Best Pacific Fighter?

[R Leonard]

I don't think there is an official source, it was never actually "official". What I
remember is they were told ground kills would count - but then they wern't. This may only have
been for the USAAF in Europe, I'm not sure.

Somehow I think that some folks, not necessarily you, but some who draw some odd conclusions
and then spread them as fact, don't really understand how this works. Talking about what one pilot
or another might have been told he could or could not claim is apples and oranges when you're talking
about the number of enemy planes shot down by a given type. What pilots were told or not told or
even what they believed or did not believe has absolutely nothing to do with the final results of the
conflict. It is a very large error to mistake one for the other. An understanding of the process
and the administrative flow is the key to understanding what the numbers mean. In USN and USAAF
service, each mission required a report from each pilot. The division leader (and I'm going to use
USN terms as those are the ones with which I am most comfortable, but, rest assured, there were
USAAF counterparts) was also required to complete an ACA (AirCraft Action) report which was
used to draw up the squadron report and was included as an annex thereto. This ACA detailed
combat action . . . aerial combat, strafing attacks, whatever occurred in the course of a mission
(USAAF equivalent was the MR - Mission Report). These ACA's and the squadron report were the
basis of the Air Group report and so on up the line. So, in the grand scheme if Ensign Dilbert
Knothead strafed and was deemed to have destroyed a Betty on some jungle strip it would certainly
be noted in the ACA, but never as a part of tally of credits for Mr. Knothead. The purpose of
tracking ground kills was, as I said earlier, an order of battle issue. There were those who toiled
away in sweaty little offices whose sole purpose was to figure out what the enemy had and where
did they have it. So if they've figured out where such and such squadron is operating, and that base
gets hit, and the report comes back that XYZ aircraft were destroyed on the ground then these folks
can start looking for indications (intercepted messages and so on) that XYZ squadron has taken a
serious hit and needs some replacements. A few folks have tendency to believe that VF-x ACA #32
detailing Mr. Knothead's thorough drubbing of that Betty parked on the strip at Noname Island means
that Mr. Knothead was credited with some sort of victory simply because it is mentioned. Nothing
could be further from the truth. Pilots were required to report all actions on missions with enemy
contact, air, ground, water, didn't matter. And there was a whole system in place for follow up to these
reports, from squadron ACIO, to Air Group ACIO, to TF Staff, to Fleet Staff, to CinC Staff. I can tell
you from practical experience that military organizations are positively anal when it comes to reporting,
be it a morning report or an after action report. It will be completed and it will be submitted and it will be
forwarded, or else.

I always get skeptical when I hear the great "they" when "they" were told this or that, or "they" told "them"
this or that without any attribution. Who are "they?" Name three, specifically, and what exactly did
they say or tell you?

That's why I tend to be a little short with those who look to a statement on someone else's website as an
authoritative citation. I can show you mistakes on web sites, hell's bell's, I can show you great big mistakes
in otherwise scholarly books that author's, no doubt, spent years researching, where one of their
references misinterpreted one his references, who misinterpreted his reference, who simply did not
understand what was being said.

Here's a homework assignment: July 28, 1945 . . . carrier planes from Task Force 38 strike various
remaining Japanese fleet units. What were the results of these strikes? Specifically, how many USN planes
and pilots were lost? You tell me what everyone else says and I'll tell you what REALLY happened.

So, when I read some say the USAAF says the P-38 was the highest scoring plane in the Pacific, I say
show me. What am I to think when someone says the P-38 scored more aerial victories than the total
credited to the USAAF in the Pacific? What am I to think when I'm sitting here looking at the actual USAAF
numbers and the actual USN numbers and the person making the claim is saying things like "I heard . . ."
or "I've seen . . ." but can't say where or who? What am I to think when the numbers quoted have no
basis in reality when compared to the official results. The truth is out there.

All the figures I use, again, come from official USN and USAAF sources, most in their original form. None
of the answers are going to jump off the page at you. You have to work for the knowledge. You might
even have to get out a pencil and do a little figuring. But, as far as the internet is concerned, if the
information comes from official USN and USAF websites and consists of period documents, then you
may presume it was the official thinking of the time. You want to know how many planes the USAAF
destroyed on the ground in the Pacific (which by the way, the USAAF defined as the Far East - which
corresponds to MacArthur's Southwest Pacific Command - the Central Pacific, and the Aleutians)? I
can give you that number. I have it, right here at my finger tips, took me all of three minutes to conjure
it up, again from the USAAF documents, but wouldn't be more enlightening for you guys to
figure it out for yourselves?

