Re: Leo

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Re: Leo

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 >> Re: Leo

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Re: Leo - 12/13/2002 6:05:34 AM

Von_Frag

Posts: 105
Joined: 5/7/2002
From: Dallas, Texas
Status: offline

[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]

It has been many years since I've read Samurai, but I do recall Sakai encountered a P-39 flying along like there was no war going on. He even detailed the pilots red baseball cap. When he started pumping bullets into it the pilot took evasive action, Sakai said he really seemed to know his stuff. With the P-39, being damaged, the pilot dove for the deck. Sakai was surprised to see one of the side doors pop open and the pilot bail low to the ground. When Sakai flew back over the spot, he saw the pilot scrambling into the jungle. Now, I may have pulled this completely out of my a$$, but that is the way I remember reading it.

Von Frag

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)

Post #: 31

Re: Leo - 12/13/2002 7:08:21 PM

Apollo11

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl
[B]

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).

[/B][/QUOTE]

Ahh... but there is one "tiny" thing you forget here... the
Japanese flew for hundreds (thousands) of miles to Guadalcanal
and had to fight there after hours and hours of flying. This alone
was achievement of its own...

Leo "Apollo11"

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)

Post #: 32

Re: Re: Leo - 12/13/2002 9:05:28 PM

msaario

Posts: 245
Joined: 5/22/2002
From: Back in E U R O P A
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Von_Frag
[B]

It has been many years since I've read Samurai, but I do recall Sakai encountered a P-39 flying along like there was no war going on. He even detailed the pilots red baseball cap. When he started pumping bullets into it the pilot took evasive action, Sakai said he really seemed to know his stuff. With the P-39, being damaged, the pilot dove for the deck. Sakai was surprised to see one of the side doors pop open and the pilot bail low to the ground. When Sakai flew back over the spot, he saw the pilot scrambling into the jungle. Now, I may have pulled this completely out of my a$$, but that is the way I remember reading it.

Von Frag [/B][/QUOTE]

Had to browse the book (Finnish translation from 1958)... This particular Airacobra pilot was actually engaged in a fierce dogfight with Zeros. To cut the long story short, as Saburo was 40 meters away from the P-39 - low in ammunition - preparing to fire his guns, the pilot bailed out at some 50 meters altitude. Moments before the pilot hit the ground, his parachute opened. The plane crashed just meters away from him. When Sakai returned to the scene, the pilot had disappeared to the woods nearby.

It's funny. By just browsing the Samurai for some five minutes, I read Sakai confirming the Zeros shortcomings (lack of speed, dive-ability and protection) and greatly praising the Allied pilots he flew against. He described many dogfight accounts where the enemy was pushing his plane to the limits time after time, escaping many Zero attacks. But, still, he claimed, in the end he got the best of them...

He must have been real poet, if no P-39s were lost in action in the Summer of 1942 in the New Guinea area! This guy parachuting before being fired at, the one that the flew (like there was no war) 20 meters behind taking pictures with his Leica as two wingmen covered Sakai's behind and then used 4 pieces of 20mm ammunition to cut the plane in half. Or, what about the one he chased in to the side of the mountain and almost crashed himself?

At least the book makes an interesting reading, and I've read it 10-15 times...

I am sure mdiehl has read about the man's character in one of the links he provided (quote: "A man who held honour in the highest regard and NEVER lost his under any circumstances.")? He became friends with many former enemy pilots after the war and was active in meeting them until his death two years ago. They all have praised him as a man. Maybe that tells about his true character enough?

That's why I trust and admire him. He was no bullshitter.

--Mikko

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)

Post #: 33

- 12/13/2002 10:10:06 PM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Ahh... but there is one "tiny" thing you forget here... the
Japanese flew for hundreds (thousands) of miles to Guadalcanal
and had to fight there after hours and hours of flying. This alone
was achievement of its own... [/QUOTE]

This is really immaterial. USAAF fighter pilots fought their way through Germany and back, and Allied pilots fought at long range in the Pacific wherever Allies were on the offensive. No one implies that somehow the loss stats need to be fudged because of their fatigue. In any case, as I have noted numerous times before, and as those-who-disagree always ignore (they clam up and don't talk about it), in the CV engagements, (1) the Japanese and American pilots had to fly the same distance, carrier to carrier, (2) in practice, these distances were easily within the standard operational radius of the A6M2/3 and near the limits of the radius of the F4F, and (3) in these engagements the VF F4F pilots shot down roughly 1.4 A6M2/3s per F4F lost. In short, there is no evidence that by trainig or experience Japanese aviators were particularly better than American naval/marine aviators. USAAF is another matter, and one on which I currently have no particular opinion other than to be highly skeptical of anything anecdotal.

