Most valuable Carrier Fighter Of WWII

[buffnut453]

There's a world of difference between making stuff up and making a genuine, but mistaken, assessment in the heat of combat. Given the rampant overclaiming by all sides during WW2, it would not be surprising if Swede incorrectly assessed that the Japanese fighters had been shot down.

As to the Japanese fabricating information about their own losses, that's a trope that's been used for many years to justify, for example, the kill ratio of the AVG. Dan Ford effectively debunked the AVG's list of kills by examining the list of Japanese losses from their own records. Those who failed to accept Ford's analysis had to do something to make up the difference, and so was born the concept that Japanese units lied about their losses in their reports up the command chain. Apart from being blatantly racist, this explanation fails to account for how "losing face" about reporting losses stacks up against the same impact resulting from a complete inability to prosecute operations. It also fails to account for the impacts all the way up the command chain, particularly logistics and supplies. If the Japanese lied about so many losses, their airfields would have been awash in avgas because there were no aircraft to refuel.

 

[michael rauls]

Hey bud, I don't think that it's RCAFson intention to disparage any particular person, and he did in fact provide a reference for what he typed. I know what your saying, but whether it's fog of war or an individual lying (there are certainly cases of both) but when 'Tom' engages squadron xyz on a specific date and claims x many shot down and in fact enemy records say that all of those aircraft were recorded as returning from that mission then there is a problem somewhere.

Respectfully Pinsog

Yes that would indicate there's a problem somewhere but that doesn't nescesarily mean its the pilot thats incorrect. God knows that record keeping was also subject to the fog of war at times and I'm no expert but from what I've read Japanese records in particular were subject to optimistic outlooks shall we say.
About a year ago I rear an article about a Japanese army unit that had pretty much ceased to exist but those at the top of the comand food chain were unaware of this and still making decisions as if the were full strength because no one on up the chain of comand wanted to lose face and admit defete to his superiors.
Also when Swede Vejtasa returned he had damage to his wingtip from the 3rd and final Zero that went down in that fight. That would be quites a trick to pull off if he had made the whole thing up.
Also lets not forget the witness in the back seat. Furthermore its pretty hard to believe that a guy who would go on to prove beyond any doubt that he possessed superlative combat skills would feel the need to make something like this up.
Is it posible that two of the three Zeros( barring the one that did not survive the colision) were just badly shot up and made it back to there carrier so were not technically "lost' ya maybe but im not buying that Swede made the whole thing up.

 

[michael rauls]

Sorry about the double post guys. On my phone the first one didn't show up until after i posted the 2nd one. I thought it had just disappeared onto the ether.

 

[michael rauls]

There's a world of difference between making stuff up and making a genuine, but mistaken, assessment in the heat of combat. Given the rampant overclaiming by all sides during WW2, it would not be surprising if Swede incorrectly assessed that the Japanese fighters had been shot down.

As to the Japanese fabricating information about their own losses, that's a trope that's been used for many years to justify, for example, the kill ratio of the AVG. Dan Ford effectively debunked the AVG's list of kills by examining the list of Japanese losses from their own records. Those who failed to accept Ford's analysis had to do something to make up the difference, and so was born the concept that Japanese units lied about their losses in their reports up the command chain. Apart from being blatantly racist, this explanation fails to account for how "losing face" about reporting losses stacks up against the same impact resulting from a complete inability to prosecute operations. It also fails to account for the impacts all the way up the command chain, particularly logistics and supplies. If the Japanese lied about so many losses, their airfields would have been awash in avgas because there were no aircraft to refuel.

Ok brother I don't know if you need tu pull out the racism card. I have nothing but respect for the bravery of Japanese pilots.
As far as the assertion that optimistic reports are racist we the, US , had quite a few optimistic reports ourselves especially durring Viet Nam for example. So its not posible the Japanese suffered from the same malidy? And to sugest they did is racist..? Don't mean to sound confrontational but man thats a tuff one to swallow.

 

[buffnut453]

Ok brother I don't know if you need tu pull out the racism card. I have nothing but respect for the bravery of Japanese pilots.
As far as the assertion that optimistic reports are racist we the, US , had quite a few optimistic reports ourselves especially durring Viet Nam for example. So its not posible the Japanese suffered from the same malidy? And to sugest they did is racist..? Don't mean to sound confrontational but man thats a tuff one to swallow.

I'm not saying you're racist. I'm saying that the excuse made by some that the Japanese falsified their own loss returns is racist. It's one thing for a combatant to make mistaken claims about their own side's kills; all sides did that. It's another thing altogether to suggest that a combatant deliberately falsifies reporting of its own losses. That just doesn't stack up against the reality of warfare. The claim that the Japanese, exclusively, falsified upwards reporting of their own losses is bogus. As noted, if they did that then their airfields would have had spare parts and POL coming out of their ears. The reality is that the Japanese were running out of everything at the end of the war. It's frankly ludicrous to suggest that pervasive, systemic fabrication of loss reporting would not have been noticed given the dire straits the Japanese were in. So, yes, that specific claim is racist because it's only ever applied to the Japanese and, in the case of the AVG, it's used purely to justify provably inaccurate Allied kill claims.

