Books about the European air war

[Hard Sarge]

I know what you mean Nik, on both statements

I do have a number of books on units (I need Pilot details)

on a reseach side, can be a royal pain, how many books just copy what was already stated someplace else (W. Green is simi Hated for this, he was respected, he had the info, he wrote his books, then alot of other writers just assumed that he knew what he was saying, and copied what he wrote, so a lot of misinfo has been taken as true for decades, and the bad part is, it wasn't all his "fault")

something like the top speed of the Bf 109K-4 (IIRC is 454) but late after the war, it was found out, that the LW never tested it, they did a wind tunnel test, said this is what it should be able to do, wrote up the report and handed it in to HQ, all of the work and tests with the wide blade prop, the late war fighters, the jets, none of it was tested in the field, it was wind tunnel and office reports on what it should be able to do

most after war testing, showed something wasn't right, the K was fast, but not as fast as the LW reports stated, the 335, was fast, maybe even faster then the reports thought

(side story, after war, the US wanted a 335 moved to another base for shipment to the states, they assigned a Squadron, to escourt a German pilot who was asked to fly it, when the squadron came in, and landed, they were pretty cocky and rude to the German pilot, the guy who had been in charge of getting the planes ready and what not, told the pilot, to go ahead and show what it could of done, when they took off, the 335 left the 51s in the dust and never looked back, he landed and went to the Lounge and got a beer while he waited for the 51s to show up, they were alittle upset, but knew they had been shown up)

(one story I liked, one of the FGs was ordered to do some flying after the war, formation stuff, there was to be a get togeather of US and USSR bigwigs, and they wanted the FG to over fly, and show off, think they had to fly in formation, first pass would be USA, the second pass would be USSR (CCCP ?) and High Command was pretty HARD on these guys and put a lot of pressure on them not to screw up, they did there training, and flew the mission, but, made a 3rd pass, SH.., the US bigwigs were shocked, and later the Russians all admitted that they didn't know what the last pass meant, but the Main Russian BigWig had a large grin on his face when it was going on)

(of course there is the story of Anderson and Yeager, both Aces with the 357th, some restorers, had rebuilt some P-51s, one repainted his as Yeagers Glamorous Glen, and the other as Andersons Old Crow, they were going to show them off at the big airshow, so asked the two if they would show up for the event, both were in the late 60's early 70's, so the owners asked if they would like to fly there planes one last time, they grinned and said sure, the owners figured they would take off, circle the field a time or two and come back in to land, nope, they took off and decided to put on a show, buzzing the field at 400 mph, and doing rolls across the field, the owners had a fit, over 1 million dollars worth of work in them two planes, not to mention what would happen if these two got killed in there planes)

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

I know what you mean Nik, on both statements

I do have a number of books on units (I need Pilot details)

on a reseach side, can be a royal pain, how many books just copy what was already stated someplace else (W. Green is simi Hated for this, he was respected, he had the info, he wrote his books, then alot of other writers just assumed that he knew what he was saying, and copied what he wrote, so a lot of misinfo has been taken as true for decades, and the bad part is, it wasn't all his "fault")

lol on the 51 story. Your comment above is all too true and reminded me of an annoying but amusing incident that occured on another forum board a while ago. A querry had come up about such and such event (think it was Torch landings) and how many planes were lost by all sides etc etc. Well, having just completed Shores' Fighters over Tunisia, i posted what i had since it was nice to be able to utilize all the research i was doing on day to day air ops in multiple theaters. I made sure to mention that it was based on my research using such and such source therefore any errors are mine not the authors.

What i didn't know however was that this particular forum in question already had a resident "expert" on kill ratios and he didn't take kindly to my butting in on his territory. A silly nitpick began with specific kills disputed etc etc based on so and so source. Long and short of it....it eventually came down to my data being "dismissed" based simply on the fact that i had derived the info from a single (if credible) source and was lectured by the resident expert that serious research requires multiple sources.

