Flying Tigers VS Christopher Shores?
 

My interpretation of a post in this thread by the FTA forum administrator
shows they view Christopher Shores has a revisionist out to get the AVG.
Just like their view of Daniel Ford.

I have heard that Christopher Shores has written a lot of slander against the AVG, which has been gleefully picked up by other "historians" and reported on. All without ANY supporting evidence.
Lydia Rossi

http://forums.flyingtigersavg.com/ub...ML/001776.html

Opinions??

Re: Flying Tigers VS Christopher Shores?
 

I have not read the books by Christopher Shores, but... I can tell you that Shores has a very bad reputation for not being able to substantiate his stories. I don't know why you would call him "one of the finest researchers ..."

I love that: I haven't read anything from CS, but I can tell you that's pure BS!

I have worked with Chris for years and have always appreciated his clinical way of dealing with things.
The problem comes when you touch sensitive topics. It seems to be the case with these AVG flatterers. The fact to write that they were probably not the "top guns" they claimed to be is a crime to their eyes. Even Boyington admitted it!

Re: Flying Tigers VS Christopher Shores?
 

The claim that Ford and Shores wrote without any evidence is painfully ludicrous, since they built their case on available documentation from BOTH sides, instead of Allied (read AVG) only. This reverse reasoning can only be a weak attempt to lower the credibility of Ford and Shores.

The AVG were special men, although Ford shows them more as well paid mercenaries than idealists, similar of the type that later flew for the CIA in South East Asia, but they were the darlings of the American public and a source of good news during a dark period. However wartime claims are not always the best benchmark and public myth not the easiest foundation to shake.

Unfortunately for the AVG, not all their claims have stood the scrutiny of objective historical research. If thorough research based on available documents from both sides show a different story, it is time to revise our take of events. If that process is called revisionism, there is nothing to be ashamed about...

If we look at the writings of Shores and his team regarding the air war in the Netherlands East Indies, it is nothing but thorough and objective. It shows inflated claims on both sides, but events seem to match pretty accurately. At least no Dutch historian has disputed their findings, far from it, they form the basis of current publications.

Finally IMHO the truth wouldn't hurt the AVG as much as this controversy.

Overclaiming isn't unique, it doesn't change the special circumstances under which these men fought.

It doesn't change their flamboyant, even "Hollywood-esque" image, as Flying Tigers. It doesn't even influence their role in History: they were there when the United States needed them and they fought a hard battle that was in many ways unique (be that as a publicity tool or a military unit).

Re: Flying Tigers VS Christopher Shores?
 

Exactly guys! So what if the AVG didn't shoot down 299 Japanese aircraft? From what I read they STILL managed to give a bloody nose to the IJAAF bomber & fighter units that up to that point were having the war going THEIR way & had suffered minimal losses---and THAT is good enough for me!

NickM

PS: Having doubts as to Chris Shores' credibility & accuracy of research is practically aviation 'blasphemy'! :shock:

Re: Flying Tigers VS Christopher Shores?
 

I had a long discussion with Ford about his book and consequent attacks by AVG'o'philes on him. He said he had been able to substantiate about 198 confirmed kills. By any standard, given the circumstances of the period this was a great effort. However, the AVG people told him that all Japanese records were fake and lies. Ford said at AVG reunions a few years ago, they now claim in the neighborhood of 600.

Re: Flying Tigers VS Christopher Shores?
 

For what it's worth, a while ago I made a Shores bibliography, and it probably isn't complete:

Christopher Shores is the author or co-author of Fledgling Eagles (1992), Air War For Yugoslavia, Greece And Crete 1940-41 (1993), Malta: The Hurricane Years 1940-41 (1994), Malta: The Spitfire Year 1942 (1991), Dust Clouds In The Middle East - The Air War For East Africa, Iraq, Syria, Iran and Madagascar, 1940-42 (1996), L'Aviation De Vichy Au Combat - Les Campagnes Oubliees 3 Juiliet 1940 - 27 Novembre 1942 (1985), L'Aviation De Vichy Au Combat - La Campagne De Syrie 8 Juin - 14 Juilliet 1941 (1988), 2nd Tactical Air Force (1970), Bloody Shambles Vol.1 (1992), Bloody Shambles Vol.2 (1993), Air War for Burma (2005), Air War for Yugoslavia, Greece and Crete 1940-41 (1992), 2nd Tactical Air Force Vol 3 (2006), Above the Trenches Supplement (2002), Spanish Civil War Air Forces (1977), Aircam Battle of Britain (1969), Great Air Battles of WWII (2001), Aircam Finnish Air Force (1969), Duel for the Sky (1985), History of the Royal Canadian Air Force (1988), USAAF Fighter Units MTO (1978), The Typhoon and Tempest Story (1988), Stalin's Falcons (1999), Luftwaffe Fighter Units Europe (1979), Above the Trenches (1991), Air Aces (1983), Regia Aeronautica (1976), Luftwaffe Fighter Units Russia (1978), Luftwaffe Fighter Units Mediterranean (1978), British and Empire Aces of World War I (2001), Aces Past (1997), Those Other Eagles (2002), North American Mustang in RAF Service (1971), Pictorial History of Mediterranean Air War Vol 1 (1972), Vol 2 (1973), Vol 3 (1974), Ground Attack Aircraft of WW2 (1977), Luftwaffe Bomber Camouflage & Markings (1969), Curtiss Kittyhawk in RAF Service (1968), Hawker Hurricane in RAF Service (1972), Fighter Aces (1975), Fifty Fighters (1969), Armee de l'Air (1976), Luftwaffe Fighter Bomber & Marine Camouflage & Markings (1969), Fighters Over the Desert (1969), Curtiss Warhawk in RAF Service (1971), The Brewster Buffalo (1990?), Air War for Yugoslavia, Greece and Crete (1992), Aces High Vol 1 (2002) and Vol 2 (1999), Billy Drake, Fighter Leader (2002), Japanese Army Air Force Fighter Units & Aces (2002), Spitfire Leader (1997), USAAF Fighter Units MTO (1978), Fighters Over Tunisia (1975), and probably a bunch of others that I have overlooked.

In short, a well-published and well-regarded writer.

Re: Flying Tigers VS Christopher Shores?
 

Sorry about the smilies! Just read them as close-quotes.

Re: Flying Tigers VS Christopher Shores?
 

Hi guys

As a long-standing friend of Chris Shores and also co-author of 'Bloody Shambles' Volumes I and II, I feel that I must add my tuppence-worth. From the records I have had access to, I fully support Chris' version of Japanese losses as recorded in those two volumes, and therefore would doubt AVG claims.

Cheers
Brian

Re: Flying Tigers VS Christopher Shores?
 

Brian, how would you respond to this fairly typical argument, which was posted today on the AVG forum:

Can anyone give a logical reason why the Chinese government would pay $500 a piece for 'unconfirmed' victories. I'm aware of several pilots who believe they have one or two more 'kills' than their record indicates, but as they were uncomfirmed, they were not paid and they are not reflected on their official record. If a 'claim' was all that was needed for a victory, then why weren't ALL 'claims' honored, accepted, and paid for? As far as the posts on that other website, who's records were there to check, other than the first-hand accounts of the AVG, the British at Rangoon, and the Japanese? What records were there to be 'discovered' at this point in time, and how does one validate Japanese records of the day? The Japanese had every reason to play down their losses to the AVG. Or does one just accept them at face value because they fit with a particular agenda? I still favor the tally of victories indicated by the number PAID for by the Chinese government as being the most valid accounting.

("That other website" is almost certainly this one.)

Re: Flying Tigers VS Christopher Shores?
 

Hi Oldpilot

I understand Chris Shores is a member of TOCH so perhaps he will respond.

Cheers
Brian

Re: Flying Tigers VS Christopher Shores?
 