So, show me yours and I'll show you mine. Someone needs to show me DoD, or USAF, or USN reference
that supports their contention(s), anything else is just floating internet fluff. I've been playing with USN
operations analysis of Pacific Theater aviation results as a hobby for more years than I care to count. I
have a closet full of boxes of documents and reports and a pretty good idea of what's in each of them.
When I can't find the answer to an operational question, of the USN variety, I can turn to the nice
old man who lives with me, a retired RAdm who was there, a fighter pilot, an ace, and a senior staff officer
in the Ops Shop of TF-38, who remembers more than all the documents I could muster.

The challenge still stands . . . official figures vs the, frankly, outrageous. Show me the money!!


Regards,

Rich

 

[acesman]

Rich,
I have asked you to cite your source. ONE souuce! So far much vitriol has been spilled for your precious USN fighters, without any of the proof you seem to demand. I have cited sources, and you can take issue with them, I have asked for the same and have seen NOTHING. ONE URL that backs up your claim. ONE book (Title and Author alone will suffice).

 

[acesman]

For reference on how many aircraft the USAAF said were shot down, by theater and area, check the following URL:

http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwroot/aafsd/aafsd_list_of_tables.html

According to official USAAF records available on that site (on PDF documents)
the USAAF shot down the following:

Feb 1942-Aug 1945 Far East Air Forces - 4,502 enemy destroyed in air
Jul 1943-Aug 1945 Pacific Ocean Areas - 575 enemy destroyed in air
Jul 1942-Aug 1945 China and India-Burma - 1,202 enemy destroyed in air
June 1942-Aug 1945 Alaska - 89 enemy destroyed in air

Why the first months of the war are not covered at all is not known. I suspect that victories then were few, but not non-existent.

By the numbers posted, the USAAF shot down over 6,368 enemy aircraft in the PTO from Feb 1942-August 1945, not the 3,715 claimed earlier in this poll.

 

[acesman]

Did some more digging, for US Navy aircraft official WWII records, go to:

http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org4-7.htm

 

[R Leonard]

Ask and you shall receive, but I'd point out that your single cited source was one person's undocumented comment in another discussion thread. Hardly what I would call a definitive source.

But, okay, if that's the best you can do, I guess that's the best you can do. Try these on for size . . .

I would suggest you check out the "Army Air Force Statistical Digest" (1947) published by the USAAF. You can
find it in it's original form here, in a downloadable PDF format at this official USAF web site:

http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwroot/aafsd/aafsd_index_table.html

I would particularly call your attention to tables 169, 170, and 172 for the overall Pacific Theater victory credits for
the USAAF. CBI Theater results are in table 171.

For quick reference, I use an Excel version somewhat laboriously created about five years ago from PDFs of the
original, but it allows me to extract data of interest I want into sub-tables of my own design for further analysis.
You may wish to create your own tables for quick calculations.

If you prefer, you can look here, where some kind soul has gone to the trouble of making this rather lengthy
document easier to read:

http://www.usaaf.net/digest/

The tables of interest remain the same.

In 1957 the USAAF produced a WWII victories analysis, listing each pilot credited with a victory by name and
victories posted per combat date. Admittedly this is a little hard to deal with in an alphabetical order, but an
hour's or so work and you can cut and paste it into a spread sheet format. Once you've done that you
can sort by theater to divide things up by ETO, MTO, PTO, and CBI. This is part of the overall USAF Aerial
Victories Credits listing located at

http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwroot/aerial_victory_credits/avc_index.html

For the 1957 listing of WWII USAAF credits, you can go directly to

http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwroot/aerial_victory_credits/avc_wwii_index.html

If you have an interest in US Naval Aviation in WWII, may I recommend "Naval Aviation Combat
Statistics" (1947). This document is also available on line as a PDF at the USN Historical Center website at

http://www.history.navy.mil/download/nasc.pdf

I would recommend a complete reading of the document, but for just the basics in USN credits I refer you to
Table 1, which conveniently enough provides the consolidated summary of operations. Of course you can save
the document to your machine once you bring it up. I would offer some caution on this, a very few of the more
detailed interior tables have some very minor calculation errors which are probably the result of typographic errors.
Putting the tables into a spread sheet and re-working the calculations will correct these. I'll let you discover them
on your own.