No....really?? I never would have thought of that. [:D]. Only problem with that blanket statement was just what you wrote. Just because another source says something, and might be repeated in another source doesn't make it more correct than another reputable source. For all he knew it might have simply been paroted info derived from another source material which in turn was pulled from yet another source. Too funny. I eventually just smiled and nodded since the nitpick came down to about 1 or 2 kills which changed the ratio from 0.x to 0.y. I wasn't about to get all bent out of shape on such a thing.

[Hard Sarge]

roger that

one that I always liked, was how the RAF/English, always dismissed Yellow 14's claims in the desert, saying they were made up, and since they knew that they did not lose 14 planes on that day, there is no way that Yellow 14 shot down 14 planes

but..., his wingman's job was to take down all the info he could while the leader got the kills, just so they could be confirmed, and while he was knocking down the planes, the rest of the Staffel was in the area watching, so too many people seen it and confirmed the kills

(the Tomahawks used to go into defencive circles when they spotted 109s, very dangerous to attack, but old Yellow 14 would dive down in the middle of them, pass them up, pull his nose up, climb into a stall, fire just as the stall was able to hit, then fall off into the stall, if you broke the circle to chase him, the others would pick you off, so a damned if you damned if you don't)

and I think it is Shores who ended up proving he may of done it, the RAF claim was always, they didn't lose 14 planes that day, he found out that the SA's and Aussies got hammered that day, badly, a Tomahawk, with English Roundels, who knows if it is English or Aussies, or SA

the English also play fancy with losses during BoB, the LW would report that they had shot down 70 planes yesterday, and the English would laff and say, hey we only lost 36 fighters yesterday, the LW is just bragging and overclaiming, but when you read the days action, BC ran raids during the night and also was hitting the ports, and lost heavy with the bombers, so, yes, the LW may of overclaimed, but, they had something to claim, while the English were only telling part of the story

Currently, I am back to looking at some Ranges, found one interesting site, they base there info on 3 books, and right there shows you the hassle, ranges for this bomber, 1180, 1240, 1648, same plane

which of course, for me, ranges don't mean a thing, I need combat ranges, or combat radius with load

(I like the one, it tells range, being some 1020 miles, range with full bomb load 580, now reading between the lines, full range is 1020, range to target is 580, since you have to fly back, but, since you going to be a lot lighter after the target, you can fly deeper with the bombs !)

I remember one set of info someone was giving me, based on training records in the states, a shame, but all of that is useless, combat cruise and training cruise are not the same thing, and during training, they had to return to base with at least 30 minutes of reserve fuel

ahhhh, range and fuel is a pain, in a game, it is so simple, hey this plane could fly 1400 miles, yea, at what alt, with what load, at what speed ? does it have a head wind or a tail wind blowing this day, are you doing a steep climb to alt, or are you going to go slow and lower, and then pop up to alt when you get close to target

oh well, got work to do

[Hard Sarge]

just in case last statement, there was a lot of debate in the BG's what was the best way to get to alt

a steep climb, get to alt before you crossed the channel, you burned alot of fuel in the climb, but should get better range once at alt and don't have to do anything fancy

the other line of thought was to take your time climbing, less fuel burn, so more fuel for range, so, instead of rushing to 25 K, you would take your time to 20 K, and then when you got close to target, rush climb to 25 K

one hassle they found out, on the first set up, bad planes, broke out of formation early, and returned to base while still close to England, the 2nd, planes that could handle the easy climb, would break down on the rush, but now you are 200-300 miles away from home, with a blown blower or a dead engine

[pompack]

Rather a specialist work on EW and Bomber Command, but I highly recommend

Instruments of Darkness, Alfred Price

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

roger that

one that I always liked, was how the RAF/English, always dismissed Yellow 14's claims in the desert, saying they were made up, and since they knew that they did not lose 14 planes on that day, there is no way that Yellow 14 shot down 14 planes

I have to admit that when I read in the JG-26 bio that over Malta 7 Staffel (IIRC...(at work!)) claimed something like 43 Hurricanes for no losses of their own, i was skeptical. It was a profound shock to have, as mentioned confirmed it once I got Shores' "Malta: The Hurricane Years". The exact number was off a little, but not by much. IIRC from my research, 7 Staffel, in a four month period from 2/41 - 5/41, shot down approx 35 Hurricanes for no losses.....not even an operational loss. As Shores put it, no finer example of air supremency based on good exp, tactics, equipment and morale exists anywhere, nor was it repeated by the members of 7 Staffel. Conditions over Malta helped of course but ultimately credit had to be given where credit was due.

