Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

You can't beat history ...

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> You can't beat history ... Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
You can't beat history ... - 12/10/2002 4:02:01 PM   
Ross Moorhouse


Posts: 2354
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
While doing a bit of historical research into B-17 v Zero engagements i found this which i thought would be good to share here...

[URL=http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:1YXkpVDxL5gC:home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b17_20.html+B-17s+shot+down+by+zeros&hl=en&ie=UTF-8]Taken from here....[/URL]

quote:

The Japanese regarded the B-17 as a tough and well-armed opponent, one that was particularly difficult to shoot down. It could absorb an incredible amount of battle damage and still remain flying. It was the most feared and respected American aircraft during the early stage of the war in the Pacific. However, the early B-17s were insufficiently protected against attacks from the immediate rear, a deficiency that the Japanese were quickly to learn to exploit. Fortress pilots were able to compensate somewhat for this weakness by jinking their planes back and forth when attacked from the rear, giving the left and right waist gunners alternatively a shot at the approaching aircraft.

The newer large-tailed B-17Es began to join the depleted force of earlier-model B-17s in the Pacific. The tail gunner of the B-17E was an unpleasant surprise for the Japanese, who had become accustomed to attacking the Fortress from the rear. The crews of pre-B-17E Fortresses often adopted the expediency of rigging sticks in the rear of their planes, hoping to convince the Japanese attackers that tail guns were actually fitted to these planes as well. However, it soon became clear that the remotely-controlled belly turret of the B-17E did not work very well, the complicated system of mirrors being so confusing to the gunner that he could not see anything at all. It was soon replaced on the production line by the famous ball turret.


_____________________________

Ross Moorhouse

Project Manager
www.csosimtek.com
Email: rossm@csogroup.org
Post #: 1
- 12/10/2002 4:05:24 PM   
Ross Moorhouse


Posts: 2354
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
From the same site in my first post here...

quote:

By mid-1943, most Fortresses had been withdrawn from the Pacific in favor of the longer-ranged B-24 Liberator. The B-24 was better suited for operations in the Pacific, having a higher speed and a larger bombload at medium altitudes. In addition, the losses in Europe were reaching such magnitudes that the entire B-17 production was urgently needed for replacements and training in that theatre. Shortly after the Battle of the Bismarck Sea, it was decided that no more B-17s would be sent to the Pacific. It was to be in the European theatre of operations that the B-17 was to gain its reputation. In fact, the B-17 flew 98 percent of its combat sorties in Europe.


_____________________________

Ross Moorhouse

Project Manager
www.csosimtek.com
Email: rossm@csogroup.org

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)
Post #: 2
- 12/10/2002 4:09:47 PM   
Ross Moorhouse


Posts: 2354
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
The blow taken from [URL=http://www.1freespace.com/aerodrome/sakai.htm]HERE[/URL]

quote:

Over Buna, on August 2nd, Sakai and eight other Zero pilots attacked five B-17s.

The Japanese attacked and downed one right away. Sakai took an opportunity to make a firing pass and had cause to bitterly reproach himself. He had forgotten to remove the safety catch on his trigger and could not open up on a bomber.

The very experienced German Ace Adolf Galland made the same elementary error in his final air combat whilst flying an Me262 Jet.

As Sakai cursed and climbed away from the B-17's defensive fire, he saw another bomber go down. Before he could attack, a third was taken out. He attacked one of the two remaining planes and flamed it on the first pass.


Climbing away from the burning wreck, Sakai saw three P-39s coming from the east. The eight other Zeros hadn’t noticed them, so he attacked. He got behind the P-39s, got one in his gunsight, and blew its wing off. The other Zeros turned to attack while Sakai went after the damaged B-17. Before he could get the bomber though, the Zeros finished off the P-39s and came back to help. Eventually the B-17 went down, but not before downing one of the Zeros.


_____________________________

Ross Moorhouse

Project Manager
www.csosimtek.com
Email: rossm@csogroup.org

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)
Post #: 3
- 12/10/2002 10:02:45 PM   
zed

 

Posts: 268
Joined: 5/20/2002
Status: offline
Saburo Sakai, was Japan's greatest living WWII ace. He's credited with 64 kills of U.S. and Allied planes
during the war, the highest score of any Japanese pilot to survive it. [B]U.S. loss records corroborate his claims.[/B]
He knocked down at least one of every type of plane the U.S. flew, including being credited with
the first downing of a U.S. bomber in WWII, a B-17E, three days after the war started. He narrowly
missed shooting down a B-26 that was carrying the future president, Lyndon Johnson. Sakai also claims
to have shot down the last allied aircraft before WWII ended.


Apparently 5 B-17Es were lost to head on attacks 2 August 1942 over Buna.

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)
Post #: 4
- 12/10/2002 10:30:44 PM   
corbulo

 

Posts: 213
Joined: 2/28/2002
From: rigel 5
Status: offline
2-Aug-42
At 12,000 ft over Buna, a 9-Zero patrol met head-on with a 5 B-17 raid. The Zeros attack head-on in
column, shooting down all the B-17s (2 explode ferociously). The Zeros also shoot down 3 P-39s
trying to support the B-17s. 1 Zero lost.

_____________________________

virtute omne regatur

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)
Post #: 5
- 12/10/2002 11:19:03 PM   
Howard Mitchell


Posts: 449
Joined: 6/3/2002
From: Blighty
Status: offline
Does anyone have a copy of this book?

