syscom3
Pacific Historian
R Leonard said:
SBD Dauntless Discussion Group
- Thread starter jernst
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
R Leonard
Staff Sergeant
Well, the theory that some SBD gunner credits must be discarded because the USAAF had a gunner over claiming problem had the effect of forcing me to go back and double check some the data. In the course of that, I, with apologies to all, (mea culpa) discovered that I'd been done in by the spread sheet sort while my eyes were crossed. Please note the following revised numbers for pilots versus rear gunner credits.
Despite the USN statistical study showing 116 credits for USN SBDs, carrier-based and land-based combined, I can still, as my previous post reported, find no more than 96 actual shoot down credits. And as in my earlier post, from testing out the various permutations, I believe that the difference (20) lies in either counting probables as actual credits or shared credits as whole credits or some combination of the two.
Double-checking the numbers gives a revised break down of the results, thusly:
Carrier-based pilots: 60.5 / 8.0 / 4.0
Carrier-based gunners: 32.5 / 7.0 /13.0
Land-based pilots: 0.0 / 1.0 / 0.0
Land-based gunners: 3.0 /0.0 / 0.0
Total pilots: 60.5 / 9.0 / 4.0
Total gunners: 35.5 / 7.0 / 13.0
Total USN SBD: 96.0 / 16.0 / 17.0
Rather than the previously reported 57.3% of SBD credits going to rear gunners, the correct percentage is 37.0%. My apologies to all and my regrets for any confusion that may have caused.
So, you seem to want to discount some indeterminate number of gunners' claims based, I presume, on the issue of over claiming by AAF bomber gunners, and I also presume you are focusing primarily on the ETO where the problem was apparently endemic. I'd point out that the revelations on AAF gunner over claiming were nothing new, were obvious at the time to those keeping the counts, and was really only merely verified with the examination of actual Luftwaffe loss returns.
Further I'd suggest to you that when there's a box of 16 to 20 bombers lumbering along, surrounded by 10 other boxes of similar numbers, and some brave soul goes blasting down through three or four of these boxes and some 35 to 40 gunners start blazing away in turn, you are going to get a lot of claims. You apparently have little appreciation for the differences in action between the ETO and PTO. Formations, especially naval were small. See my previous on scouting and bombing doctrine (which, I fear you either did not read or simply ignored as it doesn't fit your mindset). The air war in the PTO, from a naval aviation standpoint was totally different than that of the ETO and to attempt to draw conclusions on one based on the other is IMO a waste of time. Perhaps you may wish to look somewhat deeper into the subject.
But, if you are so sure that credits to Navy SBD gunners are so inflated (all 35.5 of them from 7 Dec 1941 through 20 June 1944), tell me, exactly which ones do you propose we discard?
7-Dec-41; 0825; ARM1/c Miller; VS-6; 1 A6M; Barbers Point, TH
1-Feb-42; btwn 0705 0720; Sea1/c Snowden; VS-6; 1 A5M; Roi
1-Feb-42; btwn 0705 0720; AMM3/c Clark; VS-6; 1 A5M; Roi
1-Feb-42; btwn 0705 0720; ARM1/c Georgiou; VB-6; 1 A5M; Taroa
20-Feb-42; btwn 1640 1715; ARM1/c Rountree; VS-2; 0.5 G4M; 2S,157E 300 mi NE of Rabaul
7-May-42; 0745; Cdr Schindler (TF-16 staff); VS-5; 1 A5M; Shoho strike, Coral Sea
7-May-42; btwn 1110 1120; ARM3/c Liska; VS-2; 2 A6M; Shoho strike, Coral Sea
8-May-42; btwn 1114 1140; ARM3/c Liska; VS-2; 1 A6M; Coral Sea, TF17-Anti VT patrol
4-Jun-42; 1020; AMM3/c Chochalousek; VS-6; 1 A6M; Midway, near Japanese carriers
4-Jun-42; 1020; AMM2/c Adkins; VS-6; 0.5 A6M; Midway, near Japanese carriers
4-Jun-42; 1658; AOM2/c Bassett; VB-3; 1 A6M; 31-40N, 179-10W Midway area
7-Aug-42; 1320; AMM2/c Caruthers; VS-5; 1 A6M; About 5 mi SW of Tulagi
20-Aug-42; 1315; ARM1/c Yanick; VS-71; 0.5 H6K; 10S, 163E; 60 mi NE of Guadalcanal
24-Aug-42; 1620; ARM2/c Dobson; VS-3; 0.5 A6M; 06S, 161E, 100 mi NE of Santa Isabel
24-Aug-42; 1620; ARM3/c Godfrey; VB-3; 1 D3A; Ryujo Strike
3-Oct-42; 1535; ARM2/c Farrell; VS-3; 1 A6M; 08S, 157E; 70 mi W of Pohnpei
3-Oct-42; 1725; ARM3/c Gunter; VS-3; 1 E8N; 08S, 157E; 70 mi W of Pohnpei
26-Oct-42; 1125; ARM3/c Berthold; VB-8; 0.5 D3A; Santa Cruz at Hornet
26-Oct-42; 1125; ARM3/c Lineawever; VB-8; 0.5 D3A; Santa Cruz at Hornet
26-Oct-42; 1125; ARM1/c Martz; VB-8; 0.5 D3A; Santa Cruz at Hornet
26-Oct-42; 1125; ARM1/c Martz; VB-8; 0.5 D3A; Santa Cruz at Hornet
26-Oct-42; 1125; ARM3/c McLean; VB-8; 0.5 B5N; Santa Cruz at Hornet
14-Nov-42; btwn 0845 1115; ARM3/c Moore; VS-10; 1 A6M2-N; NE of Russel
14-Nov-42; 1615; ARM2/c Colley; VS-10; 1 A6M; NW of Russel
14-Nov-42; 1615; ARM2/c Colley; VS-10; 1 A6M; NW of Russel
14-Nov-42; 1700; ACRM Gardner; VB-10; 1 A6M; near Guadalcanal
14-Nov-42; 1700; AMM1/c Schindele; VB-10; 1 A6M; near Guadalcanal
17-Jul-43; 0932; ARM1/c Brunetti; VB-11; 1 A6M; Kahili area
17-Jul-43; 0932; ARM2/c Seneker; VB-11; 1 A6M; Kahili area
17-Jul-43; 0940; AOM3/c Steed; VB-11; 1 A6M; Kahili area
5-Nov-43; 1030; ARM2/c Day; VB-11; 0.333 A6M; over Rabaul
5-Nov-43; 1030; ARM1/c Wells; VB-11; 0.333 A6M; over Rabaul
5-Nov-43; 1030; ACRM Wilson; VB-11; 0.333 A6M; over Rabaul
11-Nov-43; 0917; AMM2/c Wilson; VB-9; 1 A6M; St George's Channel
11-Nov-43; 0917; ARM3/c Shaffer; VB-9; 1 A6M; St George's Channel
