Flying Tigers VS Christopher Shores?

[Juha]

Hello Graham
on Baumler, see http://www.warbirdforum.com/baumler.htm
And yes, I don't think that Boyington, an hard-drinking Marine or ex-Marine, was a soft idealist but IIRC he wasn't a typical AVG pilot either, IIRC he was in odds with his superiors also in AVG.

[Stig Jarlevik]

Hi Guys

It's been a long time I read anything about the AVG, but I do have a question. If my memory doesn't play tricks with me, the AVG was supposed to come to an end and become part of the USAAF. Their members did have a choice to either stay and be transferred or back out and go home (or I suppose go wherever they wanted to go). Again from memory, quite a number stepped down and refused to join the USAAF at site. Among them was the top scorer Robert Neale. Part of his reason may have been that he was a Canadian, but he also completely vanish from sight and as far as I know did not join any other Air Force anywhere else. What ever happened to him and why did he not join let's say the RCAF or RAF. What was his motive?

What motives had all those others who refused to either join the USAAF or any other AF?

I do agree it is hard to both understand and interpret motives and very often they have to be judged by the action each individual takes. From todays standpoint it doesn't look very sympathetic to back down, especially if you want to be considered an idealist. It is easy to simply consider those who did as simple mercenaries who were in it for the money and nothing else, but that has not to be the case. Problems today is that too many individuals (who took part) and relatives also like to white wash and revise history. Usually the truth (whenever you find it) seems to end up somewhere in between....

Cheers
Stig

[Ruy Horta]

At least some didn't want to join the Air Corps because they were Navy or Marine Corps Aviators. But like you I'd have to catch up on the subject to give details.

We musn't look at the word mercenary as something purely negative, yet by definition these men were mercenaries / soldiers of fortune. Probably more in it for adventure than money. Some pilots had never flown a fighter and most were (probably) eager to have a chance at flying the hottest ship available (US point of view) at that time and test their skills in actual combat.

[Frank Olynyk]

The motives for joining the AVG were several. At least one joined to pay off debts (Boyington). Two (Tex Hill and Jim Howard) joined at the very least to fight the Japanese. Most of the rest I suspect joined for adventure and to practice their trade of fighter pilot. And some I am sure saw the writing on the wall and figured the US would be at war with Japan "soon" and figured to get in on the ground floor.
With regard to rejoining the service(s) after the dissolution of the AVG, one problem was that the USN and USMC people (pilots and ground crew) wanted to rejoin their original service. The major problem however was Bissell, who told everyone to join the Army or they would be drafted upon return to the US. "Piss on Bissell" was a popular phrase among members of the AVG at the time. Most ended up in one of the services; several shot down additional aircraft. Neale I believe flew transports as a ferry pilot. Dick Rossi stayed in the CBI, and flew many missions (600?) over the Hump. Bissell should have known better; he was a WW1 fighter ace, and if there is anything tougher than herding cats it is herding fighter pilots, especially successful combat veterans. At the time Chennault rejoined the Army (Feb-Mar 1942?) he and Bissell had the same rank, but Bissell had seniority in grade.

There were basically two groups of pilots in the AVG. The initial wave were fighter pilots; the second wave was less so, with more bomber and USN patrol bomber pilots. It is not realized by most but the initial structure of the AVG envisioned two Groups (in the USAAF sense). The 1st AV Group consisted of three fighter squadrons, and there is some of its letterhead in the Chennault papers. The 2nd AV Group was to consist of (three ?) bomber squadrons; I believe the idea was these would be started with the B-25s from the Doolittle mission. If you review the training accidents of the AVG you will find a large number of them are from the bomber and patrol bomber pilots, because they were used to landing higher and therefore flared too soon. Followed by much teeth grinding in HQ.
Frank.

[RodM]

Hello One & All,

having read some of the arguments put forward on the AVG forum (which, obviously don't neccessarily represent the view of the AVG survivors themselves), I wouldn't pay much attention to some of the (so-called) counter-arguments.

e.g.

"To rely on your country's enemies for reliable information seems to me, to be quite a questionable practice..." (the Japanese aren't still enemies are they? To rely only on your own countries' records is even more questionable)

"I never understood why some 'American' authors find such joy in undermining the achievements of their countrymen, and their country's history." {Well, I thought it was to establish some form of verifable truth and to decontruct propaganda! ...and to phrase the word 'American' in such a way as to suggest that a US author is un-American, for expressing freedom of speech and trying to further historical knowledge, disgusts me, quite frankly)

What would interest me, has anyone checked verifible bank records or official Chinese documents to see just how much money was paid out for claims to the AVG? I haven't read the books to be able to find out.

Cheers

Rod

PS - I can commiserate with Ford and Shores et al, as I have contributed to an in-depth study, soon to be published, that doesn't gloss over the sometimes inflated German night fighter claims...We'll see how long after publication that the Flak barrage begins from certain circles (and I have faced the accusation that British Bomber Command records are not complete or deliberately hide losses...utter rubbish).

