% of Verfiable Victories

[FLYBOYJ]

Who's "we"? I keep researching but haven't found anything that's changed my basic conconclusions in the last few years.

Also re: your other post, ACIG is an *interesting* site, but their Korean War lists are riddled with errors. The lists of Soviet claims in Korea give a quite misleadingly high impression of Soviet claim accuracy. They do that two ways: first the ACIG lists credit Soviet pilots with *all* US losses of the same general type lost the same day to *any* cause, no matter what US sources say was the cause. Second, those list simply omit many of the Soviet claims.
Example
Soviet Air-to-Air Victories during the Korean War, Part 1
This list, Soviet claims in Korea 11/1/50-8/29/51 gives 140 Soviet claims, crediting them with 46 specific UN a/c (serial no), though in some cases with a "?"'; plus 22 other apparently claim verifying references like "pilot POW", "admitted", "crashed in the bay" etc but no specific plane, so up to 68 total.
In reality there were (at least) 221 Soviet claims in that period, and my incident by incident research in original records showed 19 UN a/c lost in air combat outright, 2 others possible (losses not attributed to air combat that may have been, it *did* happen, just not very often), 3 returned but never repaired, so up to 24 total. That is, like the Soviet ace score, a big discrepancy, 68 v 24.

And that's my whole point...

But surprise! the same guy who wrote those lists of Soviet and Vietnamese aces mainly did the KW lists at ACIG, and contributed to some other lists there. Note he uses some of the same techniques on the Vietnamese ace list: if a US plane of same type was lost to *any* cause over NV the same day as a VPAF ace claim, it's credited as verifying his claim (regardless of the cause given in US records, *and* regardless of claims made by other VPAF pilots).

What analysis leads you to state instead that ACIG is an "excellent" source? I don't know if all their lists are as biased and fudged as the above, just curious to know what research has led you to your conclusion.

Joe

Because I have an opportunity to sometimes work with people from the USAF at the Academy (where I am currently employed) who also does this research as well and it's one of the only sources available to "begin" any type of research, AND I have opportunities work on F-86s and Mig-15 and in doing so met Korean War Vets, some who were aces. We could start with ACIG or go with some of the sites from Russia that still touts 630 F-86s were shot down by Soviet pilots. Its a matter of which source is more biased or fudged than another.....

 

[JoeB]

1. And that's my whole point...
2. Because I have an opportunity to sometimes work with people from the USAF at the Academy (where I am currently employed) who also does this research as well and it's one of the only sources available to "begin" any type of research,
3.AND I have opportunities work on F-86s and Mig-15 and in doing so met Korean War Vets, some who were aces.
4. We could start with ACIG or go with some of the sites from Russia that still touts 630 F-86s were shot down by Soviet pilots. Its a matter of which source is more biased or fudged than another.....

1. I don't understand. You said the ACIG list was excellent, I just gave specifics that it's not, and you say that's just your point? Then what was your original point, adressing me by name? Again who is 'we'? It's confusing.
2. Place to begin, is not "excellent source". It doesn't seem the people you refer to had told you of the extensive mistakes in that list. Are you sure they know?
3. That's nice, so have I interviewed many KW era pilots who flew all kinds of types. But it's nothing to do with the accuracy of that list.
4. The ACIG list is actually worse IMO than websites that simply repeat statements in Soviet sources from their side, without any reference to US sources. Those are just telling their side as it was reported, those present facts which can be shown to be incorrect, but are not consciously fudging anything themselves. And it's easy to access the basic opposing facts, what the USAF says it lost, then you have both sides' stories. The ACIG list pretends it's going further to compare those stories case by case and sort out the truth. But it's got obvious bias and fudging in that comparison (anyone actually interested, which I doubt you are, read the link I posted of Sutyagin's claims day by day, and see if you think the guy who found 12 real victories, same author as ACIG list, just made that many mistakes). That's a menace to learning unless used with utmost caution with a lot of other info. It's tempting to use it because it's the only such list (on the internet), but it's unfortunately far from an "excellent source".

Joe

 

[Rob Romero]

Joe,

I guess my assessment of ACIG was premature -it sure gave the impression of in depth research. How do you evaluate their computation of US claims vis a vis communist force losses in Korea and Vietnam?

Arab-Israeli wars?