4-Dec-43; 0805; ACRM Stafford; VB-16; 1 A6M; within 5 mi of Roi
4-Dec-43; 0805; ARM2/c Lynch; VB-16; 1 A6M; within 5 mi of Roi
4-Dec-43; 0805; ARM1/c Baxter; VB-16; 1 A6M; within 5 mi of Roi
4-Dec-43; 0805; ARM3/c Landaker, Jr; VB-16; 1 A6M; within 5 mi of Roi
20-Jun-44; btwn 1848 1915; ARM2/c Hisler; VB-16; 1 A6M; 15N, 133E, over Japanese Fleet
20-Jun-44; btwn 1848 1915; ARM2/c Maggio; VB-16; 0.333 A6M; 15N, 133E, over Japanese Fleet
20-Jun-44; btwn 1848 1915; ARM1/c McElhiney; VB-16; 0.333 A6M; 15N, 133E, over Japanese Fleet
20-Jun-44; btwn 1848 1915; ARM2/c LeMay; VB-16; 0.333 A6M; 15N, 133E, over Japanese Fleet
You pick. You decide which ones to discard and then provide the factual basis to make that determination.
Personally, I'm not particularly in the business of debunking anyone's claims. Where that sort of conversation usually leads is to claims of one side being garbage and the other as pure as the driven snow. Usually goes something like:
"My guy, Ottohad Stehdenbed, shot down 153 Klingons without a doubt. But your guy, Sammy Snowflake? There is absolutely no way he ever shot down 95 Romulins, ever, end of story, period. Maybe 15 if he was lucky; anymore is just wishful thinking."
"Oh yeah? Stehdenbed got 153? Bull! If he shot at it he claimed it, and everyone knows it. And Snowflake? Everyone knows he gave claims to other members of his squadron, so he actually shot down more than 95 Romulins."
"Oh sure, and where's your proof?"
. . . volume starts to go up . . .
"Proof, I don't need no stinkin' proof. I just know this and so does everyone else. Where's your proof?"
. . . volume still increasing . . .
"Don't have or need any, but Snowflake simply couldn't have done what he claimed and everyone knows that all of Stehdenbed's claims were observed by someone, so they're real!
At this point the conversation degenerates into name calling and finger pointing. Ever wonder just who "everyone" is?
Well, I don't go there and I don't entertain such discussions. The bad news is, that for the most part, there are no Japanese records, at least none available in English, that I've been able to find that would tend to disprove any of these SBD claims (and it's not as though I haven't looked and I know most of folks who have worked hard on this very subject). In fact you might note that the famous shoot down of Sakai by a mixed group of VS-6 and VB-6 rear gunners does not appear on this list . . . and they were sure that he was well and truly shot down (though they had no clue as to his identity). And, though unequivocally unwilling to discuss further the subject of who's claims are valid and who's are not, from what I have read, I suspect you might be rather disappointed with the results of comparing Japanese claims to US actual losses. You could start by just looking at the actual SBD losses reported here and comparing that to whatever Japanese claims you can find.
USN and USMC combat losses are reported in "US Naval Aviation Combat Statistics – World War II," published by OpNav in 1946. You also might want to look at the "USAAF Statistical Digest for World War Two," though the information there is not as clearly laid out as the USN study, it's all there if you know how to ferret it out. A fairly thorough background in statistics and in the subject at hand are also extremely helpful. Though my undergrad degree is in history, my master's is in business; statistics, of a government nature, is what I do for a living. I grew up in the brown shoe navy (when airplanes were still blue and naval leadership was not an oxymoron). I don't study the European theater; I don't care, it may have well have been on the other side of the universe for all I care. My sole historical interest is WWII naval aviation, has been since I was an undergrad, lo, those 35 years ago. So, at the risk of being accused of tooting my own horn, there is, perhaps, a grasp the data, the operational realties, and the story they tell that you may not possess. And confining ones reading to the popular histories, slick magazines and the Internet won't do it for you. Frankly, comparing the air operations in the ETO to the PTO is comparing night to day. There is no comparison. I deal in numbers. If you can't show me a number, or at least an analytical approach to deriving a number, then all your short shrift of the 'could haves', 'couldn't haves', 'should haves', and 'shouldn't haves' doesn't count.
Regards,
Rich
Despite the USN statistical study showing 116 credits for USN SBDs, carrier-based and land-based combined, I can still, as my previous post reported, find no more than 96 actual shoot down credits. And as in my earlier post, from testing out the various permutations, I believe that the difference (20) lies in either counting probables as actual credits or shared credits as whole credits or some combination of the two.
Double-checking the numbers gives a revised break down of the results, thusly:
Carrier-based pilots: 60.5 / 8.0 / 4.0
Carrier-based gunners: 32.5 / 7.0 /13.0
Land-based pilots: 0.0 / 1.0 / 0.0
Land-based gunners: 3.0 /0.0 / 0.0
Total pilots: 60.5 / 9.0 / 4.0
Total gunners: 35.5 / 7.0 / 13.0
Total USN SBD: 96.0 / 16.0 / 17.0
Rather than the previously reported 57.3% of SBD credits going to rear gunners, the correct percentage is 37.0%. My apologies to all and my regrets for any confusion that may have caused.
