Hellcat Vs The Zero

[lesofprimus]

renrich, unfortunatly, my Grandfather passed away many years ago after a couple years of declining health... What info I have on him and his exploits, on paper, is quite limited... We had a "falling out" with the other side of the family tree, bunch of @ssholes, and they got most of his estate, which sucks, cause like 7 years ago they lost 80% of Grandpas memories in a fire that my stupid@ss moronic cousin started with a lighter and a can of hairspray...

[FLYBOYJ]

JoeB - if an aircraft made it back to base in tact and pilot in tact and then the aircraft is "written off" by maintenance - that should not be even be considered - you're splitting fine hairs. Once on the ground that "written off" aircraft is still asset. You could cannibalize parts and keep other aircraft flying. To me the whole "asset" would have to be destroyed to even be considered.

And now you throw different numbers for Sabre losses - so even with those you just posted (say 90) and the Soviet pilots admitting over 350 Migs lost, it's still coming out to about 4 to 1 excluding the unknown variables....

I agree, Korea was not a 10 to 1 killing field for the USAF, more like 3 or 4 to one, we'll never know the true EXACT score, but based on the loose numbers, the F-86 outperformed the Mig-15....

[Jank]

By the way, do you have any evidence of your statement that, "In general if planes didn't make it back to base after being shot by MiG's, sometimes even if just ran out of fuel after MiG combat, they were counted lost in air combat. Some wheels down landing writeoffs were even counted lost"? If I cited your statement as my evidence would you claim that the author of that statement is full of bullsh-t?

"it's your semantic error to equate "essential reality" with "flawless exactitude".

I'm sorry. Where did I EVER mention either of the above terms?

"Now you're quoting me (out of context) supposedly suggesting US non-combat losses in Korea were seriously *overstated*."

Here you go again. Where did I ever suggest that US non-combat losses were "seriously overstated"?

Clever sophistry indeed. Substitute different words for those originally used and quote words and terms never used my me at all. Look JoeB, unlike you, I have been consistent and am not talking out of both sides of my mouth. I am frankly getting a little tired of going around with you. For your benefit, here are my own words from past posts on this thread for your ease of reference. (Please bear in mind that all of the following are taken out of context.)

---------------------------------------------------------

My point here is that the we are never talking about "real results" to coin your phrase. (You now say approximate total result) You tore into my example of the 318th having a 79:1 kill ratio by June 1, 1945 (It was actually June 8th) as obviously inaccurate due to the fact that we can't ever really know the actual ratio due in part to bias and other error causing factors (on which I agree) and then you respond with a 1:3 number for the George that you deem a "real result."

The fact is that we do not know the "reality, the real result" of losses where there is "reasonably complete and consistent recording." Why not just say "acknowledged losses" or "claimed losses"? When you throw around "real result" and "reality" which convey actual, accurate numbers, you end up saying something you did not intend. (At least to me.)

To reiterate, strictlty speaking, both kill and loss claims are not "reality" or "real results." I am not arguing that errors in loss claims are of the same magnitude as kill claims. Just that your characterization of loss claims as reality or real results is flat wrong. Hence when you attack others quoting kill claims and in the same breath point to the reality or real result of loss claims, you are sort of like the kettle calling the pot black.

Again, they are certainly not erroneous in the same order of magnitude but they are also indeed both not 100% accurate, factual or reality or the real result and thus, strictly speaking, both are not reality or real results. To the extent that neither are reality, they stand in fundamentally the same relationship to reality as non-reality.

Joe, with all due respect, you criticized my and FlyboyJ's citation of kill / loss ratios. We both acknowledged that you were in fact correct and that the cited examples were illustrative of a larger point. You then, in the same breath that was used to criticize the kill / loss ratios, referred to the "reality" of the "real result" of the loss claims. Only after being called on the carpet on this error did you reissue your point as the "approximate total result" which I can certainly live with. Your last post now states "basic reality" as though there is some non-basic reality that standard English conveys. To be sure, it was you who made a bold criticizing statement only to then back off the rather obvious standard English meaning to a more accurate statement "approximate total result." So that you do not misunderstand me, I will state now that an "approximate total result" is not a "real result" and not "reality." Do you think that standard English equates these?

Let's not play semantics. Here's an idea. Why don't you agree that your choice of words, "reality" "real result" in reference to loss claims was not the best use of "standard English" to convey "approximate result"?

Anyway, we are in full agreement that kill claims and kill / loss ratios are not accurate. We are also in agreement (although you won't admit it) that loss claims had errors as well but not on the same order of magnitude and were probably not systematic. To the extent that we are in agreement on the last point, we are also in agreement that loss claims are in fact not reality or real results.

If you really disagreed with this, there certainly would not be any reason for you to retreat to the more palatable standard English of "approximate result" which we both can agree on.

Here you go shifting things again. Next you will say that in standard English, "frequently inaccurate" is interchangeable with "not a real result." Whoever claimed that loss records were "frequently inaccurate"? Not I. My argument rests merely on the proposition that loss claims were not reality or a real result as in accurate and without error.

Your position distilled down to its core is that "approximate result" is the same as "real result." Your position is that the two are interchangeable. They are not, unless you work for the government. You criticized others for citing inaccurate numbers and in the same breath contrasted it with what you yourself termed the "real result." Now you say "real result" means the same thing as "approximate result."

You know very well that actual combat losses which are "real results" can not "really" be known. They can be approximated though. To the extent that they are approximations, they are not actual or real. I'm tired of restating myself over and over. You are also restating yourself but I would just point out that unlike you, my restatements have been consistent and haven't shifted from "real result" to "approximate result" with an explaination that they mean the same thing and an accusation that the other guy is playing semantics.

---------------------------------------------------------

Notice anything? I'm not the one playing semantic games and asking others for evidence that loss records are not reality and a real result when I have previously on another forum asserted that loss records are not accurate and thus not reality nor a real result with respect to combat losses!

I'm through. As the several excerpts from my previous posts on this thread indicate, I have stated, restated, and stated again a point that you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree on because I am no longer invested in beating a dead horse.

[renrich]

LESOFPRIMUS, sorry to hear about your misfortune. I know and have known a few Corsair pilots but they become fewer every day. It is a shame that we didn't honor and revere our elders who actually lived the history that we are now so interested in.

[syscom3]

Its too bad the Bearcat didnt arrive to the fleet a year earlier.

Now that would have been a matchup.....

[ohka345]

Even though the Corsair pilots shot down COUNTLESS Zeros,they're still people,right?I agree we should honour them.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

What are you talking about? Did you go through and read this thread. No one was dishonored at all. Please read the threads before posting.