The majority of the AVG forum administrator's anger directed at Mr. Shores is because of the passages relating to the selling of kills by the RAF pilots to the AVG pilots.
They believe Chris Shores is making this up to sling mud at them and that he shared the stories with Dan Ford who has a section on his website site. They can't seem to realize that these kills selling stories have been printed numerous times in the past 40 years or so including "Mouse in my Pocket" which I believe (correct me if I'm wrong here) the info was gleaned from.
The questioning of the number of kills credited to the AVG in the book is secondary.

Re: Flying Tigers VS Christopher Shores?
 

The Japanese had every reason to play down their losses to the AVG.

Well, here's one answer. The AVG had equally every reason to play up their successes over the Japanese.

That is, if we are talking PR/bragging rights, as opposed to actual recording of losses for the purposes of getting replacement aircraft out of the system. There is no percentage value in downplaying your losses to your own supply system.

Every nation in aerial warfare was has been accused of downplaying their losses. Such arguments have never, to my knowledge, been demonstrated as correct.

I still favor the tally of victories indicated by the number PAID for by the Chinese government as being the most valid accounting.

Just how could the Chinese Government be any kind of reliable assessor to the success of the AVG over Rangoon?

Light of research into aerial warfare all over the world, and bearing in mind the circumstances of the fighting, a claim to kill ratio of 3:1 seems perfectly reasonable. It is much the same as both the RAF and the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain. A case where both sides have been accused of "hiding" losses.


If these comments are typical of the comments, then I'm sorry about the level of sense in the arguments. I haven't the faintest idea whether the RAF were "selling" claims to the AVG: it seems pretty unlikely. However, if the story existed long before Bloody Shambles then Shores would be remiss not to include it. After all, the AVG was not a dewy-eyed collection of idealistic crusaders but (generally) fairly hard-bitten mercenaries.

Re: Flying Tigers VS Christopher Shores?
 

All claims by the AVG had to be confirmed for the $500 bonus to be paid. Claims made in China were verified by the Chinese, usually, as far as I know, by finding the wreckage. All claims in Burma were verified by the RAF. The evidence for this is in the Chennault Papers in the Hoover Institute on the Stanford University campus, being the letters from AVM (from memory) Stevenson to Chennault. There is no indication in these letters as to how the claims were confirmed. Ground claims in Thailand were confirmed by RAF photo recon. Air claims in Thailand I would have to guess were confirmed by the other pilots on the mission.

With regard to the buying of claims from the British by AVG pilots, I have to consider this to be nonsense. The only cash money received by members of the AVG (air or ground) was their monthly pay, which they received in the currency of the country in which they were based. Bonus payments were made to an account in a New York bank, and there was no way for them to get at the money while overseas.

With regard to "hard bitten mercenaries", I have to say that none of them can be considered "hard bitten". All of the pilots and ground crew were recruited from the active duty US services in the rough period of Spring 1941 to about August. They then had to travel to Rangoon. I don't know when they received their first "pay check"; a fair amount of the financial records are in the Chennault Papers. Certainly none of them had ever acted as a mercenary before joining the AVG.

Frank.

Re: Flying Tigers VS Christopher Shores?
 

Perhaps the words "hard bitten" are a bit off, but they certainly deserve to be called mercenaries.

The chance to fly combat, earn good money and visit exotic places would be enough to find candidates who were either at the end of their military career or otherwise had little chance of advancement in the pre-war military, which didn't generate a large income in the first place.

Of course they were doing so with the approval and support of the US government, the whole AVG being part of a covert operation to stop the Japanese.

I can't believe that the AVG and later generation pilots flying for "Air America" and similar were doing so mainly out of love for country (unless you can show original letters that pilot "X" wasn't in it for the money and adventure).

Re: Flying Tigers VS Christopher Shores?
 

I read somewhere that Boyington was in to avoid paying the rent to his ex-wife (or wives).

When you see the number of WWI and WWII pilots that increased the number of their victories only for glory, it's easy to imagine what others can do for extra bucks.

I have no evidence of what did or didn't AVG pilots, it's just that at my age I'm beginning to understand what my grandfather meant when he talked about "the genuine human nature".

