictures! Many of the newer 'popular' publications, while done with good intent, are very shaky - both from a factual standpoint and, here's the biggy, editing errors. I find that if you treat the source like a White House press conference you'll be safer in the long run.
Regards,
Bill
Posted By: Jim Broshot <jbroshot@socket.net>
Date: Monday, 14 August 2000, at 12:15 a.m.
Well said.
Ever try to compare the "source" for the aircraft strength numbers for IJNAF as of 7 Dec 1941? Or during the Mariana’s campaign as of June 1944?
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <LRAJIM@aol.com>
Date: Sunday, 13 August 2000, at 6:41 p.m.
Hi Dave
I just wrote to this point on the Navy Message Board. Follow the link below. I personally play the role of a juror and question all statements and look for factual evidence and/or citations. I greatly admire anyone who clearly cites his sources and makes it clear when they are expressing opinions. To paraphrase DESCARTES, "I never accept anything as true unless I know it beyond all doubt."
Jim Lansdale
Fact Or Conjecture
Posted By: Mark Smith <smithA6M2@aol.com>
Date: Sunday, 13 August 2000, at 6:06 p.m.
Hi Dave -
I have a hard and fast rule: if it's not the answer I'm hoping for from the standpoint of aesthetics or personal taste, then it's probably dubious. So far I'm a happy man!
Mark Smith
Posted By: Elephtheriou George <arawasi_g@hotmail.com>
Date: Saturday, 21 July 2001, at 8:49 p.m.
Konnichi wa minasama,
just thought to let you know that yesterday I found at Jimbocho the following set of two books:
"Zanzo" (afterimage) vol.1 & 2. Fuga Shobo pbs.
Each volume has more than 200 pages of photographs of wrecks (tanks, planes, ships, fortifications...)at Pacific islands.
Domo,
George
Posted By: Elephtheriou George <arawasi_g@hotmail.com>
Date: Sunday, 29 July 2001, at 9:28 p.m.
Title: "Shasinshu 20seiki no hiroku. Beigun ga toraeta Nihon RikuKaigunki" (Photo album of 20th Century's private papers. Japanese army/navy airplanes captured by U.S. forces.)
Author: Shibata Takehiko / Hara Katsuhiro
Pbs: KK best sellers
Price: 2.940 Yen
The book was wrapped in plastic so I couldn't take a look at it's contents. If I have a chance, I will and let you know.
Domo,
George
Posted By: Elephtheriou George <arawasi_g@hotmail.com>
Date: Sunday, 5 August 2001, at 12:36 p.m.
Konnichi wa minasama,
Please excuse me if this is old news but I just found out today about the next Model Art title.
Title: "Nihon RikuKaigun Yakan Sentoki" (Japanese Army/Navy night fighters), No.595, pages: 184 (colored: 48, illustrations: 6), price: about 2.400 Yen
To be available from mid-September.
Domo,
George
Posted By: Mike Driskill
Date: Sunday, 26 August 2001, at 12:24 p.m.
I recently sprung for four Model Art titles from HobbyLink Japan. Here--for what little they're worth--are my impressions of them:
Pearl Harbor Special, no. 573
Basically a reprint of their earlier, now out-of-print edition. Has the same color scheme profiles for the planes in the attack--really outstanding work and worth the price. Some profiles of prewar aircraft in the previous edition have been replaced by color photos of the real Zeros in the recent movie--yawn. Has a very lengthy Japanese text section. Lots of diagrams of ship movements, decent drawings of the 4 carriers, good 3-views of Zero, Val, Kate. There is a long section of Japanese-made photos of the attack, some of which are quite remarkable. If you have the earlier one forget it, otherwise quite good.
Army Bomber Camo & Markings, no. 533
Completes their series--there are now four similar volumes on fighters and bombers, Army and Navy, in the MA catalog. Minimal color, with color chips (printed, not real paint) and 3-views of major aircraft types at the front of the book. Most of the book is mini-monographs of individual types, covering each with a decent 3-view drawing, b&w profiles and details of major color schemes, backed up by a lot of photos--many of which I've never seen in print before. This is quite well done and includes many prewar types, like the 2MB1, KDA-2, Ki-2, Ki-3, Fiat BR-20, G.38, Ann, and Mary. The major WW2 types (Sally, Helen, Peggy, Lily, Sonia) are similarly covered but with a lot more material, of course. This section ends with a lot of obscure types like Ki-57, Ki-74, Ki-115, Ki-34, Ki-54, Ki-56, and Ki-59. A shame I can't read the color discussions, but nevertheless a must-have book for bomber fans. I especially appreciate the good drawings, which are by far the best I've seen for some of the lesser types.
Navy Fighters Camouflage and Markings, no. 510
Another rework of a previous title, but extensively revised. The format is very similar to the Army Bomber book, though lacking the 3-view drawings of each aircraft type. Seems to reflect the latest findings on colors that have been extensively discussed at J-aircraft, etc. A nice detail is nice color photos of actual aircraft remains to go with the overall color scheme layouts. Many prewar types covered very well--1MF, A1N, A2N, A4N, Claude. A simply huge number of Zero schemes are covered, including trainer variants and Rufes, which makes up the bulk of the book. Curiously, coverage of late-war types like George, Jack, Rex, Shinden, prototypes, night fighters, etc., is inferior to the previous book from the 80's, with no real new info. No matter, still a definite must-have for the fighter fan. Our own Mr. Lansdale is extensively credited in this volume and I hope he can elaborate on some of the goodies within it.
Japanese Navy Floatplanes, no. 565
Wow! This is truly an incredible book. Again an intro color section showing basic paint schemes for the major types, followed by a long text section that includes photos and good 3-views of too many obscure types to mention; again, in many cases these are the best drawings yet published. The bulk of the book is a series of mini-monographs covering Alf, Pete, Jake, Glen, Seiran, and incredibly, the Aichi E10A biplane flying boat (pre-war, and even lesser-know, predecessor to the E11A Laura recently kitted by Fujimi). These are in a sort of abbreviated Maru Mechanic format, with tons of detail and interior drawings and photos; the E10A section is probably the best and nearly worth the cost of the book by itself. The end of the book is a modeler's section, with excellent photos of nice models of the Jake, Glen, Pete, Seiran, Alf, Laura, and Norm. Last but not least are two huge foldout pages with excellent 1/48 drawings of Glen, Seiran, Pete, and Jake--these are new Nohara opuses and not just copies of Maru Mechanic stuff, by the way. Really a fantastic book that will continue to occupy my bedstand for some time to come.
Return
to General Message Board