Matrix Games Forums

Odd statement given how much you highlight alleged kill ratio results in single engagements. More inconsistancy.

Again, you are incorrect or you are simply misrepresenting what I've said. I've said consistently that kill ratios over the couise of campaigns are what matters. I never said, anywhere, and no reasonable person could claim that I have ever said, anywhere, that the Allies won every single air engagement against the Japanese.

Except that your not interested in the game.

I'm interested in seeing the game produce realistic results. Or at least *a game* that should produce realistic results. Which is after all where this thread started. The complaint seemed to be that a large number of Japanese aircraft were shot down in a late 1944 engagement with Corsairs and Allied ships. The result provided doesn't seem to me to be wildly inaccruate, GIVEN that the engagement was considerably larger than any of the late war PTO and given that it is a stretch to imagine the Japanese fielding a strike force that large. The engagement in the opening post of this thread is substantially greater than the Battle of the Phillippine Sea air battles, or any other one-day PTO engagement of WW2. So it's a bit challenging to figure out how this should have played out, but if the Marianas Turkey Shoot is useful as an anecdote, then it seems like the AAR provided in the initiating post isn't unreasonable.

Problem here is that the majority of F4F's lost at Coral Sea were lost over their own carriers, defending them at High Power.

But not the ones from VF2 and those account for a good proportion of the F4Fs lost at Coral Sea.

Actually the 5 P40's were initially ambushed by 1 Zero which shot down 4 of them and forced the 5th to dive out of combat.

Actually, that is incorrect.

Observers will also not have forgotten that in the last thread you graced, you claimed ALL of the losses at Darwin were due to them ALL being in a landing pattern, itself another "variable" excuse you use often.

Pretty much every word of your sentence is incorrect.

Well....using your methodology I guess we have to erase two more Zeros shot down over Coral Sea by F4F's as valid, given that the first was abushed at low power, at low altitude, bounced from behind having never seen his attacker, or the other Zero at low altitude shot down while attacking a torpedo bomber. Indeed....its all very complicated.

As I have not detailed my METHOD, you are in no position to tell me what I would or should do. Yer gonna have to wait, or articulate a method of your own and defend it, rather than imagine a method that I might use, and then attack that imaginary method.

Indeed I am, because both Lundstrom and Frank state it....in writing, in their respective books.

Yes they do. They also mention superior USN deflection shooting, coral grit adversely affecting F4F engine performance, the lack of spare parts for allied a.c. at Henderson for the first two months of the campaign, and pilot fatigue (from being shot at and bombarded). If ANYONE has been selective in accounting for intangibles, that person is YOU.

The Japanese accepted battle under very disadvantagous conditions and it hurt them and helped cost them the campaign.

I disagree that the conditions were any more disadvantageous to the Japanese than to the US pilots at Henderson.

Incorrect. I never said they had no issues. You are free to attempt to prove otherwise. They had issues but they were far less in terms of combat fatigue vs. what the Japanese faced.

What makes you think they were less serious "issues?" Can you quantify the degree of seriousness, or explain how pilot fatigue from flying 800 air miles prior to combat is worse than pilot fatigue from lack of sleep on account of the nightly bombardment, daily snipers, and infantry infiltrators?

I said intangibles only appear to matter for you when they can be used to either beef up your world view or discredit a situation that doesn't. I stand by it.

You stand by a perception that is not supported by facts.

Attempting to cover up the fact that your sourceless again i see. Yes indeed.....i am CHERRY PICKING out of sources i've spent the money on and taken the time and effort to research. whatever you say Diehl

.

You are cherry picking. Lundstrom says far more about intangibles than you care to mention, and the only ones that you mention are the ones that adversely affected the Japanese. Whatever I say is, at least in this case, dead accurate, and you know it, although you lack the integrity to admit it.

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

What's been your experience with these fighters in your games?

That the USN should not engage enemy CVs prior to August 1942. Beyond that I have not played the game. I regard the air combat model as rather hopelessly snagged.

Perhaps you should try the game then. I routinely engage Jap carriers with lesser numbers of allied carriers and more often than not come out on top.

Perhaps you should try the game then.

Perhaps I should.

Are your results PBEM or versus AI?

