Author Topic: Climb Mount Nitaka!  (Read 554 times)

Offline Nath[BDP]

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1267
Climb Mount Nitaka!
« Reply #15 on: April 26, 2002, 12:30:39 AM »
Japs would be most fun to overclaim with tho, 'cause then I can increase my score by 75%. Not possible with Germs or Amis
++Blue Knights++
vocalist of the year


Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
Climb Mount Nitaka!
« Reply #16 on: April 26, 2002, 12:56:39 AM »
A6M and P40 and P39 fought against each other a lot.  Nex we need an early P40, up to an E,  and an early P39/P400.

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Climb Mount Nitaka!
« Reply #17 on: April 26, 2002, 08:35:18 AM »
where u guys gonna fly all these neato new early war planes?
lazs

Offline jordi

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6116
      • noseart
Climb Mount Nitaka!
« Reply #18 on: April 26, 2002, 08:46:11 AM »
CT, TOD's, Scenarios, Offline H2H, LAN

Jordi
AW - AH Pilot 199? - 200?
Pulled out of Mothballs for DGS Allied Bomber Group Leader :)

Nose art

Offline -ammo-

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5124
Climb Mount Nitaka!
« Reply #19 on: April 26, 2002, 10:22:40 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by funkedup
IJA did not use the A6M.  IJN used A6M, but not in China between Fall 1941 and Fall 1943.
AVG misidentified IJAAF Ki-43 as IJN A6M.


I know that. I said in "adittion" to IJA AC.  The author states facing Hayabusa's, and more often its fixed gear predacessor's. However he does say that on occasion they faced a new AC, the a6M. Its a good book, you oughta check it out. Very short read.
Commanding Officer, 56 Fighter Group
Retired USAF - 1988 - 2011

Offline HFMudd

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 609
Climb Mount Nitaka!
« Reply #20 on: April 26, 2002, 10:43:12 AM »
Overclaims...  the Germans were the best due to the rigid requirements they had to meet in order to claim a victory.  Per Edward Sims the German claims fall to within 10% (IIRC) of the losses reported in records.

The ones that were off by simply stunning amounts (in one case claiming over 100 downed German fighters vs. the recorded German loss of 1 (!) fighter were the U.S. bomber crews.)

So how did the Japanese go about recording and substantiating kills?

Offline Sikboy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6702
Climb Mount Nitaka!
« Reply #21 on: April 26, 2002, 11:30:39 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by HFMudd
So how did the Japanese go about recording and substantiating kills?


A better question would be "How does Nath go about record and substantiating trolls?"

-Sikboy
You: Blah Blah Blah
Me: Meh, whatever.

Offline Nifty

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4400
Climb Mount Nitaka!
« Reply #22 on: April 26, 2002, 12:13:38 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
where u guys gonna fly all these neato new early war planes?
lazs


same place I fly the Spit I.  The Main Arena.
proud member of the 332nd Flying Mongrels, noses in the wind since 1997.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23046
Climb Mount Nitaka!
« Reply #23 on: April 26, 2002, 03:06:22 PM »
Nath[BDP],

No, you're right.  You'll have to contain yourself to merely claiming 300% of the aircraft killed, just like the Germans in the Battle of Britain.

HFMudd,

BS.  The Germans were just as sloppy as everyone else.  There is a faction that likes to tout them as being the best at everything, but this faction has blinders on.

Any combantant that has the air fighting over its land territory is much more accurate.

Consider that in the Battle of Britain the Germans claimed 3,500 kills or so and the British actually lost 1,100-1,200 or so (I've seen the numbers but I don't have them in front of me).  The British in the same time period claimed about 3,000 and got about 2,000.  The British claims, which have twice the accuracy of the German claims, are still 1.5 times the number they actually got.

The Japanese didn't have an actual policy and they didn't award kills to individual pilots like the western powers did.  Not until the end do you see Japanese fighters with kill markers on them.  The other thing to consider is that when wreckage fell on Germany or Britain it could be used to confirm a kill, the Japanese were mostly fighting over water so there was no wreckage.