On the printed side, if you really want to invest some bucks, though I doubt you'll find many copies on the
market, you can try to find a copy of Frank Olynyk's WWII victory listings. He's produced a bunch …
USAAF (ETO, MTO, CBI, PTO), USN, and USMC. These listings are by date and time and are drawn from
the actual squadron records. He also cross-references the listings by squadron and individual pilot. Olynyk,
if you are not familiar with his work, is generally recognized as the leading authority on USAAF and
USN/USMC aerial victories. His work is based on meticulous research over many years, back into the 1970's
at least, with the survivors of those days and comparison of the original US reports (not summaries) with the
information from the opposition. His 668 page tour-de-force reporting on US aces "Stars and Bars, A tribute
to the American Fighter Ace 1920-1973" is generally regarded in serious aviation historian circles, and the
American Fighter Aces Association, as the definitive work in the subject.

I find Olynyk's work to be a better detailed than the information provided by the USAF, so I tend to lean in
his direction and use his numbers Plus he gives a somewhat higher number than either the Statistical Digest
or the 1957 victories compilation.

Certainly the P-38 leads the way for the USAAF, but there's not even 5,730 total victories much less 5,730 for
just the P-38. With a little work on your part you will discover that Olynyk's total is obviously more than the
totals one can derive from the either the USAAF Statistical Digest or the USAF 1957 credits for the PTO (+602 and
+35, respectively).

In any case, there's three numbers, one 1947 USAAF (3,113), one 1957 USAF (3,680), and one from modern,
and well respected, scholarship (3,715), representing an accounting of ALL fighter victories in the SWPA, POA
and the Aleutians, the three sub-areas that the USAAF considered to make up the PTO. None even approach
the number, 5,730, you've raised just for P-38s in the same area. And neither the USAAFSD total of 847 victories
nor the 1957 review total of 1,117 victories for the CBI come close to pushing the total over the top. The best
I can at this point get is somewhere in the neighborhood of 4,832 if I add the higher of the two CBI numbers I
have to Olynyk's higher PTO number . . . still about 898 short of 5,730 and again that's all victories for all
fighter/pursuit types.

So, the if you want to talk REAL numbers, okay, but I suggest you do some serious study and steering away
from other's imaginations. If you do, You'll find that in the Pacific the "precious" USN F6F by far exceeded
the P-38, specifically, and the USAAF total, generally, in scores. Period.

Please note the use of official USAF and USN sources. None of these sites are any great secret and their information has been available for years.

Are they not good enough for you? Are they just too hard to work with? Would you rather just get your "facts" from
someone else's undocumented and unsupported claims?

Further, I'd suggest that you know what you're talking about, or (gasp) do a little researtch on your own, before you start demanding sources from those who question your, frankly ("I've heard . . . I've read . . . So and so says in
this thread"), unsubstantiated claims. You just might get what you ask for.

Questions?

Rich

 

[acesman]

Mr Leonard, you ought to read the forum's latest postings before you jam your loafers into your mouth. And you ought to check out the sites you named (or the ones we both named, for that matter). My entries are posted an hour before your last one, and from mostly the same sites; I left mine at the "entry points" to the documents, but they are essentially the same.

Are they not good enough for you? Are they just too hard to work with? Would you rather just get your "facts" from
someone else's undocumented and unsupported claims?

Hmmm, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Read my post of 0918 today (March 21) and tell me about facts grabbed from an unknown and unverified source (specifically, your claims about number of USAAF aerial victories in the Pacific).

The thing I could not find was a specific listing of the number of kills by specific airplane by the Army. The Navy records are broken down by specific aircraft, making it very easy to find stats about a particular aircraft

 

[R Leonard]

And of course, since we were discussing fighters, if you want to add in all types, then I don't suppose you want to count all the USN scores as well? Are we changing the gist of the thread? Nice diversion.

Go back and count up JUST the fighters as we were discussing and see what you come up with.

Nice try.

 

[R Leonard]

Oh, and figuring out AAF fighter types associated a given credit? Well, I guess that would mean you'd have to go back and look at squadron histories to determine which squadron was flying what type when, wouldn't it. Can be done, the information is out there, but, it sounds like that might be a little too much work, eh? You only get out what you put in.