Re: Flying Tigers VS Christopher Shores?
 

"I can't believe that the AVG and later generation pilots flying for "Air America" and similar were doing so mainly out of love for country (unless you can show original letters that pilot "X" wasn't in it for the money and adventure)."

Ruy, with all respects
I’d not to bother to guess motives of men that I don’t know personally. Humans are so different and they motives so complicated. It’s easy to be sceptical to motives of others whose values are different from one’s own but they can follow their values even better than we follow our own.

Juha

Re: Flying Tigers VS Christopher Shores?
 

I invite you to carefully read again what I wrote, and unless you can proof otherwise by supporting evidence (letters, other writing and/or even interviews) I still find it hard to believe that the prime motivator (as in "mainly") was love of country.

The broad term of national interest abroad doesn't easily translate to a personal sense of love of country.

Re: Flying Tigers VS Christopher Shores?
 

The comparison of AVG claims to Japanese records seems to have generated more controversy than in most other cases in the Pacific War, or generally (though some other cases of comparing claims to opposing records in various wars have also provoked bitter responses from the claimants or their proponents). I think it's because AVG members themselves, and proponents, remained or even remain active even on the internet, supporting their claims.

But, it seems to sometimes create the impression that that AVG had an unusually low claim accuracy ratio for its period or theater. However that doesn't seem to be the case. Comparing Ford's complete coverage of AVG ops (since Shores et al in Bloody Shambles mainly deal with AVG in Burma) to the rest of Bloody Shambles and other books covering the early Pac War campaigns ("Doomed at the Start", "First Team" series etc) it would seem the AVG's overall accuracy ratio was broadly typical of Allied fighter units against the Japanese in 1942 (and later, Boyington's unit in '43-44, "Black Sheep" by Gamble). In some early cases in Burma the claims were unusually highly overstated, but in many later smaller combats in China apparently less so.

It does not seem therefore that the "wreck evidence" of the Chinese confirming claims on one hand, nor cash incentives, or 'mercenary motives' on the other, had a big effect on AVG claim accuracy.

In general the history of wreck surveying to confirm claims is checkered. In some cases it may have curtailed overclaims, but the AVG is far from the only case where it didn't. See Soviet claims in Korea, 'wreck evidence' and US records: there's considerably less agreement there than between AVG claims and Japanese records.

I see no reason to doubt the integrity of Shores et al and Ford's research on the AVG. But in both, and other similar basically 'two sided accounts', there are a fair number of combats whose Japanese version is not given, presumably not mentioned in available sources. And in other cases, as I think is well known, the best available Japanese info apparently gives pilot losses, not plane losses. One humble suggestion I'd make to professional aviation writers, as an avid reader and amateur researcher, is to be clearer about this. Just say, "this combat isn't covered in X source", or "plane losses aren't given". If that breaks up the text too much for those readers seeking a 'good read', then in notes. And I really wish that all the great works that covered WWII air combats from both sides did have footnotes, which some do but some don't.

Joe

Re: Flying Tigers VS Christopher Shores?
 

Hello Ruy
I’m sceptical on possibility to validate the real motive of Mr/Ms X, because it’s usually impossible to know what has gone inside somebody’s head say 20 years ago.
I’m not AVG specialist, even if I have read parts of Ford’s book and parts of Bloody Shambles plus a couple articles on the unit. I know even less on Air America because I was most interested in Vietnam War from late 60s to late 70s and then I haven’t much interest in contemporary or near contemporary covert ops because I doubted the possibility to get reliable info on them.

I once knew a quite a bit on Spanish Civil War, even if I might have forgot most of it. So, out of curiosity, do You believe that many of the men of International Brigades joined in mainly because of revolutionary fervour, belief of fighting for right cause, class solidarity, loyalty to party etc?

If yes, why it is difficult to believe that some of the men of AVG could have signed in because of believing that they would fight for right cause, out of loyalty to one’s country ie patriotism etc?

Juha

Re: Flying Tigers VS Christopher Shores?
 