(the Tomahawks used to go into defencive circles when they spotted 109s, very dangerous to attack, but old Yellow 14 would dive down in the middle of them, pass them up, pull his nose up, climb into a stall, fire just as the stall was able to hit, then fall off into the stall, if you broke the circle to chase him, the others would pick you off, so a damned if you damned if you don't)

and I think it is Shores who ended up proving he may of done it, the RAF claim was always, they didn't lose 14 planes that day, he found out that the SA's and Aussies got hammered that day, badly, a Tomahawk, with English Roundels, who knows if it is English or Aussies, or SA

Your correct. that reminds me of amusing incident #2 at that same web forum. There was a a discussion thread about P40/Tomahawk vs 109 and i'd mentioned some comments gleaned from Shores' Fighters over the Desert. I was then rebutted by another forum 'regular' who insisted that the 109 could run rings around a Tomahawk at any altitude or speed and based it on what you wrote above.

I politely stuck to my earlier assertations and told him that the incident he was using as an example was an exceptional case, that being of the German Ace of Aces, Hans-Joachim Marseille who was one of the few 'Experten' who could pull off getting into a RAF defensive circle and out-turn/manuever a Hurricane or Tomahawk long enough to get in a shot/kill, then escape. This was all in Shores, but also included was the 'general' commentary by other Experten that it was very dangerous to try turning with a Tomahawk at low altitude. 109's were in their element using slashing vertical maneuvers and that was the tactic that led to most of their successes while doing Frie Jagd missions

the English also play fancy with losses during BoB, the LW would report that they had shot down 70 planes yesterday, and the English would laff and say, hey we only lost 36 fighters yesterday, the LW is just bragging and overclaiming, but when you read the days action, BC ran raids during the night and also was hitting the ports, and lost heavy with the bombers, so, yes, the LW may of overclaimed, but, they had something to claim, while the English were only telling part of the story

Yes. I wish Shores would do a book on the BoB. As it stands i've collected 5 books on it and one of them at least gave me a good summary of the losses. It was enough for my research. Still, i'd like to get an accurate day by day sometime.

[Hard Sarge]

Roger, agree, the P-40 was a little better then most people seem to think, the Yanks show it off over Sardina, as long the Axis stuck with energy fighting, the 109 was the much better plane, but get into a twist and turn fight, you could get hurt

but...

for what ever reason, the LW seemed to be much more of a one on one, style of fighting, if 4 planes spotted one spitfire, the leader went after it, and the other 3 hung off, Yanks and CW wern't going to fight that way

of course, you may have to take that with a grain of salt, as those are from pilots who got away from combat, when they thought they wouldn't, who knows how many didn't come back when they were gangbanged

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

Roger, agree, the P-40 was a little better then most people seem to think, the Yanks show it off over Sardina, as long the Axis stuck with energy fighting, the 109 was the much better plane, but get into a twist and turn fight, you could get hurt

Yes. Problem with the P-40 was that it was basically a good workhorse plane and was overshadowed by it's far glitzier successors. Ultimately though, it was a "good" plane that had strengths and if you didn't respect it, watch out. Its main failing was that most models were at their best at lower altitudes which coupled with RAF tactics of the time played into the German strengths. Ultimately when the USAAF P40's arrived in Tunisia they didn't have nearly as hard a time. Per Shores, the RAF considered USAAF basic training better which helped. Alot of UK newbies learned the hard way. The Germans felt each successive model of the "Curtiss" fighter were better and better (Tomahawk to Kittyhawk) but not quite a match for their 109's.

but...

for what ever reason, the LW seemed to be much more of a one on one, style of fighting, if 4 planes spotted one spitfire, the leader went after it, and the other 3 hung off, Yanks and CW wern't going to fight that way

of course, you may have to take that with a grain of salt, as those are from pilots who got away from combat, when they thought they wouldn't, who knows how many didn't come back when they were gangbanged