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Again, you are incorrect or you are simply misrepresenting what I've said. I've said consistently that kill ratios over the couise of campaigns are what matters. I never said, anywhere, and no reasonable person could claim that I have ever said, anywhere, that the Allies won every single air engagement against the Japanese.

Actually you did, when you first graced us with your presence on the UV board. You claimed (and continue to claim in the case of USN VF' in the four major carrier battles) that all air to air engagements between the US and Japanese air forces resulted in 1:1 or better in favor of the US. I remember too your hilarious "suggestion" for the game that the A2A engine should be so modified such that the best any Japanese airgroup could do regardless of situation was score 1:1 with any US air group. Great stuff. Of course you can claim otherwise....call me a liar....etc etc. You and I both know those threads were lost in the hacker attack several years ago.

I'm interested in seeing the game produce realistic results. Or at least *a game* that should produce realistic results. Which is after all where this thread started.

Sure you are. Like with sources, you apparantly can't put your money where your mouth is.

But not the ones from VF2 and those account for a good proportion of the F4Fs lost at Coral Sea.

Incorrect.

Actually the 5 P40's were initially ambushed by 1 Zero which shot down 4 of them and forced the 5th to dive out of combat.

Actually, that is incorrect.

Not according to Shores.

Observers will also not have forgotten that in the last thread you graced, you claimed ALL of the losses at Darwin were due to them ALL being in a landing pattern, itself another "variable" excuse you use often.

Pretty much every word of your sentence is incorrect.

Orininal: mdiehl

Again, EARLY WAR results do not indicate that the Japanese could predictably deliver a tactical drubbing except in cases where they caught enemy fighters at a severe positional disadvantage -- landing, taking off, etc.

tm.asp?m=1496912&mpage=3&key=

As I have not detailed my METHOD, you are in no position to tell me what I would or should do. Yer gonna have to wait, or articulate a method of your own and defend it, rather than imagine a method that I might use, and then attack that imaginary method.

If your going to try to discredit Shores, I certainly well can tell you what you need to do. Got that Publisher's name yet?

Yes they do. They also mention superior USN deflection shooting, coral grit adversely affecting F4F engine performance, the lack of spare parts for allied a.c. at Henderson for the first two months of the campaign, and pilot fatigue (from being shot at and bombarded).

Actually Frank makes no mention of "superior deflection shooting" nor does he make any big case out of coral grit. He does mention the latter two aspects, all of which still didn't change his conclusion that the Japanese were more handicapped in their efforts. Lundstrom does at times suggest that the USN emphasis on deflection shooting (as result of the efforts of men like Thatch and Flatley) as having been more pronounced but in his appendix on IJN training methods he credits the Japanese with the same acumen and his book contains examples. He also mentions that it was harder to preform good DS in a Zero than in a Wildcat, making the IJN pilot acomplishments more profound. You can take whatever angle you wish of course. However one thing for certain was that the Japanese were initially no slouches at DS and were as good as anyone else at it.

If ANYONE has been selective in accounting for intangibles, that person is YOU.

whatever you say.

I disagree that the conditions were any more disadvantageous to the Japanese than to the US pilots at Henderson.

Thats fine. People are free to carry whatever opinion they want. I've given mine as well, and those of Lundstrom and Frank as well.

What makes you think they were less serious "issues?" Can you quantify the degree of seriousness, or explain how pilot fatigue from flying 800 air miles prior to combat is worse than pilot fatigue from lack of sleep on account of the nightly bombardment, daily snipers, and infantry infiltrators?

Been there. Done that in the last thread. Would you like me to quote the link?

You stand by a perception that is not supported by facts.

I stand by a honed ability to see past your frequent use of buzz words like "data" and "facts"

You are cherry picking. Lundstrom says far more about intangibles than you care to mention, and the only ones that you mention are the ones that adversely affected the Japanese.

[/quote]

Nope and nope. I'm giving accurate info about the results and conditions of those battles from sources i've spent the dough on and taken the time to research and document vs. someone who name-drops them but doesn't actually own said sources. Your right about one thing though. Lundstrom does contain alot of details. Only problem for you is that there are as many tangible variables that can be used to excuse a Japanese plane loss or losses as there are American ones. It works both ways Diehl.

Whatever I say is, at least in this case, dead accurate, and you know it, although you lack the integrity to admit it.

