PDA

View Full Version : Will we get the Flying Tigers??



ImpStarDuece
04-22-2004, 05:22 AM
Found this at a WW2 aviation website (http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/Shilling.html) and it really stirred my interest in the Flying Tigers

Seems to be written by an ex member of the AVG, and if his account is faithful to the truth, these guys kicked some serious a$$ in the Pacific following Pearl.

Bit of an extract:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> How successful was the undercover mission?

From the time the American Volunteer Group first fought the Japanese on December 20, 1941, until deactivation on July 4, 1942, the A.V.G. racked up a kill ratio never equaled.
Chennault's small group of volunteers destroyed 297 Japanese aircraft, which were confirmed by British and Chinese Intelligence and accomplished within a seven-month period.

Incredulously, verbal reports by the Japanese pilots claimed they shot down 544 AVG planes. Perhaps this is why their large losses were acceptable to them.

As a result of Japan's sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States lost most of its fleet. Our troops on Guam and Wake had surrendered. The Philippines succumbed to a ruthless enemy. Ten-thousand American POW's died during the Bataan death march, as a result of the inhumane treatment they received.

The British had lost Singapore, and Hong Kong. The Japanese navy had sunk Britons battleships Repulse, and Prince of Wales off the Malayan Peninsular.

American's Flying Tigers were shooting Japan's war planes out of the sky in large numbers. Even though the Flying Tigers were greatly outnumbered at times as much as twenty to one, we were able to inflict massive casualties on Japan's Air Force at an incredible rate of more than 50 Japanese killed for each American lost.

During this somber period in our history, the only success the allies were having was with this small group of Americans fighting under Claire Lee Chennault.

To accomplish this, the Flying Tigers lost 4 pilots in aerial combat, seven killed by ground fire as a result of strafing missions, three became prisoners of war, 11 were killed in accidents unrelated to enemy action, 3 men succumbed to injuries suffered as a result of Japanese bombing raids, and one missing in action presumed dead.

Even today Daniel Ford still claims that the AVG Flying Tigers was a mercenary group and refuses to believe we were actually on an undercover mission. Therefore the cover for this mission must have been quite convincing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Makes me hope that we get a really good China map first thing out the gate with PF. Much better than dogfighting in Wildcats, to my mind.

"There's no such thing as gravity, the earth sucks!"

ImpStarDuece
04-22-2004, 05:22 AM
Found this at a WW2 aviation website (http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/Shilling.html) and it really stirred my interest in the Flying Tigers

Seems to be written by an ex member of the AVG, and if his account is faithful to the truth, these guys kicked some serious a$$ in the Pacific following Pearl.

Bit of an extract:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> How successful was the undercover mission?

From the time the American Volunteer Group first fought the Japanese on December 20, 1941, until deactivation on July 4, 1942, the A.V.G. racked up a kill ratio never equaled.
Chennault's small group of volunteers destroyed 297 Japanese aircraft, which were confirmed by British and Chinese Intelligence and accomplished within a seven-month period.

Incredulously, verbal reports by the Japanese pilots claimed they shot down 544 AVG planes. Perhaps this is why their large losses were acceptable to them.

As a result of Japan's sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States lost most of its fleet. Our troops on Guam and Wake had surrendered. The Philippines succumbed to a ruthless enemy. Ten-thousand American POW's died during the Bataan death march, as a result of the inhumane treatment they received.

The British had lost Singapore, and Hong Kong. The Japanese navy had sunk Britons battleships Repulse, and Prince of Wales off the Malayan Peninsular.

American's Flying Tigers were shooting Japan's war planes out of the sky in large numbers. Even though the Flying Tigers were greatly outnumbered at times as much as twenty to one, we were able to inflict massive casualties on Japan's Air Force at an incredible rate of more than 50 Japanese killed for each American lost.

During this somber period in our history, the only success the allies were having was with this small group of Americans fighting under Claire Lee Chennault.

To accomplish this, the Flying Tigers lost 4 pilots in aerial combat, seven killed by ground fire as a result of strafing missions, three became prisoners of war, 11 were killed in accidents unrelated to enemy action, 3 men succumbed to injuries suffered as a result of Japanese bombing raids, and one missing in action presumed dead.

