Recent content by Jobbin02

Any examples? Again, any examples in particular?

I'm pretty sure that it's a YB-17. You should be able to make out the prominent vertical radio mast and the long carburetor intake(s) in both images.

My wording was off, admittedly. Still, the P-40F was, according to Dunn, designed with better high altitude performance in mind, and US aircraft designs in general were trending towards better high altitude performance for high altitude combat, weren't they? That forms a part of my main point.

Makes sense. I am still left wondering just how much of a force multiplier the Corsair's performance and firepower were, especially in light of Claringbould's and Dunn's research. Would the Corsair have needed the numbers if it was as good as many people, both officially, online and in...

Well, @GregP, if you're still interested, here's a non-exhaustive list of primary(-ish?) sources on admitted Japanese losses, particularly those sustained against 2nd generation US fighter aircraft: Japan Center for Asian Historical Records (Bōeichō Bōei Kenshūjo Senshishitsu cho): 201 Kōkūtai...

The Japanese (Navy, at least) were quite interested in the He 100 design historically, so that could be a potential avenue towards this "super-plane" design. Weight and sufficient firepower will, however, be an issue. Think an earlier Ki-64. The Japanese design philosophy of nimble...

If you say so. Personally, it reminds me of a narrower Zeke with a cartoonishly squashed cockpit, or a diminutive Frank with awkwardly placed wings. It's just my opinion, however. I can see how someone would like it.

I don't disagree with the opinion expressed in this thread recently that loss records aren't perfect and don't invalidate claims or victories entirely. Regardless of how valid I, or anyone else, think they are, claims should be included as points of comparison, at the very least. I would...

Reading through these recent posts, I am now convinced that I will have to post, in detail (including additional context), the claims and losses as shown in Claringbould's Osprey-published works and Dunn's online articles. There may be some discrepancies between their works and other sources...

That would be helpful, if you are still willing to post in this thread, that is. This is relevant to the topic of over-claiming, I suppose. There's still the main issue at hand, that being the performance of 2nd generation Allied fighter aircraft in combat against the A6M and Ki-43, especially...

Boy, there sure is quite a bit to go through here. Activity's certainly picked up. Spoke too soon. I might have to agree. It seems that it could sustain an entire discussion on its own, especially since it will likely be concerned with all theatres of WWII, if not other wars entirely...

Why the challenge? Do forced landings from combat count as operational losses? Are holes in cockpits and hydraulics mere "teething issues"? It's clear that most of you haven't read any of Claringbould's works, certainly not Pacific Profiles, never mind Dunn's readily available online articles...

How about 1:1? And in the case of the Corsair, its performance in combat could get as bad as the latter ratio earlier on against better Japanese pilots. American claims are often taken at face value, and have been repeatedly mentioned across the entirety of the English-speaking WWII community...

The former. The early, ≥1942 model A6Ms and Ki-43s managed to hold their own into 1944, especially with seasoned pilots at the controls. Good point, but I'm not sure how much that changes the apparent reality that the Corsair, Lightning, Hellcat and other advanced US fighters didn't perform so...

I don't know about all that. From what I've read, it was mainly numbers and the wearing down of experienced Japanese pilots that were the key factors, not any particular advantage in performance. The Japanese had their ways of bringing those shiny, high-flying birds down to earth, or in this...