Yep....except where it's dead inaccurate and yes...i do know it. As for my integrity and alleged lack of it......thats a funny thing for a man who's camped out and trolled on a game forum devoted to a game he's never owned or played in four + years to type. Anyway, i'll leave judgements on my "integrity" to those who've i've associated with here for years on this board and for the developers and beta testers that i've worked with hard for years to make this game a reality and to try to improve it.

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Perhaps you should try the game then.

Perhaps I should.

Are your results PBEM or versus AI?

I dont play the AI

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Yes, clearly. And now you have fallen into my trap! Don't you feel silly?

No I don't. All I wanted was for you to admit that you are a troll. Now that you have, you can be ignored and no reasonable person will feel compelled to take you seriously.

Alright Mdeihl, I'll play, only because this is getting fun, and I have some time, though Joe would disagree.

As to the troll comment, I find it ironic as I was avoiding that term myself out of politeness since I was initially ribbing you, though not entirely good natured I'll admit. But since you whipped it out I know how your mother raised you...

I generally don't spout on about myself in these forums save the cool pic in my banner, which could be interpreted as simple love of cool pics, but later....

1. I'd first like to establish an understanding. I'd like to know your qualifications in the subject matter, namely Air Combat(general principles), and your knowledge of energy management, E-M diagrams and how they help us determine relative performance, flight training and doctrine specific to the period. Oh and if you have any flight time now would be a good time to mention it. Civil or military. I'll be forthcoming in a moment with my own...

These topics will be central to our discussion. As I mentioned before, I believe you when you say you've read the sources you mention, though your ability to cite them (quotes with page numbers title of the book, author etc.) and use their conclusions to prove your arguement vis a vis the kill ratios etc. for whatever flavor of the day arguement you might have.

2. I'd like to start with a narrow scope. Primarily so you and I can get our footing and really dig into an issue. One where we have a defined position. It would help if we found something we disagree on. Since I agree with some of the things you say, let's take our time and just dialogue, I'm sure given your propensity for verbal disagreement it won't take long, and we'll be off.

As to what I bring to this debate, I am a 10 year Navy vet, LCDR in rank. I was designated a Naval Aviator (1310) in July 2000, and I finished the RAG for the FA-18C in Summer of 2001. My 1st action was ironically 6 years ago today when my unit flew CAP over Washington DC from the USS George Washington. I then deployed to Afghanistan and shortly after to Iraq. Sidenote: When I came home from my 1st cruise I did the 1 year anniversary Fly over for 9/11 at Yankees stadium. Our division received a standing ovation when we entered the stadium afterward, and we drank for free...needless to say. Have you seen Flags of our Fathers? It was kinda like that.

After my fleet tour I qualified in the FA-18E/F Superhornet and did operational test for said A/C for three years, and was an alternate for TOPGUN, but was passed over as I was considered too senior to return to my unit and give them their money's worth. I have considered rushing the Blues, but the lifestyle is way hectic for shore duty, and family life would be severly impacted. I do have several friends, who are, were, and will be Blues. Kevin Davis was a friend.

Currently I work in Strat/policy for 6th fleet in Naples, Italy where I spend my time writing letters for Admirals and generally flying a desk while I await my next Sea Tour.

I have approx 1500 hours Day/night, am approaching 300 traps (150 night) and am CQ'd in both models of the Hornet. I am a qualified division lead, and have been involved in leading men from the boat in combat and in Large Force Exercises with the Navy and Air Force. I am thoroughly familiar with the M61 Vulcan cannon, the Amraam, the Sparrow, the Sidewinder (including the AIM-9X), the JHMCS, and all air to ground ordnance and their effects, including JDAM And JSOW.

My air combat experience is limited to other FA-18s, F-15, F-16, F-22, AV-8B. I've been to countless merges and consider myself a fair judge of another aircraft's energy state, even under G when things are a bit strained. I have no real world Air to Air victories, but that isn't likely to be a limit to our discussion unless you have some. I consider myself pretty good at what I do and have developed a "comfort" in the air. I've been told I am a little aggressive.

