# Hellcat Vs The Zero



## Hellcatgirl5785 (Jan 23, 2007)

Which aircraft did you prefer personally as you can probably tell by my user name I perfered the Grumen F6F Hellcat which was an update of the F4F Wildcat and killed the most Zero's of the war


----------



## twoeagles (Jan 23, 2007)

Leroy Grumman would probably forgive your misspelling his name, Hellcatgirl.
As for aircraft choice, in a real fight it's the big 'Cat. But if I could own 
either one today, it would be an _original_ A6M2 with Sakae engine - so
very rare. My Dad, an old F6F pilot in WW2 would understand. He always
wanted to fly a Zero himself.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 23, 2007)

unless the F6F pilot's stupid enough to get into a slow turning fight it has to be the F6F...........


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 23, 2007)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> unless the F6F pilot's stupid enough to get into a slow turning fight it has to be the F6F...........



Agreed.


----------



## timshatz (Jan 23, 2007)

Heard flying the Wildcat was like driving a sports car while flying the Hellcat was like driving a station wagon. Comfortable, predictable. Works for me.


----------



## Thorlifter (Jan 23, 2007)

twoeagles said:


> But if I could own either one today, it would be an _original_ A6M2 with Sakae engine - so very rare.



Ditto


----------



## timshatz (Jan 23, 2007)

Zero isn't made for pilots of any height. At least that is what I've read. Figure if you are in the range of 5'5", you'll be ok. But 5'9"+ and it'll get tight fast. Small cockpit.


----------



## twoeagles (Jan 24, 2007)

Yes - that has been a problem for me - I was probably as big as one could be 
and still fly the A-4. I am 6-1 and 220 pounds, so I would have to fly
the A6M with the canopy open!!! Oh Lord you know I would love to.


----------



## timshatz (Jan 24, 2007)

twoeagles said:


> Yes - that has been a problem for me - I was probably as big as one could be
> and still fly the A-4. I am 6-1 and 220 pounds, so I would have to fly
> the A6M with the canopy open!!! Oh Lord you know I would love to.



You and I are the same size. Them thar little birds aren't made for us. We'd look like Shaq in a Toyota. Head sticking out the sunroof!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 26, 2007)

that being said the Japaneese were/are far smaller than westerners so to them 5"8's quite large.......


----------



## GregP (Feb 7, 2007)

About the Zero cockpit being too small, all you have to do is modify it with a lower, adjustable seat. The Planes of Fame Museum HAS one (with the original Sakae engine), and it is flyable by tall pilots because it was refit for taller pilots.

The Hellcat is, by far, the best fighter ever used against the A6M series and it decimated the Zero. Still, if an experienced piolot were in the cockpit of the Zero, it was dangerous to ANY opponent right up to the war's end.

By the end of 1943, Japan had lost a LOT of senior pilots and the Zeros were being flown by green trainees. If the U.S.A. had experienced the same thing, WE would have experienced a LOT of missing F6F's.

I'd say the war went our way, but NOT overly due the Zero being a poor fighter. It was more that Japan bit off more than it could keep against a LARGE, PISSED-OFF war machine. People tend to get angry when suddenly attacked without warning or provocation. THAT went a LONG way toward explaining away what happened in the Pacific Theater.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 8, 2007)

The Hellcat didnt start scoring big time untill middle 1944 when the carrier task forces began roaming the Pacific at will.

While the Hellcat had tremendous success through out the time it was introduced into combat untill the that time, there really were no big time battles it flew in, and even then, they were few between.

Throughout 1943, the majority of the Japanese naval pilots that were shot down, were thrown away in the SW Pacific (New Guinie and Solomons) to Corsair's, P40's and P38's.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## renrich (Feb 9, 2007)

The first action Hellcats were involved with was on Aug. 28, 1943. VF 43 escorted bombers from Guadalcanal. The Hellcats are later based at Munda and in 3 weeks claim 21 Zeros shot down for the loss of 4 F6F-3s. Hellcats are credited with 5156 enemy airplanes downed in the Pacific. The British Hellcats in the Pacific add a further 47 aircraft destroyed. Hellcats in Europe claim 13 enemy AC. The total is 5216 in two years. Appox. 270 Hellcats are lost ACM. Ratio is 19:1.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 9, 2007)

renrich said:


> The first action Hellcats were involved with was on Aug. 28, 1943. VF 43 escorted bombers from Guadalcanal. The Hellcats are later based at Munda and in 3 weeks claim 21 Zeros shot down for the loss of 4 F6F-3s. Hellcats are credited with 5156 enemy airplanes downed in the Pacific. The British Hellcats in the Pacific add a further 47 aircraft destroyed. Hellcats in Europe claim 13 enemy AC. The total is 5216 in two years. Appox. 270 Hellcats are lost ACM. Ratio is 19:1.



And between May 1942 and Aug 1943, it was USN pilots in Wildcats and later Corsairs that shot down the cream of the IJN fighter corps. And that doesnt include the USAAF P38's and P40's doing their part at Guadalcanal and New Guinie.


----------



## renrich (Feb 10, 2007)

Of course, you are right on. What you just pointed out is the reason I would place Joe Foss up near the top in ww2 fighter pilots. All of his kills were in the F4F-4 and they were while many of the top IJN pilots were still around. In addition the living conditions and maintenance of aircraft on Guadalcanal left a lot to be desired. He was a great pilot and marksman and he knew how to get the most out of the aircraft he flew.


----------



## rousseau (Feb 13, 2007)

I am sure one point that Mitsubishi A6M must be suprior than Hellcat, is the range longer aproxi to 300km. I still don't know why Zero take such long range than most of US fighter aeroplane.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 13, 2007)

rousseau said:


> I am sure one point that Mitsubishi A6M must be suprior than Hellcat, is the range longer aproxi to 300km. I still don't know why Zero take such long range than most of US fighter aeroplane.



The Zero had a 300 mile advantage in range. It was built lighter. In the end it's advantage in range didn't matter...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## evangilder (Feb 13, 2007)

I'll take survivability over range any day.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 13, 2007)

And the Zero's poor handling charachteristics above 300 mph hampered the pilot.

Not to mention two 7mm MG's and two underpowered cannons wasnt going to hurt the Hellcat that much unless the Zero was up real close.


----------



## rousseau (Feb 13, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The Zero had a 300 mile advantage in range. It was built lighter. In the end it's advantage in range didn't matter...


The 300 miles is combat radius I am afraid but still is small deviation. I checked some detail, most of them denoted Mitsubishi Zero has almost over 2000km range.


----------



## Aggie08 (Feb 14, 2007)

I'm a sucker for anything with 2,000 hp. Hellcat definitely.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 14, 2007)

rousseau said:


> The 300 miles is combat radius I am afraid but still is small deviation. I checked some detail, most of them denoted Mitsubishi Zero has almost over 2000km range.


Yes and your point? When the 2 met it was the Zero that usually met it's fate to the ratio of 19 to 1.


----------



## Wespe (Feb 17, 2007)

rousseau said:


> The 300 miles is combat radius I am afraid but still is small deviation. I checked some detail, most of them denoted Mitsubishi Zero has almost over 2000km range.