-Rob

 

[FLYBOYJ]

1. I don't understand. You said the ACIG list was excellent, I just gave specifics that it's not, and you say that's just your point? Then what was your original point, adressing me by name? Again who is 'we'? It's confusing.

Because in past post you have made it abundantly clear how errored the kills/ claims list by all Korean War combatants have been, at first on the US side. That's my point

2. Place to begin, is not "excellent source". It doesn't seem the people you refer to had told you of the extensive mistakes in that list. Are you sure they know?

Sure they know - do you have another internet source that isn't skewed or biased?

3. That's nice, so have I interviewed many KW era pilots who flew all kinds of types. But it's nothing to do with the accuracy of that list.

No it doesn't but by meeting some of these people and knowing how the aircraft operate would provide part of the "Benefit of the doubt" you spoke about several posts ago.

4. The ACIG list is actually worse IMO than websites that simply repeat statements in Soviet sources from their side, without any reference to US sources. Those are just telling their side as it was reported, those present facts which can be shown to be incorrect, but are not consciously fudging anything themselves. And it's easy to access the basic opposing facts, what the USAF says it lost, then you have both sides' stories. The ACIG list pretends it's going further to compare those stories case by case and sort out the truth. But it's got obvious bias and fudging in that comparison (anyone actually interested, which I doubt you are, read the link I posted of Sutyagin's claims day by day, and see if you think the guy who found 12 real victories, same author as ACIG list, just made that many mistakes). That's a menace to learning unless used with utmost caution with a lot of other info. It's tempting to use it because it's the only such list (on the internet), but it's unfortunately far from an "excellent source".

Joe

As you said, IYO....

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

Thanks for the site.

 

[JoeB]

1. Because in past post you have made it abundantly clear how errored the kills/ claims list by all Korean War combatants have been, at first on the US side. That's my point

2. Sure they know - do you have another internet source that isn't skewed or biased?

1. I never put any priority or order "first" on overclaiming in Korea. And please quote (in context) any posts by me with broad brush statements about anything w/o specific facts.

2. You obviously had no idea how many errors were in that list. That's my point. Whereas anyone with common sense knows that 'Soviets claimed X planes in their records' is just *their* side of the story. There's not nearly as much risk of confusing that with a settled fact as there is with a list that purports to distill the truth from a fair comparison of both sides's stories, but does not in fact do it fairly. Especially when people who clearly have no idea the accuracy of the list, keep repeating it's "excellent".

Re: Rob how did I evaluate the work of the author of the ACIG Soviet KW claims list, and the three lists of 'real' ace scores? For an example, see again this link I post again about Nikolai Sutyagin's score, that author's finding of 12 v mine of 1.5 (and 5 'benefit of doubt' has nothing to do with meeting veteran pilots, of either side, it's just a figure of speech for the calc method I described above).
Korean War Ace Sutyagin's Score
I checked the real claims of Sutyagin and other Soviet pilots in Russian language published and original sources, plus limited info on Chinese claims from published sources. I was able to get quite specific type, time and place of each of Sutyagin's claims. Then I compared these to US original records for the same days (supplemented by some published sources too). I also did that for total claims every day between Nov 1 1950 and August 29 1951 wrt to the ACIG list.

Note that virtually all Soviet claims in the war correspond to real combats also in US records at the same time and place and featuring the same general type of a/c (F-86, straigthwing jet, prop; within the last two categories ID's were frequently mistaken, but never AFAIK were F-86's mistaken for another UN type, and straigtwings jets and props were mixed up in only one case I recall). It's mainly the *results* of the combats that differ; with US claims also differing from Soviet recorded losses, though not by nearly as much as vice versa (anyone please try and find a statement by me otherwise, ever).

For the Vietnam case I just checked published sources (including Hobson's excellent "Vietnam Air Losses") and noted that at least one of the same fudge factors was being used: crediting all US losses of a given type in a given day against Vietnamese ace claims, regardless of the US stated cause of loss, and apparently irrespective of other Vietnamese claims (I don't know those in detail, but no mention is made of trying to apportion credit among multiple claimants in an action, which must have been the case at least sometimes).

Joe

 

[FLYBOYJ]

2. You obviously had no idea how many errors were in that list. That's my point. Whereas anyone with common sense knows that 'Soviets claimed X planes in their records' is just *their* side of the story.