Against the Sun: The B-17 Flying Fortress in the Pacific
by Gene E. Salecker
384 pages, Combined Publishing, December, 2000. ISBN: 1580970494

I have chapters on B-17 Pacific operations in various books I have, but not a complete volume on them. Should be stuffed full of historical goodness and provide some much needed hard facts.

_____________________________

While the battles the British fight may differ in the widest possible ways, they invariably have two common characteristics – they are always fought uphill and always at the junction of two or more map sheets.

General Sir William Slim

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)
Post #: 6
- 12/10/2002 11:28:40 PM   
wie201

 

Posts: 793
Joined: 11/9/2002
From: Fairfax, VA, USA
Status: offline
Ross,

I posted this on the "can you say open beta" thread, and will just copy over the pertinent parts here (it's a better fit here anyway). These passages are from Airwar by Edward Jablonski (paraphrased in parts). I also have the B-17 book by Jablonski cited in the website you directed people to, but I found much more detailed information in his Airwar book.

"On the morning of August 7, 1942, Carmichael had 16 B-17s at PM. [He ended up with 13 for the attack]. Proceeding on to Rabaul and the bomber base, the fortresses encountered fighters, Zeros which swarmed in around the bombers. During the attacks one fortress was shot down; it was the only B-17 lost in the attack. Kenney thought that 20 Japanese fighters were lost in the attack, but another claim amounted to seven"

Another encounter.

"This first flight of 8 B-17s made the attack without fighter protection. Zeros closed in and in the fighting 3 were claimed shot down; all B-17s returned to PM."

And another.

"Shortly after noon the B-24s of the 90th Bombardment Group came in high over Simpson Harbour to drop 1000 pound bombs on the shipping in the harbour. Zekes quickly rose to challenge the Liberators, and in the ensuing battle, which lasted half an hour, two B-24s were lost, with gunners claiming 10 of the 40 Zekes and Zeros attacking."

Another.

"Kenney, who called this battle the 'toughest, hardest-fought engagement of the war,' for his air force, estimated that the Japanese put up 'between 125 and 150 fighters' that day. Their numbers, and skill as pilots, enables the Japanese to break through the P-38 escort to get at the [41] Mitchells bombing the harbour. Despite the persistent Zeros and ground fire, the Mitchells slashed at the ships, striking more than forty, of which 24 were hit by bombs and 17 strafed. In the melee, 6 B-25s and one P-38 were knocked down."

Same battle.

"Wilkens and his crew were among the 45 men lost in the attack: one of the heaviest tolls suffered by the 5th Air Force. 8 bombers and 9 fighters were lost in the attack. In the air battle, bombers and fighters claimed 68 Japanese planes shot down.

Different battle.

"A second flight of 20 B-17s follow the first to continue the bombing. Further defensive attacks by Zeros holed the B-17s, but did not knock any of the bombers down; one Zero was claimed."

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)
Post #: 7
- 12/11/2002 12:38:03 AM   
Howard Mitchell


Posts: 449
Joined: 6/3/2002
From: Blighty
Status: offline
The text below comes from 'B-17 Flying fortress: Combat and Development History of the Flying Fortress' by William H. Ness. It gives several instances of desparate fights in the SW Pacific involving b-17Es. My scanner's tired now so I'll let it cool down a bit. By the way, is there a prize for the biggest post? :)

The few aircraft that survived Java retreated to Australia. Bombing missions were then flown against new targets by the 7th and 19th Bomb Groups. The enemy was in New Guinea and had established a formidable base at Rabaul on New Britain. The missions flown by the handful ofB-17s were more of a nuisance to the enemy than any real hindrance. The primary object was to delay the Japanese until American reinforcements could be brought to the Pacific.

The onslaught in the Pacific was turned back with a victory at the Battle of the Coral Sea on May 9, and then the American victory at Midway on June 7 put a new complexion on things. A new air commander arrived in the south-western Pacific who would, through the years, lead the new Fifth Air Force to victory. His name was Gen. George Kenney. Reinforcements began to arrive via the llth Bomb Group, and the 43rd Bomb Group was activated. At last a small stream of B-17Es began to arrive.

One of the more impressive missions against Rabaul was assembled and flown on August 7, 1942. A force of fifteen B-17s was slated for the mission. It would consist of nine Fortresses from the 93rd Bomb Squadron and six from the 28th and 30th Bomb Squadrons. The mission was under the command of Lt. Col. Richard Carmichael.

Numbers of aircraft from the 93rd Bomb Squadron gradually were depleted before the mission even began. One B-17 crashed on takeofffrom Seven Miledrome base outside Port Moresby, New Guinea. Two more were forced to abort the mission with engine trouble shortly after takeoff. In the end, Maj. Felix Hardison led the mission with six 93rd Bomb Squadron B-17s. The "tail end Charlie" position was flown by Capt. Harl Pease, who had begged his way onto the mission, although the aircraft he was flying was plagued with electrical troubles and four engines that were long overdue for overhaul.

The bombers were forced to skirt some bad weather, but on arrival over Rabaul they found the target in the open. As they swept over the area from an altitude of 22,500ft they were attacked by some twenty Zero fighters. Despite the attack, the bombers continued to drop their loads while their gunners downed several enemy interceptors. In about 20 minutes the Fortresses made their way to cloud cover-except for the aircraft flown by Captain Pease, which had fallen behind the formation.