Hi rousseau

come on what are you trying to proof ? Range ?
Yes the Americans where taken by surprise when the Jap's attacked Manila, because they had underestimated the range of the Zero's.
But besides that you are comparing a 1939 under gunned build design (nice design) with a (ugly) ultimate high power killer plane designed and build in 1943 onward. Try the Nakajima Ki-84.

Wespe


----------



## Soren (Feb 17, 2007)

The F6F wins this one, the Zero is simply too slow. 

Still the Zero is very agile up until 275 mph, so unless you're going faster you have to be mindful of the Zero's maneuverability, it'll eat you alive if you start playing on its terf ! 

Wespe,

Regarding the F6F vs Ki-84 scenario - The Hayate takes the price easily. A more equal match to the Hayate would be the F4U-4 Corsair, now that would be an interesting fight to watch !


----------



## Soren (Feb 17, 2007)

The paintwork on Japanese airplanes wasn't always too good, but the Zero still has some killer lines !


----------



## JoeB (Feb 17, 2007)

Soren said:


> Regarding the F6F vs Ki-84 scenario - The Hayate takes the price easily. A more equal match to the Hayate would be the F4U-4 Corsair, now that would be an interesting fight to watch !


Per USN stats F6F's claimed 114 Ki-84's for 12 losses. Besides being just claims there was frequent mis-id of J planes, some of those losses for example can be seen to have been in combats with N1K1J Georges (see below). But it wasn't easy for the Ki-84's. Of course we'll say "pilots" but the problem always is we can't quantify the effect of pilots. In theory paper statistics would determine the capability of "plane minus pilot" but their predictive power is doubtful IMO even if they are completely accurate. There were many intangibles of "plane" beyond just a few stats like speed and wing loading.

And accuracy of stats: Ki-84 and F6F-5 is a good example. There is no certainty about the real speed of the Ki-84, even in theoretical conditions, let alone real production Ki-84's in combat. The "postwar trials" showing it doing 420 some mph seems from original documents to have been a calculation done by US intel, not a trial result. It was published before any Ki-84's were tested. The only true original stat is the official 388mph which is probably too low (for a machine in perfect condition). Most Japanese quoted speeds are conservative.

And even the F6F-5's top speed is reported differently among more or less original sources. The late war evaluation of captured J types v F6F-5 and F4U-1D (it's real contemporary, -4's only saw combat in the last weeks of WWII) showed, for those two production examples, the Hellcat was only slightly slower at most altitudes, less than 10mph, and that particular Hellcat topped out over 400mph.

If you decide one set of stats you believe, you can have do comparisons and simulations and say which fighter is "best" independent of pilot and all other realworld variables. I just doubt that whole process is closely related to reality in general.

re; flyboyj : "Yes and your point? When the 2 met it was the Zero that usually met it's fate to the ratio of 19 to 1."

Not to sound like a broken record but 19:1 is a claim not a real result. And, it includes all F6F opponents, fighter and non. In 1944-45 F6F's claimed almost 16:1 just against fighter types, but many of those were kamikazes.

Combining both responses, the Japanese Navy 343rd Air Group, flying the N1K1J George, a roughly comparable plane to the Ki-84, went about 1:3 v. US fighters in 1945 in real results (it met F6F's, F4U's, P-47's and P-51's).

Joe


----------



## Jank (Feb 17, 2007)

"_Combining both responses, the Japanese Navy 343rd Air Group, flying the N1K1J George, a roughly comparable plane to the Ki-84, went about 1:3 v. US fighters in 1945 in real results (it met F6F's, F4U's, P-47's and P-51's)._"

By June 1, 1945, the 318th, with its P-47N's, had racked up a 79 to 1 kill ratio. Certainly they weren't all George's, but you get the point.

~318thFighterGroup.IeShima.html


----------



## Soren (Feb 17, 2007)

The Ki-84 was esp. deadly at low to medium alt, at higher altitudes fighters such as the P-47N did have the advantage. Some sources state top speed at SL for the Ki-84 as 620 km/h with the 2,000 HP engine, now thats fast !

And regarding the top speed of the Ki-84, well a USAAF test flight with the Ki-84 running on the cleaner higher octane US fuel resulted in the Hayate out-performing the P-51 easily.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 17, 2007)

JoeB said:


> re; flyboyj : "Yes and your point? When the 2 met it was the Zero that usually met it's fate to the ratio of 19 to 1."
> 
> Not to sound like a broken record but 19:1 is a claim not a real result. And, it includes all F6F opponents, fighter and non. In 1944-45 F6F's claimed almost 16:1 just against fighter types, but many of those were kamikazes.
> 
> ...



JoeB I was making a point. You could try to pick apart allied claims vs actual results all you want, the bottom line is by the summer of 1945 9 times out of 10 if ANY JAAF or IJN fighter was encountered by marauding USN or USAAF aircraft, the Japanese aircraft was going down in flames, either because it was overwhelmed by numbers or the guy flying it barely had 100 hours as a pilot.


----------



## JoeB (Feb 17, 2007)

Jank said:


> By June 1, 1945, the 318th, with its P-47N's, had racked up a 79 to 1 kill ratio. Certainly they weren't all George's, but you get the point.


Again the point is we can't say the number of real kills was actually 79, or what it was. It's just a bad historical habit to take claims at face value. In that case it's obvious the P-47N's were successful, any likely discounting of the claim number is still a lot more than 1 loss. 

But, as a general rule people often do say 'this plane claimed X:1 and this one 2X:1, it did twice as well' when in reality the claims might have been overstated only 50% in the first case, and 300% in the second case. 

Even the same plane looked at from two sides. My personal favorite, that's inspired me to research it, is MiG-15 v F-86 in Korea; 10:1 according to the US side, 3:1 according to the Soviets, *in the opposite direction*. If you take the approach, "oh well you can poke holes in anything but...let's just ignore that and use the claims" you get opposite results. One of those numbers has to be wrong, and of course in reality both are.

The other potential problem is unit bias, some of the other P-47N groups had some rough spots over Japan in '45. The classic in this regard is constantly quoting the claims of the USAAF 325th FG P-40's in Med; when they claimed 3+:1 v enemy fighters, but that was much better success than other US Med P-40 groups, and the 325's claims were generously exaggerated besides. It often leads to outright wrong statements about how the P-40 really did. My example is just one unit, 343rd AG, but it's the only one in the period where I know offhand the *actual results*, per Sakaida's excellent "Genda's Blade".

Last time you posted that link I gave a two sided account of one the 318th FG's combats over Japan in May which *was* with the 343rd Air Group, and the latter lost several Georges failing to down any P-47's. It's not possible to judge overclaims in that case because the 318th's claims were much more than the 343rd's losses but other Japanese units were probably involved too.

So not to nitpick you on 318th FG success, or general success of US fighters against over Japan in 1945, but claims alone are a very unreliable way to quantitatively measure combat success.

Joe


----------



## Jank (Feb 17, 2007)

JoeB said, "_But, as a general rule people often do say 'this plane claimed X:1 and this one 2X:1, it did twice as well' when in reality the claims might have been overstated only 50% in the first case, and 300% in the second case._"

Joe B, you are right of course, we are all aware of both the bias and "fog of war" that led to errors on all sides. To quote FlyboyJ, "I was making a point." I should have mentioned that the kill/loss claim I cited was illustrative of that point. 