It isn't at all difficult to believe that some of them (maybe all) felt their support for China would act as support for their own country: it must be remembered that there was a considerable sentimental linkage between China and America because of a considerable effort placed on Christianising China by American missionaries over several decades before WW2.

However, this does not deny the fact that they were, by definition, mercenaries. They have travelled to a foreign country in order to kill other foreigners for money. Not the action of a "soft" person. Nor can it be denied that several of them were, by any meaningful definition of the term, "hard-bitten". Some of them were (ex-)marines, let's not forget, hardly renowned for their softness. Not that any professional soldiers can generally be so described.

As for none ever flying as mercenaries elsewhere - wasn't Ajax Baumler in the AVG? (or was he only in China later?). He flew on the Republican side in Spain. I'm not sure, from memory, that he was the only Spanish veteran in China, but I admit being open to correction there. (As elsewhere, of course, but certainly there!)

None of this reduces the AVG's real achievements, but as has been proven worldwide, official confirmation of a kill has little to do with accuracy.

Re: Flying Tigers VS Christopher Shores?
 

Hello Graham
on Baumler, see http://www.warbirdforum.com/baumler.htm
And yes, I don't think that Boyington, an hard-drinking Marine or ex-Marine, was a soft idealist but IIRC he wasn't a typical AVG pilot either, IIRC he was in odds with his superiors also in AVG.

Re: Flying Tigers VS Christopher Shores?
 

Hi Guys

It's been a long time I read anything about the AVG, but I do have a question. If my memory doesn't play tricks with me, the AVG was supposed to come to an end and become part of the USAAF. Their members did have a choice to either stay and be transferred or back out and go home (or I suppose go wherever they wanted to go). Again from memory, quite a number stepped down and refused to join the USAAF at site. Among them was the top scorer Robert Neale. Part of his reason may have been that he was a Canadian, but he also completely vanish from sight and as far as I know did not join any other Air Force anywhere else. What ever happened to him and why did he not join let's say the RCAF or RAF. What was his motive?

What motives had all those others who refused to either join the USAAF or any other AF?

I do agree it is hard to both understand and interpret motives and very often they have to be judged by the action each individual takes. From todays standpoint it doesn't look very sympathetic to back down, especially if you want to be considered an idealist. It is easy to simply consider those who did as simple mercenaries who were in it for the money and nothing else, but that has not to be the case. Problems today is that too many individuals (who took part) and relatives also like to white wash and revise history. Usually the truth (whenever you find it) seems to end up somewhere in between....

Cheers
Stig

Re: Flying Tigers VS Christopher Shores?
 

At least some didn't want to join the Air Corps because they were Navy or Marine Corps Aviators. But like you I'd have to catch up on the subject to give details.

We musn't look at the word mercenary as something purely negative, yet by definition these men were mercenaries / soldiers of fortune. Probably more in it for adventure than money. Some pilots had never flown a fighter and most were (probably) eager to have a chance at flying the hottest ship available (US point of view) at that time and test their skills in actual combat.

Re: Flying Tigers VS Christopher Shores?
 

The motives for joining the AVG were several. At least one joined to pay off debts (Boyington). Two (Tex Hill and Jim Howard) joined at the very least to fight the Japanese. Most of the rest I suspect joined for adventure and to practice their trade of fighter pilot. And some I am sure saw the writing on the wall and figured the US would be at war with Japan "soon" and figured to get in on the ground floor.
With regard to rejoining the service(s) after the dissolution of the AVG, one problem was that the USN and USMC people (pilots and ground crew) wanted to rejoin their original service. The major problem however was Bissell, who told everyone to join the Army or they would be drafted upon return to the US. "Piss on Bissell" was a popular phrase among members of the AVG at the time. Most ended up in one of the services; several shot down additional aircraft. Neale I believe flew transports as a ferry pilot. Dick Rossi stayed in the CBI, and flew many missions (600?) over the Hump. Bissell should have known better; he was a WW1 fighter ace, and if there is anything tougher than herding cats it is herding fighter pilots, especially successful combat veterans. At the time Chennault rejoined the Army (Feb-Mar 1942?) he and Bissell had the same rank, but Bissell had seniority in grade.