And of course, all that talk about training, veteran-hood, and so forth has absloutely no bearing on the veracity of pilot claims.

Mikko's points about Sakai's character are part of the problem with this discussion. Sakai was a stand up guy. It is *irrelevant* to the main point. Pilot claims of enemy ships destroyed are inherently inaccurate. I "trust" Sakai to know how to fly a Zero. He (and for that matter, Caiden) has, however, no credibility whatsoever as an *authoritative* source on *Allied* combat losses.

[QUOTE]He must have been real poet, if no P-39s [/QUOTE]

Try reading what I write. I said that of the units for which I've fonud decent unit histories so far, there are no accounts of P39s lost prior to Sakai's incident with the SBDs. Assuming for the moment that Sakai is correct about fighting a P39 in March, or whenever, it was probably an RAAF unit.

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)

Post #: 34

Re: Re: Re: Leo - 12/13/2002 11:24:08 PM

Von_Frag

Posts: 105
Joined: 5/7/2002
From: Dallas, Texas
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by msaario
[B]

Had to browse the book (Finnish translation from 1958)... This particular Airacobra pilot was actually engaged in a fierce dogfight with Zeros. To cut the long story short, as Saburo was 40 meters away from the P-39 - low in ammunition - preparing to fire his guns, the pilot bailed out at some 50 meters altitude. Moments before the pilot hit the ground, his parachute opened. The plane crashed just meters away from him. When Sakai returned to the scene, the pilot had disappeared to the woods nearby.

It's funny. By just browsing the Samurai for some five minutes, I read Sakai confirming the Zeros shortcomings (lack of speed, dive-ability and protection) and greatly praising the Allied pilots he flew against. He described many dogfight accounts where the enemy was pushing his plane to the limits time after time, escaping many Zero attacks. But, still, he claimed, in the end he got the best of them...

He must have been real poet, if no P-39s were lost in action in the Summer of 1942 in the New Guinea area! This guy parachuting before being fired at, the one that the flew (like there was no war) 20 meters behind taking pictures with his Leica as two wingmen covered Sakai's behind and then used 4 pieces of 20mm ammunition to cut the plane in half. Or, what about the one he chased in to the side of the mountain and almost crashed himself?

At least the book makes an interesting reading, and I've read it 10-15 times...

I am sure mdiehl has read about the man's character in one of the links he provided (quote: "A man who held honour in the highest regard and NEVER lost his under any circumstances.")? He became friends with many former enemy pilots after the war and was active in meeting them until his death two years ago. They all have praised him as a man. Maybe that tells about his true character enough?

That's why I trust and admire him. He was no bullshitter.

--Mikko [/B][/QUOTE]

Mikko,
Thanks for the clarification.

Von Frag

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)

Post #: 35

- 12/13/2002 11:38:53 PM

Von_Frag

Posts: 105
Joined: 5/7/2002
From: Dallas, Texas
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl
[B]

Try reading what I write. I said that of the units for which I've fonud decent unit histories so far, there are no accounts of P39s lost prior to Sakai's incident with the SBDs. Assuming for the moment that Sakai is correct about fighting a P39 in March, or whenever, it was probably an RAAF unit. [/B][/QUOTE]

In those early chaotic days that describe the reality of PNG in 1942, do you think accurate record keeping was a priority at the time? I'm not trying to bust your nads, your points and arguments are concise and well thought out. If Sakai claims he mixed it up with a 39, I don't see any reason not to believe him. I don't think this is a case of "saving face", what would he have had to save face over? And you are correct, it could have been a 39 from an RAAF unit, he did not as far as I recall detail the markings on the AC even though he said he was as close as 50 meters away.

Von Frag

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)

Post #: 36

- 12/14/2002 12:56:24 AM

byron13

Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl
[B]until after Sakai was shot up and invalidated by his encounter with SBDs. [/B][/QUOTE]

Wasn't it the ventral guns fired by a group of TBFs?

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)

Post #: 37

- 12/14/2002 1:11:35 AM

Posts: 3332
Joined: 7/17/2001
From: V�ster�s,Sweden
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by byron13
[B]

Wasn't it the ventral guns fired by a group of TBFs? [/B][/QUOTE]

Hi

Thats what I've read too....
Dan

_____________________________

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)

Post #: 38

- 12/14/2002 2:39:25 AM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

Depending on the source you can read that he mistook the a/c for Grumman fighters or torpedo bombers, and that they were either torpedo bombers or SBDs. The NY Times in his obit said they were TBFs. I'd read elsewhere some time in the last 5 years (IDNR where) that they could not have been TBFs and must therefore have been SBDs. It scarcely matters.

