Don't want to raise a negative AVG post - far from it. I am actually looking for ammunition to defend the record of the AVG.

As the title says "Christopher Shores", I have been reading his 'Bloody Shambles' series, and I have not yet counted up all of the encounters he records, but - a quick reading over of his book would lead one to believe that the Japanese shot down more AVG, than AVG shot down Japanese (in fighter vs. fighter combat anyway).

I find it outrageous. Can anyone point me to a critical critique of his work? Surley someone has seen some drawbacks or flaws in his methods or sources of documenting air combats in the early Burma-Malaya-China War?

Any good information would be greatly appreciated.

I am editing this message to say:
I don't understand how an author can lead readers to believe that the Japanese shot down more of the AVG than visa versa and be regarded as "one of the finest researcher/historians of WWII..."

That sure sounds like a statement from one who considers themself an expert on the subject.
Any facts to back that up with?

I've never met or talked with Mr Shores. But, I've read his work & found it enjoyable and valuable to my research interests.
I've discussed it with other historians and followed discussions on a number of other forums dealing with subjects he writes about. Is that enough or should I add more???

The fact that I like his work shouldn't make me the target of your ill feeling of him. I haven't seen Bloody Shambles, have you or anyone else in the FTA read it? I hope so considering such a strong reaction.
Best Wishes........Jack

Since I raised the question it is up to me to go through his books and get a counting - that will take a few days.

I will post back when I have results. I could be wrong, but the general impression I have in his first two books is that he insinuates that the AVG over claimed by 4 to 1 or more, and in fact I got the impression that the Japanese were shooting down more AVG than vice versa.

That's a heck of a statement, but I'll report back and see what his reported tallies are.

I just wanted to know what his sources were that eluded the Military all these years?

Brian

"42 fighter pilots killed, captured, or died of wounds, and 47 fighter planes destroyed by enemy aircraft, ground fire, or crash landings after combat."

Of course some may have been shot down by the RAF or anti-aircraft fire, but in any event that far exceeds the number of AVG planes and pilots lost in Burma. And it doesn't begin to count bombers!

www.warbirdforum.com/avg.htm

- Tom

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris_Blair:
I as well consider Dan Ford to be somewhat biased...IJA records are gospel, while RAF and AVG records are to be questioned...but any individual can make mistakes...I do not take Ford's data as fact simply because it is published

---

You miss the point. The Japanese histories show that 42 pilots were killed or captured in combat in Burma from the fighter squadrons that fought there. Mr. Ford and Mr. Shores are working from the same sources (though Ford does include a 2005 history that Shores couldn't have used in Bloody Shambles).

Bwisher concludes that Mr. Shores is saying that the Japanese shot down more AVGs than vice versa. That can't be true, since we know that the AVG lost 12 pilots in Burma over that same time period, including one or two that probably weren't really combat deaths.

So unless the RAF shot down the vast majority of those 42 Japanese fighter pilots, and all the bomber crews, Mr. Shores can't possibly have reached that conclusion.

This isn't an argument I want to have! I was just pointing out that Bloody Shambles can't possibly say what Bwisher concluded here.

Sorry I haven't complied the data for you yet from Bloody Shambles.
Over the long weekend comming up I should be able to get that done.

Anyway, my claim wasn't that Shores shows more AVG were KILLED than Japanese...I said I get the quick impression that HE CLAIMS more AVG were SHOT DOWN than Japanese Fighters.

Therefore, one gets the impression, that he puts forward the picture that the IJAAF was more effective in combat with the AVG than vice versa.

As I said above, that may not be true - but - skimming through the first two books, that was the impression I was getting, hence the need to do an accurate count from his three books and see what totals he comes up with.

I will state this though, Shores makes no bones about the fact that as far as he is concerned - the AVG often wildly overclaimed.

That is what started me down this path to begin with - what sources does he use? I was under the impression that almost all Japanese records were destroyed at the end of the war. So besides extrapoliting data from diaries, (however comprehensive and reliable that is) what is the secret source that eluded the US Military research teams after the war?

Location: Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk
Posts: 752
Re: Flying Tigers VS Christopher Shores?