In furtherance of that point, the P-47N's out of Le Shima were not flying top cover for B-29's at 30,000ft and were not engaging the enemyat high altitude. The P-47N, utilized with with boom and zoom tactics, could not be touched by the Japanese. It outclassed the P-47D by a considerable margin.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/p-47/p-47n-zoom.pdf

"_The Japanese Navy 343rd Air Group, flying the N1K1J George, a roughly comparable plane to the Ki-84, went about 1:3 v. US fighters in 1945 in real results_."

Since we are on the subject of nitpicking, if "real" is intended to mean actual or otherwise accurate, where exactly was this figure compiled from if not from inherently unreliable claims?


----------



## Soren (Feb 17, 2007)

About the N1K2J, a cool feature is the automatic flaps. Pretty smart by the Japanese considering the situation they were in !


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 17, 2007)

As my Grandfather said numerous times, the N1K2J was the best performing aircraft in the Pacific, and he test flew one of em.....


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 17, 2007)

Any way you look at it, the Japanese were 1 to 2 generations behind the allies.

Consider a late 1945 hypothetical battle against the US.

P80, F7F, F8F and F4U-4's against the Ki-84.


----------



## Civettone (Feb 17, 2007)

Or against the Ki-83, Ki-201, Ki-202 and the J7W Shinden... 





None yet ready for production in 1945 but then again, I don't immediataly see a P-80 flying missions over Japan...

Kris


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 17, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Or against the Ki-83, Ki-201, Ki-202 and the J7W Shinden...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



P80's were being deployed in Europe in Aug 1945. Had the war not ended that month, there would have been a couple of groups flying them in the Pacific within a couple of months.


----------



## Jank (Feb 17, 2007)

I agree Syscom. The P-80 certainly would have been the horse to watch. On the prop plane front, they could have also reinstated the production of the P-72, an honest 490mph prop job suitable for high altitude escort duty. The P-51H was an impressive performer. By the late summer of 1945, some P-51Hs had been issued to a few operational units. These units were in the process of working up to operational status when the war in the Pacific ended with the Japanese surrender. 

The Shinden's range was about 525 miles. You can't win playing defense.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 17, 2007)

JoeB said:


> Even the same plane looked at from two sides. My personal favorite, that's inspired me to research it, is MiG-15 v F-86 in Korea; 10:1 according to the US side, 3:1 according to the Soviets, *in the opposite direction*. If you take the approach, "oh well you can poke holes in anything but...let's just ignore that and use the claims" you get opposite results. One of those numbers has to be wrong, and of course in reality both are.


The Soviets claimed 650 F-86s over Korea - 660 actually rotated through from 1950 - 1953. That means the Russian shot down all but 10 F-86s.... 

As I posted earlier, do the math - even with the skewed numbers included and including F-86 losses from "all causes" there is still at least a 4 to 1 kill ratio for the Saber when you include the Koreans and the Chinese. The Russians like to separate themselves from their Korean and Chinese comrades so we will never know what the real USAF F-86 vs USSR MiG-15 kill ratio was but having worked on both aircraft and in speaking to pilots who flew both aircraft I would firmly believe the F-86 walked away the victor.

As far as WW2 - we all know the ratios are higher than history ultimately revealed to us, but then net result was still the same...


----------



## JoeB (Feb 18, 2007)

Jank said:


> Japanese Navy 343rd Air Group, about 1:3 v. US fighters in 1945 in real results[/I]."
> 
> Since we are on the subject of nitpicking, if "real" is intended to mean actual or otherwise accurate, where exactly was this figure compiled from if not from inherently unreliable claims?


Henry Sakaida's book "Genda's Blade". He matched up the 343rd's combat accounts with those in US records, and that was the approximate total result. Naturally it was more favorable to the 343rd just based on their claims and losses; and more favorable to their US opponents just based on *their* claims and losses.

Joe


----------



## JoeB (Feb 18, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> As I posted earlier, do the math - even with the skewed numbers included and including F-86 losses from "all causes" there is still at least a 4 to 1 kill ratio for the Saber when you include the Koreans and the Chinese. The Russians like to separate themselves from their Korean and Chinese comrades so we will never know what the real USAF F-86 vs USSR MiG-15 kill ratio was but having worked on both aircraft and in speaking to pilots who flew both aircraft I would firmly believe the F-86 walked away the victor.
> 
> As far as WW2 - we all know the ratios are higher than history ultimately revealed to us, but then net result was still the same...


It's really nothing to do with working on planes or knowing pilots to calculate the ratio, but a matter of what the real losses were on each side. My point is you can't use 10:1 as innumerable books and articles have, you can't use 2-3:1 in MiG's favor, as many Russian books and articles do. What's the right number? you need the real losses for each side.

There's no reason to overstate the MiG success by counting F-86 losses to non-MIG causes; and you just can't use the F-86's claims (you seem to use the F-86's claims of around 800 MiG's to their losses to all causes of around 224 F-86's to get around 4:1, that's not a meaningful ratio).

In that particular case the actual number of MiG's downed was not hugely less than what the F-86's claimed (all three MiG AF's, Soviet, Chinese and NK together lost around 550, anyway probably <600, MiG-15's in combat to F-86's). The claims by the MiG's were much more overstated (900 F-86's claimed by all three, v around 90 F-86's actually downed by MiG's the official 78 was a slight understatement). As to ratios individually v Soviets or Chinese/NK MiG's, there's enough detail to estimate that, actually, since we know how many F-86's each claimed, and there are enough examples of specific combats to compare the general accuracy of claiming between the Soviets and Chinese (not greatly different). The NK's are known to have been a fairly minor factor so don't have huge impact on any of those numbers.

But the point is we don't know any of the above that till we know the real losses, nor in any other case. We went through recently, how per USAAF stats digest, based on US claims, the P-39/40's in the early months of the Pacific War were outscored slightly; in reality Japanese fighters had the better of it 2-4:1. That's a serious difference. The US claims were a lot less accurate in that case than in Korea. Or back to Korea, B-29's were credited with 28 MiG-15's; they probably shot down 3 (2 Soviet, 1 Chinese). There's no way to know that difference in claim accuracy on one side, without knowing the real opposing losses, or at least having examples of them.

Don't firmly conclude anything quantitative in air combat success, using claims. Good general rule IMO.

Joe


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 18, 2007)

JoeB said:


> It's really nothing to do with working on planes or knowing pilots to calculate the ratio, but a matter of what the real losses were on each side. My point is you can't use 10:1 as innumerable books and articles have, you can't use 2-3:1 in MiG's favor, as many Russian books and articles do. What's the right number? you need the real losses for each side.



Agree - but I could still consider the US claims a lot more accurate than the Soviets for the simple reason, we could debut the issue and openly discuss and research it, we've been able to do this for years. Although its basically the same in Russia today, many of the surviving VVS pilots who flew in Korea will still hold on to the stigma that the VVS squadrons in Korea shot down 650 F-86s - Stalin propaganda that is hard to let go.


JoeB said:


> There's no reason to overstate the MiG success by counting F-86 losses to non-MIG causes; and you just can't use the F-86's claims (you seem to use the F-86's claims of around 800 MiG's to their losses to all causes of around 224 F-86's to get around 4:1, that's not a meaningful ratio).


OK agree....