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)

Post #: 39

- 12/14/2002 7:40:57 AM

byron13

Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl
[B]It scarcely matters. [/B][/QUOTE]

Quite true.

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)

Post #: 40

- 12/15/2002 5:32:49 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]I "trust" Sakai to know how to fly a Zero. He (and for that matter, Caiden) has, however, no credibility whatsoever as an *authoritative* source on *Allied* combat losses.

Try reading what I write. I said that of the units for which I've fonud decent unit histories so far, there are no accounts of P39s lost prior to Sakai's incident with the SBDs. Assuming for the moment that Sakai is correct about fighting a P39 in March, or whenever, it was probably an RAAF unit. [/B][/QUOTE]

...can't read what you don't write about: the actual squadrons you have researched!

Ok, let's try an American pilot who actually flew there during Sakai's time (again, sorry, no exact numbers to give you, my books are not "authoritative" sources or unit histories):

2nd lt Charlie King, 39th Pursuit Squadron, 35th Pursuit Group: " The Australians [flying P-40s]were replaced by the 8th Group's 35th and 36th Pursuit Squadrons. Their losses were not as great as the Aussies had suffered, but casualties were still excessive in terms of both aircraft and pilots. [These] squadrons were withdrawn on June 1, 1942 [and replaced by 39th and 40th Squadrons]" --> One could make a fairly safe assumption (yep, an assumption!) that they lost at least one P-39 to Zeroes (or P-400 for that matter; does it really make a difference which one Sakai was shooting at? I doubt the Japanese knew the difference between these two planes, he only mentioned "a new model of P-39 encountered"). Anyway, King also claims that the 35th Group initially got the P-400s and the 8th the P-39s, but they soon got mixed when the squadrons were rotated.

The excerpt is from the book "Aces against Japan" by Eric Hammel.

If you don't find something in your own research, it doesn't mean it never happened. But then again, you believe what you want...

Cheers,

--Mikko

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)

Post #: 41

P-39's before UV time period - 12/15/2002 5:51:34 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

"39th Squadron of the 35th Pursuit Group in April 1942. Equipped with P-39s and P-400s, the 39th was based at Port Moresby, on the southern coast of New Guinea, helping to defend that vital sea and air base from the threat of Japanese invasion by both land and sea. Between offensives, Port Moresby was the constant target of Japanese air attacks, at the same time launching strikes of its own against the enemy air bases at Lae and Salamaua. It was at that time, too, that the 39th Squadron was suffering its heaviest casualties at the hands of crack Tainan Kokutai pilots such as Junichi Sasai, Toshio Ota, Saburo Sakai and Hiroyoshi Nishizawa."

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)

Post #: 42

- 12/15/2002 5:51:50 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]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.[/B][/QUOTE]

I wonder if we are really discussing the same topic? As you may well know, Sakai was flying out of Lae from April 8th till August 3rd. That's almost four months of nearly daily fighting against the Allies in PM area. You only mention two encounters between P-39s (or 400s?) and Zeroes (...3000ft above etc). Why do I see a problem here despite your research in unit histories? It should not be too hard to figure out.

BTW, I welcome any info on the subject. However, this feels like we are trying to rewrite history.

Take it easy, buddy, and keep the info coming :p

--Mikko

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)

Post #: 43

Saki, and P-39/400's - 12/15/2002 6:16:24 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

"At 0851 on the morning of June 9, 1942, 11 Martin B-26 Marauders of the 22nd Bomb Group departed Port Moresby�s Seven-Mile Airdrome to attack Lae. One plane-The Heckling Hare, piloted by 1st Lt. Walter H. Greer and carrying a congressman and future president, U.S. Navy Lt. Cmdr. Lyndon Baines Johnson, as an observer-developed generator problems, compelling its pilot to drop its bombs 80 miles short of the target and return to base. The other Marauders were intercepted by elements of the Tainan Kokutai and pursued to Cape Ward Hunt, where a Zero pilot, Petty Officer 1st Class Saburo Sakai, claimed two of the B-26s. One, The Virginian, crashed in the sea off Salamaua, killing 1st Lt. Willis G. Bench and his crew. The other, Rum Runner, was badly shot up but managed to reach Seven-Mile Airdrome before crashing, and was later made airworthy again.
At 1040, just as the Zeros were breaking off their engagement with the fleeing B-26s, one of their flights was suddenly jumped by eight P-400s of the 39th Squadron. "