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

Hi guys
As a long-standing friend of Chris Shores and also co-author of 'Bloody Shambles' Volumes I and II, I feel that I must add my tuppence-worth. From the records I have had access to, I fully support Chris' version of Japanese losses as recorded in those two volumes, and therefore would doubt AVG claims.
Cheers, Brian

It doesn't change their flamboyant, even "Hollywood-esque" image, as Flying Tigers. It doesn't even influence their role in History: they were there when the United States needed them and they fought a hard battle that was in many ways unique (be that as a publicity tool or a military unit)."

-Ruy Horta

"Exactly guys! So what if the AVG didn't shoot down 299 Japanese aircraft? From what I read they STILL managed to give a bloody nose to the IJAAF bomber & fighter units that up to that point were having the war going THEIR way & had suffered minimal losses---and THAT is good enough for me!"

-Nick M.

As a new member and not a scholar of the AVG I apologize for speaking up, but in my opinion these two guys have the right idea.

Does it really matter what the actual number was? There's no point in arguing the validity of the numbers when you did the job you were sent to do and you did it extremely well. The numbers can be argued I suppose, but not the legend of the Flying Tigers. Let them say what they want.

As it is Memorial Day, I would like to thank you for your service and dedication.

Salute!

------------------
Ken O'Brien

Hello Brian, if you are a co-Author of Bloody Shambles, I would like to ask a few questions;
1) (THIS ONE IS A COMPLAINT)Why in the heck didn't you guys tabulate the data you collected so we readers could see and follow the overall results without having to laboriously go page by page and count??!!

2) Did you guys ever tabulate the data yourselves? and if you do have that data, why don't you share it and save me some time here from counting it all and tabulating it myself!

3) Do your numbers match the numbers Dan Ford came up with?

4) Honestly and sincerely (no disrespect here) how on earth did you guys find Japanese records that the US military never did post war, after they scrubbed Japan for data with a fine tooth comb?

Sincerely
Bwisher

The Japanese had every reason to play down their losses to the AVG.

Well, here's one answer. The AVG had equally every reason to play up their successes over the Japanese.

That is, if we are talking PR/bragging rights, as opposed to actual recording of losses for the purposes of getting replacement aircraft out of the system. There is no percentage value in downplaying your losses to your own supply system.

Every nation in aerial warfare was has been accused of downplaying their losses. Such arguments have never, to my knowledge, been demonstrated as correct.

I still favor the tally of victories indicated by the number PAID for by the Chinese government as being the most valid accounting.

Just how could the Chinese Government be any kind of reliable assessor to the success of the AVG over Rangoon?

Light of research into aerial warfare all over the world, and bearing in mind the circumstances of the fighting, a claim to kill ratio of 3:1 seems perfectly reasonable. It is much the same as both the RAF and the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain. A case where both sides have been accused of "hiding" losses.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bwisher:
[B]4) Honestly and sincerely (no disrespect here) how on earth did you guys find Japanese records that the US military never did post war, after they scrubbed Japan for data with a fine tooth comb?

---

Of course I can't speak for Mr Cull, but you might look at "Japanese Air Losses, Burma Operation" at Imperial War Museum AL 5190.

This is a document prepared by British Military Intelligence working in Japan in the late 1940's. It shows what Allied experts concluded from studying Japanese records and debriefing Japanese officers.

Another source in English is Tanaka Masa, "Burma Air Operations Record" which is No. 64 in the Japanese Monograph Series, published by the US Army and available at the Library of Congress and other research libraries.

The point you seem to miss is that if you want to know about losses, you should look at the outfit which is suffering the losses. For example, how much belief would you put in a Japanese tally of AVG losses in Burma? Not much I hope. Well the same is true of American accounts of Japanese losses.

This quote gets to the meat of my question about Christopher Shores, and Dan Ford.

quote:

---

{snip}...
"I see no reason to doubt the integrity of Shores et al and Ford's research on the AVG. But in both, and other similar basically 'two sided accounts', there are a fair number of combats whose Japanese version is not given, presumably not mentioned in available sources. And in other cases, as I think is well known, the best available Japanese info apparently gives pilot losses, not plane losses. One humble suggestion I'd make to professional aviation writers, as an avid reader and amateur researcher, is to be clearer about this. Just say, "this combat isn't covered in X source", or "plane losses aren't given". ...
.[/B]

---

The problem I have with their work is that they have to be going by incomplete sources, or sources that do not give all the information.
Though the work of Shores and Ford is creditable in as far as a nice effort to independently confirm what they were able to find - to assume that "if they don't list it - it didn't happen" is to me foolish because they don't have complete records to cross check.