Nath[BDP] is correct in technicality, but not in tone.  He implies that there was intentional fraud on the part of Japanese pilots.  I'm sure there was some, but no more than on the part of Germans, Brits or Yanks, maybe less as there was no incentive or rewards based on indiviual kills in the IJA or IJN.  The IJA and IJN did track total kills for a squadron.

Saburo Sakai has never said that he absolutely got 64 kills.  He thought that he had at the time, but he always acknowleged that kill claiming was imprecise at best.

The reason that I am after Nath[BDP] on this is because he is trying to demean ans diminish the skills and efforts of a group of people and he is using their race as his basis.

You'll hear a lot of Luftwaffe fans praise Hans-Joachim Marsaille as quite possibly the best fighter pilot ever.  He was undeniably very, very good and possibly was the best.  However, his kill total is significantly less that he claimed.  Cross referencing his claims with British records reveals that he sometimes claimed more kills in a fight than the British had aircraft in the area.  This takes nothing away from him, I doubt he over claimed intentionally, but it does show that over claiming happened to all sides.

Well, except the Finns.  Russian records show that the Finns got more than they claimed.  But Finland is the exception.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2002, 03:25:38 PM by Karnak »
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Kweassa

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6425
Climb Mount Nitaka!
« Reply #24 on: April 26, 2002, 04:30:43 PM »
I agree with Karnak on this one.

Offline funkedup

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9466
      • http://www.raf303.org/
Climb Mount Nitaka!
« Reply #25 on: April 26, 2002, 04:39:13 PM »
Ammo sorry I misread the IJA thing.  I'll check out that book.  A lot of AVG pilots report encounters with "Zeroes" but they never confirmed this by examining wreckage, and IJN records show that there were no Zero units in China during the AVG's campaign.  The Oscar and Zeke look quite similar and it was quite common in WW2 for pilots to misidentify enemy aircraft.

Offline -ammo-

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5124
Climb Mount Nitaka!
« Reply #26 on: April 26, 2002, 04:47:21 PM »
Most likely true, I just didnt realize it. In the early days before pearl harbor, the AVG was cutting their teeth on betty's and (the model escapes me ) but an early japanese fighter with fixed gear. It turned better than the KI-43I hayabusa, but was very slow, and only armed with twin 7.62's.
Commanding Officer, 56 Fighter Group
Retired USAF - 1988 - 2011

Offline Pongo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6701
Climb Mount Nitaka!
« Reply #27 on: April 26, 2002, 05:13:25 PM »
Has any other counties over claiming had a serios effect on the outcome of a battle like the jap over claiming at Gualdicanal did....

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23046
Climb Mount Nitaka!
« Reply #28 on: April 26, 2002, 05:15:42 PM »
Pongo,

Yes.  The German overclaiming in the Battle of Britain seriously affect their strategey.  The high command was taking the claims at face value and making decisions based on the idea that the British were down to their last 100 Hurris and 50 Spits when they still were facing about 600 RAF fighters.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline HFMudd

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 609
Climb Mount Nitaka!
« Reply #29 on: April 26, 2002, 05:16:56 PM »
Quote
BS. The Germans were just as sloppy as everyone else. There is a faction that likes to tout them as being the best at everything, but this faction has blinders on.


I stand corrected.  While I course know that the Germans were aided quite a bit in calculations by the fact that the wreckage fell on their side most of the time (just as in WWI for that matter) it did not occur to me that the Battle of Britain would probably provide a good counter example.

I have a question as regards the BoB though.  I'm assuming that the 3,500 includes aircraft destroyed on the ground does it not?  If so, one can easily imagine that number being greatly inflated.  Do you happen to know how many of the 3,500 claims are from those destroyed on the ground vs. in the air and how close those two numbers come to reality if taken independantly?