If you have any questions about what any of this means feel free to ask and I can elaborate, but I may limit responses to PM as I consider this whole post a security risk...harsh times I'm afraid. And no I have never been this forthcoming about my identity on the internet, and am frankly a bit uneasy, though the likelihood of more that 100 people actually reading this before it gets locked eases my concern. Aside from a select few with whom I've had personal dealings I'd wager few in this community know any of the above about me unless they have put 2 and 2 together over the years.

So I am ready to begin when you are. What would you like to talk about first?

Oh yeah, I have a degree in Poli sci (yeah I know[;)] and a minor in military history, I've read on WWII, specifically the Air Wars, all my life.

Well, this is certainly the most entertaining thread we've had since Ben Franklin.
 
-F-

As always there are no absolutes as you yourself have attempted to state numerous times whenever the source was Axis.

Not quite. I've said that Axis pilot diaries are of no value for knowing how many Allied a.c. they shot down. They are perfectly useful for stating how many planes the Axis pilot believes he shot down, but the belief cannot be presumed to have any bearing on reality. Likewise, one cannot treat Allied pilots' diaries as an accurate reference for the number of Axis a.c. shot down -- again because belief -- even when reified in the form of "confirmed kills after review of AAR" isn't worth much.

Except during those times in the past when you tried to insert US official claims as accurate.

I have never, anywhere suggested that US official claims provided an accurate count of Axis a.c. shot down.

I know I know, i'm full of ****.

Yes you are.

Your a tresure trove of honesty

Indeed I am. Not always correct, but always honest.

For the AVG side the overclaims were pretty much even from what i've read.

Working off of memory here, as I recall, the AVG overclaim ran about 4.5:1. As I recall, and it's been a while so I could be off by a hundred a.c. or so, the AVG claimed and was awarded something like 600 confirmed kills. As I recall, the best estimates run to around 150 Japanese a.c. of all types shot down. This, of course, has very little bearing on such WitP niceties as the Zero bonus or combat models, since huge A2A battles weren't a feature of the AVG engagements, and Zeroes very likely weren't involved (although I understand that Erik Shilling does even now insist that some of the a.c. they shot down were Zeroes -- it's the sort of thing that people seem to take how they want to -- I'm persuaded that some of the IJA Army a.c. against which the AVG fought look enough like Zeroes that a busy American pilot might be forgiven for thinking they were Zeroes even though they weren't, and certainly should feel no embarressment of having shot the thing down even though it wasn't a Zero).

Interestingly enough, during the SRA fighting a number of Japanese claims proved to be very accurate.

Really? Which ones? What is your source for that?

Its only problamatic to you because you don't like the result.

No. It's problematic because you need to make an accurate count. If Shores et al. wound up being wrong by 1 extra Allied a.c. in every dogfight (not saying that they are), then over the course of the campaign the tally would be vastly incorrect. The question then becomes, "How do we know when Shores et al. have got it right?"

No, I believe what i said was that you googled a website, your usual method of "research" and that I prefer acredited, peer reviewed book source over a website that isn't.

Hyperwar isn't a website that one has to google, if one is familiar with sources of WW2 info. And since the hyperwar link is merely a reiteration of the USAAF's official history, in HTML form, that is the same as an "accredited, peer reviewed source."

Like during the first time you tried to justify the AVG's 20:1 claimed kill ratio and I brought out Shores for the first time.

Actually, the AVG's claimed kill ratio is something like 50:1. 20:1 is my "best guess" conservative estimate from before I owned Shores. I still think that 20:1 is in the ballpark. But there is much to be done. It'd be easier to believe Shores et al. if they'd actually cited their sources.

If your going to disprove Shores then you need to use his and Brian Cull's and Yasuho Izawa's same methodology and go to the direct sources to compile, compare, research and interview participants.

I'm not out to "disprove Shores." I am out to find an accurate count of American a.c. lost in 1942. I don't really need to talk to anyone to whome Shores et al. spoke. All I need are some good, credible American sources about the numbers of American aircraft lost. That pretty much means I don't need to look in any Japanese history, speak to any Japanese WW2 pilot, read any Japanese WW2 pilot's accounts of how many American a.c. he's certain that he shot down, and so forth.

If I ever get round to tracking down accurate numbers of Japanese a.c. lost, then I'll need Japanese pilot diaries, Japanese histories, or at least good English translations of the same, and I will ignore whatever American pilots' diaries and histories say about the number of Japanese a.c. shot down.

