Flying Tigers VS Christopher Shores?

[Oldpilot]

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

[Brian]

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

[Oldpilot]

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.)

[Brian]

Hi Oldpilot

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

Cheers
Brian

[JACK COOK]

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.

[Graham Boak]

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.

[Frank Olynyk]

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.