You're right I don't know how many errors are on that list. My point its one of the few sources that have some data rather than following some of the lists compiled by folks who put together similar list that backed up original Soviet claims.

There's not nearly as much risk of confusing that with a settled fact as there is with a list that purports to distill the truth from a fair comparison of both sides's stories, but does not in fact do it fairly. Especially when people who clearly have no idea the accuracy of the list, keep repeating it's "excellent".

Joe

Well have you or do you have a better product?

For the Vietnam case I just checked published sources (including Hobson's excellent "Vietnam Air Losses") and noted that at least one of the same fudge factors was being used: crediting all US losses of a given type in a given day against Vietnamese ace claims, regardless of the US stated cause of loss, and apparently irrespective of other Vietnamese claims (I don't know those in detail, but no mention is made of trying to apportion credit among multiple claimants in an action, which must have been the case at least sometimes).

Joe

Both the NVAF and US Forces over Vietnam had a better "handle" on claims and actual kills because most of the encounters were "watched" by someone, either by NVAF radar operators or by EC-121s. I doubt there was much dealing with "multiple claimants" considering most of the air to air kills in Vietnam were done by missile.

 

[102first_hussars]

54 WWI Central Power Aces
1) 74 of 80 Claims ( 92.5%) Manfred von Richthofen -Source Norman Franks
2) 46 of 48 Claims ( 95.8%) Werner Voss -Source Norman Franks
3) 33 of 33 Claims (100.0%) Kurt Wolff -Source Norman Franks
4) 33 of 40 Claims ( 82.5%) Lothar von Richthofen -Source Norman Franks
5) 32 of 45 Claims ( 71.1%) Fritz Rumey -Source Barrett @
6) 30 of 30 Claims (100.0%) Karl Allmenröder
7) 30 of 37 Claims ( 81.1%) Lt. Max Ritter von Müller (1Verified Victory was an Unconfimred Claim) -Source Norman Franks
8) 30 of 62 Claims ( 48.4%) Ernst Udet
9) 28 of 31 Claims ( 90.3%) Paul Billik
10) 27 of 54 Claims ( 50.0%) Erich Lowenhardt
11) 25 of 44 Claims ( 56.8%) Rudolf Berthold
12) 25 of 48 Claims ( 52.0%) Josef Jacobs
13) 26 of 28 Claims ( 92.9%) Friedrich von Roth
14) 26 of 40 Claims ( 65.0%) Franz Büchner (Possibly 34/40 Claims 85%)
15) 25 of 30 Claims ( 83.3%) Karl-Emil Schäfer
16) 24 of 44 Claims ( 54.5%) Bruno Loerzer
17) 23 of 40 Claims ( 57.5%) Oswald Bölcke (Verifiable Victories (VV) OBSCURED by insufficiency of French loss records!)
18) 22 of 35 Claims ( 62.9%) Goodwin Brumowski positive or possible ID –Top Austrian WWI Ace
19) 22 of 43 Claims ( 51.2%) Paul Baumer
20) 21 of 24 Claims ( 87.5%) Hptm. Adolf Ritter von Tutschek (also Credited 3 Balloons) -Source Norman Franks
21) 20 of 24 Claims ( 83.3%) Oblt. Erwin Böhme-Source Norman Franks
22) 15 of 32 Claims ( 46.9%) Julius Arigi -(15+ Verified) Austrian - O'Connor's Air Aces of the Austro-Hungarian EWmpire 1914-1918
23) 14 of 15 Claims ( 93.3%) Max Immelmann (2-3 additional Verifed Victories not claimed as Kills by Immelmann) -Norman Franks
24) 13 of 25 Claims ( 52.0%) Lt. Walter von Bülow-Bothkamp (also Credited 3 Balloons)
25) 12 of 13 Claims ( 83.3%) Oblt. zur See Friedrich Christiansen
26) 11 of 12 Claims ( 91.7%) Sebastien Festner -Paul Forster
27) 11 of 20 Claims ( 55.0%) Lt. Ernst Hess (2 of 3 Unconfirmed Claims were Verified Included in Tally)
28) 11 of 44 Claims ( 25.0%) Hptm. Rudolf Berthold
29) 9 of 12 Claims ( 75.0%) Lt. Hans von Keudell
30) 9 of 22 Claims ( 40.9%) Minimum: Hermann Göring:
15 of 22 Claims ( 68.2%) Possible: Hermann Göring: Possibly 14 of 22 Claims (63.6%)

