Article on the air war over Burma
 

Here's a very interesting and well-researched article on the air war over Burma Dec 1941 - April 1942:


http://www.warbirdforum.com/jaafhist.htm

Here's some more:

http://www.warbirdforum.com/jaafloss.htm

Combine that with this article by Håkan Gustavsson:

http://surfcity.kund.dalnet.se/japan_eto.htm

If there is one thing we learn from the history of the air war between the Japanese and the Allies, it is that you should never ever trust the claims made by either side in that war. Like on 23 Dec 1941 when the Japanese claimed 41 Allied fighters shot down while they in reality only shot down three; or on 25 Feb 1942, when the AVG ("Flying Tigers") claimed 22 Japanese planes shot down while in reality they only managed to shoot down a single Japanese aircraft.

(Which reminds me of a wondeful way of putting it which I read in Eric Hammel's "Carrier Clash": "U.S. TAsk Force 16 claimed seventy of the twenty-seven Vals as confirmed kills." :D - In reality, the Americans shot down 17, not 70, Aichi Val dive-bombers in that combat on 24 Aug 1942, but that was Guadalcanal.)

Enyoy the linked articles and buy Eric Hammel's book now! ;)

Re: Article on the air war over Burma
 

I've been itching to include an IJA and IJN AF forum for some time now.

Technically the Japanese could fall under the Luftwaffe and Axis section, but that somehow doesn't do justice to the subject.

If there is sufficient support, just let me know and the category will be set up ASAP.

Re: Article on the air war over Burma
 

On topic however I somehow didn't trust your figures:

Lundstrom, p. 147

VB = 34
VF = 16
VT = 2

Now 34 VB claims does not compute with your 70 Val claims. If you could point to the page where Hammel explains his figures (which I couldn't find at a quick glance).

Of course these figures do not include TF 16's AA claims, but 34:17 is very different to 70:17 in terms of overclaim ratios.

EDIT: never mind Christer, I found it Hammel, p.295, incl. TF AA claims. Some will have been pure AA kills, some shared. However the overlap in this carrier battle is clearly caused by having both Aircraft and AA involved in the same fight. Anything near the TF will automatically be claimed by both fighters and AA gunners.

Re: Article on the air war over Burma
 

VB, VF, VT, TF?

OMG. . . :p

Maybe some explanation is needed here. KWIM, MF? :D

"My figures"? Hm. . . didn't I put quotation marks around them and refer to a specific source? Sorry if I forgot to refer to the exact page. You could have asked for that instead.

Please tell me which Lundstrom you mean, and which book?

mvh from Christer

Re: Article on the air war over Burma
 

Be careful with the MF, that might easily be misunderstood... :o

The main answers:

The acronyms (correct spelling of plural?)

VF = carrier fighter
VB = carrier bomber
VT = carrier torpedo bomber
TF = Task Force

The figures
As the numbers in your post, regardless of source.

The Lundstrom
US Naval aviation historian John B. Lundstrom, in this case his second First Team book aptly named:

The First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaign
Naval Fighter Combat from August to November 1942

which was preceded by

The First Team
Pacific Naval Air Combat from Pearl Harbor to Midway

These are probably the best single source references on early USN (United States Navy) carrier actions, but without ignoring the Japanese side, on the contrary the IJN is covered as well as it can be.

Benchmark history books, IMHO. :)

Ah, and I did ask, but happened to find the page myself, hence the EDIT

But I'm already at risk of being tagged a negative know-it-all, so I'd better curb it for the time being!

Re: Article on the air war over Burma
 

MF = my fault.

What did you think? :wink:

Compare with SOB = sorry, oh brother. :D

TAR, YK TCAK WPM. :cool:

Or like Johnny Rotten so poetically expressed it:

"Is this the IRA or is this the UDA or is this the MPLA? I thought it was the UK."

A big price to anyone who knows the meaning of all those abbreviations. Ruy can't participate, since he knows Portuguese.

AFAIK, this is OT.

Re: Article on the air war over Burma
 

Hello Ruy,

I think it would be a nice idea about a Japanese category. There are some good messageboards at j-aircraft.com but to my opinion they tends to be more for the modelers (they do an incredible research on various paintschemes...).

Best wishes/Håkan

Re: Article on the air war over Burma
 

I know I'm new here but I would be very interested in a Japanese discusion forum.

Re: Article on the air war over Burma
 

A forum covering the Pacific would be well worth establishing IMHO. As Hakan mentioned J-Aircraft is more orientated towards modellers and aircraft colour research than a discussion on the Theatre per see.

And with the advent of two new books due out shortly... Chris Shores eagerly awaited Air War Burma, and China Area Operations by Takejiro Shiba.... interest is bound to pick up. :)

Re: Article on the air war over Burma
 

Jim,
Do you have more information about the book by Takejiro Shiba? Publisher, publication date, language (English I would assume, but that is not a given). Does it cover 1931-1945, or only part of that?

The actual title of Chris Shores' book is Air War For Burma. The Grub Street website says it will be published in June; Amazon.co says March 31. I suspect the Grub Street date is more accurate.

Frank.