Gunner kills

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by JoeB

On 'honest' it should IMO go without saying that overclaiming had little to do with honestly; discussions shouldn't get sidetracked on that, and most of all claims should not be taken at face value on the belief that it's somehow disrespecting the claimants to try to find out what really happened. There were surely (and demonstrably in cases) individuals who deliberately overstated their achievements, that's part of the human condition. But it's pretty clear that the virtually across the board phenomenon of overclaiming was due to limitations in human perception under stress, not about honesty.

Joe

So Joe, with all that said, which gunner listed do you want to take a kill or two away from? Art Benko who was credited with 9 kills and eventually became MIA or maybe the Famous "Johnny Zero" who had a half of dozen witnesses verify that he shot down 5 aircraft? Or maybe you could pick out one or two Korean war vets who flew B-29s and pluck away the greatest achievement an enlisted airman could be credited for. There is no doubt there were overclaims in ww2 and Korea and I think its clear that all of us like to see accuracy achieved, but where do you draw the line? I've met some of these gunners who flew in Korea, would you go up to them and question their "kill?"

[renrich]

Good post Joe and good analysis. I would not question anyone's "kills" because if they were "there" that is plenty of reason to respect them. I knew a fellow here in CO who was a flight engineer and top turrent gunner on a Marauder in WW2 and he was quite a shooter and hunter. Questioned him about defending a B26 with MGs and he said it was really difficult to hit anything and he wasn't sure if he ever shot anything down. I expect their main goal was to upset the fighter pilots so they could not aim properly.

[JoeB]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

So Joe, with all that said, which gunner listed do you want to take a kill or two away from? Art Benko who was credited with 9 kills and eventually became MIA or maybe the Famous "Johnny Zero" who had a half of dozen witnesses verify that he shot down 5 aircraft? Or maybe you could pick out one or two Korean war vets who flew B-29s and pluck away the greatest achievement an enlisted airman could be credited for. There is no doubt there were overclaims in ww2 and Korea and I think its clear that all of us like to see accuracy achieved, but where do you draw the line? I've met some of these gunners who flew in Korea, would you go up to them and question their "kill?"

I've interviewed a number of B-29 crewmen from Korea, as well as many fighter pilots. Some I've talked to have volunteered their lack of certainty about what they or others were credited with (aerial victories, real effectiveness of their bombing, etc). They mentioned it first, otherwise it wasn't discussed. When conversing with a stranger, particularly older, you give them information pertinent to them only if they bring it up first. That's politeness, it doesn't change what the information is. I was talking about what the information is, clearly because that's what a forum is for or it's useless. So your point about 'what would I say to them?' is an irrelevant tangent, frankly. As is the question about changing personal official credits, I never suggested that; I specifically said it's not generally possible to determine who shot down who individually. You're reading selectively, as you often do.

Let's get back to the point. Renrich gave his estimate of that bomber gunner credits 10-25% accurate, I said yes that's probably about right for US in WWII, and gave what I found specifically for Korea. It's lower to much lower than contemporary fighter claim accuracy, so bomber gunner claims should be viewed differently. If you have contrary evidence, please present it.

It's probably best to consider the issue from the other direction: sometimes somebody's specific claim is clearly verified as a loss in opposing records. Shouldn't we say that? but if we do it's calling attention to the claims less clearly supported, or ruled out, by opposing records. We can't have that both ways.

Joe

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by JoeB

I've interviewed a number of B-29 crewmen from Korea, as well as many fighter pilots. Some I've talked to have volunteered their lack of certainty about what they or others were credited with (aerial victories, real effectiveness of their bombing, etc). They mentioned it first, otherwise it wasn't discussed. When conversing with a stranger, particularly older, you give them information pertinent to them only if they bring it up first. That's politeness, it doesn't change what the information is. I was talking about what the information is, clearly because that's what a forum is for or it's useless. So your point about 'what would I say to them?' is an irrelevant tangent, frankly. As is the question about changing personal official credits, I never suggested that; I specifically said it's not generally possible to determine who shot down who individually. You're reading selectively, as you often do.

Fair enough....