Should take you quite a few years like it did them.

I figure about 3-5 years just to get an accurate tally of the US and Australian losses. Less if it turns out that Shores et al. can be presumed to be very accurate in re RAF/RAAF losses, because I might be able to use their volume for the UK C'wealth losses rather than having to go all the way back to original sources.

Do you have a publisher yet?

When that bridge is in sight, I'll worry about whether it can be crossed.

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Not quite. I've said that Axis pilot diaries are of no value for knowing how many Allied a.c. they shot down. They are perfectly useful for stating how many planes the Axis pilot believes he shot down, but the belief cannot be presumed to have any bearing on reality. Likewise, one cannot treat Allied pilots' diaries as an accurate reference for the number of Axis a.c. shot down -- again because belief -- even when reified in the form of "confirmed kills after review of AAR" isn't worth much.

Yes quite. Your modifying your argument now (now as in recently) but prior to that your poo poo was pretty much all-encompasing. I remember you saying that Sakai was incorrect about even seeing or fighting P-39's over New Guneau. Fun stuff.

I have never, anywhere suggested that US official claims provided an accurate count of Axis a.c. shot down.

sure you havn't.

Indeed I am. Not always correct, but always honest.

Except when you have seletive amnesia of course.

nterestingly enough, during the SRA fighting a number of Japanese claims proved to be very accurate.

Really? Which ones? What is your source for that?

I said a number of them. The source is Shores since it occured during the SRA fighting. If your going to demand I list each one I expect you to do the same. You initially mentioned the alleged overclaim ratio comparison. Lets see your data. Now.

No. It's problematic because you need to make an accurate count.

Shores, Cull and Izawa spent years compiling the information. I'm willing to give them the benefit of a doubt and have not read any damning accounts of their research methods. They will of course be the first to admit that errors remain a possibility as does any conciencious author. However having actually read his books (and other stat-master filled books like Clay Blair (who also gets the "there arn't enough footnotes" discredit jab) I feel they are fairly accurate just as I feel Lundstrom's are.

Hyperwar isn't a website that one has to google, if one is familiar with sources of WW2 info. And since the hyperwar link is merely a reiteration of the USAAF's official history, in HTML form, that is the same as an "accredited, peer reviewed source."

No. it isn't. Lets see a review of the website? Who did you contact to verify that the information on the website was accurately transposed. Who did you contact to personally go over the information stored in the USAAF records? Googled, or given to you by someone else.....same thing. Research made easy.....type click..poof. Typical.

Actually, the AVG's claimed kill ratio is something like 50:1. 20:1 is my "best guess" conservative estimate from before I owned Shores. I still think that 20:1 is in the ballpark. But there is much to be done. It'd be easier to believe Shores et al. if they'd actually cited their sources.

Yes, there is since continually trying to discredit an acredited source is lame.

If your going to disprove Shores then you need to use his and Brian Cull's and Yasuho Izawa's same methodology and go to the direct sources to compile, compare, research and interview participants.

I'm not out to "disprove Shores." I am out to find an accurate count of American a.c. lost in 1942. I don't really need to talk to anyone to whome Shores et al. spoke. All I need are some good, credible American sources about the numbers of American aircraft lost. That pretty much means I don't need to look in any Japanese history, speak to any Japanese WW2 pilot, read any Japanese WW2 pilot's accounts of how many American a.c. he's certain that he shot down, and so forth.

Sure you arn't. And yes, if your going to have any ghost of a chance at objectivity, your going to have to look at all the records of both sides directly and compare. For inconsistancies you'll need to contact relevent parties and arrange interviews and talk to people who are sources of info or eyewitnesses to coroborate or reveal inaccuracies. Like i said, the same things that pros like Shores and company had to do. Google is no substitute. Nor is not actually having the sources a good thing either.

I figure about 3-5 years just to get an accurate tally of the US and Australian losses. Less if it turns out that Shores et al. can be presumed to be very accurate in re RAF/RAAF losses, because I might be able to use their volume for the UK C'wealth losses rather than having to go all the way back to original sources.

Ok......good luck, you'll need it if you arn't willing to do the same things Shores, Lundstrom and Frank did.