31) 8 of 10 Claims ( 80.0%) Lt. Max Ritter von Mulzer
32) 8 of 14 Claims ( 57.1%) Oblt. Hans-Georg von der Marwitz (also Credited 1 Balloon)
33) 8 of 14 Claims ( 57.1%) Lt. Georg Schlenker
34) 8 of 19 Claims ( 42.1%) Lt. Kurt Wintgens
35) 8 of 28 Claims ( 28.6%) Benno Fiala Ritter von Fernbrugg –Austrian
36) 7 of 9 Claims ( 77.7%) Lt. Gustav Leffers
37) 6 of 7 Claims ( 85.7%) Lt. Gisbert-Wilhelm Groos
38) 6 of 8 Claims ( 75.0%) Lt. Karl Gallwitz (also Credited 2 Balloons)
39) 6 of 8 Claims ( 75.0%) Lt. Ludwig 'Lutz' Beckmann
40) 5 of 5 Claims (100.0%) Lt. Joachim von Bertrab
41) 5 of 7 Claims ( 71.4%) Lt. zur See Paul Achilles (also Credited 1 Balloon)
42) 5 of 7 Claims ( 71.4%) Hptm. Otto Hartmann
43) 5 of 8 Claims ( 62.5%) Lt. Kurt Monnington
44) 5 of 8 Claims ( 62.5%) Lt. Viktor Schobinger
45) 5 of 9 Claims ( 55.5%) Vizefeldwebel Karl Pech
46) 5 of 36 Claims ( 13.8%) Rittmeister Karl Bolle
47) 4 of 4 Claims (100.0%) Lt. Alfred Ulmer (also Credited 1 Balloon)
48) 4 of 5 Claims ( 80.0%) Oblt. Heinrich Lorenz
49) 4 of 5 Claims ( 80.0%) Hptm. Martin Zander
50) 4 of 6 Claims ( 66.7%) Lt. Otto Walter Höhne
51) 4 of 7 Claims ( 57.1%) Lt. Gerhard Bassenge
52) 4 of 8 Claims ( 50.0%) Vizeflugmeister Hans Goerth
53) 4 of 8 Claims ( 50.0%) Offizierstellvertreter Willi Kampe
54) 4 of 8 Claims ( 50.0%) Oblt. Hans Schilling

5 WWI ALLIED ACE RECORDS
1) 33 of 34 Claims ( 97.1%) Francesco Baracca - KIA 19 Jun 1918
2) 31 of 46.5 Claims ( 66.7%) James McCudden (46.5 Credited Kills / 57 Official Victories) (Possibly 36 of 46.5 Claims 77.4%)

Edward 'Mick' Mannock (38.28 Credited Kills / 61 Official Victories)
15 of 38 Claims ( 39.2%) -as per DEM 2 Oct 06

Eddie Rickenbacker (?? Claimed Kills / 26 Official Victories)
11 of 26 Claims ( 42.3%) -including 2 "grounders" -2 Crash Landed?

Lanoe Hawker (3 Credited Kills / 7 Official Victories)
1 of 3 Claims ( 33.3%) -as per DEM 2 Oct 06

Raymond Collishaw (29.2 Credited Kills / 60 Official Victories)
0 of 29 Claims ( 00.0%) - as per DEM 2 Oct 06


10 WWII Aces
1) 81 of 151 Claims ( 53.6%) Minimum: Hans-Joachim Marseille (158) 151 Afrika + 7 Battle of Britain -Source Wikipedia
127 of 151 Claims ( 84.1%) Possible: Hans-Joachim Marseille (158) 151 Afrika + 7 Battle of Britain -Source Wikipedia

2) ~80 of 345 Claims (~23.2%) Erich Hartmann (352) -Ace of Aces? -based on 'research' of Dimitri Khazanov
3) 74 of 121 Claims ( 61.2%) Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer -Top NJG Ace (much higher verification % has been indicated)
4) 66 of 111 Claims ( 59.5%) Helmut Lent -2nd NJG Ace (49 Consecutive VV -Therefore higher verification % indicated)
5) 25 of 40 Claims ( 62.5%) Richard Bong USAAF PTO Ace of Aces -unknown Web post.
6) 21 of 28 Claims ( 75.0%) Francis 'Gabby' Gabreski USAAF ETO Ace of Aces -Source a 56th FG History