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by JoeB

You're reading selectively, as you often do.

Flyboyj answered you fairly, you have a point and he understands that.

I don't think the above line, you posted, needed to be added. You made your point, you need not add that sort of comment.

[FLYBOYJ]

Appreciate that Hunter, but I did read selectively and I purposely wanted to hear the response. I've worked around pilots and gunners who had aerial kills to their credit. Although informative, they would take a lot of the "statistics" and so called research by historians and others with a grain of salt. As one former AD driver who works with me once said, "I was there and that's the way I remember it."

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Appreciate that Hunter, but I did read selectively and I purposely wanted to hear the response. I've worked around pilots and gunners who had aerial kills to their credit. Although informative, they would take a lot of the "statistics" and so called research by historians and others with a grain of salt. As one former AD driver who works with me once said, "I was there and that's the way I remember it."

I understand 100% your first post, you might of been putting out your feelers to see what he was going to say.....maybe you missed a little of the intent of the post. I also agree with your above post 100%.

I understand fully his post also and agree.


The one thing what I felt was not needed was the comment about you "You're reading selectively, as you often do." I think that was too much. You are one of the most accurate and factual posters here. I think he is lucky Dan did not see that comment towards you......he might of answered a little more harsh then I did. You made a small over sight to a degree......no need to rub your nose in it with a comment like that. You were not being rude to him.

But if you are fine with it then I will let it go at that. You sure don't need anyone sticking up for you, if he had ticked you off......he would of heard about it.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Hunter368

I understand 100% your first post, you might of been putting out your feelers to see what he was going to say.....maybe you missed a little of the intent of the post. I also agree with your above post 100%.

I understand fully his post also and agree.


The one thing what I felt was not needed was the comment about you "You're reading selectively, as you often do." I think that was too much. You are one of the most accurate and factual posters here. I think he is lucky Dan did not see that comment towards you......he might of answered a little more harsh then I did. You made a small over sight to a degree......no need to rub your nose in it with a comment like that. You were not being rude to him.

But if you are fine with it then I will let it go at that. You sure don't need anyone sticking up for you, if he had ticked you off......he would of heard about it.

[JoeB]

Originally Posted by Hunter368

1. The one thing what I felt was not needed was the comment about you "You're reading selectively, as you often do." I think that was too much.

2. I think he is lucky Dan did not see that comment towards you......he might of answered a little more harsh then I did... if he had ticked you off......he would of heard about it.

1. I'll say fair enough too. Although as you see he admits he was doing it. Flyboyj and I have some history, at least recent history of my posts here, of sparring on basically this issue, facts of claims and losses v 'supporting the vets' (but you can only do that from one side at a time ). I understand his viewpoint also, but as I've repeatedly said I've talked to many (US) KW vets and am not aware of any who have a problem with my research approach. But even so at some point, facts are facts, whether 'you were there' or not or the people 'who were there' like them or not. But I think he does read into my posts things that aren't there, not just this time, though I never commented on it directly before. Maybe it's to promote lively discussion, no big problem anyway, but again as you see he admits it so again I accept your view but it doesn't seem in fact my statement was so far out of line.

2. Dan (whoever that is, with all due respect to him), you or anybody else can say anything civil to me based on facts or what I actually posted, without worry about my delicate feelings; I'm a lucky man in many ways but not the way you say, particularly

Joe

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by JoeB

1. I'll say fair enough too. Although as you see he admits he was doing it. Flyboyj and I have some history, at least recent history of my posts here, of sparring on basically this issue, facts of claims and losses v 'supporting the vets' (but you can only do that from one side at a time ). I understand his viewpoint also, but as I've repeatedly said I've talked to many (US) KW vets and am not aware of any who have a problem with my research approach. But even so at some point, facts are facts, whether 'you were there' or not or the people 'who were there' like them or not. But I think he does read into my posts things that aren't there, not just this time, though I never commented on it directly before. Maybe it's to promote lively discussion, no big problem anyway, but again as you see he admits it so again I accept your view but it doesn't seem in fact my statement was so far out of line.