As it struggled along. Pease's aircraft had number two engine out. Then the flaming bomb-bay fuel tank dropped and the B-17 went down in flames with both inboard engines out and enemy fighters still swarming around their victim. The official report stated that the aircraft crashed in flames and that Captain Pease and crew were killed. For his exceptional gallantry in action, Captain Pease was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor.

Years later, it was determined that Captain Pease and his crewman, Sergeant Czechowski, had managed to parachute out of the flaming Fortress and had been taken prisoner by the Japanese. A Catholic priest who had been interned by the Japanese vividly remembered Pease and Czechowsld who were in the prison camp with him until October 8,1942. At that time, they were taken out for a so-called "work detail" and never seen again. Undoubtedly, they were executed by the enemy.

On August 7, 1942, the same day as the mission to Rabaul, US Marines landed on Guadalcanal in the Solomon Islands. B-17s that would support this campaign flew from an advanced base at Espiritu Santo in the New Hebrides chain. One of the Fortress pilots was a young Alabaman named Capt. W. E. Chambers of the 26th Bomb Squadron llth Bomb Group, who flew an aircraft named The Aztec's Curse.

Chambers flew one of his more successful missions on August 25. He reported: "Jap task force reported off Malaita Island ... I led a flight of three. We arrived at point of contact and a Jap destroyer started shooting at us. We went a little farther and saw a large transport burning [it had been attacked by dive-bombers] and a cruiser moving in slowly to pick up survivors. Best target we could find, so made a run on him at 9,000(1, dropped 5001b bombs. Got three direct hits and several near misses. The explosions completely covered the ship. The crew was in an uproar, yelling back and forth on the intercom. No fighter opposition, thank goodness ..."

Japanese records show that they lost the destroyer Mitsuki to B-17s on that day.

Chambers and crew would not be so lucky on the mission of October 4. By this time, the Fortresses frequently were using Guadalcanal as an advanced base. Chambers related: "The Aztec Curse took off at 0300 on a striking mission to Buka, flying number two position in a five-ship formation. The weather was pretty bad and flying night formation was hell. The flight hit a front just after daylight about fifty miles from the target and had to turn around. We flew right over two Japanese task forces, but the antiaircraft did no damage. Then we were attacked by twelve Zeros They fell in line about 2,000ft above us and about five miles off to the left, between us and the sun, which had just come up, and peeled off one at a time. They came in from the front a little below us and then up, right through the formation. The first one came through and tried to half-roll back out, but misjudged his distance and crashed into the number five man in our formation. Both planes went down.

'The next one made the same attack, and I thought he was going to ram the lead ship. He just missed and stalled right over our formation on his back. All four of our ships were shooting at him and he was so close, I could see large pieces of metal and fabric coming off his engine and wings. As he fell, he started to bum. The pilot must have been dead because he had been firing all the time he came in and as he went down, I could still see lines of tracers coming from his guns.

'The rest came in, but did not attempt to come through the formation; they came in fast, took a quick shot, and then half-rolled out under the formation. The ball turrets got two more, one in flames and the other with one wing cut completely off. Number three ship had one engine shot out, but remained in formation. Two men jumped from the number five aircraft, but were machine
gunned by the Zeros as they floated down. We landed at Cactus [Guadalcanal] at 0935.1 don't think I have ever been so tired in my life."

Chambers flew another successful mission on October 15. Nine Fortresses took off from Espiritu Santo to attack Japanese troops landing on Guadalcanal. As Chambers recalled: "We found fourteen Japanese ships right in the harbor with four transports in near the shore landing troops. One transport had been torpedoed by a Navy PBY and was burning. Watched the second element make its run on a warship out in the bay. It scored several near misses and silenced some AA guns. I led my element around to the land side away from the ships and made a bombing run on one of the transports. Three Zeros attacked us while we were on the run, coming up underneath in frontal attacks and half-rolling away. Our ball turret gunner, Garvy, got the first one as he rolled out underneath us. The second one came in very close, so close I could see the flashes from all his guns and see tracers going into our right wing. As he rolled over on his back, Carter, our navigator, got in a good burst, and the whole plane seemed to burst into flames. During this time, Myers, our bombardier, dropped his bombs and the wingmen followed suit. We scored several hits and the transport was burning as we headed home. As we hit the ground on landing, the plane started pulling to the right. The tire on that side had been hit and
was flat..."

As Chambers continued his tour, he saw more and more of his fellow crews fall victim to the Japanese fighters. Soon the crews spent most of their time on Guadalcanal where their sleep was interrupted nightly by air raids, and all fell victim to malaria and dysentery. Still, they struck at Japanese shipping and bases day after day.

On one mission to Rabaul, the Fortresses ran into a storm so vicious that they had to fly on instruments for two and a half hours. As Chambers related: "I did a small amount of praying, and we finally broke out about fifty miles from the target. We arrived in the vicinity of Rabaul harbor, but could not find it on account of cloud cover and darkness. I started circling, waiting for daylight. All at once we were right in the middle of about forty searchlights, with AA bursting all over the place. I ducked in the clouds and lost them. I saw two large transports right together through a break in the clouds and made a run at 8,500ft. The AA was heavy, so I had to duck in a cloud before I could see the results of the two 1,000-pounders that Myers dropped ... On the way back, I had to fly through the storm again . . . We broke out of the storm just before we reached the mountains, but arrived at our field to find it closed in and raining like hell. I had to land because of gas, so I came in over the field at 100ft down-wind, made a 180 degree instrument turn, and made an instrument approach by compass. Was lucky and hit it right on the nose. Saw the ground 50ft above it and sat her down. Had ten minutes of gas left and I was worn out. I slept for a while, then went out and got skunk drunk."

