Flying Tigers VS Christopher Shores?

[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.