2. Dan (whoever that is, with all due respect to him), you or anybody else can say anything civil to me based on facts or what I actually posted, without worry about my delicate feelings; I'm a lucky man in many ways but not the way you say, particularly

Joe

Joe,

I have no problem with you. I was not aware that you and Flyboyj (his name is also Joe) have history. It does not seem to be a problem for either of you so its none of my business either.

The only reason I said anything was that Flyboyj is a long time and highly respected member of our forum and I thought you crossed the line with that one comment. But if Flyboyj is fine with it then so am I. Its dropped as far as I am concerned.

"Dan" is also a Mod here, he is the "bad cop" of the site.

But like I said before......its over and dropped by me.

[Cub Driver]

The aerial battles over Rangoon at Christmas 1941 are particularly well covered in Japanese histories, even unto diagrams showing how formations lost bombers, mile by mile and minute by minute. So I did a quick calculation on Japanese overclaiming, and it came to 5 to 1, as opposed to the American Volunteer Group pilots, who overclaimed something like 2.75 to 1. The difference is probably almost entirely attributable to the fact that a majority of Japanese planes over Rangoon were bombers, and that the bomber gunners were the most optimistic about their kills, for all the reasons cited above.

Especially with the AVG's boom & zoom tactic, all the bomber gunner is going to see is a fighter slashing past. (Not all the AVGs used diving attacks this early in the war, but many did.) Then later he might see a fighter in flames. He's naturally going to think that it's the enemy fighter, whether or no, and that he shot it down.

(That said, it's also true that Japanese fighter pilots overclaimed at a higher rate than did the Allied pilots, as a consequence of their system of tallying victories as a group endeavor.)

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Coming August 21: Flying Tigers: Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942

[FLYBOYJ]

JoeB, Hunter, it's all good....

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Cub Driver

The aerial battles over Rangoon at Christmas 1941 are particularly well covered in Japanese histories, even unto diagrams showing how formations lost bombers, mile by mile and minute by minute. So I did a quick calculation on Japanese overclaiming, and it came to 5 to 1, as opposed to the American Volunteer Group pilots, who overclaimed something like 2.75 to 1. The difference is probably almost entirely attributable to the fact that a majority of Japanese planes over Rangoon were bombers, and that the bomber gunners were the most optimistic about their kills, for all the reasons cited above.

Especially with the AVG's boom & zoom tactic, all the bomber gunner is going to see is a fighter slashing past. (Not all the AVGs used diving attacks this early in the war, but many did.) Then later he might see a fighter in flames. He's naturally going to think that it's the enemy fighter, whether or no, and that he shot it down.

(That said, it's also true that Japanese fighter pilots overclaimed at a higher rate than did the Allied pilots, as a consequence of their system of tallying victories as a group endeavor.)

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Coming August 21: Flying Tigers: Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942

I finally got through reading "Bloody Shambles" and based on what I read in Vol. 1, I agree......

[Mangrove]

This is a complete list USSR aeroplanes claimed by Finnish gunners during 1939-1945. All kills were archived with single .30 Browning / Vickers and they have been confirmed as real kills. Plane they were flying on was Bristol Blenheim.

List from "Suomen Ilmavoimien historia 19: LeR4" by Keskinen and Stenman.

Sergeant V. Mörsky (Two Victories):

20th December 1939 at Mantsi Island. Polikarpov I-16.
1st March 1940 at Koivisto Island. Polikarpov I-16.

Corporal T. Hämäläinen (One Victory):

10th March 1940 at Muhulahti. Polikarpov I-153.

Corporal Y. Hammaren (Two Victories):

11th March 1940 at Kiiskilä. Polikarpov I-153
11th March 1940 at Suur-Merijoki. Polikarpov I-153

Corporal M. Pohja (One Victory):

2th July at Valkjärvi. Polikarpov I-16

Corporal M. Rimpivaara (One Victory):

18th July at Vieljärvi. Polikarpov I-16 from 155 IAP.

Corporal R. Räty (One Victory)

21th July at Petroskoi. Polikarpov I-16 from 155 IAP.

[FLYBOYJ]

Thanks for that info...