There is merit to it. Shores summary at the end of "FotD" was very interesting. (I can share passages with you if your interested as well as loss data) In a nutshell, he commented that during the Desert fighter, a reletively small minority of Experten had their way with the RAF in terms of running up their personal scores, but that the downside of this was that in effect, these men were fighting a private war vs. being part of an overall war effort. This also crimped the development of inexperienced pilots as they ran up their scores. As far as the Desert fighting went up through 42, The germans never truely achieved any real air supremecy as the major tactic employed by the Jagdwaffe was to snipe at the RAF escort fighters who were often tied at low altitude to the bombers. Thus while a great number of RAF fighters were lost, only a small number of bombers were brought down. This ultimately didn't help the Germans on the ground. The Jagdwaffe would do much better in this regards in Tunisia.

The grain of salt comment is all the more true when one turns to BC/RS volume one. Here the story was different even though the tactics were similar. The situation was however not similar and here the air effort had a big impact overall on operations thx to the Jagdwaffe's efforts which included the ever popular Frie Jagd. Again it comes down in part to the merging of both sides tactics and the situation. On the Eastern Front, the Russians quickly lost a great # of their fighters in the initial attack and coupled with a rigid and fear driven adherence to orders from above, they sent in their bombers largely unescorted...a tactic which especially in the case of vulnerable planes like the SB....led to slaughter. Thus the situation was different.....while the Experten still tended to fight their "private war", their efforts and skill led directly to the overall success of the invasion through sweeps, patrols, escort missions, ground attack and air superiority/interdiction missions.

[Hard Sarge]

roger

yes, I have that book, it was the first one I got from Shores, heck, I think I was a youngen when I got it (how old is Shores ?)(ahhh, maybe I got it once I got of the Marines, but, it is a "old" book)

yes, one hassle with the LW, they made a "few" to be heroes, while the rest watched, the loss of which, shattered the morale of the rest

with the LW, you don't really read about ideas or training to make a Mowing machine, or teams like Goddard and Godfrey

in the east, you did have teams and units that flew togeather and did well, but I still think it was more, taking turns, then what we would see as teamwork

(lol, off topic type, back to flight simming, one of my squadron mates, was in the room, and got a kill or two, and as we were on a chat program, he mentioned that he had never gotten a "ace" while playing the game, now I was kind of a hotshot and all, but, it was like, your kidding ?, well, we can take care of that right now, I went out and became the bait, I would set him up, have him where I wanted him, dive and attack someone, then break and get into a turn fight with them, then when I felt it was good, make a move to set up my mate, and tell him, now, get him, and down he would come and get a easy kill, got him 10 kills in a row, he was tickled pink, it made him happy, so it made me happy, but, later on, if I ever got into a fight, I had somebody who wasn't going to break away, he would stick with me, no matter what)

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

roger

yes, I have that book, it was the first one I got from Shores, heck, I think I was a youngen when I got it (how old is Shores ?)(ahhh, maybe I got it once I got of the Marines, but, it is a "old" book)

oh! lol....your the first i've chatted with who does. If it was a while ago you probably paid alot less for it than i did. Shores is like in his 80's at this point....i hope he can still get the gumption to keep working! FotD is as old as me! [:D]
it was supposed to be a triology but i'm assuming the third book was never published. ??

yes, one hassle with the LW, they made a "few" to be heroes, while the rest watched, the loss of which, shattered the morale of the rest

with the LW, you don't really read about ideas or training to make a Mowing machine, or teams like Goddard and Godfrey

Have you by chance read the book The Luftwaffe: Creating the Operational Air War, 1918-1940 by James Corum? Great read. Dispelled alot of perceptions about the Luftwaffe by using german language material as the primary source.

in the east, you did have teams and units that flew togeather and did well, but I still think it was more, taking turns, then what we would see as teamwork

lol....well i'd say in the East it was more a case of everyone got a turn.....and then some. According to RC/BS, despite the kill ratio and successes, the morale of the Jagdwaffe and Luftwaffe in general was suffering seriously several months into the campaign because of the workload coupled with the unflagging aggressiveness of the Red Airforce! [:D]