So, you seem to want to discount some indeterminate number of gunners' claims based, I presume, on the issue of over claiming by AAF bomber gunners, and I also presume you are focusing primarily on the ETO where the problem was apparently endemic. I'd point out that the revelations on AAF gunner over claiming were nothing new, were obvious at the time to those keeping the counts, and was really only merely verified with the examination of actual Luftwaffe loss returns.
Further I'd suggest to you that when there's a box of 16 to 20 bombers lumbering along, surrounded by 10 other boxes of similar numbers, and some brave soul goes blasting down through three or four of these boxes and some 35 to 40 gunners start blazing away in turn, you are going to get a lot of claims. You apparently have little appreciation for the differences in action between the ETO and PTO. Formations, especially naval were small. See my previous on scouting and bombing doctrine (which, I fear you either did not read or simply ignored as it doesn't fit your mindset). The air war in the PTO, from a naval aviation standpoint was totally different than that of the ETO and to attempt to draw conclusions on one based on the other is IMO a waste of time. Perhaps you may wish to look somewhat deeper into the subject.
But, if you are so sure that credits to Navy SBD gunners are so inflated (all 35.5 of them from 7 Dec 1941 through 20 June 1944), tell me, exactly which ones do you propose we discard?
7-Dec-41; 0825; ARM1/c Miller; VS-6; 1 A6M; Barbers Point, TH
1-Feb-42; btwn 0705 0720; Sea1/c Snowden; VS-6; 1 A5M; Roi
1-Feb-42; btwn 0705 0720; AMM3/c Clark; VS-6; 1 A5M; Roi
1-Feb-42; btwn 0705 0720; ARM1/c Georgiou; VB-6; 1 A5M; Taroa
20-Feb-42; btwn 1640 1715; ARM1/c Rountree; VS-2; 0.5 G4M; 2S,157E 300 mi NE of Rabaul
7-May-42; 0745; Cdr Schindler (TF-16 staff); VS-5; 1 A5M; Shoho strike, Coral Sea
7-May-42; btwn 1110 1120; ARM3/c Liska; VS-2; 2 A6M; Shoho strike, Coral Sea
8-May-42; btwn 1114 1140; ARM3/c Liska; VS-2; 1 A6M; Coral Sea, TF17-Anti VT patrol
4-Jun-42; 1020; AMM3/c Chochalousek; VS-6; 1 A6M; Midway, near Japanese carriers
4-Jun-42; 1020; AMM2/c Adkins; VS-6; 0.5 A6M; Midway, near Japanese carriers
4-Jun-42; 1658; AOM2/c Bassett; VB-3; 1 A6M; 31-40N, 179-10W Midway area
7-Aug-42; 1320; AMM2/c Caruthers; VS-5; 1 A6M; About 5 mi SW of Tulagi
20-Aug-42; 1315; ARM1/c Yanick; VS-71; 0.5 H6K; 10S, 163E; 60 mi NE of Guadalcanal
24-Aug-42; 1620; ARM2/c Dobson; VS-3; 0.5 A6M; 06S, 161E, 100 mi NE of Santa Isabel
24-Aug-42; 1620; ARM3/c Godfrey; VB-3; 1 D3A; Ryujo Strike
3-Oct-42; 1535; ARM2/c Farrell; VS-3; 1 A6M; 08S, 157E; 70 mi W of Pohnpei
3-Oct-42; 1725; ARM3/c Gunter; VS-3; 1 E8N; 08S, 157E; 70 mi W of Pohnpei
26-Oct-42; 1125; ARM3/c Berthold; VB-8; 0.5 D3A; Santa Cruz at Hornet
26-Oct-42; 1125; ARM3/c Lineawever; VB-8; 0.5 D3A; Santa Cruz at Hornet
26-Oct-42; 1125; ARM1/c Martz; VB-8; 0.5 D3A; Santa Cruz at Hornet
26-Oct-42; 1125; ARM1/c Martz; VB-8; 0.5 D3A; Santa Cruz at Hornet
26-Oct-42; 1125; ARM3/c McLean; VB-8; 0.5 B5N; Santa Cruz at Hornet
14-Nov-42; btwn 0845 1115; ARM3/c Moore; VS-10; 1 A6M2-N; NE of Russel
14-Nov-42; 1615; ARM2/c Colley; VS-10; 1 A6M; NW of Russel
14-Nov-42; 1615; ARM2/c Colley; VS-10; 1 A6M; NW of Russel
14-Nov-42; 1700; ACRM Gardner; VB-10; 1 A6M; near Guadalcanal
14-Nov-42; 1700; AMM1/c Schindele; VB-10; 1 A6M; near Guadalcanal
17-Jul-43; 0932; ARM1/c Brunetti; VB-11; 1 A6M; Kahili area
17-Jul-43; 0932; ARM2/c Seneker; VB-11; 1 A6M; Kahili area
17-Jul-43; 0940; AOM3/c Steed; VB-11; 1 A6M; Kahili area
5-Nov-43; 1030; ARM2/c Day; VB-11; 0.333 A6M; over Rabaul
5-Nov-43; 1030; ARM1/c Wells; VB-11; 0.333 A6M; over Rabaul
5-Nov-43; 1030; ACRM Wilson; VB-11; 0.333 A6M; over Rabaul
11-Nov-43; 0917; AMM2/c Wilson; VB-9; 1 A6M; St George's Channel
11-Nov-43; 0917; ARM3/c Shaffer; VB-9; 1 A6M; St George's Channel
4-Dec-43; 0805; ACRM Stafford; VB-16; 1 A6M; within 5 mi of Roi
4-Dec-43; 0805; ARM2/c Lynch; VB-16; 1 A6M; within 5 mi of Roi
4-Dec-43; 0805; ARM1/c Baxter; VB-16; 1 A6M; within 5 mi of Roi
4-Dec-43; 0805; ARM3/c Landaker, Jr; VB-16; 1 A6M; within 5 mi of Roi
20-Jun-44; btwn 1848 1915; ARM2/c Hisler; VB-16; 1 A6M; 15N, 133E, over Japanese Fleet
20-Jun-44; btwn 1848 1915; ARM2/c Maggio; VB-16; 0.333 A6M; 15N, 133E, over Japanese Fleet
20-Jun-44; btwn 1848 1915; ARM1/c McElhiney; VB-16; 0.333 A6M; 15N, 133E, over Japanese Fleet
20-Jun-44; btwn 1848 1915; ARM2/c LeMay; VB-16; 0.333 A6M; 15N, 133E, over Japanese Fleet
You pick. You decide which ones to discard and then provide the factual basis to make that determination.
