Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Appreciate that Hunter, but I did read selectively and I purposely wanted to hear the response. I've worked around pilots and gunners who had aerial kills to their credit. Although informative, they would take a lot of the "statistics" and so called research by historians and others with a grain of salt. As one former AD driver who works with me once said, "I was there and that's the way I remember it."
I understand 100% your first post, you might of been putting out your feelers to see what he was going to say.....maybe you missed a little of the intent of the post. I also agree with your above post 100%.
I understand fully his post also and agree.
The one thing what I felt was not needed was the comment about you "You're reading selectively, as you often do." I think that was too much. You are one of the most accurate and factual posters here. I think he is lucky Dan did not see that comment towards you......he might of answered a little more harsh then I did. You made a small over sight to a degree......no need to rub your nose in it with a comment like that. You were not being rude to him.
But if you are fine with it then I will let it go at that. You sure don't need anyone sticking up for you, if he had ticked you off......he would of heard about it.
1. I'll say fair enough too. Although as you see he admits he was doing it. Flyboyj and I have some history, at least recent history of my posts here, of sparring on basically this issue, facts of claims and losses v 'supporting the vets' (but you can only do that from one side at a time1. The one thing what I felt was not needed was the comment about you "You're reading selectively, as you often do." I think that was too much.
2. I think he is lucky Dan did not see that comment towards you......he might of answered a little more harsh then I did... if he had ticked you off......he would of heard about it.
1. I'll say fair enough too. Although as you see he admits he was doing it. Flyboyj and I have some history, at least recent history of my posts here, of sparring on basically this issue, facts of claims and losses v 'supporting the vets' (but you can only do that from one side at a time). I understand his viewpoint also, but as I've repeatedly said I've talked to many (US) KW vets and am not aware of any who have a problem with my research approach. But even so at some point, facts are facts, whether 'you were there' or not or the people 'who were there' like them or not. But I think he does read into my posts things that aren't there, not just this time, though I never commented on it directly before. Maybe it's to promote lively discussion, no big problem anyway, but again as you see he admits it so again I accept your view but it doesn't seem in fact my statement was so far out of line.
2. Dan (whoever that is, with all due respect to him), you or anybody else can say anything civil to me based on facts or what I actually posted, without worry about my delicate feelings; I'm a lucky man in many ways but not the way you say, particularly
Joe
The aerial battles over Rangoon at Christmas 1941 are particularly well covered in Japanese histories, even unto diagrams showing how formations lost bombers, mile by mile and minute by minute. So I did a quick calculation on Japanese overclaiming, and it came to 5 to 1, as opposed to the American Volunteer Group pilots, who overclaimed something like 2.75 to 1. The difference is probably almost entirely attributable to the fact that a majority of Japanese planes over Rangoon were bombers, and that the bomber gunners were the most optimistic about their kills, for all the reasons cited above.
Especially with the AVG's boom zoom tactic, all the bomber gunner is going to see is a fighter slashing past. (Not all the AVGs used diving attacks this early in the war, but many did.) Then later he might see a fighter in flames. He's naturally going to think that it's the enemy fighter, whether or no, and that he shot it down.
(That said, it's also true that Japanese fighter pilots overclaimed at a higher rate than did the Allied pilots, as a consequence of their system of tallying victories as a group endeavor.)
Blue skies! -- Dan Ford
Coming August 21: Flying Tigers: Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
In talking to my Uncle Levi, who flew 32 missions in a B-17 as TT/Eng...
I asked him how many did you shoot down? His reply was " I just tried to
make the GO AWAY!"
Actually the rear gunner had the best chance of hitting something as well as being hit...I believe the top turretgunner would have the best chance of hitting anything during a head on run or an overhead run. the waist gunners never had anything but considerably more difficult than a deflection shot.