[rldunn]

Jim

I don't agree. Actually there is a fairly strong relationship (on the order of .5) between reported Japanese losses and wrecks found. Furthermore, my point was that this was just one additional bit of evidence along with many others that tends to show the credibility of Japanese data cited in the mentioned monograph. Was there a one to one relationship between losses and wrecks? Certainly not. If the Spitfires shot down the number of aircraft claimed, there surely would have been more Japanese wrecks found (there is a very weak relationship between Spitfire claims and wrecks found!). Very few Spitfires went 'missing.' Their crash locations are known to a high degree. I think your criticism takes my point completely out of context. However, if it offends you I withdraw it and still believe there is no reason to doubt that Japanese records tell their loss story equally or more accurately than Allied records tell the Spitfire loss story.

Your point about claims over the water is a generaliztion that merits comment. On several missions almost all the action (and there were heavy Spitfire claims) was over land many miles from the sea. Why were insufficient wrecks found to support claims on these occasions? Of course the answer is because the claims were incorrect. The wrecks found supported the losses suffered not the losses claimed!

RLD