After several months of flying missions under trying conditions, Chambers and his crew were finally relieved. As he summed it up at the time: "I think my combat flying is over. Out of fifty-four missions we have been on, we have flown Curse on at least forty-five. She has always gotten us back. There are sixteen crews out of thirty-eight left in the group and there is only one other crew that hasn't had a man injured. My crew is still intact and are the best bunch of fellows on earth. Our score stands at nine Zeros shot down, one cruiser sunk, two transports and one tanker sunk, and we had hits on other transports with the results unknown ... The last time I saw the Curse, she was on Guadalcanal with her tail broken off. She's a grand ole lady and I wish I could bring her back to the States with us."

As time passed, the Fortresses in the Pacific were being replaced by Consolidated B-24 Liberators. Gen. Ira C. Eaker of the Eighth Air Force in England wanted the B-17s, and Gen. H. H. Arnold, commander of the Army Air Forces, agreed to give them to him.

One group that continued to fly the old Fortresses up to the bitter end in the Pacific was the 43rd Bomb Group. It was on one of their last B-17 missions that the action of two crewmen merited the Medal of Honor for both. On June 16,

1943, Capt. Jay Zeamer and his crew volunteered to fly a photo mission to Buka strip on Bougainville in the Solomon Islands. The crew was about ten miles from Buka when they were intercepted by about twenty Zeros. In the nose, bombardier Lt. Joseph R. Samoski downed the first attacking Zero while Sgt. John J. Able in the top turret took care of another. However, the Fortress had taken hits that disabled the oxygen system. Zeamer had to take the aircraft down from 28,000ft in a hurry.

As he pulled out of his dive, Zeamer's B-17 was attacked once more head- on. The Fortress pilot had gotten the armorers to install a fixed gun in the nose of the aircraft, which Zeamer could fire from a button on his yoke. As the Zero came in with guns blazing, Zeamer opened up and shot it down. At about the same time, the B-17 was hit in the nose with 20mm fire. Zeamer was wounded in the legs, so the copilot, Lt. John Britton, had to take over the rudder pedals.

The explosion of the 20mm shell had thrown Lieutenant Samosld back into the passageway under the flight deck, but Samosld called out that he was okay and went back to his gun. As another Zero came in, Samosld blazed away at it and then dropped to the floor, dead from a stomach wound. The air battle raged for 40 minutes, during which time the Buka strip was photographed and five Zeros were downed by the crew. As the B-17 crew made their way back to base they were in dire circumstances. The pilot and copilot were both wounded, their radio was shot out and the operator wounded, and the top turret was still manned but the engineer was wounded. From time to time, Zeamer would pass out from loss of blood. Despite his wounds, engineer-gunner Sgt. John Able came down from his turret and stood behind the pi- lots and helped them fly the plane. After almost three hours, the Fortress neared its destination. By this time, Sergeant Able had gotten the pilots to come around enough that they were able to land the aircraft with Lieutenant Britton on the rudder pedals and Captain Zeamer on the yoke. In their dazed condition they made a downwind landing, and with a crew of wounded men they were all fortunate to survive. Zeamer and Samoski were both awarded the Medal of Honor, and each member of the crew was given the Distinguished Flying Cross.

By late 1943, just about all of the B-17s were gone from the Pacific and it became a theater of B-24 bombers. However, the B-17 had been there at the start and had done a tremendous job under appalling odds. From the very beginning, Boeing's Flying Fortress let the enemy know it had a most worthy opponent.

_____________________________

While the battles the British fight may differ in the widest possible ways, they invariably have two common characteristics – they are always fought uphill and always at the junction of two or more map sheets.

General Sir William Slim

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)
Post #: 8
- 12/11/2002 1:48:46 AM   
zed

 

Posts: 268
Joined: 5/20/2002
Status: offline
"Kenney, who called this battle the 'toughest, hardest-fought engagement of the war,' for his air force, estimated that the Japanese put up 'between 125 and 150 fighters' that day. Their numbers, and skill as pilots, enables the Japanese to break through the P-38 escort to get at the [41] Mitchells bombing the harbour. Despite the persistent Zeros and ground fire, the Mitchells slashed at the ships, striking more than forty, of which 24 were hit by bombs and 17 strafed. In the melee, 6 B-25s and one P-38 were knocked down."

This was on 1 November 1943 over Rabaul. Allies lost 10 fighters and 9 bombers total. Japanese lost 20 fighters.

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)
Post #: 9
- 12/11/2002 5:20:04 PM   
Ross Moorhouse


Posts: 2354
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
Great stuff guys. please kep the info coming.

Cheers

_____________________________

Ross Moorhouse

Project Manager
www.csosimtek.com
Email: rossm@csogroup.org

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)
Post #: 10
- 12/12/2002 1:27:07 AM   
DSandberg

 

Posts: 107
Joined: 6/19/2002
From: MN
Status: offline
[QUOTE][I]"Kenney thought that 20 Japanese fighters were lost in the attack, but another claim amounted to seven"

"Zeros closed in and in the fighting 3 were claimed shot down"

"gunners claiming 10 of the 40 Zekes and Zeros attacking."