Even today Daniel Ford still claims that the AVG Flying Tigers was a mercenary group and refuses to believe we were actually on an undercover mission. Therefore the cover for this mission must have been quite convincing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Makes me hope that we get a really good China map first thing out the gate with PF. Much better than dogfighting in Wildcats, to my mind.

"There's no such thing as gravity, the earth sucks!"

Chuck_Older
04-22-2004, 10:30 AM
I really hope so too (my username is an AVG pilot's name, after all) http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

But the AVG was technically in the CBI (China-Burma-India) theatre, not the Pacific theatre.

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

VF-2_John_Banks
04-22-2004, 10:36 AM
You should read the book "Flying Tigers" by Daniel Ford. It's the best book about that AVG, which is available and it is pretty thick! It is very objective and only relates on facts. Daniel Ford also sheds some light on their famous kill ratio, which happens to be completely unrealistic and overrated. Taking all the accounts of the AVG, pilot reports and even Japanese data (which is very rare cause the Japanese never recorded their stuff in the way, the Americans did, so info from their side is very rare) as a basis (after WW2), it is clear that a realistic kill ratio isn't even 50% of what the AVG stated during WW2. Nevertheless was the AVG the top scoring squad of the USA by the time of June 1942. It wasn't an official US Squad, which was a real blow in the face for the American military, cause a mercenary outfit had a much better combat account than any other official US squad. That was the main reason why the AVG was put out of commission and some high Brass officers wanted to see them become a part of the regular troops ASAP. The AVG was pissed that Chennault accepted his new commission in the AAF with a higher rank. The rest of the bunch had two options, either accept a transition into the AAF or any other official part of the military (aviation wise), or they would have to get back to the US on their own, wheras the Departement of the War would make sure, that they would be called up again for military service as enlisted personell. Very nice heh? Interesting story. The AVG must have been a real pain in the **** for the high brass upstairs.

The book is awesome! It contains everything you wanna know about the AVG.

Btw, one of the claims of the AVG is, that they were the first American unit to beat the A6M2 Zero. Matter of fact, they never saw one, nor did they ever put bullets into a Zero! But they didn't know till after the end of the war. There was even once a pilot, who claimed that he saw a BF-109(!) over Burma and that he thought the Japs would fly Kraut planes for trials or something like that. Weird heh.

Get the book! Btw Daniel Fors isn't the only one who sais, that they were mercenaries. It wasn't a covered operation, as i wrote above. The US wanted to "get rid" of them ASAP. A regular commissioned pilot doesn't get paid for a kill. He gets is "normal" pay like any other soldier. This "bounty hunter rewards" of 500$ for each kill is what made them to mercenaries. Soldiers fight to protect their country from the enemy, not for money. The reason why most pilots joined the AVG are very questionable as well. They joined to get some "fun" or "adventure" far east. Many went there for the money. That's not very honorable and i bet pilots like Marion Carl and Butch O'Hare where completely different from guys like Pappy or other "drunken bums" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Penguin_PFF
04-22-2004, 12:34 PM
http://yarchive.net/mil/ford_book.html

I'll pass.

heywooood
04-22-2004, 01:27 PM
I have read Daniel Fords' book also..

And it IS a really good - comprehensive telling of the Flying Tigers and of Claire Chennaults' story.

I highly recommend it and you can draw your own conclusions. The pilot accounts from their letters and logs is terrific stuff.

LEXX_Luthor
04-22-2004, 01:34 PM
Releace of those 100 P~40s had to be officially authorized by President Roosevelt before they could get their P~40s. AVG was the best Roosevelt could come up with in the "anti~war" era, and AVG was the first step into getting USA into the WAR. The AVG was the first US Air Force, and the best US Air Force that's ever been...of course, they trained on Soviet supplied Chinese I~153 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif



__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

ZG77_Lignite
04-22-2004, 01:39 PM
I too find the early AVG stuff to be fascinating history.

I agree with Penguin on the Daniel Ford stuff, as I understand it that guy seems more the 'novelist' type and not a very good historian or journalist (imho).

I found the book by Charles R Bond (Charlie Bond) to be an excellent account through his diary entries. His accounts jive pretty well with most of the rest of the agreed upon AVG history, and I found it all very interesting. Chennault's book was also fairly good, though I liked it less.