There were basically two groups of pilots in the AVG. The initial wave were fighter pilots; the second wave was less so, with more bomber and USN patrol bomber pilots. It is not realized by most but the initial structure of the AVG envisioned two Groups (in the USAAF sense). The 1st AV Group consisted of three fighter squadrons, and there is some of its letterhead in the Chennault papers. The 2nd AV Group was to consist of (three ?) bomber squadrons; I believe the idea was these would be started with the B-25s from the Doolittle mission. If you review the training accidents of the AVG you will find a large number of them are from the bomber and patrol bomber pilots, because they were used to landing higher and therefore flared too soon. Followed by much teeth grinding in HQ.
Frank.

Re: Flying Tigers VS Christopher Shores?
 

Hello One & All,

having read some of the arguments put forward on the AVG forum (which, obviously don't neccessarily represent the view of the AVG survivors themselves), I wouldn't pay much attention to some of the (so-called) counter-arguments.

e.g.

"To rely on your country's enemies for reliable information seems to me, to be quite a questionable practice..." (the Japanese aren't still enemies are they? To rely only on your own countries' records is even more questionable)

"I never understood why some 'American' authors find such joy in undermining the achievements of their countrymen, and their country's history." {Well, I thought it was to establish some form of verifable truth and to decontruct propaganda! ...and to phrase the word 'American' in such a way as to suggest that a US author is un-American, for expressing freedom of speech and trying to further historical knowledge, disgusts me, quite frankly)

What would interest me, has anyone checked verifible bank records or official Chinese documents to see just how much money was paid out for claims to the AVG? I haven't read the books to be able to find out.

Cheers

Rod

PS - I can commiserate with Ford and Shores et al, as I have contributed to an in-depth study, soon to be published, that doesn't gloss over the sometimes inflated German night fighter claims...We'll see how long after publication that the Flak barrage begins from certain circles (and I have faced the accusation that British Bomber Command records are not complete or deliberately hide losses...utter rubbish).

Re: Flying Tigers VS Christopher Shores?
 

And Graham Boak said: "Every nation in aerial warfare was has been accused of downplaying their losses. Such arguments have never, to my knowledge, been demonstrated as correct."

This great forum likes very tightly focused discussion, but can we broaden it here? Does anyone know of actual documented cases of systematic understatement of losses in official records in any air war?

I've done some research about the Korean War, and there are also those who study that war, mainly from the perspective of the MiG AF's, who say the US systematically and severely understated its air combat losses. I have not found evidence of that in fairly extensive study of those records v specific MiG claims. Although, there are some errors in those records, especially in view of specific opposing claims which the record keepers didn't have benefit of, and some omissions and errors in official totals v various individual records. But those errors don't change the big picture much, they bridge little of the gap between official loss totals and the opposing side's claims.

But is there some exception to this, any air war where the then-secret record of air combat losses of one side have been shown seriously at variance with their actual losses, in a statistically significant number of cases?

Joe

Re: Flying Tigers VS Christopher Shores?
 

Ajax Baumler resigned from the army to join the AVG but was refused a passport because of his service in Spain, so he didn't go to Burma with the rest. (That's why there were only 99 pilots instead of the intended 100.) He tried to get to Chennault as an army officer in December 1941 but was turned back by the Japanese attack on Wake. He set out a third time as a captain by way of Africa, and reached Chennault's headquarters in April or May 1942. See www.warbirdforum.com/baumler.htm

He did fly at least two missions with the AVG and claimed one Japanese plane shot down. However, he was a uniformed officer of the USAAF at the time, not a member of the AVG.

Re: Flying Tigers VS Christopher Shores?
 