 

[michael rauls]

There's a world of difference between making stuff up and making a genuine, but mistaken, assessment in the heat of combat. Given the rampant overclaiming by all sides during WW2, it would not be surprising if Swede incorrectly assessed that the Japanese fighters had been shot down.

As to the Japanese fabricating information about their own losses, that's a trope that's been used for many years to justify, for example, the kill ratio of the AVG. Dan Ford effectively debunked the AVG's list of kills by examining the list of Japanese losses from their own records. Those who failed to accept Ford's analysis had to do something to make up the difference, and so was born the concept that Japanese units lied about their losses in their reports up the command chain. Apart from being blatantly racist, this explanation fails to account for how "losing face" about reporting losses stacks up against the same impact resulting from a complete inability to prosecute operations. It also fails to account for the impacts all the way up the command chain, particularly logistics and supplies. If the Japanese lied about so many losses, their airfields would have been awash in avgas because there were no aircraft to refuel.

Also how about addressing the other 6 points in my post instead of just the one you feel is the weakest.

 

[buffnut453]

Also how about addressing the other 6 points in my post instead of just the one you feel is the weakest.

I have no problem with the assertion that many Japanese records were lost. As to a gunner somehow making claims more reliable, if that were the case then every 8th AF gunner's kill would be absolutely definite because of the number of crew in each B-17 or B-24. As to the rest, it's just conjecture.

 

[michael rauls]

I'm not saying you're racist. I'm saying that the excuse made by some that the Japanese falsified their own loss returns is racist. It's one thing for a combatant to make mistaken claims about their own side's kills; all sides did that. It's another thing altogether to suggest that a combatant deliberately falsifies reporting of its own losses. That just doesn't stack up against the reality of warfare. The claim that the Japanese, exclusively, falsified upwards reporting of their own losses is bogus. As noted, if they did that then their airfields would have had spare parts and POL coming out of their ears. The reality is that the Japanese were running out of everything at the end of the war. It's frankly ludicrous to suggest that pervasive, systemic fabrication of loss reporting would not have been noticed given the dire straits the Japanese were in. So, yes, that specific claim is racist because it's only ever applied to the Japanese and, in the case of the AVG, it's used purely to justify provably inaccurate Allied kill claims.

Ok never in my life have I heard the assertion that optamistic reporting and record keeping was exclusively a Japanese thing. Certainly we have had some ourselves. I said its just one more log on a stack of logs that indicate that just because Japanese records which may or may not even be complete dont show those particular loses does not mean they did not happen. Particularly with a witness, corabarating battle damage, etc.

 

[buffnut453]

Ok never in my life have I heard the assertion that optamistic reporting and record keeping was exclusively a Japanese thing. Certainly we have had some ourselves. I said its just one more log on a stack of logs that indicate that just because Japanese records which may or may not even be complete dont show those particular loses does not mean they did not happen. Particularly with a witness, corabarating battle damage, etc.

Please show me one single historic account which claims that the USAAF or RAF falsified their own losses. You need to read what I'm writing. All sides overclaimed kills. I'm not arguing that. However, military units do NOT consistently under-report losses. Doing so would completely undermine military effectiveness. It would ultimately lead to the total annihilation of the unit...and no amount of "saving face" efforts would make up for that.

 

[michael rauls]

I have no problem with the assertion that many Japanese records were lost. As to a gunner somehow making claims more reliable, if that were the case then every 8th AF gunner's kill would be absolutely definite because of the number of crew in each B-17 or B-24. As to the rest, it's just conjecture.

Ok a couple of points jump out at me here. First the corabarating damage to the wing tip is conjecture?
2nd you completely missed the point about the gunner /witness. Of course one witness does not absolutely prove anything.That wasnt the point. Someone made the assertion that since Japanese records which may or may nor even be complete dont show these losses that proves they didn't happen. I gave more than a half dozen reasons why this is not nescesarily the case and counterbalancing evedence that it did the gunner/witness was only one of these.
Also the situation with 8th air force bomber gunners is not comparative here because in that situation you had multiple gunners shooting at an attacker and if the attacking aircraft was hit everybody would in good faith claim it as they were shooting at it resulting in multiples of overclaiming. In this instance we have one plane with one gunner/ witness. No possibility for such an error. If a zero went down that gunner knew 100% for sure who shot it down.
Also just occurred to me, with the damage to the wing tip i think we can pretty much count on that last " kill" even though it was just a colision. And if so, if Swede didn't shoot down the other two zeros what happened to them? They just decided to take off and leave there budy to fight this SBD alone? That doesn't seem plausible.

 

[GrauGeist]

Let's all calm the eff down before the Mods lock this thread.

There's always going to be some people who want to play down accomplishments of any type - this forum is full of that sort of thing.

In regards to the SBD, it was the right type at the right time. Period. It's exploits bear that out, regardless of anyone's opinion.