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)

Post #: 44

Tainan Air Group - 12/15/2002 6:55:08 AM

msaario

Posts: 245
Joined: 5/22/2002
From: Back in E U R O P A
Status: offline

Japanese Naval Aces and Fighter Units in World War II (Izawa, Hata, Naval Institute Press 1989) pp 135-136:

In operations (only) against Port Moresby, timeframe April through July: 51 missions, 602 sorties, 246 claimed kills + 45 probables (yes, overclaimed). 20 own planes lost, including operational losses. Majority of enemy planes destroyed: P-39s.

--Mikko

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)

Post #: 45

- 12/15/2002 7:20:49 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]Mikko's points about Sakai's character are part of the problem with this discussion. Sakai was a stand up guy. It is *irrelevant* to the main point. Pilot claims of enemy ships destroyed are inherently inaccurate. I "trust" Sakai to know how to fly a Zero. He (and for that matter, Caiden) has, however, no credibility whatsoever as an *authoritative* source on *Allied* combat losses. [/B][/QUOTE]

Really? I guess this would be what the soaps call circumstatial evidence? If you "know" the guy is reputable and trustworthy, isn't what he said then - by definition, assumption or whatever - true?

The reason I brought this up is that you completely denounce the whole account as garbage yet admit the guy was stand up.

Contradiction?

Go figure.

--Mikko

PS Yes, I understand that all claims are subject to scrutiny (Fog of war in UV terms?). Sakai mentions in more than one occasion how the pilot was seen killed, the plane crashed into the sea or jungle, fell apart in the air etc. I would think it makes him an authoritative source on Allied combat losses because he was the one causing them! If Martin Caidin or Fred Saito added their own flavor or colorings in the book, well, it naturally lessens the creditability of the book. No doubt about that.

PS2 In the foreword of Samurai the authors thank (among others): Masahisa Saito, Minoru Genda, Tadachi(?) Nakajima, etc etc etc, and three US Air Force officers for their help in acquiring historical documentation... --> "some" historical research done here, too. Actually, the authors claim that they have verified all of Sakai's accounts by researching thousands of documents, interviewing numerous people from (Japanese and US) admirals to pilots to lowly base engineers and omitted many accounts because they could not verify them from either side.

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)

Post #: 46

Claims by Saburo Sakai - 12/15/2002 9:21:49 PM

entemedor

Posts: 65
Joined: 6/14/2002
From: Barcelona (Spain)
Status: offline

Some data from "Bloody Shambles: the defence of Sumatra" by Christopher Shores, Brian Cull & Yasuho Izawa:

24 Jan 1942 - Six B-17Es and two B-17Ds attack Balikpapan. Tainan Kokutai claims two destroyed (by NAP1 Kuniyoshi Tanaka) and one probable (shared by NAP1 Saburo Sakai and NAP3 Takeo Matsuda). In fact only three B-17s suffer damage, and return to Malang safely. B-17 gunners claim 5 IJN fighters, but only damage to Tainan is one plane (Matsuda's) damaged.

5 Feb '42 - Tainan Kokutai claims 3 Buffaloes destroyed and 1 probable; Sakai claims the probable and shares one of the kills with two other pilots. Foes were actually four Dutch planes from 2-VlG-IV squadron, none shot-down, two badly damaged (Ensign van der Vossen force-landed).

8 Feb '42 - Nine pilots from Tainan including Sakai intercept eight B-17Es from 7th BG, led by experienced Cpt J.L. Dufrane. In the first head-on pass the lead bomber (41-2456) fell in flames, only one of the crew bailing out. Two more frontal attacks caused Lt William J. Prichard's B-17 (41-2492) to explode, while Cpt Donald R. Strother 's 41-2471 had two engines knocked-out.
Lt Paul M. Lindsey's 41-2483 was so badly damaged by tail attacks than it entered a spin; three crewmen including co-pilot bailed out before Lindsey regained control and landed safely at Malang with a wounded on board.
Japanese claims: 2 destroyed and 3 probables, all credited jointly to the nine pilots.

18 Feb '42 - Flying in a three-pilot shotai, Sakai claims to encounter a Dutch floatplane, breaking formation long enough to send it crashing into the sea. It is actually a Fokker C-XIW floatplane, 'W-12', from the Dutch cruiser DE RUYTER, which is destroyed.