As an insteresting side note the parallels between the Finnish and the AVG tactis/strategies/results show a real advancement in aerial warfare over much of the 'conventional wisdom' of the period, imho the real beginning of modern air combat (though the Luftwaffe were developing modern strategies at the time too).

mike_espo
04-22-2004, 02:46 PM
I hope we get the Ki 27 nate. See if Claire's BZ tactics will work against it.

http://avia.russian.ee/pictures/japan/nakajima_ki-27.jpg

[This message was edited by mike_espo on Thu April 22 2004 at 05:00 PM.]

Giganoni
04-22-2004, 04:52 PM
I've read a lot of general WWII books by scholars that kind of see Chenault as, arrogant and rather stupid. For instance, he had a habit of having his airfields um, indefensible and his superior Stillwell kept warning him that the Japanese could overrun his position any time they felt like it. Which they did, in 44. Chenault also said he could defeat Japan with 147 Aircraft..hehe, but I guess this didn't include the Japanese army.

Anyways not doubting the bravery and skill of the AVG FT, just that their leader may have lacked some common sense at one point or another. Btw the tiger skins are in AEP, should be rather easy to make a campaign yourself right now if you wanted.

Chuck_Older
04-22-2004, 04:56 PM
Right skins, wrong planes, unless you want CACW P-40s marked similarly to the AVG's http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

mike_espo
04-22-2004, 05:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Right skins, wrong planes, unless you want CACW P-40s marked similarly to the AVG's http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Also, wrong japanese planeset. The AVG never faced the zero. Only JAAF. The Ki 27 nate for one. Also the Ki 43. AVG was absorbed by 5th AF in late 42

"Fatte vede che ridemo!"http://www.flying-tigers.net/caccia%20WW%20II/g50.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
04-22-2004, 06:08 PM
LOL the "arrogant and rather stupid" Germans got ran off their airfields by T~34s all the time too even after they were warned of their approach. Happens to everybody, from time to time. Chennault's brilliance was in forming the million man/manette volunteer ground observers that gave P~40s coverage equal to radar. This was the Secret to AVG success. Not many internet dogfighters know about ground observers, or need to worry about them in the dogfight servers.


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Timex62
04-22-2004, 06:41 PM
You're on the money there Lexx. Many Chinese paid with their lives for participating in that alert system. It was beautiful in it's simplicity and effectiveness. It was also because of the civilians that the AVG claims are very much supported. Remember that most of the air battles the Tigers say where defensive and therefore close to base. As for them never seeing a Zero, the AVG did make some raids over coastal ports and the IJN did send pilots to china to gain experience so there is that possibility. Though in truth Ki-27s (early on), Ki-43s, and even Ki-44s where the main opponents. (This info my not be spot on, but it's what I and my professor of military airpower at the university I attended spent a lot of time discussing).

Close to the Edge

heywooood
04-22-2004, 07:34 PM
The Chinese called it "the spider in his web"

Very much like Britains "chain home" only without radar, Chennault relied on the human eyes and ears of these advance listening posts.

The reason was the same - to have his fighters up at altitude before the Japanese bombers arrived.

Giganoni
04-23-2004, 04:18 AM
Navy planes had been flying in China and Southern China since 1937 at least. I also do not consider Chenault brilliant. In the larger scheme of things he was ingsignificant, who supported a similarly idiotic dictator (Chang kai shek) who considered fighting his own people more important rather than the Japanese and was therefore, of little help to America especially later in the war when he was not needed for success.

LEXX_Luthor
04-23-2004, 07:25 AM
Excellent point there about Chiang. One of his anti~communist warlords had to kidnap Chiang and got the other warlords to force Chiang to join with the Communists to fight the Japanese. Chiang considered the Japanese as "allies" of a sort.

Also, the Soviets and even Chinese used Chinese ground observers since 1937 to great effect too. One trick was when the Japs come bomb the airfields the Chinese SB bomber pilots would take off and fly 20km away and putt putt around and come back when all was over. They always had a good 20 minute warning at least. Sometimes the pilots would get bored and come back too early, before the Japanese planes left for home, then BAM lol.

Timex62
04-23-2004, 03:06 PM
Brilliant or not, Chennault had to deal with the politics of the time. It was his tactical knowlege that gave the AVG their success. Tactics he continually tried to present in the USA before the war. I have always wondered about the origins of the Thatch Weave. There is a striking resemblance...