"In the air battle, bombers and fighters claimed 68 Japanese planes shot down."

"one Zero was claimed."[/I][/QUOTE]

Judging from the above, to me it appears likely that the extraordinary "claims" of Allied gunners published in this particular book were not checked against Japanese war records, so I suspect they need to be taken with a few grains of salt. Claims of fighter shootdowns by Allied bombers were notoriously exaggerated (possibly because half a dozen or more gunners might be firing at a single fighter at the moment it gets flamed, something that seldom happens with fighter vs fighter engagements).

- David

_____________________________

"... planning and preparations were made with great efforts with this day as a goal. Before this target day came, however, the tables had been turned around entirely and we are now forced to do our utmost to cope with the worst. Thi

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)
Post #: 11
- 12/12/2002 1:40:34 AM   
XPav

 

Posts: 550
Joined: 7/10/2002
From: Northern California
Status: offline
As DSandberg says, gunner claims (moreso than plane to plane claims) are always overinflated, and can't be trusted.

_____________________________

I love it when a plan comes together.

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)
Post #: 12
- 12/12/2002 1:58:19 AM   
wie201

 

Posts: 793
Joined: 11/9/2002
From: Fairfax, VA, USA
Status: offline
I agree that the number of Japanese planes shot down were probably greatly exaggerated, but from what you and others have stated, I think most of us (and certainly Matrix) are aware of this. I think the more important information to glean from these citations is the evidence of how many B-17s survived their missions, albeit shot to pieces, which I don't think would be exaggerated.

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)
Post #: 13
- 12/12/2002 2:36:18 AM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
Sakai's claims have not been verified by US records. Indeed, the last time I looked for an *internet* set on the subject, the best that people could credit him with was a 200% overclaim. Moreover, there is no substantiating evidence to indicate that he shot down or even fought against every kind of Allied a/c deployed to the PTO, or had the last Japanese victory of the war. It is not even clear that he engaged any P39s, as 5th AF histories that I've been able to track down so far (albeit not all Pursuit Groups histories are available to me), do not indicate any P39 losses (or even engagements with Zekes) until after Sakai was shot up and invalidated by his encounter with SBDs. The nearest I can put him is 3000 feet above some P39s.

The accounts of a handful of Zekes flaming B17 after B17 sound very spurious to me. No doubt five pilots "flamed" the same B17 several times, before it escaped with two shot out engines. A 400-1000% overclaim by Japanese pilots would be in the correct range.

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)
Post #: 14
- 12/12/2002 3:52:05 AM   
DSandberg

 

Posts: 107
Joined: 6/19/2002
From: MN
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by wie201
[B]I think the more important information to glean from these citations is the evidence of how many B-17s survived their missions, albeit shot to pieces, which I don't think would be exaggerated. [/B][/QUOTE]

I agree with this. The more of these types of literature quotes I see, the more I come to believe that the faceoff between unescorted Allied heavy bombers and Zeros should typically end up as a standoff of sorts, with a fair number of damaged a/c on both sides, but a very limited number of a/c actually lost by either side.

I look at it like a wolf attacking a porcupine. The wolf can't get close enough to the porcupine to kill it without greatly hurting itself first. On the other hand the porcupine isn't too likely to kill the wolf, because the wolf has the advantages of speed and the choice of if, when and how to attack. Result? A standoff.

- David

_____________________________

"... planning and preparations were made with great efforts with this day as a goal. Before this target day came, however, the tables had been turned around entirely and we are now forced to do our utmost to cope with the worst. Thi

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)
Post #: 15
- 12/12/2002 4:21:26 AM   
msaario

 

Posts: 245
Joined: 5/22/2002
From: Back in E U R O P A
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl
[B]It is not even clear that he engaged any P39s, as 5th AF histories that I've been able to track down so far (albeit not all Pursuit Groups histories are available to me), do not indicate any P39 losses (or even engagements with Zekes) until after Sakai was shot up and invalidated by his encounter with SBDs. The nearest I can put him is 3000 feet above some P39s. [/B][/QUOTE]

Mdiehl,

Are you serious? I do not know the sources you are looking at, but it took me like two minutes to see that there were P-39 combat losses in the Summer of 1942... I wasn't there, I am not talking to people who flew there, just reading books, browsing the net for diaries and so forth.

Or, is it that if it ain't an American source, it can't be trusted (MANY ARE!!!)?

I like first person accounts, so here is one (albeit not exactly showing any numbers) by a US ace:
[URL=http://history1900s.about.com/library/prm/bldefendingportmoresby1.htm]http://history1900s.about.com/library/prm/bldefendingportmoresby1.htm[/URL]

--Mikko

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)
Post #: 16
- 12/12/2002 4:43:49 AM   
Howard Mitchell


Posts: 449
Joined: 6/3/2002
From: Blighty
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DSandberg
[B]The more of these types of literature quotes I see, the more I come to believe that the faceoff between unescorted Allied heavy bombers and Zeros should typically end up as a standoff of sorts, with a fair number of damaged a/c on both sides, but a very limited number of a/c actually lost by either side.

I look at it like a wolf attacking a porcupine. The wolf can't get close enough to the porcupine to kill it without greatly hurting itself first. On the other hand the porcupine isn't too likely to kill the wolf, because the wolf has the advantages of speed and the choice of if, when and how to attack. Result? A standoff.