[JoeB]

Originally Posted by RodM

Hello One & All,

(and I have faced the accusation that British Bomber Command records are not complete or deliberately hide losses...utter rubbish).

And Graham Boak said: "Every nation in aerial warfare was has been accused of downplaying their losses. Such arguments have never, to my knowledge, been demonstrated as correct."

This great forum likes very tightly focused discussion, but can we broaden it here? Does anyone know of actual documented cases of systematic understatement of losses in official records in any air war?

I've done some research about the Korean War, and there are also those who study that war, mainly from the perspective of the MiG AF's, who say the US systematically and severely understated its air combat losses. I have not found evidence of that in fairly extensive study of those records v specific MiG claims. Although, there are some errors in those records, especially in view of specific opposing claims which the record keepers didn't have benefit of, and some omissions and errors in official totals v various individual records. But those errors don't change the big picture much, they bridge little of the gap between official loss totals and the opposing side's claims.

But is there some exception to this, any air war where the then-secret record of air combat losses of one side have been shown seriously at variance with their actual losses, in a statistically significant number of cases?

Joe

[Oldpilot]

Ajax Baumler resigned from the army to join the AVG but was refused a passport because of his service in Spain, so he didn't go to Burma with the rest. (That's why there were only 99 pilots instead of the intended 100.) He tried to get to Chennault as an army officer in December 1941 but was turned back by the Japanese attack on Wake. He set out a third time as a captain by way of Africa, and reached Chennault's headquarters in April or May 1942. See www.warbirdforum.com/baumler.htm

He did fly at least two missions with the AVG and claimed one Japanese plane shot down. However, he was a uniformed officer of the USAAF at the time, not a member of the AVG.

[Oldpilot]

Originally Posted by RodM

What would interest me, has anyone checked verifible bank records or official Chinese documents to see just how much money was paid out for claims to the AVG? I haven't read the books to be able to find out.

Yes, that information is available in the Chennault Papers at Stanford, copies at the Library of Congress. It's not 100 percent consistent. The best estimate is evidently that the Chinese (that is to say, Central Aircraft Manufacturing Company) paid 294 combat bonuses for Japanese planes destroyed in the air or on the ground. See for example www.warbirdforum.com/vics.htm

The CAMCO account evidently didn't include two victories attributed to AVG pilots after the official disbandment date. Also, there is some evidence that both Boyington and Hill were "officially" credited with one more aircraft than shows in the bonus accounts, while Bolster was credited with one fewer. See Ford, Flying Tigers, p. 388.

In any event, the answer to the question appears to be that CAMCO paid out $500 times 294 equals $147,000, cheap at the price.

[rldunn]

There have been more than a few questions and assertions in this thread that probably deserve a serious essay or research paper.

Why would the Chinese pay $500 per victory if they were not accurate? Simple answer the kills were assessed by a board with the info available. They were not determined (as German advisors to the Chinese had suggested in the early 30's) by a/c wreckage found on the ground!!!. Kill assessment involved a process but one based on observation in the heat of combat and was essentially subjective. *** Now to get more into intrigue. First, Chiang wanted a strong air presence in China. Chiang did not necessarily (or specifically) want a strong ground army in China (i.e., a Chinese army with the latest western arms and tactics) because it might fall under the control of a rival and threaten his regime. He wanted air power and wanted to encourage the west to send him more. If the west (U.S.) thought air power in China was contributing to the anti-Axis effort they would be encouraged to do so. In 'Hump' air priorities debates Chiang always favored building up air power over equipping Y-Force, the Chinese force that might have contributed to the invasion of Burma. It was okay with Chiang to build up the Chinese Ramgar force which operated from India agianst Burma as that force was no political threat.

Many other points upon which to comment but I think I'll stop here as many folks seem to have a variety of opinions and have injected many extraneous subjects. For example, Allied strategic bomber losses (RAF BC and 8th AF) were not accurately reported in the contemporaneous press even though Hitler thought they were!!

RLD

[RodM]

Thanks for the clarification on the documented payments. I guess the next question would be whether there exists documentation on the verification process used by the Chinese in awarding payments. It is a shame that the documentation (if any) accompanying each individual payment/claim isn't available for scurtiny (I presume it is not based on this whole ruckus).

Personally, I would not presume any specific methodigy used in the verification of claims/for payments without documentary proof.

The example of RAF Bomber Command losses, although seemingly irrelevant to the AVG, was cited as an example of the "other side must be under-reporting losses" theory, which, as has been pointed out, gets thrown about, based upon subjective opinion and without concrete proof. Obviously any serious researcher uses the official records, not news reports, so any argument about losses reported in the prss are irrelevant. While there may be gaps in the documentation on Japanese losses, I'm sure that there are enough surviving examples to allow a complete assessment for certain days/periods.

Cheers

Rod