7) 16 of 51 Claims ( 31.4%) Minimum: Otto Schulz -Pilot Identified (Including 7 Aces -3KIA!!) -Source Kacha's Web Site
26 of 51 Claims ( 51.0%) Possible: Otto Schulz -Pilot or Unit Identified -http://www.luftwaffe.cz/schulz.html

8) 15 of 64 Claims ( 23.4%) Saburo Sakai -top scoring surviving IJNAF ace -Henry Sakaida post?

9) 13 of 39 Claims ( 33.3%) Minimum: Rudolf Sinner -Pilot Identified -Source Kacha's Web Site
22 of 39 Claims ( 56.4%) Possible: Rudolf Sinner -Pilot or Unit Identified -Source Kacha's Web Site

10) 11 of 63 Claims ( 17.5%) Minimum: Gerhard Homuth -Pilot Identified -Source Kacha's Web Site
42 of 63 Claims ( 66.7%) Possible: Gerhard Homuth -Pilot or Unit Identified - [url=http://www.luftwaffe.cz/homuth.html]Aces of the Luftwaffe - Gerhard Homuth

11) ~9.5 of 26 Claims ( 36.5%) Gregory 'Pappy' Boyington - PROPORTIONAL METHOD JoeB
12) 9 of 31 Claims ( 29.0%) Heinz Knocke (-research continuing @ heinzknokewebsite.com)
13) 6+ of 7 Claims ( +85.8%) Lt. Hans -Leopold Henkemeier -Source Andrey Dikov

14) 5 of 6 Claims ( 83.3%) Minimum: Kurt Necesany -Pilot Identified -2 Unconfirmed/Shared Claims Verified
6 of 6 Claims (100.0%) Possible: Kurt Necesany -Pilot or Unit Identified

15) 6 of 8 Claims ( 75.0%) Minimum: Dieter Meister -Pilot Identified
8 of 8 Claims (100.0%) Possible: Dieter Meister -Pilot or Unit Identified
7.08/11 Individual/Shared Claims ( 64.4%) Minimum: Dieter Meister -Pilot Identified
10.08/11 11 Individual/Shared Claims ( 72.7%) Possible: Dieter Meister -Pilot or Unit Identified

Korean War USAF Aces –Source Korean War Aces
1) 13.5 of 15.5 Claims ( 87.1%) Capt. Manuel J. 'Pete' Fernandez
2) 13 of 15 Claims ( 86.7%) Maj. James Jabara 1.5 WWII Credits
3) 13 of 16 Claims ( 81.3%) Capt. Joseph M. McConnell
4) 11 of 13 Claims ( 84.6%) Col Royal N. Baker 3.5 WWII Credits
5) 10 of 14 Claims ( 71.4%) Maj. George A. Davis 7.0 WWII Credits
6) 5 of 6.5 Claims ( 76.9%) Maj. Winton W. Marshall
7) 5 of 6 Claims ( 83.3%) 1/Lt. James H. Kasler
8) 5 of 5 Claims (100.0%) Capt. Richard S. Becker
9) 3 of 5 Claims (60.0%) Maj. Richard D. Creighton
10) 2 of 5 Claims (40.0%) Capt. Ralph D. 'Hoot' Gibson