Personally, I'm not particularly in the business of debunking anyone's claims. Where that sort of conversation usually leads is to claims of one side being garbage and the other as pure as the driven snow. Usually goes something like:
"My guy, Ottohad Stehdenbed, shot down 153 Klingons without a doubt. But your guy, Sammy Snowflake? There is absolutely no way he ever shot down 95 Romulins, ever, end of story, period. Maybe 15 if he was lucky; anymore is just wishful thinking."
"Oh yeah? Stehdenbed got 153? Bull! If he shot at it he claimed it, and everyone knows it. And Snowflake? Everyone knows he gave claims to other members of his squadron, so he actually shot down more than 95 Romulins."
"Oh sure, and where's your proof?"
. . . volume starts to go up . . .
"Proof, I don't need no stinkin' proof. I just know this and so does everyone else. Where's your proof?"
. . . volume still increasing . . .
"Don't have or need any, but Snowflake simply couldn't have done what he claimed and everyone knows that all of Stehdenbed's claims were observed by someone, so they're real!
At this point the conversation degenerates into name calling and finger pointing. Ever wonder just who "everyone" is?
Well, I don't go there and I don't entertain such discussions. The bad news is, that for the most part, there are no Japanese records, at least none available in English, that I've been able to find that would tend to disprove any of these SBD claims (and it's not as though I haven't looked and I know most of folks who have worked hard on this very subject). In fact you might note that the famous shoot down of Sakai by a mixed group of VS-6 and VB-6 rear gunners does not appear on this list . . . and they were sure that he was well and truly shot down (though they had no clue as to his identity). And, though unequivocally unwilling to discuss further the subject of who's claims are valid and who's are not, from what I have read, I suspect you might be rather disappointed with the results of comparing Japanese claims to US actual losses. You could start by just looking at the actual SBD losses reported here and comparing that to whatever Japanese claims you can find.
USN and USMC combat losses are reported in "US Naval Aviation Combat Statistics – World War II," published by OpNav in 1946. You also might want to look at the "USAAF Statistical Digest for World War Two," though the information there is not as clearly laid out as the USN study, it's all there if you know how to ferret it out. A fairly thorough background in statistics and in the subject at hand are also extremely helpful. Though my undergrad degree is in history, my master's is in business; statistics, of a government nature, is what I do for a living. I grew up in the brown shoe navy (when airplanes were still blue and naval leadership was not an oxymoron). I don't study the European theater; I don't care, it may have well have been on the other side of the universe for all I care. My sole historical interest is WWII naval aviation, has been since I was an undergrad, lo, those 35 years ago. So, at the risk of being accused of tooting my own horn, there is, perhaps, a grasp the data, the operational realties, and the story they tell that you may not possess. And confining ones reading to the popular histories, slick magazines and the Internet won't do it for you. Frankly, comparing the air operations in the ETO to the PTO is comparing night to day. There is no comparison. I deal in numbers. If you can't show me a number, or at least an analytical approach to deriving a number, then all your short shrift of the 'could haves', 'couldn't haves', 'should haves', and 'shouldn't haves' doesn't count.
Regards,
Rich
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
I suppose he and his gunner lied about the engagement...... Im sure theres many MANY pilots who won the Navy Cross who lied about thier victories...... Lying sure makes an average pilot look better doesnt it??? He should have claimed 5 destroyed aircraft, that way he coulda lied about becoming an Ace as well....
U know he sure as hell didnt splash 7 Japanese aircraft in defense of the Enterprise during the Battle of Santa Cruz in his piece of crap Wildcat.... No one could do that in a Wildcat, let alone 3 with a Dauntless........
Funny thing is, my Grandfather, my Father, and myself have met him and conversed with him before, and I'll tell ya, he sure talked and acted like a liar.... I actually saw his nose grow 2 inches during one fanciful tale about his Wildcat days... Typical of the Captain of the Constellation, lying about his credentials to get a cushy CO job on a carrier...
In fact, I think all Navy Pilots were liars..... The Marianas Turkey Shoot??? Just a goddamn bunch of liars........ I dont think Ive ever heard of a truthful Navy pilot, except maybe the dead ones that cant lie about thier actions....
Liars, all of em.....
And I suppose Commander Flatley was fooled by "Swede" as well, cause he picked outstanding bomber pilots like "Swede" Vejtasa and John Leppla to form his new fighter group, which would be named the "Grim Reapers....
evangilder
"Shooter"
Well said Rich. Thanks for the correction too.
R Leonard
Staff Sergeant
I knew I liked you, Les.
Rich
Rich
evangilder
"Shooter"
I missed your response earlier, Les. Good points there. Must have been fun to watch that nose grow. 
syscom3
Pacific Historian
I took a quick look at them and came to a figure of 21 kills. I would whole heartedly accept that figure. I added some comments to it.
