Hellcat Vs The Zero

"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.

"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.

Dan and Jank, agree....

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.

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

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...

lesofprimus said:

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

Click to expand...

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 !

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 =-

Soren said:

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

Click to expand...

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 =-

Click to expand...

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...

Click to expand...

Did he enter a dogfight with the Zeke pilot ?

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...

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 ?

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

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.

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?

Click to expand...

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

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 stupid@ss moronic cousin started with a lighter and a can of hairspray...

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....

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.

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.

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

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