Korean War Russian Aces -Source Russian Aces of the Korean War
1) 12 of 19 Claims (63.2%) Yevgeni G. Pepelyayev
2) 10 of 17 Claims (58.8%) Lev Kirilovich Shchukin
3) 7 of 13 Claims (53.8%) Sergei M. Kramarenko
4) 5 of 6 Claims (83.3%) Anatoly M. Karelin
5) 5 of 8 Claims (62.5%) Semen A. Fedorets
6) 5 of 11 Claims (45.4%) Stepan A. Bahayev
7) 4 of 6 Claims (66.7%) Nikolai I. Ivanov
8) 4 of 8 Claims (50.0%) Aleksandre P. Smorchkov
9) 4 of 8 Claims (50.0%) Serafim P. Subbotin
10) 4 of 10 Claims (40.0%) Dmitri A. Samoylov
11) 3 of 5 Claims (60.0%) Boris S. Abakumov
12) 3 of 5 Claims (60.0%) Grigorii N. Berelidze
13) 3 of 6 Claims (50.0%) Arkadii S. Boitsov
14) 3 of 6 Claims (50.0%) Grigorii I. Ges
15) 3 of 9 Claims (33.3%) Mikhail I. Mihin
16) 3 of 11 Claims (27.3%) Grigorii U. Ohay
17) 2 of 6 Claims (33.3%) Fiodor A. Shebanov
18) 2 of 6 Claims (33.3%) Nikolai M. Zameskin
19) 2 of 7 Claims (28.6%) V. N. Alfeyev
20) 2 of 8 Claims (25.0%) Grigorii I. Pulov
21) 2 of 9 Claims (22.2%) Dmitri P. Oskin
22) 2 of 10 Claims (20.0%) Pavel S. Milaushkin
23) 2 of 11 Claims (18.2%) Mikhail S. Ponomaryev
24) 2 of 11 Claims (18.2%) Konstantin N. Sheberstov
25) 2 of 12 Claims (16.7%) Ivan V. Suchkov

Vietnamese Aces -Source Vietnamese Aces
1) 7 of 9 Claims (77.8%) Nguyen Van Coc
2) 5 of 6 Claims (83.3%) Nguyen Doc Soat
3) 5 of 6 Claims (83.3%) Vu Ngoc Dinh
4) 5 of 7 Claims (71.4%) Nguyen Van Bay
5) 3 of 6 Claims (50.0%) Nguyen Danh Kinh
6) 3 of 8 Claims (37.5%) Nguyen Hong Nhi
7) 2 of 6 Claims (33.3%) Nguyen Ngoc Do
8) 2 of 6 Claims (33.3%) Nguyen Nhat Chieu
9) 2 of 6 Claims (33.3%) Le Thanh Dao
10) 2 of 6 Claims (33.3%) Le Hai
11) 1 of 5 Claims (20.0%) Nguyen Van Nghia
12) 1 of 6 Claims (16.6%) Nguyen Tien Sam
13) 1 of 6 Claims (16.6%) Luu Huy Chao
14) 1 of 7 Claims (14.3%) Dang Ngoc Ngu
15) 1 of 8 Claims (12.5%) Pham Thanh Ngan

Where is Billy Bishop, Barker or Buzz Beurling?

 

[Rob Romero]

Post was too long -so I had to edit out Bishop.

Billy Bishop (55 Credited Kills / 72 Official Victories)
20 of 55 Claims ( 36.4%) -more recent evaluation of German Records than at billybishop.net/bishopP.html as per Al Lowe 6 Oct 98
2 of 55 Claims ( 03.6%) -It seems highly unlikely to me that such exaggeration would be tolerated by his squadron


If you've got info on the other two, I'm sure we'd all love to see it.

Rob

 

[JoeB]

1.You're right I don't know how many errors are on that list. My point its one of the few sources that have some data rather than following some of the lists compiled by folks who put together similar list that backed up original Soviet claims.

2. Well have you or do you have a better product?

3. I doubt there was much dealing with "multiple claimants" considering most of the air to air kills in Vietnam were done by missile.

1 I don't understand that logic, you have no idea how accurate a source is, you've been presented evidence it's *deliberately* fudged, but it's the only one around, so what the hey, let's quote it.

I don't know what other lists you are talking about that purport to cross check Soviet claims and US losses in Korea, what are those? There's this list, but it simply lists Soviet claims. It has some omissions (the Soviet source it uses omits some claims that other Soviet records have) and some mistakes about which units claimed, but it basically conveys a historical fact: what the Soviets *claimed*. It doesn't pretend to cross check that against US info and list what the Soviets *really shot down*. There's nothing dishonest about the way this list was complied, a huge distinction in my book.
Russian Claims the Korean War 1950-53

2. (Anyone) feel free to ask about any specific KW air combat incident you'd like to know about. For those lists of aces and kills by that author, there shouldn't be any credit given for presenting deliberately fudged analysis, in my book, irrelevant whether it's the only one on the internet.