7-Dec-41; 0825; ARM1/c Miller; VS-6; 1 A6M; Barbers Point, TH Believable
1-Feb-42; btwn 0705 0720; Sea1/c Snowden; VS-6; 1 A5M; Roi Imprecise time, probably shared
1-Feb-42; btwn 0705 0720; AMM3/c Clark; VS-6; 1 A5M; Roi Imprecise time, probably shared
1-Feb-42; btwn 0705 0720; ARM1/c Georgiou; VB-6; 1 A5M; Taroa Imprecise time, not believable
20-Feb-42; btwn 1640 1715; ARM1/c Rountree; VS-2; 0.5 G4M; 2S,157E 300 mi NE of Rabaul Imprecise time, not believable
7-May-42; 0745; Cdr Schindler (TF-16 staff); VS-5; 1 A5M; Shoho strike, Coral Sea Believable
7-May-42; btwn 1110 1120; ARM3/c Liska; VS-2; 2 A6M; Shoho strike, Coral Sea Imprecise time, not believable
8-May-42; btwn 1114 1140; ARM3/c Liska; VS-2; 1 A6M; Coral Sea, TF17-Anti VT patrol Imprecise time, not believable
4-Jun-42; 1020; AMM3/c Chochalousek; VS-6; 1 A6M; Midway, near Japanese carriers Believable
4-Jun-42; 1020; AMM2/c Adkins; VS-6; 0.5 A6M; Midway, near Japanese carriers Believable, shared
4-Jun-42; 1658; AOM2/c Bassett; VB-3; 1 A6M; 31-40N, 179-10W Midway area Believable
7-Aug-42; 1320; AMM2/c Caruthers; VS-5; 1 A6M; About 5 mi SW of Tulagi Believable
20-Aug-42; 1315; ARM1/c Yanick; VS-71; 0.5 H6K; 10S, 163E; 60 mi NE of Guadalcanal Believable, shared
24-Aug-42; 1620; ARM2/c Dobson; VS-3; 0.5 A6M; 06S, 161E, 100 mi NE of Santa Isabel Believable, shared
24-Aug-42; 1620; ARM3/c Godfrey; VB-3; 1 D3A; Ryujo Strike Believable
3-Oct-42; 1535; ARM2/c Farrell; VS-3; 1 A6M; 08S, 157E; 70 mi W of Pohnpei Believable
3-Oct-42; 1725; ARM3/c Gunter; VS-3; 1 E8N; 08S, 157E; 70 mi W of Pohnpei Believable
26-Oct-42; 1125; ARM3/c Berthold; VB-8; 0.5 D3A; Santa Cruz at Hornet Believable, shared
26-Oct-42; 1125; ARM3/c Lineawever; VB-8; 0.5 D3A; Santa Cruz at Hornet Believable, shared
26-Oct-42; 1125; ARM1/c Martz; VB-8; 0.5 D3A; Santa Cruz at Hornet Believable, shared
26-Oct-42; 1125; ARM1/c Martz; VB-8; 0.5 D3A; Santa Cruz at Hornet Believable, shared
26-Oct-42; 1125; ARM3/c McLean; VB-8; 0.5 B5N; Santa Cruz at Hornet Believable, shared
14-Nov-42; btwn 0845 1115; ARM3/c Moore; VS-10; 1 A6M2-N; NE of Russel Imprecise time, not believable
14-Nov-42; 1615; ARM2/c Colley; VS-10; 1 A6M; NW of Russel Not believable cause of two claims at same time
14-Nov-42; 1615; ARM2/c Colley; VS-10; 1 A6M; NW of Russel Not believable cause of two claims at same time
14-Nov-42; 1700; ACRM Gardner; VB-10; 1 A6M; near Guadalcanal Not believable cause of two claims at same time
14-Nov-42; 1700; AMM1/c Schindele; VB-10; 1 A6M; near Guadalcanal Not believable cause of two claims at same time
17-Jul-43; 0932; ARM1/c Brunetti; VB-11; 1 A6M; Kahili area believable
17-Jul-43; 0932; ARM2/c Seneker; VB-11; 1 A6M; Kahili area Not believable cause of two claims at same time
17-Jul-43; 0940; AOM3/c Steed; VB-11; 1 A6M; Kahili area believable
5-Nov-43; 1030; ARM2/c Day; VB-11; 0.333 A6M; over Rabaul these three were shared, believable
5-Nov-43; 1030; ARM1/c Wells; VB-11; 0.333 A6M; over Rabaul
5-Nov-43; 1030; ACRM Wilson; VB-11; 0.333 A6M; over Rabaul
11-Nov-43; 0917; AMM2/c Wilson; VB-9; 1 A6M; St George's Channel believable
11-Nov-43; 0917; ARM3/c Shaffer; VB-9; 1 A6M; St George's Channel Not believable cause of two claims at same time
4-Dec-43; 0805; ACRM Stafford; VB-16; 1 A6M; within 5 mi of Roi believable
4-Dec-43; 0805; ARM2/c Lynch; VB-16; 1 A6M; within 5 mi of Roi Not believable cause of four claims at same time
4-Dec-43; 0805; ARM1/c Baxter; VB-16; 1 A6M; within 5 mi of Roi Not believable cause of four claims at same time
4-Dec-43; 0805; ARM3/c Landaker, Jr; VB-16; 1 A6M; within 5 mi of Roi Not believable cause of four claims at same time
20-Jun-44; btwn 1848 1915; ARM2/c Hisler; VB-16; 1 A6M; 15N, 133E, over Japanese Fleet Imprecise time, but believable
20-Jun-44; btwn 1848 1915; ARM2/c Maggio; VB-16; 0.333 A6M; 15N, 133E, over Japanese Fleet these three were shared, belivable
20-Jun-44; btwn 1848 1915; ARM1/c McElhiney; VB-16; 0.333 A6M; 15N, 133E, over Japanese Fleet
20-Jun-44; btwn 1848 1915; ARM2/c LeMay; VB-16; 0.333 A6M; 15N, 133E, over Japanese Fleet
7-Dec-41; 0825; ARM1/c Miller; VS-6; 1 A6M; Barbers Point, TH Believable
1-Feb-42; btwn 0705 0720; Sea1/c Snowden; VS-6; 1 A5M; Roi Imprecise time, probably shared
1-Feb-42; btwn 0705 0720; AMM3/c Clark; VS-6; 1 A5M; Roi Imprecise time, probably shared
1-Feb-42; btwn 0705 0720; ARM1/c Georgiou; VB-6; 1 A5M; Taroa Imprecise time, not believable