In the defense of Rangoon the British would not pass on warnings of attacks to the AVG. The AVG had to stay with their planes to gain a few precious moments to meet the enemy. The Brits also did not not bother to tell the AVG when they packed up and left, with their radar.

After the war the British pulled over sixty airplane wrecks from the bay. There were many more on the land.

I will quote from Wilfred Jepson, a British radioman at Rangoon. " The Yanks were expert fliers I agree, with lots of experience. They were stunt pilots and all that you see." and also "The Americans had a very poor opinion of the British pilots." I also have read some interesting comments from Paul Frillman's book where he said any overclaiming that there was came later (from newsreels) and did not arise from the fighting at at Rangoon. He said that the claims were accurate and I agree. Frillman was there.

Also please understand that the excessive claims were created by overeager reporters (600 etc.) and were NOT official.

Politically, resentment against the AVG continues to this day. There is a reason for that.

------------------
Capt. Lou

quote:

---

Originally posted by Capt. Lou:
Interesting. I have and have read both of the Bloody Shambles books. The British performance overall in Asia was quite dismal. There has been a bit of resentment against the Americans for their success.

In the defense of Rangoon the British would not pass on warnings of attacks to the AVG. The AVG had to stay with their planes to gain a few precious moments to meet the enemy. The Brits also did not not bother to tell the AVG when they packed up and left, with their radar.

After the war the British pulled over sixty airplane wrecks from the bay. There were many more on the land.

I will quote from Wilfred Jepson, a British radioman at Rangoon. " The Yanks were expert fliers I agree, with lots of experience. They were stunt pilots and all that you see." and also "The Americans had a very poor opinion of the British pilots." I also have read some interesting comments from Paul Frillman's book where he said any overclaiming that there was came later (from newsreels) and did not arise from the fighting at at Rangoon. He said that the claims were accurate and I agree. Frillman was there.

Also please understand that the excessive claims were created by overeager reporters (600 etc.) and were NOT official.

Politically, resentment against the AVG continues to this day. There is a reason for that.

---

Unfortunately, I cannot paste them into this reply, so a summary will have to do (anyone wishing the spreadsheet can have them - just email me, or post a request here).
I counted ONLY Aerial action - not ground attack, and "AVG Claims" are only confirmed claims - no probables.

Book 1:
AVG shot down - 18
AVG Claims - 27 Bmbrs, 47 Ftrs
Shores Totals JAAF Lost - 9 bmbrs, 17 ftrs

Book 2:
AVG shot down - 4 in air to air combat (+2 kia to flak)
AVG Claims - 10 Bmbrs, 94 Ftrs, 3 recons
Shores Totals JAAF Lost - 8 bmbrs, 19 ftrs, 3 recons.

Total AVG Losses in air combat - 22
Total AVG Claims A2A - 37 bmbrs, 141 ftrs, 3 recons
Total Shores JAAF Losses - 17 bmbrs, 36 ftrs, 3 recons.

Delta between AVG Confirmed Claims vs Shores Confirmed JAAF Losses - 181 (AVG) vs 56 (Shores).

To me, that's a big gap. It appearently does not take into account air action over China - just S.E. Asia.

If you read book 1, there is quite a while when the JAAF is outscoring the AVG - in book 2 it inexplicably changes (to the tune of 30:4)

After reading Eric Shillings exchange with Dan Ford (found here: http://yarchive.net/mil/ford_book.html ), and understanding that Shores and Ford used the same sources - I am again compelled to wonder "just how complete are the 'records' both authors worked from...considering Japanese 'records' were destroyed?".

Shores three volumes are impressive works, but I am skeptical about the completeness of JAAF accounts of losses.

EDIT: One further note - where ever kills were claimed in the same air action by the AVG and the RAF, and I could sort out who was awarded the kill, I gave the claim to the AVG (above). So, a few of those 56 JAAF losses may well go to the RAF...further lowering the Shores totals of AVG A2A confirmed kills.

Further comments?

(PS -please excuse any misspellings)

{snip}
Jim, Who could be a better source than Saito a the Japanese
commander. See below.

Ford, in his book, admits that the Japanese destroyed ALL of
their Records, although repeatedly refers to records. ( As I've
said before, Ford Forgets what he has written.)
There are three very inteligent and logical reasons.

