The Battle of Leyet Gulf - H.P. Willmott

En passant.  En passant.  En passant. 
The most memorable pat of this book is the author's inexplicable use of this phrase (which he never translates for the reader) over and over and over throughout the book - sometimes twice on a single page.  While it may be useful to note that something is said "in passing" it is sympomatic of the book's serious disregard for readability.  I reread the first sentence at least half a dozen times trying to figure out what the author meant - and the firts paragraph at least three times.  Paragraphs go on for nearly a page more often that not, and the author's comments, such as "no further comment is necessary" leave you completely lost as far as what he meant - did he agree with the statement or disagree with it?  Add to that that the author clearly intends the book to be not a dispassionate account of a very complex battle but a highly opinionated retelling, and you have a very difficult to decipher book.  (Another problem I had was with the repeated use of the phrase "the waters that washed..." The first time I read it in reference to a place I thought it was a great phrase - but the author used it at least six times - that's a vanity that no editor should have permitted).
Let me say that I don't object to the opinionated nature - I just can't always tell what his opinion is, due in part to the snarky way he writes.  I can tell generally what he thinks about Halsey (and especially MacArthur) and I agree, but at innumerable places he tosses off a sarcastic bon mot than I am just unsure I am correctly interpreting.
Halfway through the book, I realized what the problem really is.  The book is hard to understand when read - but it would be clear as a bell - and probably very entertaining - if read aloud by the author.  Most of the problems stated above would be solved if I could consider tone of voice.  Sarcasm is rare in historical writing, and hard to evaluate on the written page.
The above aside, the book obviously reflects a tremedous amount of research and provides a useful resource for basic data on the battle, and I like the way the author identifies the conventional view of something and then sets forth a little-known fact or theory about it - but it's never clear whether he's debunking a belief because it deserves to be debunked, or just out of pleasure at debunking something.  As subjective as the book's judgments are, it's just not a reliable source for these newly-stated beliefes, in my opinion, because the author doesn't demonstrate a thorough understanding of the status quo of historical scholarship before taking issue with it (Shattered Sword being the gold standard in this area).  I'm not questioning that he has it - I'm just saying that he didn't show it before he explains why it is wrong.
The appendices and footnotes are good, although in my opinion the maps ought to reflect the same level of detail as the text (what's the point of explaining something happened between A and B near the C creek when the maps don't show it) and ought to be somewhere useful - not all collected at the end.
Bottom line is that in my opinion the book needed a serious editing - at least a third of it needed to go, and the author needed to be forced to back up his opinions and write in a more readable fashion.  And ditch the repeated metaphors and en passants.