20-Feb-42; btwn 1640 1715; ARM1/c Rountree; VS-2; 0.5 G4M; 2S,157E 300 mi NE of Rabaul Imprecise time, not believable
7-May-42; 0745; Cdr Schindler (TF-16 staff); VS-5; 1 A5M; Shoho strike, Coral Sea Believable
7-May-42; btwn 1110 1120; ARM3/c Liska; VS-2; 2 A6M; Shoho strike, Coral Sea Imprecise time, not believable
8-May-42; btwn 1114 1140; ARM3/c Liska; VS-2; 1 A6M; Coral Sea, TF17-Anti VT patrol Imprecise time, not believable
4-Jun-42; 1020; AMM3/c Chochalousek; VS-6; 1 A6M; Midway, near Japanese carriers Believable
4-Jun-42; 1020; AMM2/c Adkins; VS-6; 0.5 A6M; Midway, near Japanese carriers Believable, shared
4-Jun-42; 1658; AOM2/c Bassett; VB-3; 1 A6M; 31-40N, 179-10W Midway area Believable
7-Aug-42; 1320; AMM2/c Caruthers; VS-5; 1 A6M; About 5 mi SW of Tulagi Believable
20-Aug-42; 1315; ARM1/c Yanick; VS-71; 0.5 H6K; 10S, 163E; 60 mi NE of Guadalcanal Believable, shared
24-Aug-42; 1620; ARM2/c Dobson; VS-3; 0.5 A6M; 06S, 161E, 100 mi NE of Santa Isabel Believable, shared
24-Aug-42; 1620; ARM3/c Godfrey; VB-3; 1 D3A; Ryujo Strike Believable
3-Oct-42; 1535; ARM2/c Farrell; VS-3; 1 A6M; 08S, 157E; 70 mi W of Pohnpei Believable
3-Oct-42; 1725; ARM3/c Gunter; VS-3; 1 E8N; 08S, 157E; 70 mi W of Pohnpei Believable
26-Oct-42; 1125; ARM3/c Berthold; VB-8; 0.5 D3A; Santa Cruz at Hornet Believable, shared
26-Oct-42; 1125; ARM3/c Lineawever; VB-8; 0.5 D3A; Santa Cruz at Hornet Believable, shared
26-Oct-42; 1125; ARM1/c Martz; VB-8; 0.5 D3A; Santa Cruz at Hornet Believable, shared
26-Oct-42; 1125; ARM1/c Martz; VB-8; 0.5 D3A; Santa Cruz at Hornet Believable, shared
26-Oct-42; 1125; ARM3/c McLean; VB-8; 0.5 B5N; Santa Cruz at Hornet Believable, shared
14-Nov-42; btwn 0845 1115; ARM3/c Moore; VS-10; 1 A6M2-N; NE of Russel Imprecise time, not believable
14-Nov-42; 1615; ARM2/c Colley; VS-10; 1 A6M; NW of Russel Not believable cause of two claims at same time
14-Nov-42; 1615; ARM2/c Colley; VS-10; 1 A6M; NW of Russel Not believable cause of two claims at same time
14-Nov-42; 1700; ACRM Gardner; VB-10; 1 A6M; near Guadalcanal Not believable cause of two claims at same time
14-Nov-42; 1700; AMM1/c Schindele; VB-10; 1 A6M; near Guadalcanal Not believable cause of two claims at same time
17-Jul-43; 0932; ARM1/c Brunetti; VB-11; 1 A6M; Kahili area believable
17-Jul-43; 0932; ARM2/c Seneker; VB-11; 1 A6M; Kahili area Not believable cause of two claims at same time
17-Jul-43; 0940; AOM3/c Steed; VB-11; 1 A6M; Kahili area believable
5-Nov-43; 1030; ARM2/c Day; VB-11; 0.333 A6M; over Rabaul these three were shared, believable
5-Nov-43; 1030; ARM1/c Wells; VB-11; 0.333 A6M; over Rabaul
5-Nov-43; 1030; ACRM Wilson; VB-11; 0.333 A6M; over Rabaul
11-Nov-43; 0917; AMM2/c Wilson; VB-9; 1 A6M; St George's Channel believable
11-Nov-43; 0917; ARM3/c Shaffer; VB-9; 1 A6M; St George's Channel Not believable cause of two claims at same time
4-Dec-43; 0805; ACRM Stafford; VB-16; 1 A6M; within 5 mi of Roi believable
4-Dec-43; 0805; ARM2/c Lynch; VB-16; 1 A6M; within 5 mi of Roi Not believable cause of four claims at same time
4-Dec-43; 0805; ARM1/c Baxter; VB-16; 1 A6M; within 5 mi of Roi Not believable cause of four claims at same time
4-Dec-43; 0805; ARM3/c Landaker, Jr; VB-16; 1 A6M; within 5 mi of Roi Not believable cause of four claims at same time
20-Jun-44; btwn 1848 1915; ARM2/c Hisler; VB-16; 1 A6M; 15N, 133E, over Japanese Fleet Imprecise time, but believable
20-Jun-44; btwn 1848 1915; ARM2/c Maggio; VB-16; 0.333 A6M; 15N, 133E, over Japanese Fleet these three were shared, belivable
20-Jun-44; btwn 1848 1915; ARM1/c McElhiney; VB-16; 0.333 A6M; 15N, 133E, over Japanese Fleet
20-Jun-44; btwn 1848 1915; ARM2/c LeMay; VB-16; 0.333 A6M; 15N, 133E, over Japanese Fleet
R Leonard
Staff Sergeant
And If I had left out the times what happens to your argument?
And in the course of an action where there's enemy planes about, do you always expect someone to look down at his watch and take out a pencil and note the time?
And the fact that some of these only gives a range of time in which an action occurs makes them "unbelievable"?
And the fact that several of the credits occurred in the same area makes the unbelievable? And how do you draw that conclusion? Do you know with what other aircraft these were operating? Do you know who may have witnessed the events? Are you aware of the circumstances of the action? Please describe the action so that we may share your insight.
What makes you think a credit is shared when it is not so noted, were you there?
