From: Beijing, China - Paris, France
ORIGINAL: Joe D.
For us, the "'fuss" is about historical accuracey,
We all have the same objective, namely to uncover the truth. I dont know why you would assume otherwise.
If the authors of Shattered Sword have investigated new documents that other historians ignored and can back up their interpretation with facts, fine.
Looking at new sources or taking a fresh look at existing sources is how history evolves. Glantz has done a lot of interesting work on the Eastern Front by mining overlooked German and Soviet sources. However, I have been studying military history long enough to know that it is dangerous to look to just one author or one book as the undisputable source on a subject. In history, as in everything else trends come and go.
Furthermore, even if we assume Patch and Tully's intrepretation is 100% correct, namely that Nagumo could not launch a strike against the US CVs before 11 a.m., it still does not change the basic fact that the US got lucky by having the Enterprise and Yorktown SBDs arrive on taget at the best possible time. If they had arrived 5-10 minutes earlier or later, the results might have been entirely different.
When it comes to accuracy, sure thing. When it comes to CAP interference or a possible counter-strike, I seriously doubt it. And like said afterwards, what happened this way is more an illustration of USN's ability to nearly waste a golden opportunity thanks to its bad air coordination (the Hornet planes didn't even make it to target for God sake!) than the illustration of the divine intervention of pure luck. Although arguably putting a single bomb on Akagi out of three planes was quite something ^^
So will you read the book now and come back discuss it later? Although I can mostly only agree with what you're saying, you definitely give the impression that you don't want to get proven wrong. We don't care about this, and there's no "being right" or "being wrong", so go read it and come afterwards, would you please Captain?