[JoeB]

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