Close to the Edge

heywooood
04-23-2004, 03:24 PM
Chennault was an early proponent of the BnZ..

Told his pilots to attain an altitude advantage then dive thru the enemy formations firing on a targeted aircraft then pull up and aroud and go again. He was after them to attack in two's whenever possible for max. firepower..

He did alright.

PlaneEater
04-23-2004, 05:19 PM
Daniel Ford is a lying, plagarizing, no-research hack.

Want proof? Ask any of the AVG pilots that were actually there. Check their log books, check their diarys, take a look into the USAAC files that got absorbed when the 23rd FG took over the AVG...

What he didn't make up, he copied. As Oleg once said, close that book and never open it again.

mike_espo
04-23-2004, 08:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PlaneEater:
Daniel Ford is a lying, plagarizing, no-research hack.

Want proof? Ask any of the AVG pilots that were actually there. Check their log books, check their diarys, take a look into the USAAC files that got absorbed when the 23rd FG took over the AVG...

What he didn't make up, he copied. As Oleg once said, close that book and never open it again.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have to qualify this statement more. Give references to the contrary. And Oleg Maddox is certainly not an expert in aviation history.

"Fatte vede che ridemo!"http://www.flying-tigers.net/caccia%20WW%20II/g50.jpg

[This message was edited by mike_espo on Fri April 23 2004 at 08:06 PM.]

heywooood
04-23-2004, 08:49 PM
geez planeater.. no more coffee for you either.

meh.. say what you like - I have read several accounts of the Flying Tigers.. hell I know a Flying Tiger pilot.. you take it all with a big grain of salt. Everybody embellishes, everyone exaggerates. Call Daniel Ford a liar?... whatever,pal.

PlaneEater
04-24-2004, 12:30 AM
Erik Shilling (AVG pilot) rips Dan Ford a new one (http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&threadm=Forum.897316116.8313.schapiro%40N5139.als. ameritech.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dgroup:rec.aviation.military%2Binsubje ct:responce%2Binsubject:flying%2Binsubject:tiger%2 6hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26safe%3Doff%26as_drrb%3Db%26as_mind%3D8%26as_mi nm%3D6%26as_miny%3D1998%26as_maxd%3D8%26as_maxm%3D 6%26as_maxy%3D1998%26selm%3DForum.897316116.8313.s chapiro%2540N5139.als.ameritech.com%26rnum%3D1)

necrobaron
04-24-2004, 12:47 AM
So just what kind of exaggerations and untruths is Ford supposedly spouting?

"Not all who wander are lost."

Penguin_PFF
04-24-2004, 12:58 AM
http://yarchive.net/mil/ford_book.html

necrobaron
04-24-2004, 02:30 AM
Quite an interesting read, although I found the format hard to follow. In any case, I first thought Shilling was just being bitter,petty and nit-picking,but as I continued to read it seems obvious that Ford is disreputable. Mr. Howard's letter to the Smithsonian publisher convinced me of that. One thing that confused me was this,regarding the P-36. Shilling says that:

A 12 piston radial engine, wow. Never heard of one.
A 12 piston radial engine was never built. (nor a 12 Cylinder radial).
All radial's have to be of an odd number of cylinders.
Any even numbered radial had to be a twin row or in the case of the
28 cylinder P&W, it had 4 rows of 7 cylinders. (NOT PISTONS)
snip

Always a odd number cyl.

But then he goes on to say:

Not true, nor was the Allison an "in line" engine. To be
specific, the P-36's had two types of engines. The R-1830 a 14 cyl
twin row 1200 hp radial, and the R-1820 a 9 cyl single row 1000 hp
engine. The radial was replace by a "V 12," of 1040 H/P, and it was
not an "in line" engine.

So was a "even" cylinder radial engine ever built or not? He says both.

"Not all who wander are lost."

PlaneEater
04-24-2004, 02:35 AM
Some radial engines were built in "twin row" configurations, where you had two rings of an odd-number total of cylinders.

The 14-cyl radial he mentioned was two rows of 7 cylinders.

necrobaron
04-24-2004, 02:48 AM
Ah,I see what you mean. So Ford was claiming there were single row engines of an even number? I'm certainly no expert on aviation engines,as you might can tell. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

EDIT:And why were they never an even number?