 

[MP-Willow]

Now this is some talk!

Leonard, in your listing of Fighter claims you had two for the P-26. Any help in finding where they were?

Also saw the 1960s Midway movie today, not that bad. I like the large use of USN Combat films.

 

[acesman]

And USAAF in the Pacific (Cental, Southwest, and Aleutians) recorded some 3715 credited victories. The F6F beat that all by itself.

Mr Leonard, this is the figure you posted. The official USAAF records say over 6,300. Refuting your stat, not a nice diversion. You excel at and sarcasm, and I say

PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

Show me how your stat is correct. You must have the figures that you used, I told you where I got mine, now it is your turn. And don't divert us by telling me to count up every listed air victory, you must have the figures you used, and can tell us where you got them. If you cannot, then your veracity becomes suspect.

 

[evangilder]

Willow, I do recall reading about some Filipino pilots that shot down Zeros just after Pearl Harbor, but I have not seen any P-26 victories by American pilots. I am not denying they happened, I don't have the records to see. Would have been one brave guy to face anything in a P-26 in 1941 or beyond!

 

[wmaxt]

And USAAF in the Pacific (Cental, Southwest, and Aleutians) recorded some 3715 credited victories. The F6F beat that all by itself.

Mr Leonard, this is the figure you posted. The official USAAF records say over 6,300. Refuting your stat, not a nice diversion. You excel at and sarcasm, and I say

PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

Show me how your stat is correct. You must have the figures that you used, I told you where I got mine, now it is your turn. And don't divert us by telling me to count up every listed air victory, you must have the figures you used, and can tell us where you got them. If you cannot, then your veracity becomes suspect.

Durring the War the P-38s in the PTO had 5,734 confirmed kills. Due to records destruction (most P-38s flew from foward bases like Henderson field, Guadalcanal and were subject to both the enemy and weather destruction) this hasn't been backed up in the existing records. So far I've not been able to back this up.

 

[R Leonard]

PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

You first. Did you go back and count up fighter victories, since that was what we were discussing? Doesn't look like it.

And show me your 5730 P-38 kills

You take the time to do the research and we'll talk. You take the time to determine who did what and where they did it. You take the time to determine which squadron was flying what airplane during what time period. You make some effort instead of expecting it to be handed to you.

If you just want to play strawman, you can stuff it.

The numbers are there. If you can't take the time to figure it out for yourself, that's not my fault.

 

[acesman]

OK, let's try a different tack.

Where did the numbers you claim for the P-38 (about 1700) come from? Counting the individual tallies of the pilots listed seems acceptable, but a bit tedious. Is that your source? Is there another?

BTW, it is funny in the USN records that all Japanese planes shot down are either fighters or bombers. Apparently the Japanese had no transport or observation planes that were shot down by the USN.

 

[wmaxt]

PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

You first. Did you go back and count up fighter victories, since that was what we were discussing? Doesn't look like it.

And show me your 5730 P-38 kills

You take the time to do the research and we'll talk. You take the time to determine who did what and where they did it. You take the time to determine which squadron was flying what airplane during what time period. You make some effort instead of expecting it to be handed to you.

If you just want to play strawman, you can stuff it.

The numbers are there. If you can't take the time to figure it out for yourself, that's not my fault.

5,734 was the number of claims creddited to P-38s in the Pacific DURRING the war. Many records have been destroyed durring the war and since. The USAF claims 15,863.6 kills in WWII (as of September, 2004 source Air Force Magazine.) your numbers are low. Just which numbers and why I don't know.
I haven't the time nor the intrest to spend all my time trying to count individual scores to prove it. It is also why the vast majority of WWII and aircraft historians accept the phrase "The P-38 shot down more Japanese airctaft than any other Alied aircraft" the number can no longer be proven through WWII action peports and records - That does not mean it is either incorrect or invalid. It happens in war.

 

[R Leonard]

two for the P-26. Any help in finding where they were?

The USAAF Statistical Digest apparently leaves out the action in the Philippines. My suspicion is that they
had yet to put it all together. It also appears to leave out the credited claims of USAAF fighter pilots at Pearl
Harbor.

So . . .