Yes, that information is available in the Chennault Papers at Stanford, copies at the Library of Congress. It's not 100 percent consistent. The best estimate is evidently that the Chinese (that is to say, Central Aircraft Manufacturing Company) paid 294 combat bonuses for Japanese planes destroyed in the air or on the ground. See for example www.warbirdforum.com/vics.htm

The CAMCO account evidently didn't include two victories attributed to AVG pilots after the official disbandment date. Also, there is some evidence that both Boyington and Hill were "officially" credited with one more aircraft than shows in the bonus accounts, while Bolster was credited with one fewer. See Ford, Flying Tigers, p. 388.

In any event, the answer to the question appears to be that CAMCO paid out $500 times 294 equals $147,000, cheap at the price.

Re: Flying Tigers VS Christopher Shores?
 

There have been more than a few questions and assertions in this thread that probably deserve a serious essay or research paper.

Why would the Chinese pay $500 per victory if they were not accurate? Simple answer the kills were assessed by a board with the info available. They were not determined (as German advisors to the Chinese had suggested in the early 30's) by a/c wreckage found on the ground!!!. Kill assessment involved a process but one based on observation in the heat of combat and was essentially subjective. *** Now to get more into intrigue. First, Chiang wanted a strong air presence in China. Chiang did not necessarily (or specifically) want a strong ground army in China (i.e., a Chinese army with the latest western arms and tactics) because it might fall under the control of a rival and threaten his regime. He wanted air power and wanted to encourage the west to send him more. If the west (U.S.) thought air power in China was contributing to the anti-Axis effort they would be encouraged to do so. In 'Hump' air priorities debates Chiang always favored building up air power over equipping Y-Force, the Chinese force that might have contributed to the invasion of Burma. It was okay with Chiang to build up the Chinese Ramgar force which operated from India agianst Burma as that force was no political threat.

Many other points upon which to comment but I think I'll stop here as many folks seem to have a variety of opinions and have injected many extraneous subjects. For example, Allied strategic bomber losses (RAF BC and 8th AF) were not accurately reported in the contemporaneous press even though Hitler thought they were!!

RLD

Re: Flying Tigers VS Christopher Shores?
 

Thanks for the clarification on the documented payments. I guess the next question would be whether there exists documentation on the verification process used by the Chinese in awarding payments. It is a shame that the documentation (if any) accompanying each individual payment/claim isn't available for scurtiny (I presume it is not based on this whole ruckus).

Personally, I would not presume any specific methodigy used in the verification of claims/for payments without documentary proof.

The example of RAF Bomber Command losses, although seemingly irrelevant to the AVG, was cited as an example of the "other side must be under-reporting losses" theory, which, as has been pointed out, gets thrown about, based upon subjective opinion and without concrete proof. Obviously any serious researcher uses the official records, not news reports, so any argument about losses reported in the prss are irrelevant. While there may be gaps in the documentation on Japanese losses, I'm sure that there are enough surviving examples to allow a complete assessment for certain days/periods.

Cheers

Rod

Re: Flying Tigers VS Christopher Shores?
 

Hi,

I just wanted to remark something about loss statistics.
I agree that the argument about "hidden losses" is almost always unsubstantiated.

But I wished to remark that the cause of losses may sometimes be questionable.

Generally, this is not the case, but when records are uncomplete, this may happen, the example about which I'm thinking about here is German losses on the Eastern Front, where some combat losses have been later recounted as accidents, or air-to-air losses as caused by AAA, or various different causes mentioned (I think about Hans Ahn's loss or the death of Otto Kittel).

That said, I'm playing here the devil's advocate...

Kolya.

Re: Flying Tigers VS Christopher Shores?
 

Wrong classification of losses is certainly possible, but again the example of Korea comes to my mind. It's often said the US did this extensively in that war, classing air combat losses as due to AAA and accidents, and not counting written off planes, but in my research I've not been able to find much substantiation of that charge. There are a few cases, but in many dozen incidents of course there would be. It's not statistically significant. In most cases it's easy to see the AAA or accidental loss really was as classified, in a separate incident at another place/time of day, and written up in detail.

It makes me tend to skepticism when that possibility is suggested as explaining any significant part of the claims v losses discrepancy in other wars, though one must be open minded to specific evidence.

Joe

Re: Flying Tigers VS Christopher Shores?
 