1. NO ONE would pay $500 bucks just on the word of someone saying
I shot a plane down. YOU'D be a damn fool if you don't demand some
concrete proof before paying out that kind of money.

Conformation Proof came from two seperate and unbiased sources.

2. A JOINT Chinese AVG Confirmation board that studied Chinese
Inteligence reports concerning claims and their findings before
they were confirmed.

3. British Inteligence reports concerning downed Japanese planes,
authenticate destroyed E/A claims made in Burma.

FD: Amen to that! My book was published seven years ago, surely
enough time for somebody to have challenged its methodology if it
were flawed.
{snip}
Saito, a Japanese commander gave evidence that to this effect.
One of the few Japanese commanders that kept a diary inspite of
Japanese regulation against it, wrote that Japanese Commanders did
not report all the losses suffered by their units.
Ford said how could the Japanese hide the loss of a couple
hundred airplanes. Answer; Easy, the same way they hid the loss of
FOUR AIRCRAFT CARRIERS at the battle of Midway.

BTW when it comes to overclaiming, Mr Lundstrum finds that nobody ever beat the Japanese navy Zero pilots at a wopping ten to one. He finds that the US Navy carrier pilots overclaimed about two to one (similar to the British in BOB) and the Marines three to one (similar to the AVG).

Now, if Shores and Cull say upfront that not everything is included "for obvious reasons" I must conclude some things are missing.

The fact that not everything is included, in their otherwise magnificently detailed account, is the point I was leaning towards all along.

Therefore, I conclude that the AVG record, as listed above, is most certainly not complete.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Clarkson:
The problem with that argument is that the Japanese didn't hide the loss of their aircraft carriers. The Battle of Midway is covered in Japanese naval histories (and records). John Lundstrum in The First Team covers this in great detail from the Japanese side.

BTW when it comes to overclaiming, Mr Lundstrum finds that nobody ever beat the Japanese navy Zero pilots at a wopping ten to one. He finds that the US Navy carrier pilots overclaimed about two to one (similar to the British in BOB) and the Marines three to one (similar to the AVG).

- Tom

---

However, it doesn't in the least address my question -

"Can You Guarantee that the Japanese Records are COMPLETE AND ACCURATE?"

If they are – fine. If they are not complete and accurate as to every loss and circumstance (which I don’t see how it can be) , then it changes nothing in my view that it is not the final word.

Jack, can you please pass this message on to Christopher Shores.

It would be fantastic if historical records were 100% correct. Sadly, they aren't. Therefore any assessment of Japanese losses based on existing Japanese records is likely to be inaccurate. However, it would also be a mistake to categorise all Japanese records as inaccurate or fabricated. Undoubtedly, Japanese records were occasionally fudged, but the same was true for the Allied nations for propaganda purposes. Also, I find it hard to buy into the concept that potential "loss of face" resulting in endemic false reporting of aircraft losses by Japanese commanders. Any systemic effort not to report combat losses would soon result either in the unit becoming non-combat effective due to no replacements being requested, or major questions being asked as to why so many aircraft and aircrew were being lost in "accidents" (assuming combat losses were covered in this manner).

As for credited kills, in all air forces kills are confirmed based on pre-agreed criteria. Usually, it involves the sighting by 2 or more witnesses of the kill. However, no observer is guaranteed to be 100% accurate, particularly in stressful situations (just ask a cop who's interviewed 5 eyewitnesses to the same accident and received 5 (sometimes more!!) different descriptions). Kills could be confirmed by sending out patrols to find the wrecks, although the terrain and lack of accessibility in most of Burma and China would make this problemmatic for many kills in that region. Ground observers are often cited as confirming air-to-air kills but I've yet to meet a soldier who can accurately identify his own side's aircraft let alone the opposition! Finally, we have the combatants themselves which, given the speed of combat, the different relative viewing angles and the fact that the opposition is trying to kill you, makes for a complicated three-dimensional battlespace which is inherently difficult to describe or monitor accurately from a single-seat cockpit. In short, there is tremendous potential for several pilots to see several separate events but with consequent combinations of one-to-many, many-to-many and many-to-one linkages within their post-action reports. The Chinese had to pay the bonuses if the kill criteria were met, so providing the 2 witnesses could be found the bonus would be paid.

Am I saying that pilots lied to get a bonus?
No!
Am I saying that pilots lied to deliberately inflate their victories tally?
No!
Am I saying that I trust Japanese records more than personal accounts of AVG pilots who were there?
No!
Am I dishonouring the AVG?
No!

