Quote:
I don't think there is an official source, it was never actually "official". What I
remember is they were told ground kills would count - but then they wern't. This may only have
been for the USAAF in Europe, I'm not sure.
|
Somehow I think that some folks, not necessarily you, but some who draw some odd conclusions
and then spread them as fact, don't really understand how this works. Talking about what one pilot
or another might have been told he could or could not claim is apples and oranges when you’re talking
about the number of enemy planes shot down by a given type. What pilots were told or not told or
even what they believed or did not believe has absolutely nothing to do with the final results of the
conflict. It is a very large error to mistake one for the other. An understanding of the process
and the administrative flow is the key to understanding what the numbers mean. In USN and USAAF
service, each mission required a report from each pilot. The division leader (and I’m going to use
USN terms as those are the ones with which I am most comfortable, but, rest assured, there were
USAAF counterparts) was also required to complete an ACA (AirCraft Action) report which was
used to draw up the squadron report and was included as an annex thereto. This ACA detailed
combat action . . . aerial combat, strafing attacks, whatever occurred in the course of a mission
(USAAF equivalent was the MR - Mission Report). These ACA’s and the squadron report were the
basis of the Air Group report and so on up the line. So, in the grand scheme if Ensign Dilbert
Knothead strafed and was deemed to have destroyed a Betty on some jungle strip it would certainly
be noted in the ACA, but never as a part of tally of credits for Mr. Knothead. The purpose of
tracking ground kills was, as I said earlier, an order of battle issue. There were those who toiled
away in sweaty little offices whose sole purpose was to figure out what the enemy had and where
did they have it. So if they’ve figured out where such and such squadron is operating, and that base
gets hit, and the report comes back that XYZ aircraft were destroyed on the ground then these folks
can start looking for indications (intercepted messages and so on) that XYZ squadron has taken a
serious hit and needs some replacements. A few folks have tendency to believe that VF-x ACA #32
detailing Mr. Knothead’s thorough drubbing of that Betty parked on the strip at Noname Island means
that Mr. Knothead was credited with some sort of victory simply because it is mentioned. Nothing
could be further from the truth. Pilots were required to report all actions on missions with enemy
contact, air, ground, water, didn’t matter. And there was a whole system in place for follow up to these
reports, from squadron ACIO, to Air Group ACIO, to TF Staff, to Fleet Staff, to CinC Staff. I can tell
you from practical experience that military organizations are positively anal when it comes to reporting,
be it a morning report or an after action report. It will be completed and it will be submitted and it will be
forwarded, or else.
I always get skeptical when I hear the great “they” when “they” were told this or that, or “they” told “them”
this or that without any attribution. Who are “they?” Name three, specifically, and what exactly did
they say or tell you?
That’s why I tend to be a little short with those who look to a statement on someone else’s website as an
authoritative citation. I can show you mistakes on web sites, hell’s bell’s, I can show you great big mistakes
in otherwise scholarly books that author’s, no doubt, spent years researching, where one of their
references misinterpreted one his references, who misinterpreted his reference, who simply did not
understand what was being said.
Here’s a homework assignment: July 28, 1945 . . . carrier planes from Task Force 38 strike various
remaining Japanese fleet units. What were the results of these strikes? Specifically, how many USN planes
and pilots were lost? You tell me what everyone else says and I’ll tell you what REALLY happened.
So, when I read some say the USAAF says the P-38 was the highest scoring plane in the Pacific, I say
show me. What am I to think when someone says the P-38 scored more aerial victories than the total
credited to the USAAF in the Pacific? What am I to think when I’m sitting here looking at the actual USAAF
numbers and the actual USN numbers and the person making the claim is saying things like “I heard . . .”
or “I’ve seen . . .” but can’t say where or who? What am I to think when the numbers quoted have no
basis in reality when compared to the official results. The truth is out there.
All the figures I use, again, come from
official USN and USAAF sources, most in their original form. None
of the answers are going to jump off the page at you. You have to work for the knowledge. You might
even have to get out a pencil and do a little figuring. But, as far as the internet is concerned, if the
information comes from
official USN and USAF websites and consists of period documents, then you
may presume it was the official thinking of the time. You want to know how many planes the USAAF
destroyed on the ground in the Pacific (which by the way, the USAAF defined as the Far East - which
corresponds to MacArthur’s Southwest Pacific Command - the Central Pacific, and the Aleutians)? I
can give you that number. I have it, right here at my finger tips, took me all of three minutes to conjure
it up, again from the USAAF documents, but wouldn’t be more enlightening for you guys to
figure it out for yourselves?
So, show me yours and I’ll show you mine. Someone needs to show me DoD, or USAF, or USN reference
that supports their contention(s), anything else is just floating internet fluff. I’ve been playing with USN
operations analysis of Pacific Theater aviation results as a hobby for more years than I care to count. I
have a closet full of boxes of documents and reports and a pretty good idea of what’s in each of them.
When I can’t find the answer to an operational question, of the USN variety, I can turn to the nice
old man who lives with me, a retired RAdm who was there, a fighter pilot, an ace, and a senior staff officer
in the Ops Shop of TF-38, who remembers more than all the documents I could muster.
The challenge still stands . . . official figures vs the, frankly, outrageous. Show me the money!!
Regards,
Rich
Linear Mode