7 Dec 1941 = 10 Credited / 1 probable / 2 damaged

Then, credits awarded in the Philippines start went thusly:

8 Dec 41 = 10 / 0 / 0
10 Dec 41 = 7 / 0 / 0
12 Dec 41 = 7 / 0 / 0 This includes shared victories of 0.166 credits to each of six PAF pilots from the 6th FS,
PAF, which operated the P-26, plus one other by another 6th FS pilot, for a total of 1.996 credits. Pilots were 3LT's
Geronimo M. Aclan (0.166), Cesar M. Basa (0.166), Manuel Conde (0.166); and Antonio K. Mondigo (0.166);
2LT Alberto S. Aranzaso (0.166); 1LT Godofredo M. Juliano (0.166); and Captain Jesus A Villamor (1.0). Action
was over Batangas, Luzon.

16 Dec 41 = 1 / 0 / 0
3 Jan 42 = 1 / 0 / 0
17 Jan 42 = 2 / 0 / 0
18 Jan 42 = 1 / 0 / 0
19 Jan 42 = 1 / 0 / 0
and
26 Jan 42 = 3 / 0 / 0

Together, the Pearl Harbor and Philippines credits come to 43 / 1 / 2.

Regards,

Rich

 

[R Leonard]

OK, let's try a different tack.

Where did the numbers you claim for the P-38 (about 1700) come from? Counting the individual tallies of the pilots
listed seems acceptable, but a bit tedious. Is that your source? Is there another?

Taking a step back and a deep breath.

The discussion was one relating to a claim that the P-38 shot down (NOTE "shot down" - that means in air to
air action). And not to repeat lots of number thrown around, I reported hard numbers from the USN regarding
the results from it's two major fighters that would seem to contradict the P-38 claim. The P-38 claim became one
of 5730, a claim for which no one has offered a reliable source. I offered the results of some pretty in depth research
which indicated a number of about 1770 for the P-38. And for that being thoroughly trashed, evidently for providing
information that shatters some cherished beliefs. After a final plea, I finally broke down and composed a long
missive that provided my sources. Regretfully my post went out without my reading any intervening posts.
I thank you for the opportunity to respond to the request for sources and the time granted to do so. I'm sorry that
you could not wait for it.

And so now you know my sources, at least the ones readily available to Mr and Mrs America and all the ships at sea.
I have others, originals or copies of documents and reports all neatly stored that I can drag out as needed.
But, you know, frankly, the apparent fact that some do not have access to all of the sources as do I, really isn't
my problem. The fact that some either cannot accurately read or willfully distort the information that is in the available
internet sources isn't particularly my problem, either. It is simply a shame that some feel they have to misrepresent
the data evidently because it does not conform to their beliefs.

To wit, (and please, please, someone go and check my numbers as an independent third party) please find
below the results of fighter combat, by month, for the USAAF in the Pacific. And, at the risk of repeating
myself, the USAAF considered the Pacific Theater to consist of the Far East Air Forces, Central Pacific Air Forces,
and the Alaska Air Forces. This data is drawn from the relevant USAAF Statistical Digest tables 169, 170, and
172 and shows credited fighter victories for the months shown.

From Table 169 Enemy Aircraft Destroyed Pacific Ocean Areas
Enemy Aircraft Destroyed in the Air, by fighters, Pacific Ocean Areas
None Reported for Months not shown
Oct-43 = 1
Dec-43 = 5
Jan-44 = 12
Jun-44 = 1
Jul-44 = 2
Oct-44 = 1
Nov-44 = 12
Dec-44 = 10
Jan-45 = 3
Feb-45 = 5
Mar-45 = 2
Apr-45 = 71
May-45 = 88
Jun-45 = 113
Jul-45 = 44
Subtotal = 370

From Table 170 Enemy Aircraft Destroyed Far East Air Forces
Enemy Aircraft Destroyed in the Air, by fighters, Far East Air Forces
None Reported for Months not shown
Feb-42 = 20
Mar-42 = 12
Apr-42 = 9
May-42 = 14
Jun-42 = 20
Jul-42 = 4
Aug-42 = 26
Oct-42 = 6
Nov-42 = 25
Dec-42 = 54
Jan-43 = 41
Feb-43 = 44
Mar-43 = 38
Apr-43 = 20
May-43 = 11
Jun-43 = 85
Jul-43 = 104
Aug-43 = 130
Sep-43 = 154
Oct-43 = 234
Nov-43 = 157
Dec-43 = 215
Jan-44 = 97
Feb-44 = 61
Mar-44 = 98
Apr-44 = 33
May-44 = 30
Jun-44 = 61
Jul-44 = 20
Aug-44 = 15
Sep-44 = 12
Oct-44 = 76
Nov-44 = 276
Dec-44 = 341
Jan-45 = 58
Feb-45 = 21
Mar-45 = 38
Apr-45 = 11
May-45 = 3
Jun-45 = 3
Jul-45 = 9
Aug-45 = 23
Subtotal = 2709