(lol, off topic type, back to flight simming, one of my squadron mates, was in the room, and got a kill or two, and as we were on a chat program, he mentioned that he had never gotten a "ace" while playing the game, now I was kind of a hotshot and all, but, it was like, your kidding ?, well, we can take care of that right now, I went out and became the bait, I would set him up, have him where I wanted him, dive and attack someone, then break and get into a turn fight with them, then when I felt it was good, make a move to set up my mate, and tell him, now, get him, and down he would come and get a easy kill, got him 10 kills in a row, he was tickled pink, it made him happy, so it made me happy, but, later on, if I ever got into a fight, I had somebody who wasn't going to break away, he would stick with me, no matter what)

You want amusement.....amusement is me trying to fly a plane in a sim period much less shoot someone down. I think i still hold the record for most Lawn Darts in a 109, most of them without being aided by the enemy.

[Hard Sarge]

the name of the books sound like something I was looking at, but don't think I picked it up, not in the range of what I was doing at the time (in the old days, about 80% of my stuff was east front, or aircraft in general)

well, yea, think about it, you flying mission after mission, and basicly, each mission, you kicking butt, but tomorrow, you going to be flying more and more, and still kicking butt, but, there are always more, and each day, one or two of the good guys go down, a mistake here, or there, that got to be ruff on the mindset

Hehe, depends on the Sim and all, but I really like the F (most want to fly the K because of the big gun, but I can dance in a F)

the YAK 3 is maybe 2nd on my list, one of the best fights you could get into was a F vs a 3 with a decent driver in each, now that is a knife fight

LOL, during a beta test on gunners, I was flying a Frank with 30mm's, dive down, pull up under the B-17 and fire into the ball turret, but, tended to knock the bomber down too !, guy flying the bomber was getting mad, so made me get a Oscar instead (I could put 80 out of 100 rounds into the turret, with out hurting the bomber, most times, the gunner either !!!)

but the bomber guy had to do some work, so wanted us to hang around, so me and the other tester started dogfighting, he later posted in the testers forum, that if you enter a room and see HARD_Sarge flying a Oscar, leave the room



LOL, was in a full real room, and we had a guy in a Tempest picking on us, diving from 20 K in a 400 plus plane, 4 20mm's not much you can do, but duck and roll, when ever he came down, but in full real, you have to catch him when he starts his dive, or you not going to know it, I went and grabbed a another plane, to give me a chance, set myself up as the protector of our group, and man, I was doing a lot of complaining over the chat channel, I was lighting this guy up, and nothing, over and over, finally he got fed up, I had scored a Ace on him (5 kills in a row without dying) as we were landing and getting ready to leave, my mates were like, so what did you get to drive him off ? told em, I got me a Tojo, they all started laffing at me, when I came in to land, they told me I better look again, in my rush, I had grabbed a Oscar, now you know you got skills, when you can beat a energy fighter in a energy fight, with a plane with no energy !!!!

[kingwanabee]

Much thanks to everyone who posted a reply to my question on a good book. I shopped around at the local used book store which has a large section on military history, but didn't really find anything interesting. Since there was no real concensus here, I went back to Borders and bought "Masters of the Air" by Donald Miller.

I'm not very far into it yet, but the begining has some interesting info about the debate in the inter-war years about the future of airpower. Billy Mitchell was quite the fanatic, but his ideas shaped the American doctrine of precision daylight bombing. I'm also struck by the immense logistical build-up achieved by the US in Britain in a relatively short time period.

After I finish this book I think I'll search for a good one about the Battle of Britain. Is there anything good about the air war in Africa/Sicily/Italy? What about the Eastern Front?

[kaybayray]

I just picked up a few books as well.

Angels of Death

Seems to be akin to a Biography of Goering. Very interesting read IMO so far. Only about 1/5 into it. We will see, but it is interesting.