JoeB said:


> In that particular case the actual number of MiG's downed was not hugely less than what the F-86's claimed (all three MiG AF's, Soviet, Chinese and NK together lost around 550, anyway probably <600, MiG-15's in combat to F-86's). The claims by the MiG's were much more overstated (900 F-86's claimed by all three, v around 90 F-86's actually downed by MiG's the official 78 was a slight understatement). As to ratios individually v Soviets or Chinese/NK MiG's, there's enough detail to estimate that, actually, since we know how many F-86's each claimed, and there are enough examples of specific combats to compare the general accuracy of claiming between the Soviets and Chinese (not greatly different). The NK's are known to have been a fairly minor factor so don't have huge impact on any of those numbers.


Again agree....


JoeB said:


> But the point is we don't know any of the above that till we know the real losses, nor in any other case. We went through recently, how per USAAF stats digest, based on US claims, the P-39/40's in the early months of the Pacific War were outscored slightly; in reality Japanese fighters had the better of it 2-4:1. That's a serious difference. The US claims were a lot less accurate in that case than in Korea. Or back to Korea, B-29's were credited with 28 MiG-15's; they probably shot down 3 (2 Soviet, 1 Chinese). There's no way to know that difference in claim accuracy on one side, without knowing the real opposing losses, or at least having examples of them.


You may be right about the B-29 kills although when a B-29 did hit a Mig, sometimes you had dozens of airmen seeing the actions. At the same time, I would guess that the NCO's manning the guns within the -29s were not the most reliable source (taking nothing away from NCOs). My Uncle Bill did about 10 missions in Korea before his B-29 crashed. I could remember him telling me that on 2 occasions they "thought" they got some MiGs because of "fireballs" sighted in the direction his firecontrol officer was shooting (and that was when they were even "allowed" to fire their weapons at night).


JoeB said:


> Don't firmly conclude anything quantitative in air combat success, using claims. Good general rule IMO.
> 
> Joe


Agree - all those tables and charts are just a very loose "fuzzy" picture of what might be "somewhat accurate."


----------



## Jank (Feb 18, 2007)

"_Henry Sakaida's book "Genda's Blade". He matched up the 343rd's combat accounts with those in US records, and that was the approximate total result. Naturally it was more favorable to the 343rd just based on their claims and losses; and more favorable to their US opponents just based on *their* claims and losses._"

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. The "combat accounts" should be the "US records" except where a pilot claims a kill but it isn't officially credited as such. The 318th's 79:1 record was based on the official 318th's accounts which were also the US records for the 318th. 

My point here is that the we are never talking about "real results" to coin your phrase. (You now say approximate total result) You tore into my example of the 318th having a 79:1 kill ratio by June 1, 1945 (It was actually June 8th) as obviously inaccurate due to the fact that we can't ever really know the actual ratio due in part to bias and other error causing factors (on which I agree) and then you respond with a 1:3 number for the George that you deem a "real result." 

I don't care what book the numbers came from. Again, to the extent that by "real result" you mean that it is an actual, accurate and real ratio, I am afraid you are mistaken. Any kill ratios formed from records of pilot accounts, official credited kills and records of aircraft losses are quite obviously not "real results." 

The reason is quite simple. Any sources from which such conclusory data is formed are full of errors. 

The 318th's 79:1 kill ratio by June 8, 1945 probably was an "approximate total result." You have P-47N's using boom and zoom tactics against relatively inexperienced pilots and many of the kills were of kamikazes who were preoccupied with simply delivering their aircraft to a ship and not engaging American fighters.

*May 25th -

The 318th had encountered over 60 enemy planes engaged in a kamikaze strike and destroyed 34 without a single loss. That stands to this day as the reigning a record for a single group in a single action.*

That number is obviously an error. More than one pilot probably claimed the same kill. Many of the Japs took little evasive action. yada yada ... It still points to an overwhelming lopsided kill / loss ratio which was my inartfully plead point to begin with.


----------



## Civettone (Feb 19, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> P80's were being deployed in Europe in Aug 1945. Had the war not ended that month, there would have been a couple of groups flying them in the Pacific within a couple of months.


How are you going to get them flying over Japan? Put them on a carrier? 
That's why I said I don't see them flying OVER JAPAN.

Kris


----------



## Soren (Feb 19, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> As my Grandfather said numerous times, the N1K2J was the best performing aircraft in the Pacific, and he test flew one of em.....




He must have been very impressed by the aircraft's handling, performance according most sources wasn't anything special, however with 130/150 grade fuel the performance would've also been better than what it was in Japanese service.


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 19, 2007)

Exactly Soren...


----------



## timshatz (Feb 19, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> As my Grandfather said numerous times, the N1K2J was the best performing aircraft in the Pacific, and he test flew one of em.....



Did you Grandfather fly any other Japanese aircraft? Did he tell you about them? Love to hear about it (if you haven't already posted it on another thread).


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 19, 2007)

He flew a couple Japanese aircraft, including the A6M5a and the Ki-84 Ia... He didnt have very many kind words for the Zeke, for at the end of the War, it was not the performer it was in the beginning....

On the other hand, his opinion of the Frank was pretty much the same as what history tells us; that it was one of the best planes in the air at the end of the War...


----------



## Jank (Feb 19, 2007)

The US 507th did battle with Franks in the last days of the war. They were from the Japanese Army Air Force's 22nd and 85th Sentais. Both Units had been assigned to Kimpo airfield since May 1945. 

The 85th Hiko Sentai had been formed since March 1941, and as a veteran unit had seen action in Manchuria and China, claiming the destruction of some 282 enemy aircraft for the loss of 73 pilots. The unit commander was Capt. Morio Nakamura, who had held the post since December 1944.

The 22nd Hiko Sentai was created in March 1944 and was the first Ki-84 unit in the JAAF. It has seen action in Central China, the Philippines and homeland defense, claiming 40 enemy aircraft destroyed and damaged, for the loss of 24 pilots. Its commanding officer was Major Ei-chi Kitajima, who had been appointed in June 1945.

In the last action fought in the war by both units. 1st Lt. Oscar Perdomo was credited with five kills in a single air battle (four were Franks and one, a Willow Bi-plane) By this time, Japan had seen the last of her experienced pilots.

WW II ACE STORIES


----------



## JoeB (Feb 20, 2007)

Jank said:


> I don't care what book the numbers came from. Again, to the extent that by "real result" you mean that it is an actual, accurate and real ratio, I am afraid you are mistaken. Any kill ratios formed from records of pilot accounts, official credited kills and records of aircraft losses are quite obviously not "real results."


Either you misunderstood me or we disagree very fundamentally.

What I term as a "real result" is the losses recorded by each side, without reference to any measure of estimated success by either side.

I'm not trying to split hairs among different measures of estimated successs: personal accounts by pilots of what they achieved, "official victories", "confirmed victories". Those are all variations under the simple heading: claims.

There was an underlying reality, some actual number of enemy planes were really downed in every combat in history. The enemy at the time generally knew that number, he certainly knew which of his planes failed to return, if not always the exact reason. To the extent that was reasonably completely and consistently recorded on each side, we know that reality, the real result.

The questions about the completeness and accuracy of loss records are altogether different from the fundamental issues of flawed perception and natural human tendency to optimism with regard to claims.