- David [/B][/QUOTE]

Having done a bit of reading and thinking I have come to the same conclusion, though I'd add that each side would then go home and put in vastly inflated kill claims :)

_____________________________

While the battles the British fight may differ in the widest possible ways, they invariably have two common characteristics – they are always fought uphill and always at the junction of two or more map sheets.

General Sir William Slim

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)
Post #: 17
- 12/12/2002 8:01:58 AM   
Ross Moorhouse


Posts: 2354
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
I believe that kills had to be confirmed via gun camera footage for the Allies in the ETO. So I would think that they did the same thing in PTO.

How about crediting a pilot with aircraft on the ground that he shot up? Should he be credited with these in WitP?

_____________________________

Ross Moorhouse

Project Manager
www.csosimtek.com
Email: rossm@csogroup.org

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)
Post #: 18
- 12/12/2002 8:16:12 AM   
DSandberg

 

Posts: 107
Joined: 6/19/2002
From: MN
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ross Moorhouse
[B]I believe that kills had to be confirmed via gun camera footage for the Allies in the ETO. So I would think that they did the same thing in PTO.[/B][/QUOTE]

I don't ever recall hearing that gunner positions on bombers like the B-17 were equipped with gun cameras ... or were they?

[QUOTE]How about crediting a pilot with aircraft on the ground that he shot up? Should he be credited with these in WitP? [/B][/QUOTE]

I'd say no, at least not in terms of obtaining Ace status. I think that usually only aerial combat victories are considered for that. I found at least one source on the Internet that tend to support the idea that aerial kills only are normally counted toward "ace" status:

quote:

8th AF, in an attempt to gain publicity for the "Little Friends," had instituted an "ace race" to see which fighter pilot in the ETO would be the first to equal Captain Eddie Rickenbacker's score. The emphasis on individual acheivement was detrimental to the team spirit Blakeslee believed in. Don Gentile became the leading contender, then controversy surrounded his score because of "ground kills" recognized only by 8th AF.


- David

_____________________________

"... planning and preparations were made with great efforts with this day as a goal. Before this target day came, however, the tables had been turned around entirely and we are now forced to do our utmost to cope with the worst. Thi

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)
Post #: 19
- 12/12/2002 8:33:34 AM   
Ross Moorhouse


Posts: 2354
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
I meant to say for figthers. No gun cameras where fitted to gunners postions that i know of on any form of regular basis.

_____________________________

Ross Moorhouse

Project Manager
www.csosimtek.com
Email: rossm@csogroup.org

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)
Post #: 20
Claims... - 12/12/2002 3:43:30 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline
Hi all,

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl
[B]Sakai's claims have not been verified by US records. Indeed, the last time I looked for an *internet* set on the subject, the best that people could credit him with was a 200% overclaim. Moreover, there is no substantiating evidence to indicate that he shot down or even fought against every kind of Allied a/c deployed to the PTO, or had the last Japanese victory of the war. It is not even clear that he engaged any P39s, as 5th AF histories that I've been able to track down so far (albeit not all Pursuit Groups histories are available to me), do not indicate any P39 losses (or even engagements with Zekes) until after Sakai was shot up and invalidated by his encounter with SBDs. The nearest I can put him is 3000 feet above some P39s.

The accounts of a handful of Zekes flaming B17 after B17 sound very spurious to me. No doubt five pilots "flamed" the same B17 several times, before it escaped with two shot out engines. A 400-1000% overclaim by Japanese pilots would be in the correct range. [/B][/QUOTE]

Hi all,

The verification of pilot air-to-air kills in WWII has always been somehow
"controversial"...

But this doesn't mean that we should dismiss the loosing side claims (of
German and Japanese pilots) and take as 100% accurate the claims of allied
ones (British and US).

In all the books I read about the subject it was always said that Germans had
one of the most hard and rigid system of pilot kill claims and that their
numbers should be regarded as accurate.

They (Germans) required fellow pilot (i.e. witness) verification and many
times the kill(s) would not be awarded for months because of long process.

Also Germans never awarded half kills (i.e. where two or more pilots kill one
aircraft) and instead they awarded the kill to unit (and thus the unit would
end with greater number of kills than when you would add up all the individual
pilot kills).

Of Japanese system there is good info in Saburo Sakai's book "Samurai" (try to
get European edition - the US edition was edited with certain things omitted).

In his book Sakai writes that they also had rigid and conservative system of
pilot claims - so I don't think Sakai's number (nor number of his fellow
squadron pilots) should be greatly reduced.

Also there is a one interesting book called "Aces of the rising sun" which, in
appendix, has list of what Japanese pilots claimed in war and what is
estimated to be true looses with finds after the war. If I remember correctly
the Japanese true numbers was usually around 80% of true number (as claimed by
that book).



Leo "Apollo11"


P.S.
In later stages of war (and after the tide has turned on allied side) the gun
cameras were fitted on many (most?) allied fighters and this would give rather
accurate results without any doubt. But for propaganda purposes this was never
done in earlier stages of war (the Battle of Britain is best example). Also
the claims of bomber gunners were also very very questionable because many
gunners would fire on one German aircraft and afterwards all would claim it.
In books about that period it was said this was encouraged (even if it was
known to be wrong) because of hard looses to bomber crews - they needed morale
boost.