As for Lundstrom, he claims that Vejtasa had 1 victory prior to going to VF-10 yet Tillman claims Vejtasa had 3 prior to his F4F time.

So we have to ask why then, did the USN award Vejtasa a Navy Cross and transfer him immediately to fighters if he wasn't good at shooting anything down? Hell of a question, really.

And Leppla, who also took a toll on IJN aircraft with his Dauntless during the Battle of Coral Sea, including an A6M, was also transferred to VF-10.

 

[michael rauls]

Please show me one single historic account which claims that the USAAF or RAF falsified their own losses. You need to read what I'm writing. All sides overclaimed kills. I'm not arguing that. However, military units do NOT consistently under-report losses. Doing so would completely undermine military effectiveness. It would ultimately lead to the total annihilation of the unit...and no amount of "saving face" efforts would make up for that.

I didn't mean to suggest that any side routinely and deliberately falsified records just that in the fog of war sometimes what happened isnt clear and in some cases the more optimistic view is recorded. It isnt only pilots claims that are subject to the fog of war was my point.
Anyway that was just part of my overall point that just because one author says that because the Japanese records we have dont record this does not nescesarily mean it didn't happen thats all. IMHO

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Ok, everyone...

Relax

 

[Elvis]

...can I still cast a vote for the B-25?

… just kidding. =D

 

[GrauGeist]

Then I put my vote in for the P-38!

 

[michael rauls]

Then I put my vote in for the P-38!

View attachment 509426

Cool pic. I'm scratching my head trying to figure out exactly whats going on there though.

 

[GrauGeist]

The Navy scratch-built a transport out of a couple of DUKWs to ferry some P-38s for the Army in the PTO.
I recall that an airstrip wasn't ready on one of the islands, so they offloaded the P-38s at a deepwater spot and transported them the rest of the way by this "micro carrier".

 

[parsifal]

It is infinitely better than the Spitfire V/Zero kill ratio over Australia of 27-4.

(Digging slit trench as Spitfire fans form up for attack)

And what about the 60+ other aircraft the spitfire wing inflicted at the same time

yes you had better take cover I think

 

[Stig1207]

And what about the 60+ other aircraft the spitfire wing inflicted at the same time

That's the claims, actual recorded Japanese losses were 30; incliuding 4 Zeros, a A6M2 -N floatplane fighter and a Ki-43.

http://www.darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=2-raaf-air-combats-in-nwa

 

[buffnut453]

Ok a couple of points jump out at me here. First the corabarating damage to the wing tip is conjecture?
2nd you completely missed the point about the gunner /witness. Of course one witness does not absolutely prove anything.That wasnt the point. Someone made the assertion that since Japanese records which may or may nor even be complete dont show these losses that proves they didn't happen. I gave more than a half dozen reasons why this is not nescesarily the case and counterbalancing evedence that it did the gunner/witness was only one of these.
Also the situation with 8th air force bomber gunners is not comparative here because in that situation you had multiple gunners shooting at an attacker and if the attacking aircraft was hit everybody would in good faith claim it as they were shooting at it resulting in multiples of overclaiming. In this instance we have one plane with one gunner/ witness. No possibility for such an error. If a zero went down that gunner knew 100% for sure who shot it down.
Also just occurred to me, with the damage to the wing tip i think we can pretty much count on that last " kill" even though it was just a colision. And if so, if Swede didn't shoot down the other two zeros what happened to them? They just decided to take off and leave there budy to fight this SBD alone? That doesn't seem plausible.

Gents,

Please understand I'm not suggesting that Swede wasn't a great pilot. Nor am I suggesting that his claims were incorrect. However, if contemporary Japanese sources indicate that 2 or 3 aircraft did return, then we shouldn't discount that.

As to the wingtip damage to Swede's aircraft, all that shows is that the SBD was damaged and suggests that the Japanese aircraft was also damaged. It does not necessarily prove that the Japanese aircraft was destroyed. Take a look at the image below. Any reasonable person seeing that amount of damage inflicted in combat would claim it as destroyed:

This is the Mitsubishi A5M of IJN pilot Kashimura Kan'ichi which collided with a P-36 over China in on 9 December 1937. Kashimura returned to base where this photo was taken as he came in to complete a successful landing.

The world of aerial combat is messy and aircrew are making snap-judgments in split seconds. There were literally thousands of kill claims made for aircraft that issued a puff of smoke and dived away "out of control" when, in reality, those aircraft successfully returned to base. Very few crews watched their supposed kill dive into the ground/sea because that takes the eyes away from the battle and greatly increases the risk of being shot down themselves.

At the end of the day, we may never know whether or not Swede really did shoot down 3 A6Ms. Frankly, it's an irrelevant argument to his skill as a pilot which is unquestioned. I just wanted to point out that we can't keep relying on the same old tired excuses about "lack of records" or "the Japanese didn't report their own losses to save face" or "Japanese aircraft were fragile" to explain every questionable claim by Allied airmen.