Hellcat Vs The Zero

[FLYBOYJ]

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.

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....

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....

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).

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]

"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]

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]

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]

Exactly Soren...

 

[timshatz]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

"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]

"
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."

Agreed. Who is arguing that?

3. 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.

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

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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