Flying Tigers VS Christopher Shores?

[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.

[Ruy Horta]

Originally Posted by Frank Olynyk

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.

Perhaps the words "hard bitten" are a bit off, but they certainly deserve to be called mercenaries.

The chance to fly combat, earn good money and visit exotic places would be enough to find candidates who were either at the end of their military career or otherwise had little chance of advancement in the pre-war military, which didn't generate a large income in the first place.

Of course they were doing so with the approval and support of the US government, the whole AVG being part of a covert operation to stop the Japanese.

I can't believe that the AVG and later generation pilots flying for "Air America" and similar were doing so mainly out of love for country (unless you can show original letters that pilot "X" wasn't in it for the money and adventure).

[CJE]

I read somewhere that Boyington was in to avoid paying the rent to his ex-wife (or wives).

When you see the number of WWI and WWII pilots that increased the number of their victories only for glory, it's easy to imagine what others can do for extra bucks.

I have no evidence of what did or didn't AVG pilots, it's just that at my age I'm beginning to understand what my grandfather meant when he talked about "the genuine human nature".

[Juha]

"I can't believe that the AVG and later generation pilots flying for "Air America" and similar were doing so mainly out of love for country (unless you can show original letters that pilot "X" wasn't in it for the money and adventure)."

Ruy, with all respects
I’d not to bother to guess motives of men that I don’t know personally. Humans are so different and they motives so complicated. It’s easy to be sceptical to motives of others whose values are different from one’s own but they can follow their values even better than we follow our own.

Juha

[Ruy Horta]

Originally Posted by Juha

"I can't believe that the AVG and later generation pilots flying for "Air America" and similar were doing so mainly out of love for country (unless you can show original letters that pilot "X" wasn't in it for the money and adventure)."

Ruy, with all respects
I’d not to bother to guess motives of men that I don’t know personally. Humans are so different and they motives so complicated. It’s easy to be sceptical to motives of others whose values are different from one’s own but they can follow their values even better than we follow our own.

Juha

I invite you to carefully read again what I wrote, and unless you can proof otherwise by supporting evidence (letters, other writing and/or even interviews) I still find it hard to believe that the prime motivator (as in "mainly") was love of country.

The broad term of national interest abroad doesn't easily translate to a personal sense of love of country.

[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

[Juha]

Hello Ruy
I’m sceptical on possibility to validate the real motive of Mr/Ms X, because it’s usually impossible to know what has gone inside somebody’s head say 20 years ago.
I’m not AVG specialist, even if I have read parts of Ford’s book and parts of Bloody Shambles plus a couple articles on the unit. I know even less on Air America because I was most interested in Vietnam War from late 60s to late 70s and then I haven’t much interest in contemporary or near contemporary covert ops because I doubted the possibility to get reliable info on them.

I once knew a quite a bit on Spanish Civil War, even if I might have forgot most of it. So, out of curiosity, do You believe that many of the men of International Brigades joined in mainly because of revolutionary fervour, belief of fighting for right cause, class solidarity, loyalty to party etc?

If yes, why it is difficult to believe that some of the men of AVG could have signed in because of believing that they would fight for right cause, out of loyalty to one’s country ie patriotism etc?

Juha

[Graham Boak]

It isn't at all difficult to believe that some of them (maybe all) felt their support for China would act as support for their own country: it must be remembered that there was a considerable sentimental linkage between China and America because of a considerable effort placed on Christianising China by American missionaries over several decades before WW2.

However, this does not deny the fact that they were, by definition, mercenaries. They have travelled to a foreign country in order to kill other foreigners for money. Not the action of a "soft" person. Nor can it be denied that several of them were, by any meaningful definition of the term, "hard-bitten". Some of them were (ex-)marines, let's not forget, hardly renowned for their softness. Not that any professional soldiers can generally be so described.

As for none ever flying as mercenaries elsewhere - wasn't Ajax Baumler in the AVG? (or was he only in China later?). He flew on the Republican side in Spain. I'm not sure, from memory, that he was the only Spanish veteran in China, but I admit being open to correction there. (As elsewhere, of course, but certainly there!)

None of this reduces the AVG's real achievements, but as has been proven worldwide, official confirmation of a kill has little to do with accuracy.