19 Feb '42 - Tainan Kokutai claims 14 destroyed and 3 probables in combat against US P-40s, three of the kills claimed by Sakai.
Actual US losses are 7 P-40 shot-down (Mahony, Lane, Hague, Kruzel, Gilmore, Blanton and Fields). They in turn claim 5 Zeros; Tainan only admits one loss (Lt Masao Asai).

28 Feb '42 - Tainan attack four Dutch Brewster Buffaloes, claiming one shot-down (13th kill for Sakai) and one probable. One Buffalo actually lost, Ensign Vonck of 1-VlG-V, bailed out.

Hope this can be of interest.

Entemedor

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)

Post #: 47

Re: Claims by Saburo Sakai - 12/16/2002 1:05:09 AM

msaario

Posts: 245
Joined: 5/22/2002
From: Back in E U R O P A
Status: offline

Interesting info, indeed. Seems to only verify that Sakai's personal claims were very close to truth! If someone was grossly overclaiming, it was the Americans!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by entemedor
[B]Some data from "Bloody Shambles: the defence of Sumatra" by Christopher Shores, Brian Cull & Yasuho Izawa:

24 Jan 1942 - Six B-17Es and two B-17Ds attack Balikpapan. Tainan Kokutai claims two destroyed (by NAP1 Kuniyoshi Tanaka) and one probable (shared by NAP1 Saburo Sakai and NAP3 Takeo Matsuda). In fact only three B-17s suffer damage, and return to Malang safely. B-17 gunners claim 5 IJN fighters, but only damage to Tainan is one plane (Matsuda's) damaged.[/B][/QUOTE]

Sakai claims one probable as the B-17 was damaged.

[B][QUOTE]5 Feb '42 - Tainan Kokutai claims 3 Buffaloes destroyed and 1 probable; Sakai claims the probable and shares one of the kills with two other pilots. Foes were actually four Dutch planes from 2-VlG-IV squadron, none shot-down, two badly damaged (Ensign van der Vossen force-landed).[/B][/QUOTE]

One plane eventually lost, one damaged. Sakai claimed 1/2 + probable... I see a pattern here.

[B][QUOTE]8 Feb '42 - Nine pilots from Tainan including Sakai intercept eight B-17Es from 7th BG, led by experienced Cpt J.L. Dufrane. In the first head-on pass the lead bomber (41-2456) fell in flames, only one of the crew bailing out. Two more frontal attacks caused Lt William J. Prichard's B-17 (41-2492) to explode, while Cpt Donald R. Strother 's 41-2471 had two engines knocked-out.
Lt Paul M. Lindsey's 41-2483 was so badly damaged by tail attacks than it entered a spin; three crewmen including co-pilot bailed out before Lindsey regained control and landed safely at Malang with a wounded on board.
Japanese claims: 2 destroyed and 3 probables, all credited jointly to the nine pilots.[/B][/QUOTE]

Two B-17s lost for two kills claimed, two damaged and claimed as three probables.

[B][QUOTE]18 Feb '42 - Flying in a three-pilot shotai, Sakai claims to encounter a Dutch floatplane, breaking formation long enough to send it crashing into the sea. It is actually a Fokker C-XIW floatplane, 'W-12', from the Dutch cruiser DE RUYTER, which is destroyed.[/B][/QUOTE]

One plane lost, one kill claimed.

[B][QUOTE]19 Feb '42 - Tainan Kokutai claims 14 destroyed and 3 probables in combat against US P-40s, three of the kills claimed by Sakai.
Actual US losses are 7 P-40 shot-down (Mahony, Lane, Hague, Kruzel, Gilmore, Blanton and Fields). They in turn claim 5 Zeros; Tainan only admits one loss (Lt Masao Asai).[/B][/QUOTE]

Sakai claimed three out of fourteen, seven were actually lost...

[B][QUOTE]28 Feb '42 - Tainan attack four Dutch Brewster Buffaloes, claiming one shot-down (13th kill for Sakai) and one probable. One Buffalo actually lost, Ensign Vonck of 1-VlG-V, bailed out.[/B][/QUOTE]

One shot down, one claimed (+ probable).

[B][QUOTE]Hope this can be of interest.

Entemedor [/B][/QUOTE]

Definitely! Thanks.

--Mikko

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)

Post #: 48

- 12/16/2002 10:23:07 PM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

Thanks Entemedor. The accounts certainly show that Sakai and his other veteran Japanese associates certainly imagined destroying many aircraft, often when they'd only damaged some, and that mistaken ID of enemy aircraft seems to have occurred often enought to show that Sakai did not always know what he was shooting at.