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)
Post #: 21
- 12/12/2002 4:41:55 PM   
msaario

 

Posts: 245
Joined: 5/22/2002
From: Back in E U R O P A
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ross Moorhouse
[B]How about crediting a pilot with aircraft on the ground that he shot up? Should he be credited with these in WitP? [/B][/QUOTE]

Was there a separate kill count for ground kills? My feeble memory suggests seeing somewhere that a pilot (Allied, that is) had, say, 5 air-to-air kills and 3 ground kills (airplanes). Maybe there could be two scores, one for air and other for ground kills?

Because I like as much info about my units as possible, I would personally love to have access to complete kill history of a pilot, as an example:

Saburo Sakai
-----------------
Dec 8, 1941: P-40 destroyed on ground in Manila
Dec 12, 1941: B-17 destroyed at hex 50,50
Jan 5, 1942: PT-109 destroyed at Bataan

and so forth.....

Even if I had 5000 pilots under my command in WitP, it doesn't mean I don't want to see what they have done. Besides, programming-wise, this really is a non-issue, just bookkeeping.

--Mikko

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)
Post #: 22
Re: Claims... - 12/12/2002 10:24:47 PM   
Yamamoto

 

Posts: 743
Joined: 11/21/2001
From: Miami, Fl. U.S.A.
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Apollo11
[B]Of Japanese system there is good info in Saburo Sakai's book "Samurai" (try to
get European edition - the US edition was edited with certain things omitted).
[/B][/QUOTE]

I got my copy in Japan. What did they cut out of the US edition?

Yamamoto

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)
Post #: 23
- 12/12/2002 11:00:13 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Are you serious? I do not know the sources you are looking at, but it took me like two minutes to see that there were P-39 combat losses in the Summer of 1942... I wasn't there, I am not talking to people who flew there, just reading books, browsing the net for diaries and so forth. [/QUOTE]

Yes I am serious and no I have not necessarily found every account. It's been a while since I looked, but found accounts of 3 units stationed at PM (1 Pursuit Group of P40s, one of P39s and one of P400s). The first two encunters saw no combat losses because the 40s were elsewhere at the time, and the 39s were 3000 feet below the Zekes -- who declined to engage. For the 35th (IIRC) PG, the first P39 combat loss occurred in a raid on Buna in which one P39 was lost and 4 or 5 Zekes were destrpyed -- bounced as they attempted to lift off. This was after Sakai had his unfortunate brush with the SBDs. So I wonder, again, if he *fought* P39s where and when.

[QUOTE]But this doesn't mean that we should dismiss the loosing side claims (of German and Japanese pilots) and take as 100% accurate the claims of allied ones (British and US).[/QUOTE]

One should not take any pset of pilot claims at face value.

[QUOTE]In all the books I read about the subject it was always said that Germans had one of the most hard and rigid system of pilot kill claims and that their numbers should be regarded as accurate. [/QUOTE]

That would be incorrect. German claims are comparable to Allied pilot claims in the ETO w/ respect to reliability. Gun cameras helped a bit there.

[QUOTE]In his book Sakai writes that they also had rigid and conservative system of pilot claims - so I don't think Sakai's number (nor number of his fellow squadron pilots) should be greatly reduced. [/QUOTE]

Sakai's claims have been proven incorrcet. I'll see if I can find a link. It's not a matter of "conservative estimates." The very systems employed by all the combatants made inaccuracy an unavoidable phenom. Many claims both by Japanese and American pilots in 1942 account for more "kills" than the opposition flew planes in combat, with American error rates running 200-400% and Japanese 300-1000%. Late war Japanese claims seem primarily to be fantasies... ennobling the combat in which a friend was lost or something... by wildly distorting kills.

Interestingly, Allied claims in the ETO are quite accurate according to some German sources, and there is tangible evidence that the Germans cooked the books somewhat, designating a/c "operational losses" because the pilot survived. See: "To Command the Sky."

[QUOTE]Also there is a one interesting book called "Aces of the rising sun" which, in appendix, has list of what Japanese pilots claimed in war and what is estimated to be true looses with finds after the war. If I remember correctly the Japanese true numbers was usually around 80% of true number (as claimed by that book). [/QUOTE]

Unless the book cites the Allied unit history's specific combat losses for each engagement in question (provides date, number of a/c lost, and cites the relevant unit history or document) such claims are worth much less than the paper on which they're printed. Especially in a fanboy publication extolling the virtues of aces (Axis or Allied). I'm familiar with the "Aces" series. They're not very critical of pilot claims although they're full of good modeling details (color schemes especiallY0, some performance specs, and interesting bios.

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)
Post #: 24
Sakai, pilot claims, P40s and A6Ms - 12/12/2002 11:19:09 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
Here's the best general summary of what Japanese pilots' "confirmed victory" counts (confirmed by Japanese intel, not verified by actually examining Allied group histories). This should dispel any rumours or myths about the Japanese having a systematic and conservative system for estimating actual numbers of enemy a/c shot down:

[QUOTE]Therefore the following list must be taken for what it represents, a set of claims that contain a combination of pseudo-official and personal claims, often representing a mixture of confirmed, unconfirmed, probables and damaged claims.[/QUOTE]

from: http://users.accesscomm.ca/magnusfamily/ww2jap.htm


Here is a link to a web site that says what the tally for Sakai is actually comprised of: http://billybishop.net/sakai.html

Finally, for those who love anecdotes but only read Japanese anecdotes, here is one of the more colorful comments by American AVG Ace Erik Shilling about the relative merits of the P40 series and the A6M series:

http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/Shilling2.html

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)
Post #: 25
I beg to disagree... - 12/13/2002 2:29:08 AM   
Apollo11


Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline
Hi all,

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl [B]
That would be incorrect. German claims are comparable to Allied pilot claims in the ETO w/ respect to reliability. Gun cameras helped a bit there.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Hmm... the USA maybe but not the British (at least in early years)...