"Not all who wander are lost."

AVSPappy
04-25-2004, 11:05 PM
I have in my possession a copy "The Flying Tigers" written by Russell Whelan.
The copy was published in 1943 and is an original edition as such.
It says they were officially credited with destruction of 286 planes with a bounty of $500 each paid per plane. All this for the loss of eight pilots in combat, two lost on the grougnd including a crew chief and nine others in training accidents and ferrying aircraft
I intend to now read this given the new enthusiasm in the concept and hopefully this is an excellent reference.

ImpStarDuece
04-26-2004, 12:20 AM
Thanks for all the posts and info guys, looks like i've stirred up a bit of a hornets nest here.

Was wondering if there are any truly objective sources, say a book written by a British or Canadian writer, so i can get a more objective look into the unit and its history.

The authors mentioned here seem to get pretty rialled up about the subject and i was thinking that some impartiality could be just the thing to help me form my own picture of the unit.

Ive got a degree in history so i know more that a bit about authors pushing their own barrow at the expense of the truth, or the truth as they see it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif. After all its really dependent on perspective as much as actuality.

"There's no such thing as gravity, the earth sucks!"


Edited for spelling. What use was uni anyway?

PlaneEater
04-26-2004, 01:17 AM
Necrobaron: Yeah, that's what Ford was claiming. Good example of how ignorant he is, despite his efforts to not let it on.

Dunno why single row radials weren't made with an even number. I'm sure there's a pretty good mechanical or engineering reason. I'll ask my grandpa next time I talk to him--he might know.

Blackdog5555
04-26-2004, 03:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VF-2_John_Banks:
You should read the book "Flying Tigers" by Daniel Ford. It's the best book about that AVG, which is available and it is pretty thick! It is very objective and only relates on facts. Daniel Ford also sheds some light on their famous kill ratio, which happens to be completely unrealistic and overrated. Taking all the accounts of the AVG, pilot reports and even Japanese data (which is very rare cause the Japanese never recorded their stuff in the way, the Americans did, so info from their side is very rare) as a basis (after WW2), it is clear that a realistic kill ratio isn't even 50% of what the AVG stated during WW2. Nevertheless was the AVG the top scoring squad of the USA by the time of June 1942. It wasn't an official US Squad, which was a real blow in the face for the American military, cause a mercenary outfit had a much better combat account than any other official US squad. That was the main reason why the AVG was put out of commission and some high Brass officers wanted to see them become a part of the regular troops ASAP. The AVG was pissed that Chennault accepted his new commission in the AAF with a higher rank. The rest of the bunch had two options, either accept a transition into the AAF or any other official part of the military (aviation wise), or they would have to get back to the US on their own, wheras the Departement of the War would make sure, that they would be called up again for military service as enlisted personell. Very nice heh? Interesting story. The AVG must have been a real pain in the **** for the high brass upstairs.

The book is awesome! It contains everything you wanna know about the AVG.

Btw, one of the claims of the AVG is, that they were the first American unit to beat the A6M2 Zero. Matter of fact, they never saw one, nor did they ever put bullets into a Zero! But they didn't know till after the end of the war. There was even once a pilot, who claimed that he saw a BF-109(!) over Burma and that he thought the Japs would fly Kraut planes for trials or something like that. Weird heh.

Get the book! Btw Daniel Fors isn't the only one who sais, that they were mercenaries. It wasn't a covered operation, as i wrote above. The US wanted to "get rid" of them ASAP. A regular commissioned pilot doesn't get paid for a kill. He gets is "normal" pay like any other soldier. This "bounty hunter rewards" of 500$ for each kill is what made them to mercenaries. Soldiers fight to protect their country from the enemy, not for money. The reason why most pilots joined the AVG are very questionable as well. They joined to get some "fun" or "adventure" far east. Many went there for the money. That's not very honorable and i bet pilots like Marion Carl and Butch O'Hare where completely different from guys like Pappy or other "drunken bums" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont what country you come from Clyde but you should rethink your blabber before you pop off. When some cyber weinee's like you criticizes Medal of Honor Heros like Pappy or the AVGs you should go back to to downloading porn instead of commenting in this forum. these guys were paid about 450 bucks a month to fly combat missions against the Japanese in crap P40bs. The Brits receieved the late models. And yes, everyone know, except you, that this was actually a US secret ops program. To help stop the horrors that were occuring in the region. And yes, $500 lousey bucks for a confirmed kill. you piss_ant. I'd like to see you risk your life for $500 bucks. You seem to know alot about what happened there for a guy who was actually never there. WTF do you know.

