[Six Nifty .50s]

Originally Posted by Nicholas

Er . . . . OK. I agree that factual losses (and linking actual losses to claims) for both sides is fundamental. But the starting point has to be available and accurate records.

For the RAAF we have these - for the IJN/JAAF less so.

How do you know that?

Originally Posted by Nicholas

Also let's not forget the implication of each force's practice in categorisation of damage/loss and eventual fate - an area where much may be concealed.

Might be? Could be? I know how that kind of argument would stand up in a court of law so let's not go there. Honest historians operate much the same way as honest police detectives. They build a case on what information is available, not on what they would like to believe.

Originally Posted by Nicholas

Grant's book is not a defence/promotion of Spitfire superiority, but an analysis (amongst other things) of why they were not more effective in air combat. This transcends the simplistic judgement of whether Zeros were better than Spitfires because it makes clear that the Spitfires were operated at a technical and tactical disadvantage on several counts.

I doubt if both sides agreed about overall disadvantages. They rarely do.

Originally Posted by Nicholas

The violin (not fiddle) analogy is merely about why one on one assessments of aircraft (technical) superiority are fruitless. Much will depend on the pilot and the tactical situation. That is all. A classic example of this is Schilling's AVG P-40 thrashing Brandt's RAF Buffalo, an incident much touted by the anti-Buffalo/British faction but about which 'Kitchie' Bargh's recent biography throws new and surprising light.

Someone has now written a differing opinion. Well so what, everybody has one.