3. See "And Kill MiG's" by Drendel, and "Air War Over North Vietnam" by Topczer, US and Vietnamese sides. There were numerous days where multiple kills were claimed by one side or another. If you compare the Topczer list of VPAF claims to Drendel's list of US losses to MiG's (which is about the same as the more detailed info in Hobson, "Vietnam Air Losses") you'll see quite a number of times VPAF claimed and US lost but VPAF claimed more than was lost. So which particular VPAF pilot's claim is verifed by a real US loss is a real issue, as it usually is for analyzing invidual claims.

But back to basics about sources, the same guy who wrote the Vietnamese aces list writes clearly fudged stuff about other air wars. Third time, look at this link and tell me it his analysis could be the result of random mistakes, or tell me what you disagree with in my analysis, specifically.
Korean War Ace Sutyagin's Score
Why would I believe or use his results on other aces or other wars (other Soviet ace scores, Vietnamese ace scores, AGIC Korea list, all by the same person), unless I verified them some other way?

Joe

 

[Lucky13]

This is darn interesting fellas, sucking up like a sponge....
What does these lists say about 1Lt James P Hagerstrom? I've seen somewhere that he's one of only 7 pilots that become an Ace in two wars. When did and what kind of machines did he shoot down?

 

[102first_hussars]

Post was too long -so I had to edit out Bishop.

Billy Bishop (55 Credited Kills / 72 Official Victories)
20 of 55 Claims ( 36.4%) -more recent evaluation of German Records than at billybishop.net/bishopP.html as per Al Lowe 6 Oct 98
2 of 55 Claims ( 03.6%) -It seems highly unlikely to me that such exaggeration would be tolerated by his squadron


If you've got info on the other two, I'm sure we'd all love to see it.

Rob

Well Off the top of my head, Buzz Beurling a canadian Pilot with the RAF over malta shot down 29 german planes

Im gonna look up Barker, because i always forget his first name

 

[FLYBOYJ]

1 I don't understand that logic, you have no idea how accurate a source is, you've been presented evidence it's *deliberately* fudged, but it's the only one around, so what the hey, let's quote it.

Yes let's quote it and then figure out if it's indeed accutrate - that's my point.

I don't know what other lists you are talking about that purport to cross check Soviet claims and US losses in Korea, what are those?

They were put out by people in Russia and it shows that 625 F-86s were shot down during Korea, I'll try to find them...

There's this list, but it simply lists Soviet claims. It has some omissions (the Soviet source it uses omits some claims that other Soviet records have) and some mistakes about which units claimed, but it basically conveys a historical fact: what the Soviets *claimed*. It doesn't pretend to cross check that against US info and list what the Soviets *really shot down*. There's nothing dishonest about the way this list was complied, a huge distinction in my book.
Russian Claims the Korean War 1950-53

OK

3. See "And Kill MiG's" by Drendel, and "Air War Over North Vietnam" by Topczer, US and Vietnamese sides. There were numerous days where multiple kills were claimed by one side or another. If you compare the Topczer list of VPAF claims to Drendel's list of US losses to MiG's (which is about the same as the more detailed info in Hobson, "Vietnam Air Losses") you'll see quite a number of times VPAF claimed and US lost but VPAF claimed more than was lost. So which particular VPAF pilot's claim is verifed by a real US loss is a real issue, as it usually is for analyzing invidual claims.

Then you would have to go with the the US side - as stated most of the aerial action was being surveyed by EC-121s. I would also believe that if the NVAF had unsubstaciated multipe claims, it was because their AA batteries were taking credit for a kill that might of been carried out by an aircraft. By 1972 there were hundreds of AA around Kep Airbase and it was probably very confusing who or what brought down a US aircraft from the NVAF perspective. I have "And Kill Migs."

But back to basics about sources, the same guy who wrote the Vietnamese aces list writes clearly fudged stuff about other air wars. Third time, look at this link and tell me it his analysis could be the result of random mistakes, or tell me what you disagree with in my analysis, specifically.
Korean War Ace Sutyagin's Score
Why would I believe or use his results on other aces or other wars (other Soviet ace scores, Vietnamese ace scores, AGIC Korea list, all by the same person), unless I verified them some other way?

Joe

They maybe you should put together another site clarifying those who fudged these lists....

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Here JoeB

Korean Air War