Flyboys
Man this author is really down on US and Western Europe. About 1/4 through it and IMO he is blaming the entire Pacific war initiated by Japan on Britain and America because we are so evil and corrupt. the book is touted on the preview as being about several flyers that crash landed during attacks on Chichi Jima, including George H. Bush. But if he doesnt stop thrashing Western Civilization and get to the point of the book soon this ones going back to the Used book store. At this point would not recommend this unless you absolutely are disgusted with evil and decadent Britain and America. Then you will love it.

The Few

Havnt started this but the Author touts it as the story of several pilots the flew in BOB.


Thanks for this post. I will be looking for these titles as well. There is another thread in here somewhere that lists some books about the overall Strategic Air War but they are quite expensive. Found one for several hundred $ but cant afford to spend that much at the moment. I will in the not to distant future.

Later,
KayBay

[Hard Sarge]

The Few

Havnt started this but the Author touts it as the story of several pilots the flew in BOB.

is that the one about the Yanks ? if so, a good book (Alex Kershaw)

it all depends on what you want to read or are interested in

Angels Eight is a good book about the landing in D-Day and the movement of a Wing of Spits to France (Angels 8 is the Alt that pilots felt safe to fly over the front, too high for light/med AA and too low for Heavy) the Writers Brother died with this wing in a air to air crash, all the years spent trying to find out what happened, he got a lot of info and feeling for the people who were there

some of the after war studies are good, when the were talking to the German POWs and trying to get info out of them, about the hows and whys and what they thought

(the best story from one of those is about the Scarecrow Flak shell, all of the English wanted to know what it was and how it was made and why it was made and how it didn't fool BC, and none of the German Officers knew what they were talking about, then one of them finally explained, the Scarecrow Flak was a shell fired to look like a Bomber exploding, to scare the other pilots who seen it, but the pilots in BC knew about the shell, and when they seen it, knew what it was, and a lot of them would laff or grin, when they seen it, knowing that Gerry was just trying to scare them, the German Officer looked at him, shook his head and explained that the Germans never made a shell to do that, those were bombers exploding that were being seen)

[Jeffrey H.]

ORIGINAL: TechSgt

King;

There was a two volume set -- decades ago -- called "The AirWar", author was Jablonski (sp?) I've never found a "really good" one that covered everything.

A copy of which I purchased on Ebay a few years back in excellent condition. The Aurthor is Jablonksi. I've always called the series "Jablonkis Air War".

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: kingwanabee

After I finish this book I think I'll search for a good one about the Battle of Britain. Is there anything good about the air war in Africa/Sicily/Italy? What about the Eastern Front?

Several.

I liked Peter Townsend's Dual of Eagles for an overall history as well as Eagle Day: The Battle of Britian by Richard Collier.

If you want a more detailed story on how Britian formed it's pilot squadrons pre-war and maintained them during the battle you might want to check out Patrick Bishop's "Fighter boys: The battle of Britian 1940"

For Africa: the best books i can recommend covering North Africa from start to the end in Tunisia are Chris Shore's out of print books "Fighters over the Desert and Fighters over Tunisia. Good overview and summary as well as day by day descriptions of major operations.

Eastern Front. Crister Bergstrom's Black Cross/Red Star are probably the most comprehensive but pricy. (Vol one especially)

The author has written some more recent books on major Eastern Front air battles. Some updated info but less detail overall i'm told.

[menik]

ORIGINAL: kingwanabee
Is there anything good about the air war in Africa/Sicily/Italy? What about the Eastern Front?

About Malta:
Caruana R., Victory in the Air, Modelaid Internat. Pub., 1997, Malta (with a lot of detailed illustrations)
Ibid. Air War over the Med., Modelaid Internat. Pub.. 1990
Shores C., Mediterranean Air War, Vol III, IanAllan, 1974
Shores, Cull & Malizia, Malta: the Hurricane Years, Grub Street 1987
Shores, Cull & Malizia, Malta: the Spitfire Years, Grub Street 1990

If you can understand italian: Malizia N. Inferno su Malta, Mursia, Milano, 1976
ht

[kaybayray]

Hard Sarge,
Yes The Few is that book by Alex. Still havnt started it. RL is keeping me pretty busy these days.