From Table 172 Enemy Aircraft Destroyed Alaska
Enemy Aircraft Destroyed in the Air, by fighters, Alaskan Air Forces
None Reported for Months not shown
Jun-42 = 8
Aug-42 = 2
Sep-42 = 1
Oct-42 = 9
Nov-42 = 0
Dec-42 = 1
Feb-43 = 6
Mar-43 = 2
May-43 = 5
Subtotal = 34

Total = 3113

Note that the total, 3113 is quite a bit less that the number I originally gave as credit for USAAF fighter air to air,
a score of 3715; a difference, in fact of 602, which I previously pointed out. So, right off the bat, I give the USAAF
MORE credits than their own statistical digest. Does anyone want to move that we use this 3113 number instead?

Then, there's always the 1957 recompilation of aerial victories. I won't bore you with a lot on in and outs on
getting a count from that, except to say that it can, indeed, be done if one takes the time to do so. And in fact,
quite some time ago, I did so. The count that I came up with counting all the victories in the three aforementioned
operating areas was 3680. Again, a number less than the 3715 I use, by a whopping 35. Does anyone want to
move that we use the 1957 recompilation 3680 instead?

And as an aside, one can go to various places on the internet, which I shall not enumerate as others can
obviously find them if they bother to bestir themselves, find the squadron histories for the units mentioned in
the 1957 recompilation and determine, with say, 95% certainty, which aircraft a give squadron was operating.
I did that, too. But, I'm sorry, if someone wants that information, they'll just have to do it themselves.

Finally, if you just happen to have a copy of Olynyk's "USAAF (Pacific Theater) Credits for the Destruction of
Enemy Aircraft in Air-to-Air Combat World War II" you could go to the table in the very back, after the day by
day accounting, after the by unit accounting, after the by pilot accounting . . . all the way in the back,
on the last page, we find the following list of credit to the USAAF for aerial victories by known type of plane flown
by a USAAF pilot.

TYPE = CREDIT / PROBABLE / DAMAGED
F-6 = 1 / 0 / 0
F-6 or P-51 = 1 / 0 / 0
F-6D = 12 / 0 / 0
F-6K = 4 / 1 / 0
F4F =0.500 / 0 / 0
P-26 = 1.996 / 0 / 0
P-35A = 1 / 0 / 0
P-36A = 3 / 0 / 1
P-38 = 1085 / 177 / 110
P-38-5 = 1 / 0 / 0
P-38E = 2 / 0 / 0
P-38F = 0 / 0 / 1
P-38F-5 = 88 / 26 / 25
P-38FF-5 = 0 / 1 / 0
P-38G = 33 / 7 / 1
P-38G-1 = 19 / 5 / 5
P-38G-15 = 55 / 14 / 5
P-38G-5 = 8 / 3 / 4
P-38H-1 = 180 / 24 / 16
P-38H-1-LO = 1 / 0 / 0
P-38H-5 = 109 / 26 / 11
P-38J = 1 / 1 / 0
P-38J-15 = 48 / 4 / 7
P-38J-20 = 10.5 / 2 / 4
P-38J-5 = 1 / 0 / 0
P-38L = 32.333 / 0 / 3
P-38L-1 =13 / 2 / 3
P-38L-5 = 13 / 1 / 1
P-39 = 130 / 37 / 18
P-39/400 = 2 / 0 / 0
P-39D = 7 / 2 / 2
P-39D-1 = 18 / 0 / 1
P-39D-2 = 12 / 6 / 1
P-39K = 1 / 0 / 0
P-39K/D = 6 / 0 / 0
P-39K-1 = 11 / 1 / 1
P-39N/Q = 13 / 0 / 2
P-39N-1 = 10 / 3 / 0
P-39N-5 = 21 / 5 / 3
P-39Q = 6 / 0 / 1
P-39Q-1BE = 3 / 0 / 0
P-39Q-5 = 3 / 2 / 2
P-40 = 187 / 31 / 21
P-40 or F-6 = 1 / 0 / 0
P-400 / 45 / 6 / 5
P-400 = 1 / 0 / 0
P-40B = 10 / 0 / 0
P-40E = 135.999 / 10 / 2
P-40E-1 = 45 / 12 / 2
P-40F = 50 / 7 / 0
P-40F/N = 36 / 2 / 5
P-40K = 1 / 0 / 0
P-40K-1 =24 / 4 / 2
P-40M-5 = 1 / 0 / 0
P-40N = 62 / 8 / 6
P-40N-5 = 98 / 9 / 7
P-40N-5-CU = 1 / 0 / 0
P-40R = 8.5 / 0 / 1
P-47 = 487 / 40 / 16
P-47D = 7.666 / 0 / 0
P-47D-2 = 31 / 0 / 0
P-47D-3RA = 2 / 3 / 2
P-47N = 169 / 10 / 16
P-51 = 30 / 2 / 0
P-51D = 187 / 33 / 93.999
P-51D-25NA = 1 / 0 / 1
P-51D-2O = 26 / 2 / 9
P-51D-2ONA = 34 / 2 / 7
P-61 = 43 / 4 / 4
P-61A = 13 / 2 / 0
P-61A-1 = 1 / 0 / 0
P-61A-10 = 1.5 / 0 / 0
P-61A-11 = 1 / 0 / 0
P-61A-5 = 1 / 0 / 0
P-61B-1 = 2 / 0 / 0
P-61B-15 = 1 / 0 / 0
P-70 = 2 / 0 / 0
TOTAL = 3712.994 / 537 / 427.999