[QUOTE]Really? I guess this would be what the soaps call circumstatial evidence? If you "know" the guy is reputable and trustworthy, isn't what he said then - by definition, assumption or whatever - true?

The reason I brought this up is that you completely denounce the whole account as garbage yet admit the guy was stand up.

Contradiction?

Go figure.

--Mikko[/QUOTE]

No contradiction at all. Sakai was relaying his account of (a) what he remembered of combats based on (b) what he *thought* that he observed. Misidentifying enemy a/c types, overestimating numbers of a/c shot down, seeing explosions that did not really happen, fires that did not really burn, crashes that never occurred, are *par for the course* in a highly stressful, chaotic situation.

Just because Sakai thought he saw something, and truthfully recounted his memory of the event, does not mean that what he thought that he saw really *happened.*

It's a little surprising that I even have to mention this. Everbody knows that eyewtiness accounts of almost anything almost always contradict each other to a certain extent, and often include details that have no basis in reality. It does not mean that witnesses are always or completely wrong. Just that everything stipulated generally requires independent verification. In the case of pilot claims, Japan in 1942 routinely overestimated the number of Allied a/c shot down. In 1942 this was typically 2:1 or 3:1 (but they could sometimes be accurate, and sometimes wildly inaccurate). By 1944 this was routinely somewhere between 4:1 and 10:1.

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)

Post #: 49

- 12/17/2002 3:09:24 PM

msaario

Posts: 245
Joined: 5/22/2002
From: Back in E U R O P A
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl
[B]...and that mistaken ID of enemy aircraft seems to have occurred often enought to show that Sakai did not always know what he was shooting at.[/B][/QUOTE]

If you had understood what you read in the guy's posting, you'd realize that happened only once (Buffaloes vs Curtiss CB-21).

[B][QUOTE] No contradiction at all. Sakai was relaying his account of (a) what he remembered of combats based on (b) what he *thought* that he observed. Misidentifying enemy a/c types, overestimating numbers of a/c shot down, seeing explosions that did not really happen, fires that did not really burn, crashes that never occurred, are *par for the course* in a highly stressful, chaotic situation.

Just because Sakai thought he saw something, and truthfully recounted his memory of the event, does not mean that what he thought that he saw really *happened.* [/B][/QUOTE]

You talk about this as if you had been there yourself?

[B][QUOTE] It's a little surprising that I even have to mention this. Everbody knows that eyewtiness accounts of almost anything almost always contradict each other to a certain extent, and often include details that have no basis in reality. It does not mean that witnesses are always or completely wrong. Just that everything stipulated generally requires independent verification. In the case of pilot claims, Japan in 1942 routinely overestimated the number of Allied a/c shot down. In 1942 this was typically 2:1 or 3:1 (but they could sometimes be accurate, and sometimes wildly inaccurate). By 1944 this was routinely somewhere between 4:1 and 10:1. [/B][/QUOTE]

Even you admit that the Japanese claims were "sometimes" accurate. But, as we have seen many times, you know better than the guys who flew there whether they were Japanese or Americans.

Look, I also understand how different the eyewitness accounts can be. I have tried to show you Sakai's book is not the only source for this information (P-39 combat losses during Sakai's time) - I have tried to look at both sides (what little info I have access to) and also all the different sources at my disposal.

[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]

Please, substantiate your claims somehow. Make a list of the unit histories you have researched, with dates and so forth, if you can. Or, at least, present some info other than vague claims.

If you cannot do that, well, how can anyone take you seriously?

--Mikko

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)

Post #: 50

- 12/17/2002 10:09:44 PM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

[QUOTE]If you had understood what you read in the guy's posting, you'd realize that happened only once (Buffaloes vs Curtiss CB-21).[/QUOTE]

If you were half the amateur historian that you rate yourself, you'd be able to count to two instead of stopping at one. Then you'd notice that Sakai's incident with the SBD/TBF (the one that almost killed him) counts as another incident of misidentification, and you wouldn't say things quite as transparently stupid as your sentence (quoted above).

[QUOTE]Even you admit that the Japanese claims were "sometimes" accurate. But, as we have seen many times, you know better than the guys who flew there whether they were Japanese or Americans.[/QUOTE]

*Darned right* I do, as does the author of every historical treatise on WW2 air-to-air combat. Occasionally pilots of all nationalities came up with claims for a single engagement that were pretty close to reality but this was far and away the exception rather than the rule.