When that bridge is in sight, I'll worry about whether it can be crossed.

The answer then is..."No, I do not have a publisher."

ok.

As to the troll comment, I find it ironic as was avoiding that term myself out of politeness since I was initially ribbing you, though not entirely good natured I'll admit. But since you whipped it out I know how your mother raised you...

My mother raised me to turn the other cheek. My father raised me to put a fist in the eye of any person who might mention my mother as a way of attempting to insult me. As a matter of philsophy, I look upon retaliation as such a necessary function that it almost comprises of itself a moral good.

I believe you when you say you've read the sources you mention, though your ability to cite them (quotes with page numbers title of the book, author etc.) and use their conclusions to prove your arguement vis a vis the kill ratios etc. for whatever flavor of the day arguement you might have.

Thanks, I suppose.

I have no real world Air to Air victories, but that isn't likely to be a limit to our discussion unless you have some.

I don't and don't see that you need to. That said, regardless of your experience in the modern navy, and regardless of the fact that I've never been in a cockpit of anything while it was flying, I regard myself as fully qualified to analyse any data that anyone can offer me as long as the data are expressed numerically.

If you have any questions about what any of this means feel free to ask and I can elaborate, but I may limit responses to PM as I consider this whole post a security risk...harsh times I'm afraid.

We can take it straight to PM if you like. That way we can dispense with all the baggage of having people with whom we're not conversing intruding on the conversation.

So I am ready to begin when you are. What would you like to talk about first?

Based on your experiences as a fighter pilot in the modern navy, I'd be interested in knowing what sorts of things caused you fatigue or other forms of stress that degraded your ability to fly an aircraft -- provided of course that this sort of conversation doesn't strike you as revealing anything confidential -- I have no need to know at all and so don't need to know if you know what I mean.

In that way, I could begin to develop a decent list, in some sort of rank-ordered way that might imply relative weighting, of the "intangible things that affect combat." I have a list now. But Nikademus, for example, seems to assert that fatigue caused by flying four hours to your target is more fatiguing than fatigue caused by enemy cruiser bombardments, washing machine charley, snipers, infiltrators, and the sounds of pitched battles fought a few hundreds of meters away. Is the fatigue caused by flying four hours worse than persistent bad chow, diahhrea, and chronically frayed nerves?

Oh yeah, I have a degree in Poli sci (yeah I know and a minor in military history, I've read on WWII, specifically the Air Wars, all my life.

Similar. BA (double major in math and another subject, minor in ancient and medieval philosophy), MA and PhD in things having nothing whatsoever to do with warfare or history.

ORIGINAL: Doggie
... The F-6F and F-4U could literally fly rings around the A6M. It wasn't even a contest; the kill ratios speak for themselves ...

19:1 for the F6F -- the highest of any US Pacific fighter -- and about 11:1 for the Corsair, but I don't think this thread is about anything factual.

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

In that way, I could begin to develop a decent list, in some sort of rank-ordered way that might imply relative weighting, of the "intangible things that affect combat." I have a list now. But Nikademus, for example, seems to assert that fatigue caused by flying four hours to your target is more fatiguing than fatigue caused by enemy cruiser bombardments, washing machine charley, snipers, infiltrators, and the sounds of pitched battles fought a few hundreds of meters away. Is the fatigue caused by flying four hours worse than persistent bad chow, diahhrea, and chronically frayed nerves?

Nikademus isn't asserting. He's agreeing with Richard Frank's own view in writing. BTW it was an eight hour trip too and from Lunga from Rabaul. The enemy cruiser bombardments were infrequent events, Washing Machine Charley was a joke. Snipers and infiltrators? Thats great. can you quote me these incidents in Frank or Lundstrom vol II?

I remember you saying that Sakai was incorrect about even seeing or fighting P-39's over New Guneau.

I remember saying that Sakai mentioned his chagrine at the P-39s unwillingness to try to climb to engage escorting Zeroes, and I remember noting the irony that Sakai was not willing to descened to the altitude of the P-39s to engage them. At the time, someone was mentioning the P-39s unwillingness to climb to 20K feet in what amounted to an assertion of overwhelming fear of Zeroes, and I simply noted that by that sort of standard it was equally proof of the Zeroes overwhelming fear of P39s that they refused to descend to engage. At the least, it would have required far less effort for the Zero zeroes to descend to 14K feet than for the P-39s to climb to 20K. Sakai might run out of fuel waiting for the Iron Dogs to make it that high.

sure you havn't.