The 1:3 in Sakaida for the 343rd AG's success if a comparison of the losses the Japanese unit recorded, with the losses recorded in US records by units in combats Sakaida determined, from date, time and place, to have been against the 343rd. One was against the 318th FG as I mentioned (twice). "Approximate" as in 3 instead of 2.85 or 3.167; and in that there's some uncertainty about completeness of the losses (both sides) and the matchings of combats. But again it's much more manageable than the perception errors of claims which, generally speaking, vary over a truly enormous range (I gave examples of US bomber and Soviet fighter victory credits in Korea which exceeded the real opposing losses, which can be figured with great accuracy in those two cases IME, by a factor of around 10; at the other extreme in some rare cases official victories were understatements of enemy losses, no way to know what a claim means in general without the other side's loss records).

Joe


----------



## Jank (Feb 20, 2007)

_"What I term as a "real result" is the losses recorded by each side, without reference to any measure of estimated success by either side."_

I understand what you meant now but still do not understand your choice of words. 

The fact is that we do *not* know the "reality, the real result" of losses where there is "reasonably complete and consistent recording." 

Why not just say "acknowledged losses" or "claimed losses"? When you throw around "real result" and "reality" which convey actual, accurate numbers, you end up saying something you did not intend. (At least to me.)

I am sure that you are aware that the acknowledged loss numbers due to combat were fudged too.


----------



## JoeB (Feb 21, 2007)

Jank said:


> 1. Why not just say "acknowledged losses" or "claimed losses"?
> 
> 2. I am sure that you are aware that the acknowledged loss numbers due to combat were fudged too.


1. I don't because those terms would imply that statistically significant "fudging", of similar order to the gross errors typical in WWII claims, was common which it wasn't. The general overall rule of thumb in WWII was 3 claims equalled 1 enemy plane downed (taking all combatants whole war, it varied alot from that general average, eg. the P-47 claims in 1945 were *probably* better, though I'm not sure). It's ridiculous to say the AF's in WWII as a rule understated their losses by anything approaching that in their own secret records.

2. Please give an example meeting the following conditions:
-loss records compiled in secret and captured or declassified later; *not* public media statements during the war, not what I'm talking about
-proof of the 'fudging' besides the claims of "our guys" (whoever that might be) exceeding the "claimed losses" by "too much".
-statistically important anomalies in loss recording relative to the typically large excess of claims.
-systematic fudging that would affect the evaluation of a whole type of plane, theater or even unit; anything like the systematic excess of claims

If losses are so uncertain, why do you quote P-47 ones? how do you know they didn't lose 5 or 15 instead of 1? I would accept the quoted losses provisionally. If I really needed to be sure I'd go to AFHRA at Maxwell AFB and check the records, as I have done a lot of for US losses in Korea. Those btw, while I can't say they were 'fudged' do tend to add up to a bit more, esepecially in view of specific opposing claims, than the official USAF totals. It seems benefit of doubt was given as to whether a loss was really due to air combat, if there was any doubt. However the discrepancy is not large compared to the typical range of errors in claims.

I see no reason to draw different conclusions based on nationality. Then secret reasonably complete Japanese loss records from WWII (as determined by a respected researcher like Henry Sakaida), or Soviet ones in Korea I've read myself (which eg. include losses the USAF *didn't* credit as confirmed, why would they randomly omit losses that were confirmed, when the writers had no idea of that? that makes no sense) are a more reliable indicator of that side's losses than claims from the other side, including US claims. Those results can reasonably be called 'real' for sake of brevity, depending on reasonable assurance of completeness (we're not leaving other units that were involved out) and having been compiled in secret.

Joe


----------



## Jank (Feb 21, 2007)

"_1. I don't because those terms would imply that statistically significant "fudging", of similar order to the gross errors typical in WWII claims, was common which it wasn't._"

No it wouldn't. Just that the acknowledged losses were not reality or a real result to use your words.

"_If losses are so uncertain, why do you quote P-47 ones?_" 

As earlier stated by me, "*Joe B, you are right of course, we are all aware of both the bias and "fog of war" that led to errors on all sides. To quote FlyboyJ, "I was making a point." I should have mentioned that the kill/loss claim I cited was illustrative of that point.*"

"_It's ridiculous to say the AF's in WWII as a rule understated their losses by anything approaching that in their own secret records._"

Agreed. Who is arguing that? 

I have read of instances where planes that were combat casualties were written off as lost due to other reasons. Commanders were not just under pressures that lead to the overstatement of kills. There were combat losses that were listed as non-combat losses. It was not "systematic" in that it was not a standardized pattern or practice.

"_Those btw, while I can't say they were 'fudged' do tend to add up to a bit more, esepecially in view of specific opposing claims, than the official USAF totals_."

Yes.

To reiterate, strictlty speaking, both kill and loss claims are not "reality" or "real results." I am not arguing that errors in loss claims are of the same magnitude as kill claims. Just that your characterization of loss claims as reality or real results is flat wrong. Hence when you attack others quoting kill claims and in the same breath point to the reality or real result of loss claims, you are sort of like the kettle calling the pot black.

"_Those results can reasonably be called 'real' for sake of brevity_"

Slowly you are backing off the reality of the real result of your own words.

I think were both in agreement that neither kill nor loss claims were actually accurate as in reflective of reality and thus a real result. I would agree that kill claims were undoubtedy more erroneous by a large margin.

I have no doubt that the 79:1 kill record was not reality nor a real result. It was, however, reflective of a very lopsided spanking which was my point. I see that you are kind of new here. Sorry for not assuming we were all on the same page.


----------



## JoeB (Feb 22, 2007)

Jank said:


> "_
> 1. No it wouldn't. Just that the acknowledged losses were not reality or a real result to use your words.
> 
> 2. "It's ridiculous to say the AF's in WWII as a rule understated their losses by anything approaching that in their own secret records."
> ...


_
1. Each side *knew* which of its own planes didn't return (we needn't get bogged down in whether a damaged plane was repaired, nobody ever claimed their target returned safely but was never repaired  ). They might not know causes, but the modern researcher can usually infer those from the other side's claims, that's actually what claims are useful for. Assuming those records survive essentially complete, and researcher is honest, that is the basic reality without *deliberate* error. And there's no contradiction between 'basic' or 'approximate' and 'reality', that's your semantic error. Claims are inherently unreliable *without* deliberate error. Claims and recorded losses have a fundamentally different relationship to reality.

2. You are effectively, by trying to describe errors in claims and recorded losses as something similar in kind. That is flat wrong.

3. And as expected your argument largely rests on this sort of weak statement, "I've read". where?, what proof, what magnitude. AFAIK the overwhelming majority of insinuations of loss fudging in secret records is by claimant/veterans or their partisans embarrassed that their or 'their guys' claims so far exceed what the enemy recorded as lost, without any proof. And the sort of proof-free hypothesizing you are doing. Logically it doesn't address a central reality: you can always inflate claims more, but understating losses runs into real limitations when if comes to saying lost planes and missing pilots are still on hand. But the key fact is you can't find a serious proven example (and it's not just you who can't).

4. You increasingly focus on narrow semantics at variance with standard English (which if it's not your first language, I'm not criticizing).

*Authors* have fudged loss results, for entertainment of others and not just boring debate, here's an example:
Russian Aces of the Korean War
'real' score of top Soviet ace in Korea w/ author fudging what US loss records say
Korean War Ace Sutyagin's Score
real score based on what the records actually say

"Claimed" or "admitted" losses would be a political or polite term when interviewing or dealing with air war veterans (as I have). The implication of such terms is fundamentally misleading, inevitably and wrongly suggesting likeness in kind or even degree between book keeping errors of known facts (what friendly planes came home) and inherently flawed perceptions (pilot claims).