Enough has been written about this that I do not need to provide a source. Anyone who thinks pilot claims may be accepted at face value is so ill-informed and unread as to warrant immediate dismissal. Anyone who thinks that Japanese pilot claims were either more accurate than any other combatant (leaving aside the claims of fixed gunners on bombers, who are a separate cat in terms of verification), or that the Japanese *routinely* came within 50% of the correct talley, is just transparently and manifestly incorrect.

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)

Post #: 51

- 12/17/2002 10:19:16 PM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

Oh....What a lovely war.:)

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)

Post #: 52

- 12/18/2002 2:18:30 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]If you were half the amateur historian that you rate yourself, you'd be able to count to two instead of stopping at one. Then you'd notice that Sakai's incident with the SBD/TBF (the one that almost killed him) counts as another incident of misidentification, and you wouldn't say things quite as transparently stupid as your sentence (quoted above).[/B][/QUOTE]

You have again missed what I said, as I was only talking about entemedor's post, where this happened with Curtiss, not the whole career of Sakai... as I stated in my post. There may very well have been many other missidentifications, but I haven't talked about them. Nor have I talked about Japanese pilots overclaiming kills in general, as you have somehow imagined. Maybe I should type in Finnish so you'd understand a bit better?

Besides, I don't rate myself a historian, really. I read books and enjoy them. And play UV... Just a regular buff.

Now, let's see what the 39th Fighter Squadron Association says (http://www.humboldt1.com/~outcast26/Hist-Sumary.htm):

[I]"With the Japanese Pearl Harbor attack of December 7, 1941, the squadron was on its way to the West Coast and quickly across the Pacific to Brisbane, Australia. Reassembling their P-39s, the squadron was soon in the air over Port Moresby, New Guinea in defense of Northern Australia. [B]After two and a half months of combat the 39th had lost several planes to the Japanese Zeros[/B], but never a pilot.
At the end of July 1942 the squadron was sent back to Australia to be equipped with Lockheed's P-38 Lightning, becoming the first "Lightning" squadron in the Southwest Pacific."[/I]

Or the 40th Squadron Association (http://www.40thsquadron.org/organize.html):

[I]"On 11 July 1942 on an intercept over Port Moresby Lts. Robert W. Shick, Chester E. Trout, Garth B. Cottam, Clarence M. Wilmarth, and Philip K. Shriver scored victories. Lt. O. A. Kirtland was MIA and Lt. Ed J. Gignac was injured in a forced landing."[/I]

Still imagining there were no P-39 combat losses before Sakai's departure??

--Mikko

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)

Post #: 53

- 12/18/2002 3:03:41 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]In 1942 this was typically 2:1 or 3:1 (but they could sometimes be accurate, and sometimes wildly inaccurate). By 1944 this was routinely somewhere between 4:1 and 10:1. [/B][/QUOTE]

Generally speaking, yes, I agree with you :D :D :D

--Mikko

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)

Post #: 54

- 12/18/2002 3:08:31 AM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

[QUOTE]There may very well have been many other missidentifications, but I haven't talked about them. [/QUOTE]

Of course you haven't. They've been mentioned but you've conveniently ignored them so you can continue to pretend that Sakai never made an error. Wups, he did make an error but only once. Wups, only once in the brief list mentioned by Entemedor, but twice at least. Maybe more but as you've not considered that possibility it is, according to your reasoning, impossible. I've no more time for your semantic gamesmanship.

With respect to my assertion that Sakai is in no way a credible source of information for Allied a/c losses, even in the engagements in which he participated, I'm right, and you're not.

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)

Post #: 55

- 12/18/2002 3:19:10 AM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

8th Pursuit Group:

http://home.st.net.au/~dunn/8pursuit.htm

40th Sqn of the 35th Group:

http://www.40thsquadron.org/organize.html

To answer the question of whether or when Sakai fought a P39 or may have shot one down the relevant histories would be of the 8th Group (35, 36, 80 sqn) and the 35th Group (39th, 40th and 41 sqn). From the brief TROM given in the 8ths web site, Sakai probably did not fight the 8th.

If I can find an official unit history or some relevant historical documents it will help. These web sites are both vague and inconsistent.