Later,
KayBay

[JeffroK]

As an unbeliever in most Fighter pilots claims, I think you need to recheck your use of Christopher Shore's books to support your arguements.

He makes a point in his later books about not trusting 100% in anyones claims and in an article about the AVG seriously puts a question about some og their claims.

It would be interesting to see a list of Marseille's victims on his great day.

[JeffroK]

Christopher Shore's article, I'll see if I can find where it came from, I think it was from the 12 O'Clock High Forum.

Chris Shores on AVG combat claims Recently there's been a heated discussion on the AVG veterans' message board about what the British aviation historian Christopher Shores wrote about over-claiming in the Battle of Burma. Soon the argument spread to the Twelve O'clock High forum. In the end, Mr. Shores added his tuppennys' worth, which appears below: * * * * Firstly, those who seek to attack what I have written on the subject should be made aware that I found AVG claims no more or less unreliable than those of most other air forces I have researched. Always the circumstances of each engagement needs to be looked at carefully. In fighter-v-fighter combats the claim:loss ratio always seems to climb rapidly, multiplied by the numbers of aircraft/units involved. In Burma the AVG were often fighting over jungle and attacked in steep dives before climbing back for altitude. Good tactics, but fraught with opportunities for double claiming - or triple claiming for that matter. When I wrote ' Fighters over the Desert' way back in the 1960s, I could not understand why I kept finding claims that I could not verify when I seemed to have all the available records to hand. It was only years later, and after I had been attacked by apologists for just about every air force in the world, that I found in the official British war histories published in the early/mid 1950s a clear warning that claim totals were likelty to be inflated and could not be relied upon - and that was admitted within ten years of the end of WWII !! Indeed, overclaiming, albeit in the best of good faith in most cases, certainly seems to have been endemic in aerial combat. It happened on every front and with every air force. Some (though not all) Luftwaffe units and Finnish units were considerably more accurate than most, most of the time. Fighter pilots by and large were young, aggressive and optimistic men who knew what they should be seeing and wanted to see. Even now, some still get very upset when it is pointed out that something they were quite certain had happened (and wanted to have happened) had not in fact occurred just as they recalled it. Others are much more pragmatic and realistic - and strangely, it is usually the latter whose claims prove to be easier to verify as having been accurate (or at least reasonably so). I always remind myself of the little verse Barrett Tillman recited once - "You can tell a bomber pilot by the spread across his rear, and by the ring around his eye, you can tell a bombardier; you can tell a navigator by his maps and charts and such, and you can tell a fighter pilot - but you can't tell him much !" Just for the record, I love it when I can find a loss that fits a claim so that I can properly confirm what actually happened at the time. It gives me no joy at all to have to point out that there was not a loss for a particular claim. I love the world of fighter pilots and have spent more than 40 years of my life researching and recording their exploits. But in doing so if one is to retain credibility as a historian, one must look at the full picture, not just one side. In ' Bill; a Pilot's Story' by Brooklyn Harris, the author records how day after day Japanese formations kept returning to targets in the Solomons despite the losses apparently being inflicted on them by the 13th Air Force. It never once occurred to the author that perhaps the reason for the apparently inexhaustible supply of aircraft the Japanese seemed to have available to them - something to which he specifically referred - might have indicated that at least in part the losses they were actually suffering were not as severe as those being claimed. To research matters from as wide a perspective as possible and to report the results as accurately as one can, should reflect no shame on those participating except in the occasional and thankfully rare occasions when some individual is deliberately falsifying their contribution. (The latter did happen now and again, but fortunately [sic] not often). From my own researches I can certainly state that the vast majority of fighter pilots (and aircrew generally) of all nations did their duty in an exemplary fashion. If anyone has done them a disservice I would suggest that it was more likely to be those who wrote about them carelessly for sensational and propaganda purposes - not those who have tried to be objective and honest in recording history to the best of their abilities. Personally, I am always pleased to be able to update and correct any statement I have recorded in the past where further or more reliable evidence becomes available. If you should feel it appropriate to include these words on the Forum I would be grateful. If you feel it is too long, then fine. Kind regards,
Chris