Joe_


----------



## Jank (Feb 22, 2007)

"_2. You are effectively, by trying to describe errors in claims and recorded losses as something similar in kind. That is flat wrong_."

They are similar in kind in that neither are reality or a real result. They are not, however, on the same order of magnitude.

"_Claims and recorded losses have a fundamentally different relationship to reality."_

Again, they are certainly not erroneous in the same order of magnitude but they are also indeed both not 100% accurate, factual or reality or the real result and thus, strictly speaking, both are not reality or real results. To the extent that neither are reality, they stand in fundamentally the same relationship to reality as non-reality.

"4. You increasingly focus on narrow semantics at variance with standard English (which if it's not your first language, I'm not criticizing)."

Joe, with all due respect, you criticized my and FlyboyJ's citation of kill / loss ratios. We both acknowledged that you were in fact correct and that the cited examples were illustrative of a larger point. 

You then, in the same breath that was used to criticize the kill / loss ratios, referred to the reality of the real result of the loss claims. Ojly after being called on the carpet on this error did you reissue your point as the "approximate total result" which I can certainly live with. Your last post now states "basic reality" as though there is some non-basic reality that standard English conveys. To be sure, it was you who made a bold criticizing statement only to then back off the rather obvious standard English meaning to a more accurate statement "approximate total result." So that you do not misunderstand me, I will state now that an "approximate total result" is not a "real result" and not "reality." Do you think that standard English equates these?

"_Those results can reasonably be called 'real' for sake of brevity,"_

For someone concerned with brevity, you sure screwed up huh? "Reasonably be called real"? No, let's not play semantics. Here's an idea. Why don't you agree that your choice of words, "reality" "real result" in reference to loss claims was not the best use of "standard English" to convey "approximate result"?

I can not cite for you loss claims that were misreported whether intentionally or accidentally. *We both know it happened though.* You can certainly seize on that as conclusive proof that all loss claims were thus 100% accurate, however, I think that you are in agreement with me. To reiterate my position that I am still clinging to, loss claims are not 100% accurate and thus not reality or a real result.

Even you have acknowledged that loss claims are not 100% accurate, not reality and not real results. That is why you have argued that errors in loss claims were not systematic or of the same order in magnitude. That point reflects an acknowledgment that non-systematic errors and errors that are not of the same order of magnitude existed but are insufficient to make loss claims not real or not real results and thus, you would allow for these while still maintaining that the loss claims are actual, real and real results.

Anyway, we are in full agreement that kill claims and kill / loss ratios are not accurate. We are also in agreement (although you won't admit it) that loss claims had errors as well but not on the same order of magnitude and were probably not systematic. To the extent that we are in agreement on the last point, we are also in agreement that loss claims are in fact not reality or real results.

If you really disagreed with this, there certainly would not be any reason for you to retreat to the more palatable standard English of "approximate result" which we both can agree on.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 22, 2007)

Jank said:


> If you really disagreed with this, there would certainly would not be any reason for you to retreat to the more palatable standard English of "approximate result" which we both can agree on.



Well said Jank....


----------



## JoeB (Feb 22, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Well said Jank....


I don't agree. That last response resorts to complete semantics. The claim that loss records are frequently inaccurate is now gone, because he has no evidence of it. Now it's just an assumption, cushioned by agreeing "it's not as much". The argument is now basically Cartesian, how do I know apparently carefully contructed then-secret loss records present the essential reality? (a simple concept, the essential reality, no "back off" from the concept of reality, just less wordy). How do I know I really exist and this isn't all a dream  

There is again no contradiction between "approximate" and "real" in the English language. The result quoted in "Genda's Blade" for the 343rd of 1:3 (they shot down a lot fewer US planes than they lost, to be 100% clear) is the approximate real result because loss records record real knowable facts, how many planes didn't come back, subject to errors in accounting and the researchers ability to match up combat accounts of the two sides. Claims are perceptions not facts at all, as to whether the downings really happened, and as to whether they duplicate other claims. The return or not of your unit's planes and pilots is not a perception in any but Cartesian sense, they returned or they didn't. Fundamental difference.

But, the bottomline is that's a lot easier to keep repeating old one sided claims like Hellcat 19:1 rather than try to figure out the real number. Don't you have any curiosity what it really was? rather than just "oh yeah it's 'approximate' (who cares, I think I'll keep quoting it)".

Joe


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 22, 2007)

JoeB said:


> But, the bottom line is that's a lot easier to keep repeating old one sided claims like Hellcat 19:1 rather than try to figure out the real number. Don't you have any curiosity what it really was? rather than just "oh yeah it's 'approximate' (who cares, I think I'll keep quoting it)".
> 
> Joe


Face it, with all the research in the world, with all the archived combat reports from both sides we'll never know the real numbers, just the end results and if we have to use the same old ratios like 19:1 for the Hellcat or even if we reduce it down to 10:1, bottom line she shot down a lot of Japanese hardware...

With that said, sure I'd like to know what the real numbers were but without trying to sound "nationalistically biased" (believe me I'm far from it) in some of the cases you pointed out we should of fought the war in the Pacific another 2 years and Korea should be one country....

Again these numbers we've been so used to hearing are still showing the end result.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 22, 2007)

I'd like to see the stats of the Hellcat vs one of the later model Japanese fighters like the Frank, George or Jack (almost sounds like the name of a auto parts store?).


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 22, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> I'd like to see the stats of the Hellcat vs one of the later model Japanese fighters like the Frank, George or Jack (almost sounds like the name of a auto parts store?).



That would be interesting since we know the performance of these later Japanese aircraft. If the Hellcat still had a high kill ratio, at that point it was obviously pilot skill...


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 22, 2007)

Have to agree Joe, but there were still some really skilled Japanese in the air when the War ended...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Jank (Feb 22, 2007)

"_The claim that loss records are frequently inaccurate is now gone, because he has no evidence of it_."

Here you go shifting things again. Next you will say that in standard English, "frequently inaccurate" is interchangeable with "not a real result." Whoever claimed that loss records were "frequently inaccurate"? Not I. My argument rests merely on the proposition that loss claims were not reality or a real result as in accurate and without error.

"_There is again no contradiction between "approximate" and "real" in the English language."_

Nope, no semantics here. Your position distilled down to its core is that "approximate result" is the same as "real result." Your position is that the two are interchangeable. They are not, unless you work for the government. You criticized others for citing inaccurate numbers and in the same breath contrasted it with what you yourself termed the "real result." Now you say "real result" means the same thing as "approximate result." 

Well Joe B, I will tell you again that I agree with your characterization of "approximate result" so to the extent that in your mind it means the very same thing as "real result", then in your mind, we don't really disagree.

You certainly act like there is a disagreement though. Have you considered that that might be because you yourself do not really believe that "approximate result" means the same thing as "real result"? Just a thought.

You know very well that actual combat losses which are "real results" can not "really" be known. They can be approximated though. To the extent that they are approximations, they are not actual or real. 