[B][QUOTE]
Sakai's claims have been proven incorrcet. I'll see if I can find a link.
[/B][/QUOTE]

I read your link (in another message) but this doesn't prove anything.

Saying "blanket" claims is never good.

BTW, Sakai result was achieved in 95% before he was wounded
and incapacitated in summer of 1942. This was time of greatest Japan victories
and I really se no reason whatsoever why would they "cook books" then.

If you read his book you can see that Sakai and man like him were 1 in 1000.
After they all were gone Japanese air force, of course, dwindled...


Leo "Apollo11"

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)
Post #: 26
Leo - 12/13/2002 4:36:44 AM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
It's not a question of intentionally cooking the books in the Japanese case. It's just that error is inherent in pilot claims, even the claims of aces, and even the claims of Sakai. One thing is for certain: Japan never had a systematic mechanism for critically evaluating pilot victory claims. Not in 1942 and not thereafter.

"Man like him" is non-sequitur. Men are just men. Pilots are just pilots. Since most pilots were shot down before they knew they were under attack, the virtuous men whom we extoll can, to a certain degree, be counted first and foremost as the luckiest.

Who's to say that some schmoe, bounced in his P39 with insufficient altitude to dive out, killed in his first combat engagement, was less of a man, less virtuous, honorable, or noble, than the most heroic, retroactively ennobled ace?

Not me. Not by a f__ing long shot.

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)
Post #: 27
- 12/13/2002 4:45:42 AM   
Theng

 

Posts: 259
Joined: 12/13/2002
Status: offline
Where you have a major difference between US and German "kill counts" is that the US awarded half kills to pilots if two pilots claimed the kill. If two German pilots claimed the same kill, none of them got it. Therefore, the number of German kills is more understated than the US number.

Galland and Hartmann write quite eloquently about the differences in their respective books.

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)
Post #: 28
I think we missunderstood... - 12/13/2002 4:52:38 AM   
Apollo11


Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline
Hi all,

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl
[B]It's not a question of intentionally cooking the books in the Japanese case. It's just that error is inherent in pilot claims, even the claims of aces, and even the claims of Sakai. One thing is for certain: Japan never had a systematic mechanism for critically evaluating pilot victory claims. Not in 1942 and not thereafter.

"Man like him" is non-sequitur. Men are just men. Pilots are just pilots. Since most pilots were shot down before they knew they were under attack, the virtuous men whom we extoll can, to a certain degree, be counted first and foremost as the luckiest.

Who's to say that some schmoe, bounced in his P39 with insufficient altitude to dive out, killed in his first combat engagement, was less of a man, less virtuous, honorable, or noble, than the most heroic, retroactively ennobled ace?

Not me. Not by a f__ing long shot. [/B][/QUOTE]

I think we misunderstood...


Both you and me have no idea what those people were like - all we can talk
about is what they did.


When I wrote "1 in 1000" I didn't mean the exceptional men per-se but the way
Japanese pilots were schooled and trained (please see below and re-read my
original message).

Very very few pilots were trained in pre-war Japan and those who finished
their schooling were exceptional pilots. Japanese problem, as we all now know,
lay in fact that when those highly trained and best men died there was nobody
left to replace them...

Also I was only saying that Saburo Sakai (in his book) lists his achievements
as kills (i.e. curtains) when he says he was able to verify it (i.e. saw plane
crashing into jungle/sea or by his fellow pilots).

Since this was high time for Japanese victories I said that there was no
reason to make things up (and Sakai's unit was very good).

That's all.


Leo "Apollo11"

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)
Post #: 29
Leo - 12/13/2002 5:07:50 AM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
Sakai's claims were no more personally conservative than any other pilot's. Great training and extensive experience did not give even the early war Japanese pilots an edge in estimating any more than it did in combat.

Sakai's Tainan group had no fewer than eight "confirmed" aces, of whom three died in 1942 at Guadalcanal against VMF pilots with little under their belt apart from training. Veteran Japanese vs. ordinary graduates of US naval aviation training. In virtually all of these engagements the Japanese claimed twice as many or more "kills" than they achieved. In one engagement they claimed twice as many kills as there were American a/c at Cactus. (The overall kill ratio was almost exactly 1:1 using figures in Frank's Guadalcanal, and about 1.2:1 favoring the Japanese, prior to November 1942, using Lundstrom's accounts).

To repeat. There's almost nothing to pilot claims. When a pilot says he shot down a plane, I read it "I fired my guns, thought I saw strikes, and the plane was no longer in sight." Japanese and American pilots swore they'd shot down enemy a/c "in flames," "exploded" and so forth. You'd think that an event so dramatic would be unmistakable. Time after time, unit histories for all the combatants show that the explosions and the flames often never happened.

Doesn't matter if the claim is made by Saburo Sakaui, Chuck Yeager, Joe Foss, or Joe Schmoe. For *any* estimate to claim pretense of validity, it has to be based on group histories (or secondary sources that are in turn based on group histories) for actual losses.

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> You can't beat history ... Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.797