I was forwarded this message from Christopher Shores:

Firstly, those who seek to attack what I have written on the subject should be made aware that I found AVG claims no more or less unreliable than those of most other air forces I have researched. Always the circumstances of each engagement needs to be looked at carefully. In fighter-v-fighter combats the claim:loss ratio always seems to climb rapidly, multiplied by the numbers of aircraft/units involved. In Burma the AVG were often fighting over jungle and attacked in steep dives before climbing back for altitude. Good tactics, but fraught with opportunities for double claiming - or triple claiming for that matter.

When I wrote 'Fighters over the Desert' way back in the 1960s, I could not understand why I kept finding claims that I could not verify when I seemed to have all the available records to hand. It was only years later, and after I had been attacked by apologists for just about every air force in the world, that I found in the official British war histories published in the early/mid 1950s a clear warning that claim totals were likelty to be inflated and could not be relied upon - and that was admitted within ten years of the end of WWII !!

Indeed, overclaiming, albeit in the best of good faith in most cases, certainly seems to have been endemic in aerial combat. It happened on every front and with every air force. Some (though not all) Luftwaffe units and Finnish units were considerably more accurate than most, most of the time. Fighter pilots by and large were young, aggressive and optimistic men who knew what they should be seeing and wanted to see. Even now, some still get very upset when it is pointed out that something they were quite certain had happened (and wanted to have happened) had not in fact occurred just as they recalled it. Others are much more pragmatic and realistic - and strangely, it is usually the latter whose claims prove to be easier to verify as having been accurate (or at least reaonably so).

I always remind myself of the little verse Barrett Tillman recited once - "You can tell a bomber pilot by the spread across his rear, and by the ring around his eye, you can tell a bombadier; you can tell a navigator by his maps and charts and such, and you can tell a fighter pilot - but you can't tell him much !"

Just for the record, I love it when I can find a loss that fits a claim so that I can properly confirm what actually happened at the time. It gives me no joy at all to have to point out that there was not a loss for a particular claim. I love the world of fighter pilots and have spent more than 40 years of my life researching and recording their exploits. But in doing so if one is to retain credibility as a historian, one must look at the full picture, not just one side.

In 'Bill; a Pilot's Story' by Brooklyn Harris, the author records how day after day Japanese formations kept returning to targets in the Solomons despite the losses apparently being inflicted on them by the 13th Air Force. It never once occurred to the author that perhaps the reason for the apparently inexhaustible supply of aircraft the Japanese seemed to have available to them - something to which he specifically referred - might have indicated that at least in part the losses they were actually suffering were not as severe as those being claimed.

To research matters from as wide a perspective as possible and to report the results as accurately as one can, should reflect no shame on those participating except in the occasional and thankfully rare occasions when some individual is deliberately falsifying their contribution. (The latter did happen now and again, but fortunetly not often). From my own researches I can certainly state that the vast majority of fighter pilots (and aircrew generally) of all nations did their duty in an exemplary fashion. If anyone has done them a disservice I would suggest that it was more likely to be those who wrote about them carelessly for sensational and propaganda purposes - not those who have tried to be objective and honest in recording history to the best of their abilities. Personally, I am always pleased to be able to update and correct any statement I have recorded in the past where further or more reliable evidence becomes available.

If you should feel it appropriate to include these words on the Forum I would be grateful. If you feel it is too long, then fine.

Kind regards,

Chris

End of quote.

Re: Flying Tigers VS Christopher Shores?
 

Characteristic good sense from Chris Shores. Thanks for posting it.

There's one other factor I suspect affected claims: adrenalin. I find it hard to imagine that a bunch of young guys could remain dispassionate while hurtling around the sky behind 1,000-plus horsepower and trying to shoot while being shot at. And it's possible that buzz would last right through debriefing …

Re: Flying Tigers VS Christopher Shores?
 

Thanks Ruy. This should write the word finis to this debate.

Chris

Re: Flying Tigers VS Christopher Shores?
 

My thanks goes to Chris Shores for his contribution.