That's right. I haven't.

Except when you have seletive amnesia of course.

Never happened.

I said a number of them.

Which ones? Saying that they were accurate on a number of occasions is meaningless. Which occasions? What are your sources.

Shores, Cull and Izawa spent years compiling the information.

And yet, somehow, there is not one single bibliographic footnote or reference regarding any individual engagement. That's A Problem.

I'm willing to give them the benefit of a doubt and have not read any damning accounts of their research methods.

It's rather difficult to know precisely what methods they used given that there are no bibliographic footnotes, end notes, or in-text citations -- the common ordinary sort of annotations that pretty much all OTHER "authoritative" histories of WW2 are required to provide.

I feel they are fairly accurate just as I feel Lundstrom's are.

Lundstrom's and Frank's works on the subject are heavily annotated and referenced. The contrast with Shores et al. is stark. Why do you "feel" Shores et al. must be as credible as, for example, Lundstrom? On what is that "feeling" based?

Who did you contact to verify that the information on the website was accurately transposed.

Are you suggesting that the guys at Hyperwar have committed fraud?

If not, why would I think they'd be more likely to inaccurately transpose something (especially since all they needed to do was scan it) than Shores et. al would be to inaccurately read, record, or represent a data point from WW2?

And yes, if your going to have any ghost of a chance at objectivity, your going to have to look at all the records of both sides directly and compare.

There is no logical reason on earth to imagine that a Japanese source about US aircraft losses would be a better source than a USAAF or USN or USMC source. Likewise, there is no reason to treat a USN, USMC, or USAAF source on IJN/IJA a.c. losses as more or even equally authoritative than credible Japanese sources. Objectivity does not require that one treat low quality sources as the equal in merit of high quality sources.

If your methods require that you treat, say, Samurai, as an equally valid data point as, for example, a unit history from one of the 5th AF squadrons, then go ahead and do it; it will be interesting to see how you resolve the discrepancies. My methods don't require same.

For inconsistancies you'll need to contact relevent parties and arrange interviews and talk to people who are sources of info or eyewitnesses to coroborate or reveal inaccuracies.

Nope. For US losses, I can with good precedent assume that any USAAF official history or unit record is a superior source of info on US a.c. losses than any Japanese source, and a superior source to any secondary source like Shores et al.

BTW it was an eight hour trip too and from Lunga from Rabaul.

Sure. But only four hours of that were flown prior to the combat. If there were some huge problem with undamaged aicraft falling out of the sky on the return flight, then 1) you'd think the Japanese would have mentioned it, 2) you'd think that other a.c. that endured long missions (here I'm thinking of P-51, P-38, and P-47 drivers on missions over Germany) would have noticed it too.

No I don't. All I wanted was for you to admit that you are a troll. Now that you have, you can be ignored and no reasonable person will feel compelled to take you seriously.

You seem to be the one doing the trolling. And don't worry... no reasonable person would ever take you seriously, compulsion of otherwise.

Chez

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

I remember saying that Sakai mentioned his chagrine at the P-39s unwillingness to try to climb to engage escorting Zeroes, and I remember noting the irony that Sakai was not willing to descened to the altitude of the P-39s to engage them. At the time, someone was mentioning the P-39s unwillingness to climb to 20K feet in what amounted to an assertion of overwhelming fear of Zeroes, and I simply noted that by that sort of standard it was equally proof of the Zeroes overwhelming fear of P39s that they refused to descend to engage. At the least, it would have required far less effort for the Zero zeroes to descend to 14K feet than for the P-39s to climb to 20K. Sakai might run out of fuel waiting for the Iron Dogs to make it that high.

Indeed you did recently. I also recently remember saying that having checked through Sakai's accounts in Samurai!, I was unable to substantiate your claim to those effects. Suprise suprise.

sure you havn't.

That's right. I haven't.

Thats right. Sure you have.

Except when you have seletive amnesia of course.

Never happened.

That darned amnesia again. [:)]

Which ones? Saying that they were accurate on a number of occasions is meaningless. Which occasions? What are your sources.