I'm tired of restating myself over and over. You are also restating yourself but I would just point out that unlike you, my restatements have been consistent and haven't shifted from "real result" to "approximate result" with an explaination that they mean the same thing and an accusation that the other guy is playing semantics.


----------



## Jank (Feb 22, 2007)

"Have to agree Joe, but there were still some really skilled Japanese in the air when the War ended..."

Yes, the articles on the 318th and 507th I linked to point that out.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 22, 2007)

Dan and Jank, agree....


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 22, 2007)

Flyboy and Les...... I suspect that since there were few quality Japanese pilots left towards the end of the war, more than one Allied pilot saw a fighter and thought the pilot was going to be a rookie and an easy kill.

Lo and behold, the fighter has a good pilot and ends up smoking the allied pilot.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 22, 2007)

I could agree - more the exception of the rule, but it sure did happen...


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 22, 2007)

My Grandfather told a similar tale Sys... 

He and his section jumped 3 Zekes, one of which was smoking... The inital bounce got my Grandfather his fourth kill, but that Japahexe leader ended up putting holes in 3 of the 4 Corsairs.... Grandpa said that was the best Japanese he ever met... Easy kjill my @ss...

What amazed him was how fast they went from being on the offensive to the defensive...


----------



## Soren (Feb 23, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> What amazed him was how fast they went from being on the offensive to the defensive...




The amazing maneuverability of Japanese fighters attributed mostly to this fact.

If you didn't get your bounce right the first time then you'd better get your ass out of the way fast or those Japanese fighters will have their guns on you in the blink of an eye... and some Japanese fighters mounted 4x20mm guns so ahead of them wouldn't be a very pleasant place to be !


----------



## Jank (Feb 24, 2007)

I happened to come across some "evidence" that recorded losses, as opposed to claimed kills, were not 100% accurate, not "reality" nor "real results." I would also point out that it was you who sought to include the Korean conflict as illustrative of the fact that kill claims cannot be trusted and that loss claims are reality and real results.

You said, "_My personal favorite, that's inspired me to research it, is MiG-15 v F-86 in Korea; 10:1 according to the US side, 3:1 according to the Soviets, *in the opposite direction*. If you take the approach, "oh well you can poke holes in anything but...let's just ignore that and use the claims" you get opposite results. One of those numbers has to be wrong, and of course in reality both are._"

Later, you went on to state:

"*Authors* have fudged loss results, for entertainment of others and not just boring debate, here's an example:
Russian Aces of the Korean War
'real' score of top Soviet ace in Korea w/ author fudging what US loss records say
Korean War Ace Sutyagin's Score
real score based on what the records actually say"

DO YOU KNOW WHO MADE THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT JoeB?

"*In general if planes didn't make it back to base after being shot by MiG's, sometimes even if just ran out of fuel after MiG combat, they were counted lost in air combat. Some wheels down landing writeoffs were even counted lost.*"

The above statement, if true, would appear to establish that claimed losses were inaccurate, not reality and not a real result. At the very least, a person accepting the above as true would certainly not cite claimed losses as an example of "reality, real result" in criticizing others for citing kill claims for their inaccuracy.

HAVE YOU GUESSED WHO MADE THAT STATEMENT?
.
.
.
-= It was JoeB on the Kill Ratios Thread of "The Great Planes" Forum on April 29, 2004 @ 4:33pm =-


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 24, 2007)

Soren said:


> The amazing maneuverability of Japanese fighters attributed mostly to this fact.


While this is usually the fact, Grandpa said of this engagement that whoever was flying that Zeke (and his wingman) knew what they were doing.... No other Japanese pilot got on his tail during the whole War, and this guy did it twice, and left 20something holes in his F4U for his effort...



Jank said:


> HAVE YOU GUESSED WHO MADE THAT STATEMENT?
> .
> -= It was JoeB on the Kill Ratios Thread of "The Great Planes" Forum on April 29, 2004 @ 4:33pm =-


----------



## Soren (Feb 24, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> While this is usually the fact, Grandpa said of this engagement that whoever was flying that Zeke (and his wingman) knew what they were doing.... No other Japanese pilot got on his tail during the whole War, and this guy did it twice, and left 20something holes in his F4U for his effort...



Did he enter a dogfight with the Zeke pilot ?


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 24, 2007)

No, after the bounce and the smoker in flames, the Japanese acted very aggressively and forced them into a dogfight that, when ur at 2:1 odds against an supposedly inferior opponent, he thought they could easily handle...

The leader was very good...


----------



## Soren (Feb 24, 2007)

That must have been a very good Zeke pilot indeed, forcing 4 Corsair's to go on the defensive.

Do you remember which year this happened ?


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 24, 2007)

September 1943, and it was the leader and his wingman.....


----------



## renrich (Feb 24, 2007)

lesofprimus, What a treasure to have a grandfather with the experiences of your's. If he is still with us I hope you will get down in writing or by recording everything you possibly can about his memories. I had 2 uncles who were gunner's mates on Chicago and Salt Lake City when the war began and they served on those CAs during the worst of the fighting in the Pacific. Alas, I did not get down in writing any of their sea stories and only have my memories of their conversations and really never made a concerted effort to interview them.


----------



## JoeB (Feb 24, 2007)

Jank said:


> "*In general if planes didn't make it back to base after being shot by MiG's, sometimes even if just ran out of fuel after MiG combat, they were counted lost in air combat. Some wheels down landing writeoffs were even counted lost.*"
> 
> HAVE YOU GUESSED WHO MADE THAT STATEMENT?


Now you've flipped your argument around 180 degrees in addition to using sophistry. We've gone over several times how loss records have the benefit of basic observable real facts: how many friendly planes came back and how many didn't. Everybody on the "friendly" side could see it, anyone could check it later on by walking out to the flight line. Only deliberate falsification or book keeping errors could obscure it and the latter only slightly in any realistic case. We've also covered several times how it's your semantic error to equate "essential reality" with "flawless exactitude". The exact causes of loss, or classification of unrepairable planes could be uncertain, I've said it several times from the beginning. But whether a plane returned was a real fact which there's no evidence that any keepers of secret records in any AF in the WWII era systematically mistated in their own secret records.

Whether claimed planes really went down, and didn't represent duplications of other claims, was simply not a fact available to claimants, it was their and perhaps wingmen's perception of a split second. It couldn't be checked later. Intel people trying to deconflict overlapping claims had to basically guess. The highly variable and often large discrepancies between claims and which planes really returned consistently and clearly shows that. Claimed results weren't based on objectively observable and checkable, ie real, facts, loss records were. It doesn't mean claims can't coincidentally come out correct, and it doesn't mean loss records are invariably exact and infallible. It means what it says, what I've consistently said.

Your 180 flip-flop is that before "you'd read" that loss records often *understated* losses. Now you're quoting me (out of context) supposedly suggesting US non-combat losses in Korea were seriously *overstated*.

The context, within another (better quality I'd have to say) debate on real and claimed kill ratio's, is a refutation of the internet factoid that US "claimed losses" in Korea were actually a serious understatement. Which may be "what you've read" though you refused to elaborate on that statement, give any example, but won't just admit "OK I don't know where I got that from" either.
THE GREAT PLANES Community - Kill ratios
But I already covered those stats here, there's no "gotcha". The USAF official total of F-86 air combat losses in Korea was 78, the correct number appears to be 85-90, some mistakes in each direction, a few cases uncertain (never said there wasn't, that's your invention). And the question whether damaged unrepaired planes should count, which is also a handful of F-86's in Korea (but which were obviously not claimed as "made it back to base but not repaired" by the MiG's). Slight variations based on the recording and interpertation of real checkable (by the recorders) facts. 