You'll note, undoubtedly the discrepancy between the 3715 figure that I use and the 3712.994. This is due to
rounding within the table itself. Does anyone want to move that we use Olynyk's 3712.994 instead?

Does anyone one have any better numbers that they can support with documentation?

So, anything else, gross total numbers for all USAAF aircraft or action in the CBI or anywhere else are not germane
to the claim that the P-38 shot down more Japanese planes than any other US type. That's mixing apples and
oranges, either accidentally or on purpose.

I don't see anyone with any real numbers to contradict anything here, and I am truly sorry if it does not conform
to anyone's preconceived notions. Quite honestly, I had no opinion on the matter until a couple of years ago
when I started looking in to claims versus Japanese admitted losses and production. Then intellectual curiosity
got the better of me and I wound up with a couple of Gigs of data.

So, there it is, take it or leave it. If anyone has better, verifiable, numbers, let's see them.

I regret to tell some here that all the crying and wringing of hands makes no difference. All the shouting and deliberate
mis-presentation (or, charitably, misunderstanding) of numbers that obscure the issue makes no difference.
If you want to have discussion of historical data, then you need the data. And you should be honest in your presentation.
There are some who do not get that message. And your data should be verifiable. To claim some number based
on "lost report" (funny, last time it was because of some mysterious P-51 mafia doctoring the records) doesn't cut
it. Lost, stolen, or destroyed records don't speak and don't get a vote. Most of the time, they never existed.
And I suggest folks search out someone with practical experience with military reporting. They can explain it
to you; obviously my earlier explanation didn't take except to burst some bubbles.

BTW, it is funny in the USN records that all Japanese planes shot down are either fighters or bombers.
Apparently the Japanese had no transport or observation planes that were shot down by the USN.

You can go to Table 28 and that gives you a little more breakdown, but only for the period 1 September 1944
through the end of the war. The USN statistics are primarily aimed at results against major combat types,
those of the VF, VB, and VTB varieties. But if you want to look at other types, then the numbers are going to
start to go up. Simply, if they don't mention the types other than fighters and bombers, then the numbers are a
little low as they are incomplete. So, looking at Table 28, at the bottom there's some catch all categories.
They are (and I'll just provide the totals for USN fighters operating in that period taken directly from the table):

F6F –
Flying Boats = 17
Transports = 36
Trainers = 17
Total = 70

F4U
Flying Boats = 0
Transports = 3
Trainers = 12
Total = 15

FM
Flying Boats = 0
Transports = 1
Trainers = 0
Total = 1

Now then, I don't have the individual USMC results, so any additional numbers I can add will probably still be
somewhat short, but I can fill in the totals for the Dec 1941 through August 1944 of shoot downs by Navy
fighters of these general types of aircraft based on the ACA reports filed. I won't break it down by month or
anything fancy, but offer just a rough aggregate number in the same format.