And when were you certified as an ACIO?
Facts, not opinion. Show me some evidence.
Oh, you have none?
Oh, that's right, I forgot, you don't need no stinkin' evidence do you?
Your considered opinion means nothing without something to back it up. Lawd, lawd, I've seen folks grasp at straws before, but this is prime.
Rich
And in the course of an action where there's enemy planes about, do you always expect someone to look down at his watch and take out a pencil and note the time?
And the fact that some of these only gives a range of time in which an action occurs makes them "unbelievable"?
And the fact that several of the credits occurred in the same area makes the unbelievable? And how do you draw that conclusion? Do you know with what other aircraft these were operating? Do you know who may have witnessed the events? Are you aware of the circumstances of the action? Please describe the action so that we may share your insight.
What makes you think a credit is shared when it is not so noted, were you there?
And when were you certified as an ACIO?
Facts, not opinion. Show me some evidence.
Oh, you have none?
Oh, that's right, I forgot, you don't need no stinkin' evidence do you?
Your considered opinion means nothing without something to back it up. Lawd, lawd, I've seen folks grasp at straws before, but this is prime.
Rich
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
I dont have any evidence, but if some enlisted dude can shoot out Sakais' eyeball.........
Well, he was a better pilot than 9/10ths of all pilots in the PTO...
Well, he was a better pilot than 9/10ths of all pilots in the PTO...
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
syscom3 said:
Who said anything about a dogfight?!? The man fought his was out of a situation, in doing so he downed 3 aircraft. If you want to assume his methodology involved what would be called a dogfight, so be it.
The SBD had a nickname you may be aware of "SLOW BUT DEADLY." I wonder where that came from? Additionally, let's assume he did "dogfight" the Zeros - we could throw in the assumption that he was just a better pilot than his opponents, used his dive brakes to turn and fought like hell - the man did go on to be a double ace, (seven in one day) so he must of done something right that day and continued to so something right for the rmainder of the war....
syscom3
Pacific Historian
And If I had left out the times what happens to your argument?
- If you left out the times, I would have asked you if you had more evidence.
And in the course of an action where there's enemy planes about, do you always expect someone to look down at his watch and take out a pencil and note the time?
- Actaually yes. All pilots were asked to give the best estimate of time of events as it happened. The pilots actually had clocks in the cockpit for them to look at from time to time. If the AAF could do it, the surface ships do it (when they were shooting at enemy planes and ships) then I think it would be resonable for the naval Air Arm to request the same things from their pilots.
And the fact that some of these only gives a range of time in which an action occurs makes them "unbelievable"?
- Yes. to say "i shot down a plane sometime between the following 30 minutes in the air. I cant remember it though." would be a flag for anyone to question the validity of the claim.
And the fact that several of the credits occurred in the same area makes the unbelievable?
- The fact several gunners made claims at the same time at the same location is most probably the result of them all shooting at the same plane
And how do you draw that conclusion?
- Logical conclusion as proven many times in tallying up the results at the end of the war. The gunners of the planes in formation did not all talk amongst themselves on who was going to shoot at which plane.
Do you know with what other aircraft these were operating?
- Irrelevent to this discussion
Do you know who may have witnessed the events?
- the ones that had precise times of their kill, or of shared kills I counted as valid. That is good evidence there were multiple witness's
Are you aware of the circumstances of the action?
- Irrelevent to this discussion
Please describe the action so that we may share your insight.
- Irrelevent to this discussion
What makes you think a credit is shared when it is not so noted, were you there?
- When the times matched at the same location, that was a shared kill, with all gunners shooting at the same plane. By the way, were you there too?
And when were you certified as an ACIO?
- Did you get yours over the internet? I have a CCNA and a white chevy. Do you?
Facts, not opinion. Show me some evidence.
- Im questioning the evidence in that the kills claimed were exagerated. It's perfectly valid to interject personal opinion into an argument, as long as you dont declare it fact. You seem to be attacking me for asking questions. Are you hiding something?
Oh, you have none?
- Your evidence sounds mighty slim. Attack the questioneer, not discuss the facts as you see them.
Oh, that's right, I forgot, you don't need no stinkin' evidence do you?
- Im asking the questions. I dont need evidence. Im just pointing out some area's of the claims that need further clarification and study.
Your considered opinion means nothing without something to back it up.
- I dont think youre helping your argument by continuing to attack me, and not expanding on your evidence. Ive already stated that some of those claims didnt sound "kosher". Others did make sense.
Lawd, lawd, I've seen folks grasp at straws before, but this is prime.
- Ive seen some of the Luftwaffe experts in the other threads do a professionally good job backing up their claims. I dont think youre doing a good job at all. Its like youre not sure of the evidence.
- If you left out the times, I would have asked you if you had more evidence.
And in the course of an action where there's enemy planes about, do you always expect someone to look down at his watch and take out a pencil and note the time?
- Actaually yes. All pilots were asked to give the best estimate of time of events as it happened. The pilots actually had clocks in the cockpit for them to look at from time to time. If the AAF could do it, the surface ships do it (when they were shooting at enemy planes and ships) then I think it would be resonable for the naval Air Arm to request the same things from their pilots.
And the fact that some of these only gives a range of time in which an action occurs makes them "unbelievable"?
- Yes. to say "i shot down a plane sometime between the following 30 minutes in the air. I cant remember it though." would be a flag for anyone to question the validity of the claim.
And the fact that several of the credits occurred in the same area makes the unbelievable?
- The fact several gunners made claims at the same time at the same location is most probably the result of them all shooting at the same plane
And how do you draw that conclusion?
- Logical conclusion as proven many times in tallying up the results at the end of the war. The gunners of the planes in formation did not all talk amongst themselves on who was going to shoot at which plane.
Do you know with what other aircraft these were operating?
- Irrelevent to this discussion
Do you know who may have witnessed the events?
- the ones that had precise times of their kill, or of shared kills I counted as valid. That is good evidence there were multiple witness's
Are you aware of the circumstances of the action?