PlaneEater
04-26-2004, 04:37 AM
Whoaaa, whoaaaaa... Blackdog, down, boy.

Just because he's ignorant doesn't mean you should fight him down at his level...

k5054
04-26-2004, 04:41 AM
Even number radials, no need to ask your Grampa.

Aero-engines are four stroke, that means they have one firing stroke in two turns. If you want each cyl to fire one after the other in turn, then next time round none fire, they are all going thru exhasut and induction. That wouldn't be good, a whole cycle with no energy from firing cylinders. So we fire every other cylinder. We need an odd number because on that way we go through all the cyls in two turns, if it was even half would never fire at all ( given a single throw crank ). Two stroke radials may have even numbers, as may single rows with a two throw crank or two rows with a single throw. Its almost unknown though.
And if Dan Ford makes a human error over this ( and many writers call a V-12 inline), that does not affect what he writes about other things.
All fighter units over-claim, that's the way things are, he tried to find out the Japanese losses and was vilified by AVG vets for calling them liars. The truth probably is somewhere in between.

ELEM
04-26-2004, 04:42 AM
Answers to questions about radial engines, cylinder numbers, firing order etc. here:-

http://www.radialengines.com/faq.asp#Q2

I wouldn't join any club that would have ME as member!

http://img35.photobucket.com/albums/v107/Elem_Klimov/I-16_desktop.jpg

VF-2_John_Banks
04-26-2004, 09:27 AM
Blackdog, what the hell is wrong with you? Are you lacking some sleep or so? And what the hell has my origin to do with Ford's book? What i wrote are not my claims. And it is pretty obvious that they were mercenaries. Regular pilots or soldiers never got a bounty for a kill..that's a fact.

quote:
"you piss_ant."

Lol, that pretty much shows us, in what kinda mental state you are. To start a discussion with a guy like you, is like discussing the meaning of life with a five year old.


quote:
"WTF do you know."

You should ask that to yourself!


quote:
"I dont what country you come from Clyde....."

Since when do you know my name boy?

VF-2_John_Banks
04-26-2004, 09:29 AM
My level PlaneEater? Are you serious? Did i start this childish name calling or what?

Penguin_PFF
04-26-2004, 11:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
WTF do you know.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And the Ugly American Award for this week goes to... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Ive got a degree in history so i know more that a bit about authors pushing their own barrow at the expense of the truth, or the truth as they see it . After all its really dependent on perspective as much as actuality.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well said. Historians are Just People, like everyone else, with their own biases, hangups, foci (pl. of focus?), and varying degrees of integrity. Just because it's on paper and bound doesn't mean it comes from Authority with a capital A. Also, Ford is apparently the main source of the idea that the AVG never encountered Zeroes, which people have been throwing around a lot here. Pros and cons of that whole issue are discussed in the collection of threads I linked to. I, in turn, found that link while looking for unrelated information on Japanese camouflage, of all things.

It's interesting to see how a "professional" Gospel Source reacts in the face of something he doesn't like or can't confirm one way or the other. That's a poor attitude for him to have, never mind the fact that he seems to lack tact. I know Academia can be brutal, but come on, you don't exchange insults with somebody who could be a great source of information.

VF-2_John_Banks
04-26-2004, 01:26 PM
I think the reason why many people believe, that they never faced the Zero, is based on Japanese accounts. Although rare, they seem to show, that no Zeros operated in that area, during the time the AVG flew there. But who can confirm that or even the contrary? Ford claims, that they faced the Hayabusa, which almost looked like a Zero, except for 2 minor details. There is a picture of it in the book and i think it isn't impossible to believe, that in the heat of battle, they might have though, they actually saw a Zero, although it was a Haybusa. There were much "worse" plane ID in the ETO. P-47 Thunderbolts, which were shot down by FF, cause American pilots thought they saw a FW-190, although these planes doesn't have much in common, except for the radial engine layout.