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)

Post #: 56

- 12/18/2002 3:37:49 AM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

By the way, *this*:

[QUOTE]On 11 July 1942 on an intercept over Port Moresby Lts. Robert W. Shick, Chester E. Trout, Garth B. Cottam, Clarence M. Wilmarth, and Philip K. Shriver scored victories. Lt. O. A. Kirtland was MIA and Lt. Ed J. Gignac was injured in a forced landing. Late in July the squadron rotated back to Antil Plains to re-coup and re-arm. On 21 Nov the 40th moved to Port Moresby and based at Berry Field (12 mile). Capt. Malcolm A. Moore was the commander. The 40th received the Presidential Unit Citation for its role in aerial support for the Papuan Campaign.[/QUOTE]

Does not mention the type of a/c that the 40th engaged, or the cause of the "forced landing" of Gignac's a/c. For all we know based on the vague evidence presented here, his engine malf'ed, and that no Zekes were encountered that day. If this is one of the days that Sakai claimed shooting down three enemy planes, he'd be off by at least 300%.

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)

Post #: 57

P-39s vs Zeros - 12/18/2002 7:36:51 AM

entemedor

Posts: 65
Joined: 6/14/2002
From: Barcelona (Spain)
Status: offline

mdiehl and msaario,
I have found some mention of P-39s vs Zeros early combats, let me type it here; but please keep cool, both obviously have done a lot of research, but it's difficult to agree on every point.

From 'Fifth Air Force story' by Kenn C. Rust, ISBN 911852-75-1, page 5:

'The 35th and 36th Squadrons of the 8th Group flew their first mission on 30 April (1942), sending 13 planes to strafe Lae and Salamaua. Three Zeros were claimed shot down, but four P-39s were lost. By the end of May the two squadrons lost 20 P-39s in combat, eight in forced landings and three destroyed on the ground.
The 39th and 40th squadrons of the 35th Group flew their first P-400 mission on 2 June. By 20th July, the 40th had lost 13 pilots in action while the 39th had ten pilots bail out, all of whom survived. The 41st squadron entered combat in July at Moresby.'

From 'Japanese naval aces and fighter units' by Ikuhiko Hata and Yasuho Izawa, ISBN 1-85310-138-9, page 135:

'Following its move to Rabaul, the Tainan air group was dispatched to the forward air base at Lae. Starting 17 April... the group started air battles over Eastern New Guinea. Against Port Moresby alone, during the four-month period from April through July a cumulative total of fifty-one missions were carried out; the total number of aircraft sorties was 602. Battle results, counting only aircraft shot down, were 246 (including 45 probables). If battle results of attacks on Horn Island, Lae intercept battles, Buna patrols and other engagements are added, the total comes to about 300 enemy aircraft downed. On our side damage was limited to 20 aircraft destroyed. The majority of downed enemy aircraft were American and Australian fighters, primarily P-39s. In many instances they were lured into spiral battles (senkai sento), a strong speciality of the Zero.'

The Appendix lists 18 pilots of Tainan kokutai killed over New Guinea between April and July 1942. Either almost every loss ended with the death of its pilot, or Japanese losses should have been higher than the 20 mentioned in the main text (surely there should have been also some force-landed planes).

It seems P-39s and Zeros clashed several times over New Guinea between April and July 1942; but it is also obvious that Japanese claims were way too high (some 300 claims). US losses appear to have been less than 50; Australian losses should also be added of course.

Cheers,

Entemedor

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)

Post #: 58

- 12/18/2002 11:19:52 AM

TIMJOT

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline

Entemedor

Great information. Now can Mdiehl concede that the probility is high that Sakai did shoot down a p-39 or at least had the opportunity to and can massario concede that pilot kill claims are generally inaccurate.

Enemedor, I am interested in the book you site "A Bloody Shambles". Do you recomend it and where did you get it?

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)

Post #: 59

- 12/18/2002 9:40:35 PM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

Very interesting. And yet the link that I just posted to 8th Group does not put the 35th and 36th Squadrons in New Guinea until June (well, 30 April) and July.

So, Sakai may have encountered a P39, and his talley may have been overstated by 500%. That'd give him as few as 12 victories over the course of the war. And I suppose I shall revise my early war Japanese error rate to 6:1.

I believe the "Japanese Aces" account of 300 a/c shot down as much as I believe the guy in the checked suit telling me that the car's a bargain because it's only been in one flood.

I wonder how many "victories" "Aces" gives the Japanese for the Horn Island raid? The correct talley should be "none." The following link says the Japanese were credited with eight "confirmed" kills. For their part, the Allies claimed four but only badly damaged two (allegedly verified by Japanese documents). See:

http://home.st.net.au/~dunn/horn01.htm

Note the details. Zero seen shot down "in flames." Didn't happen. Eight P40s "confirmed" kills. Absolutely solidly 100% verified by Japanese intel and credited to the pilots. Didn't happen.

(in reply to Ross Moorhouse)

Post #: 60