I'm still waiting for you data. You began the claims ratio assertion. Do it. What's stopping you? Oh wait. I forgot....i have to wait 3-5 years for you to complete your google searches. Talking the talk is meaningless too unless your willing to walk the walk in the present tense.

And yet, somehow, there is not one single bibliographic footnote or reference regarding any individual engagement. That's A Problem.

Only because you say it is. Tell you what. Why don't you contact Mr. Shores and ask him since your so concerned.

It's rather difficult to know precisely what methods they used given that there are no bibliographic footnotes, end notes, or in-text citations -- the common ordinary sort of annotations that pretty much all OTHER "authoritative" histories of WW2 are required to provide.

You've convinced me. Show me proof, specific proof that Shores, Cull and Izawa conducted poor or faulty research and i'll start believing you instead of them.

Lundstrom's and Frank's works on the subject are heavily annotated and referenced. The contrast with Shores et al. is stark. Why do you "feel" Shores et al. must be as credible as, for example, Lundstrom? On what is that "feeling" based?

Because as i've stated repeatedly, they are respected, acredited and peer reviewed researchers of standing. Lets see your credentials? Because Shores does contain references.....in Vol III at the end of his study (which was in three parts remember) Because the size of the bibliography page does not of itself denote the degree of credibility.

Repeat: You've convinced me though.....i want to see your evidence showing the improper, poorly conducted reserach conducted by Shores. Now.

Are you suggesting that the guys at Hyperwar have committed fraud?

I I believe what i said was that you googled a website, your usual method of "research" and that I prefer acredited, peer reviewed book source over a website that isn't.

If not, why would I think they'd be more likely to inaccurately transpose something (especially since all they needed to do was scan it) than Shores et. al would be to inaccurately read, record, or represent a data point from WW2?

see above.

There is no logical reason on earth to imagine that a Japanese source about US aircraft losses would be a better source than a USAAF or USN or USMC source. Likewise, there is no reason to treat a USN, USMC, or USAAF source on IJN/IJA a.c. losses as more or even equally authoritative than credible Japanese sources. Objectivity does not require that one treat low quality sources as the equal in merit of high quality sources.

Depends. As you yourself have mentioned in the past, some records can be distorted or simply be in error. Thats why true researchers have to be willing to look at all sources with objectivity and not straight-jacketed by a simple assumption. You'll also need to tap those sources directly. Not google them.

If your methods require that you treat, say, Samurai, as an equally valid data point as, for example, a unit history from one of the 5th AF squadrons, then go ahead and do it

Depends on what "data point" one refers too. (ooo...another buzz word...."data points") In this case, your claim that Sakai and company were afraid to engage P-39's at lower altitude was not verified.

My methods don't require same.

Indeed. your methods only require that your world view be preserved.

Nope. For US losses, I can with good precedent assume that any USAAF official history or unit record is a superior source of info on US a.c. losses than any Japanese source, and a superior source to any secondary source like Shores et al.

Whatever you say. Since you have no publisher, I assume you'll be spending your own money to travel and tap the archives as primary sources directly, yes? Google won't cut it if your going to disprove Shores.

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Sure. But only four hours of that were flown prior to the combat.

and four hours back after the same stresses and fatigue of being in combat you credit to the US pilots....only they got to land, the Japanese, some wounded, many exhausted, had to fly fours back over terrain bereft of landmarks and water....and then do it again.....and again....and again and again.

If there were some huge problem with undamaged aicraft falling out of the sky on the return flight, then 1) you'd think the Japanese would have mentioned it.

Frank does mention it.

2) you'd think that other a.c. that endured long missions (here I'm thinking of P-51, P-38, and P-47 drivers on missions over Germany) would have noticed it too.

You mean the "mighty" Eighth Airforce P-51,s and 38's and 47s? That same airforce that had far far greater resources to conduct the same mission allowing them to mass the necessary numbers to overwhelm the Luftwaffe and rotate their crews? A very weak comparison.

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Well, this is certainly the most entertaining thread we've had since Ben Franklin.

-F-

IMHO, this doesn't compare to the original f4f v. zero, .50 cal v. 20mm and Sherman v. Tiger threads. [:D]

Don't forget BISMARK!