I don't take that "Zero Theory" by Ford for granted, but it's not impossible either and that wouldn't even deny the success of the AVG. They still shot down't a large ammount of planes..not as much as has been claimed (but claiming too many kills wasn't uncommon in WW2, that happened on all sides!) but still a very impressive number. Zero or Hayabusa, the AVG kicked their a$ses.

mike_espo
04-26-2004, 02:54 PM
I don't see what the big deal is. It is clear the zero never fought the AVG. In early 1942, zeros were deployed in the Dutch East Indies, not in Burma. This is confirmed by a number of sources. CBI was the responsibility of the JAAF. I am sure the mistake was an honest one as the Zero and ki-43 do look very similar. As for bias. I don't think so. The Americans were handed a bunch of very embarrasing defeats at the hands of the Japanese since Pearl Harbor, I am sure the propaganda ministries did their best to enhance the deeds of the AVG. Even though, they still did ring up a very respectable victory tally against the JAAF, mostly due to Claire Chennault's tactics.

I read Ford's book a few years back. Except for the writing style, I found it most informative.

"Fatte vede che ridemo!"http://www.flying-tigers.net/caccia%20WW%20II/g50.jpg

necrobaron
04-26-2004, 04:07 PM
Thanks Elem,K5054,and PlaneEater for the clarification. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

"Not all who wander are lost."

ImpStarDuece
04-26-2004, 10:29 PM
On the issue of whether the AVG fought and/or dominated the zero things are rather iffy.

However when flying at 300+ mph target identification is very difficult. For example; in the ETO US 8th AF pilots routinely mistook Me 410's for Ju-88's despite the huge size difference. They even claimed bf-110's when 210/410's were shot down, using the name of the older Messershmidt as a generic term for all twins occasionally.
British pilots shot down one of the early production Typhoons because they thought it was a Fw-190.

So positive target identification may be impossible to state AT ALL. I'm not supporting either side on this, i really have yet to form an opinion but i would put foward that when B'n'Zing JApanese radials of similar size, length and wing position positive id is sketchy at best.

"There's no such thing as gravity, the earth sucks!"

mike_espo
04-27-2004, 08:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
On the issue of whether the AVG fought and/or dominated the zero things are rather iffy.

However when flying at 300+ mph target identification is very difficult. For example; in the ETO US 8th AF pilots routinely mistook Me 410's for Ju-88's despite the huge size difference. They even claimed bf-110's when 210/410's were shot down, using the name of the older Messershmidt as a generic term for all twins occasionally.
British pilots shot down one of the early production Typhoons because they thought it was a Fw-190.

So positive target identification may be impossible to state AT ALL. I'm not supporting either side on this, i really have yet to form an opinion but i would put foward that when B'n'Zing JApanese radials of similar size, length and wing position positive id is sketchy at best.

"There's no such thing as gravity, the earth sucks!"

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This has nothing to do with aircraft ID. The Japanese navy did not fight in Burma. Simple as that. The nearest japanese Zero fighters at that time were in Bali which is 1500 miles away! They were busy fighting the Dutch, providing fighter cover for the conquest of the Dutch East indies. One must remember, there were only a few hundred Zero fighters at this time. Most were deployed on carriers. The only land deployment in early 1940 was to Timor, Bali. Again, the JAAF had responsibility for air superiority in Burma, and Western China.

"Fatte vede che ridemo!"http://www.flying-tigers.net/caccia%20WW%20II/g50.jpg

[This message was edited by mike_espo on Tue April 27 2004 at 07:13 AM.]

VF-2_John_Banks
04-27-2004, 09:15 AM
Written by ImpStarDeuce:

----------------
"On the issue of whether the AVG fought and/or dominated the zero things are rather iffy.

However when flying at 300+ mph target identification is very difficult. For example; in the ETO US 8th AF pilots routinely mistook Me 410's for Ju-88's despite the huge size difference. They even claimed bf-110's when 210/410's were shot down, using the name of the older Messershmidt as a generic term for all twins occasionally.
British pilots shot down one of the early production Typhoons because they thought it was a Fw-190.

So positive target identification may be impossible to state AT ALL. I'm not supporting either side on this, i really have yet to form an opinion but i would put foward that when B'n'Zing JApanese radials of similar size, length and wing position positive id is sketchy at best."
-----------------

That's exactly my point ImpStarDeuce!