So there's still the large hole in your original argument of lack of any documented real case where loss records are seriously at variance with the knowable real facts they recorded, compared to claims which were almost *always* seriously at variance with the real facts; because total claims weren't real facts at all, but individual non checkable impressions, w/ guesstimates to deconflict them and get a total.

Joe


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 24, 2007)

renrich, unfortunatly, my Grandfather passed away many years ago after a couple years of declining health... What info I have on him and his exploits, on paper, is quite limited... We had a "falling out" with the other side of the family tree, bunch of @ssholes, and they got most of his estate, which sucks, cause like 7 years ago they lost 80% of Grandpas memories in a fire that my [email protected] moronic cousin started with a lighter and a can of hairspray...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 24, 2007)

JoeB - if an aircraft made it back to base in tact and pilot in tact and then the aircraft is "written off" by maintenance - that should not be even be considered - you're splitting fine hairs. Once on the ground that "written off" aircraft is still asset. You could cannibalize parts and keep other aircraft flying. To me the whole "asset" would have to be destroyed to even be considered.

And now you throw different numbers for Sabre losses - so even with those you just posted (say 90) and the Soviet pilots admitting over 350 Migs lost, it's still coming out to about 4 to 1 excluding the unknown variables....

I agree, Korea was not a 10 to 1 killing field for the USAF, more like 3 or 4 to one, we'll never know the true EXACT score, but based on the loose numbers, the F-86 outperformed the Mig-15....


----------



## Jank (Feb 24, 2007)

By the way, do you have any evidence of your statement that, "_In general if planes didn't make it back to base after being shot by MiG's, sometimes even if just ran out of fuel after MiG combat, they were counted lost in air combat. Some wheels down landing writeoffs were even counted lost_"? If I cited your statement as my evidence would you claim that the author of that statement is full of bullsh-t? 

_"it's your semantic error to equate "essential reality" with "flawless exactitude"._

I'm sorry. Where did I EVER mention either of the above terms? 

_"Now you're quoting me (out of context) supposedly suggesting US non-combat losses in Korea were seriously *overstated*."_

Here you go again. Where did I ever suggest that US non-combat losses were "seriously overstated"?

Clever sophistry indeed. Substitute different words for those originally used and quote words and terms never used my me at all. Look JoeB, unlike you, I have been consistent and am not talking out of both sides of my mouth. I am frankly getting a little tired of going around with you. For your benefit, here are my own words from past posts on this thread for your ease of reference. (Please bear in mind that all of the following are taken out of context.)

---------------------------------------------------------

*My point here is that the we are never talking about "real results" to coin your phrase. (You now say approximate total result) You tore into my example of the 318th having a 79:1 kill ratio by June 1, 1945 (It was actually June 8th) as obviously inaccurate due to the fact that we can't ever really know the actual ratio due in part to bias and other error causing factors (on which I agree) and then you respond with a 1:3 number for the George that you deem a "real result."

The fact is that we do not know the "reality, the real result" of losses where there is "reasonably complete and consistent recording." Why not just say "acknowledged losses" or "claimed losses"? When you throw around "real result" and "reality" which convey actual, accurate numbers, you end up saying something you did not intend. (At least to me.)

To reiterate, strictlty speaking, both kill and loss claims are not "reality" or "real results." I am not arguing that errors in loss claims are of the same magnitude as kill claims. Just that your characterization of loss claims as reality or real results is flat wrong. Hence when you attack others quoting kill claims and in the same breath point to the reality or real result of loss claims, you are sort of like the kettle calling the pot black.

Again, they are certainly not erroneous in the same order of magnitude but they are also indeed both not 100% accurate, factual or reality or the real result and thus, strictly speaking, both are not reality or real results. To the extent that neither are reality, they stand in fundamentally the same relationship to reality as non-reality.

Joe, with all due respect, you criticized my and FlyboyJ's citation of kill / loss ratios. We both acknowledged that you were in fact correct and that the cited examples were illustrative of a larger point. You then, in the same breath that was used to criticize the kill / loss ratios, referred to the "reality" of the "real result" of the loss claims. Only after being called on the carpet on this error did you reissue your point as the "approximate total result" which I can certainly live with. Your last post now states "basic reality" as though there is some non-basic reality that standard English conveys. To be sure, it was you who made a bold criticizing statement only to then back off the rather obvious standard English meaning to a more accurate statement "approximate total result." So that you do not misunderstand me, I will state now that an "approximate total result" is not a "real result" and not "reality." Do you think that standard English equates these?

Let's not play semantics. Here's an idea. Why don't you agree that your choice of words, "reality" "real result" in reference to loss claims was not the best use of "standard English" to convey "approximate result"?

Anyway, we are in full agreement that kill claims and kill / loss ratios are not accurate. We are also in agreement (although you won't admit it) that loss claims had errors as well but not on the same order of magnitude and were probably not systematic. To the extent that we are in agreement on the last point, we are also in agreement that loss claims are in fact not reality or real results.

If you really disagreed with this, there certainly would not be any reason for you to retreat to the more palatable standard English of "approximate result" which we both can agree on.

Here you go shifting things again. Next you will say that in standard English, "frequently inaccurate" is interchangeable with "not a real result." Whoever claimed that loss records were "frequently inaccurate"? Not I. My argument rests merely on the proposition that loss claims were not reality or a real result as in accurate and without error.

Your position distilled down to its core is that "approximate result" is the same as "real result." Your position is that the two are interchangeable. They are not, unless you work for the government. You criticized others for citing inaccurate numbers and in the same breath contrasted it with what you yourself termed the "real result." Now you say "real result" means the same thing as "approximate result."

You know very well that actual combat losses which are "real results" can not "really" be known. They can be approximated though. To the extent that they are approximations, they are not actual or real. I'm tired of restating myself over and over. You are also restating yourself but I would just point out that unlike you, my restatements have been consistent and haven't shifted from "real result" to "approximate result" with an explaination that they mean the same thing and an accusation that the other guy is playing semantics.*

---------------------------------------------------------

Notice anything? I'm not the one playing semantic games and asking others for evidence that loss records are not reality and a real result when I have previously on another forum asserted that loss records are not accurate and thus not reality nor a real result with respect to combat losses!

I'm through. As the several excerpts from my previous posts on this thread indicate, I have stated, restated, and stated again a point that you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree on because I am no longer invested in beating a dead horse.


----------



## renrich (Feb 25, 2007)

LESOFPRIMUS, sorry to hear about your misfortune. I know and have known a few Corsair pilots but they become fewer every day. It is a shame that we didn't honor and revere our elders who actually lived the history that we are now so interested in.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 25, 2007)

Its too bad the Bearcat didnt arrive to the fleet a year earlier.

Now that would have been a matchup.....


----------



## ohka345 (Mar 11, 2007)

Even though the Corsair pilots shot down COUNTLESS Zeros,they're still people,right?I agree we should honour them.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 11, 2007)

What are you talking about? Did you go through and read this thread. No one was dishonored at all. Please read the threads before posting.


----------