F4F
Flying Boats = 17
Transports = 0
Trainers = 0
Total = 17

F6F
Flying Boats = 22
Transports = 2
Trainers = 0
Total = 24

F4U = No change

FM = No change

Which makes a rough total, for the USN types shown, for the entire war of

Totals
Flying Boats = 56
Transports = 42
Trainers = 29
Total = 127

There were, of course, others of these categories shot down by USN VB, VT, VP, and VBP types. Further, the USN
made no distinction, for example, between the G4M series bombers and the G6M series transports, essentially
indistinguishable from the exterior. As far as the USN was concerned, a "Betty" was a bomber.


Regards,

Rich

 

[Anonymous]

Seems pretty convincing to me!

Well done Rich. I applaud you for sticking to the point instead of resorting to counter-insults!

=S=

Lunatic

 

[R Leonard]

5,734 was the number of claims creddited to P-38s in the Pacific DURRING the war. Many records have been
destroyed durring the war and since. The USAF claims 15,863.6 kills in WWII (as of September, 2004 source Air
Force Magazine.) your numbers are low. Just which numbers and why I don't know.
I haven't the time nor the intrest to spend all my time trying to count individual scores to prove it. It is also
why the vast majority of WWII and aircraft historians accept the phrase "The P-38 shot down more
Japanese airctaft than any other Alied aircraft" the number can no longer be proven through WWII action peports
and records - That does not mean it is either incorrect or invalid. It happens in war.

If I'm off, it sure isn't in some mythical P-38 number. Just looking at fighter numbers (from the USAAF Statistics):

ETO = 7422 Air / 6796 ground
MTO = 3300 / 1364
CBI = 847 / 620
AL = 34 / 13
FE = 2709 / 299
CPac = 370 / 131
TOTALS = 14682 / 9223

So, if that number credited in the digest is 14,682 and your number is 15,864 then there's a difference
of 1182. And if I say there's 1770 P-38 victories in the Pacific and you say there's 5734 that's a difference
of 3964. But the difference between 3964 and 1182 is 2782. So either the USAF total number you quote
is too small or your P-38 number is too big. Pick one.

I would direct yur attention to:

http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwroot/aerial_victory_credits/avc_dispatch_article.html

which says near the bottom "The great majority of the aerial victory credits occurred during World War II,
when Army Air Forces' (AAF) pilots shot down almost 15,800 enemy airplanes. "

"Almost" means not quite where I come from. Your regional outlook may vary.

Or, if you go to the USAF site at

http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwroot/aerial_victory_credits/avc_total.html

you'll find "official" USAF fighter credits number for WWII as 15,811. You seem to have lost some. That would
mean you could have some 2835 too many P-38 credits, right? Just adding and subtracting.

I'm still waiting for anyone to show me an offical USAF site that
confirms this theory on the P-38.

Let me be blunt (what else?). I don't care what scraps of reports good ole Martin Caiden found. Reports are
in many copies, they go to higher HQ which forwards consolidated copies to the next highest HQ, and so on.
In my younger days I was a brigade S-3. Reports were a nightmare. Up from the companies to the battalions
to me to the Div HQ and so on. Failing to file a report and making sure it got to the higher HQ when it was
supposed to was akin to making a drunken pass at the Div commander's 16 year old daughter. Many is
the battalion S-3 whom I let know my displeasure in no uncertain terms. I'm positive they had kind
words for their company commanders in turn.

Except for the cute little tale that appears in Caiden's "Forktailed Devils" which, I might add also has a
wonderful little tale of a P-38 that flew all by itself with a dead pilot for a couple of hours after is should
have run out of gas and came all the way back to its base like a good little puppy where it magically
fell apart right over the strip. Quoth Caiden "It's true." I think this and the "lost reports" are wonderful
little stories, but, come on, really? Just how much do you think the rational mind can handle?
Caiden was a spinner of tall tales for the purpose of selling books.

What ever happened to your P-51 Mafia? I thought that was a much more novel approach.

Regards,

Rich

 

[acesman]

Rich,
Thanks for the breakdown. There are some minor variations (you cant shoot down .994 of an aircraft), but this seems a very detailed accounting. I will concede the point about the P-38 in lack of any verifiable numbers to contradict the ones posted.