- Irrelevent to this discussion
Please describe the action so that we may share your insight.
- Irrelevent to this discussion
What makes you think a credit is shared when it is not so noted, were you there?
- When the times matched at the same location, that was a shared kill, with all gunners shooting at the same plane. By the way, were you there too?
And when were you certified as an ACIO?
- Did you get yours over the internet? I have a CCNA and a white chevy. Do you?
Facts, not opinion. Show me some evidence.
- Im questioning the evidence in that the kills claimed were exagerated. It's perfectly valid to interject personal opinion into an argument, as long as you dont declare it fact. You seem to be attacking me for asking questions. Are you hiding something?
Oh, you have none?
- Your evidence sounds mighty slim. Attack the questioneer, not discuss the facts as you see them.
Oh, that's right, I forgot, you don't need no stinkin' evidence do you?
- Im asking the questions. I dont need evidence. Im just pointing out some area's of the claims that need further clarification and study.
Your considered opinion means nothing without something to back it up.
- I dont think youre helping your argument by continuing to attack me, and not expanding on your evidence. Ive already stated that some of those claims didnt sound "kosher". Others did make sense.
Lawd, lawd, I've seen folks grasp at straws before, but this is prime.
- Ive seen some of the Luftwaffe experts in the other threads do a professionally good job backing up their claims. I dont think youre doing a good job at all. Its like youre not sure of the evidence.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
lesofprimus said:
If I remember the story right, this was the first time he came against Avengers and he didnt correctly identify them untill too late. From afar, he thought they were Wildcats that had foolishly bunched up for some reason.
Rich is doing just a good, if not better, of a job than the Luftwaffe experts on this site. It seems to me that you just agree with those talking about the Luftwaffe and not with Rich.
I have say if I was in combat I wouldn't waste my time lookin' at the clock if I had to keep my out for roaming Zeros after blasting my ass to pieces.
I have say if I was in combat I wouldn't waste my time lookin' at the clock if I had to keep my out for roaming Zeros after blasting my ass to pieces.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
FLYBOYJ said:Who said anything about a dogfight?!? The man fought his was out of a situation, in doing so he downed 3 aircraft. If you want to assume his methodology involved what would be called a dogfight, so be it.
The SBD had a nickname you may be aware of "SLOW BUT DEADLY." I wonder where that came from? Additionally, let's assume he did "dogfight" the Zeros - we could throw in the assumption that he was just a better pilot than his opponents, used his dive brakes to turn and fought like hell - the man did go on to be a double ace, (seven in one day) so he must of done something right that day and continued to so something right for the rmainder of the war....
The Dauntless got its SBD nickname from its ship killing capabilities, not dogfighting capabilities.
He could have used the dive flaps to slow down to good effect but the end result would him being at a slow speed and low energy state. Not a good position to be in. The SDB was never known to be a good accelerator.
Like I say, he fought his way out of the situation, took some shots at the Zero's. Did he shoot them down? I dont think so.
If a Stuka pilot claimed he turned into attacking Spitfires and using two MG, managed to shoot down 3 planes, would it make you wonder if it could have happened?
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
So once again ur calling him a liar.... I suppose his gunner was lying as well.... I also suppose u discount everyones claims, even if they were verified....
You know what I think??? <edited by administrator>
If the Stuka pilots gunner verified the account, and the Stuka pilot was a very respectable individual, no I would not wonder about it... I would shake the mans hand and thank him for his service to his country...
And for the record, he shot down all 3 in head on passes... If anyone can remember, it aint too hard to knock a Zero outta the sky.....
I imagine it would have been simple for the man once he had the foolish Zero pilots turning towards him and going head on. After all the American pilots were told to go head on into Japanese attacks because their planes could not take much damage, if any at all.
That would be vastly different for a Spitfire vs. Stuka. The Stuka could turn into the Spitfire but the Spitfire could take it's punishment (Unless it was a Ju-87G and a 37mm splattered the Spitfire). The Spitfire would mostly likely get on the tail of the Stuka before the pilot even thought of turning into him. The SBD was more agile than the Stuka...a lot more.
That would be vastly different for a Spitfire vs. Stuka. The Stuka could turn into the Spitfire but the Spitfire could take it's punishment (Unless it was a Ju-87G and a 37mm splattered the Spitfire). The Spitfire would mostly likely get on the tail of the Stuka before the pilot even thought of turning into him. The SBD was more agile than the Stuka...a lot more.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
I remember reading about the USN Submarine war in WW2, and many captains wrote in their reports that they heard the torpedo explode, they saw the ship on fire and they saw it sink. After the war they were shown proof that the ship didnt sink and it was still afloat. If you want to know the name of the book, send me a PM and when i get home, i will let you know.
Did that make them liars? Nope. It just proved that in the stress of battle, they thought they saw it happen and were simply mistaken.
Once again, you attack me for asking questions.
Did that make them liars? Nope. It just proved that in the stress of battle, they thought they saw it happen and were simply mistaken.
Once again, you attack me for asking questions.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
If you read what I have been saying, I am not denying the SBD gunners shot down planes, Im just saying that its not as many as was claimed. If three gunners shoot at the same plane and see it explode and crash, from their point of view, three planes were shot down.
The Germans seemed to have the strictest rules for awarding claims, and the US wasnt nearly so strict.
Unfortunatly for the navy, claims made in the middle of the ocean when theres no gun film, can be hard to prove/dissprove. Unless those claims can be correlated with Japanese records, then some of the claims should be looked at under a critical eye.
Should I believe at face value that all the German fighters claimed by the B17's and -24's be true? Or do you use some analysis to it and figure out a more reasonable tally?
The Germans seemed to have the strictest rules for awarding claims, and the US wasnt nearly so strict.
Unfortunatly for the navy, claims made in the middle of the ocean when theres no gun film, can be hard to prove/dissprove. Unless those claims can be correlated with Japanese records, then some of the claims should be looked at under a critical eye.
Should I believe at face value that all the German fighters claimed by the B17's and -24's be true? Or do you use some analysis to it and figure out a more reasonable tally?