The simple fact is that it is impossible to recreate historical events with the necessary fidelity to provide "the truth" but that is not the role of a historian. A historian seeks to identify reasons why things happened rather than simply recounting dates and events. To that end, the achievements of the AVG (and let's not forget the RAF in Burma also) are remarkable. The final tally of AVG kills, although probably lying somewhere between the total of credited kills from Chinese bonus payments and Mr Shores' rather lower total, is largely irrelevent. It was the fact that the Japanese Army Air Force had to fight against truly spirited opposition, and the effect that had on IJAAF morale and efficiency (not to mention the morale-boosting impact for the Allies when everywhere else the Japanese were achieving seemingly unstoppable victories) that counted most.

quote:

---

Originally posted by buffnut453:
I've watched this discussion with interest, albeit with concern about the degree of emotion involved. ...
Yours sincerely,
Mark H

---

However, there is a trend today to rewrite history, and the further we get from the living memories of the participants, the easier it becomes for todays' generation to accept things that may not be true at all - this is where I come to grief with some of the opinions being formed about the AVG from Shores and Ford.

Their work is an honest I effort, but because it is printed, it takes on the aura of Gospel (the oldest tendendancy in the world). I see way to many people today not doubting the "new book" they just read - and instead easily tend to believe everyting they heard before that is counter to their new "truth" must be false.

I know for fact that written military records do not always tell the whole truth in the best of cases, and I will give two quick personal examples:
For myself, at Ft Benning over 25 years ago, I was forced to complete Infantry Training for 5 weeks on one broken and one fractured leg - due to negligence of not allowing me proper medical care by taking me for X-Rays at Martin Army Hospital (until 5 weeks after the fact). When it was discovered at the hospital, I was excused from the final PT Test - I saw the X-rays and reports in my medical record at the time.
Years later when looking at my papers, I discovered all reference to it was removed.

My Father was wrongly drafted by the US Army in 1951 and sent to fight in Korea as an infantryman with the 5th RCT in Jan-Mar 1952 (I say wrongly because he was 4-F on account of a deaf ear since birth).
His mother got their Congressman, Richard Nixon, to intervene and get him pulled out of combat and stationed at Koje-Do Is, our POW Center.
Talking with my father recently about it all, he showed me his records. He said he was pulled off the line one day (a jeep pulled up, he was told to get in and go to RGT immediately - "leave your gear behind", and that was it) and sent to Koje.
It wasn't until later, when he left the army, that he saw his records and realized all of his paperwork was changed to show that he never went to the 5th RCT at all - and went straight from Japan to Koje-do...as if it all never happened.

Bringing this back to our topic - records don't always show everything. Admittedly incomplete and destroyed records show less.

I have already noticed that the common standing of the "Flying Tigers" among young men I come in contact with today (who at least have some semblance of historical knowledge...as opposed to watching MTV only) - has gone from respected and revered heroes when I was a youth - to, more or less, a bunch of swaggering braggarts that didn't do 1/2 of what they claim.

This is the long term reality of revisionism.
Now if it's deserved - that's one thing. If it's caused by innuendo - I object to it.

I am not concerned only about the AVG and no other group of men – but this is the AVG Forum, and I was specifically questioning Shores account of their performance – not the RAF Squadrons.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JACK COOK:
I'm curious why it is, that if a book is written about the AVG that gives a different viewpoint/slant and doesn't agree with other earlier accounts why is it considered slander or revisionism???
I've read on this forum "historians have found our ie AVG records to be accurate". What historians and what do they base their oipinions on?
Finding and using new records makes for a more accurate portrayal. Why would you ignore them? If I was the say Link Langhlin, Bill Reed, Lewis Bishop and Jim Howard wern't AVG aces would I be a revisionist of just slandering the AVG? Do the kills mean that much or is it the success of the mission that really counts???
Did Jack Newkirk make a bigger contribution with 7 kills than Erik Schilling with 0 kills? I think not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BillC:
I think this has become the beating of a dead horse. I stand with those that believe the AVG record to be fairly accurate for a number of reasons listed elsewhere...Those in the Ford camp are not going to change my mind with what I've seen so far. 'They couldn't be that good' isn't much of an argument. The last I care to say on the matter is this...One shouldn't come to the AVG forum with the goal of 'debunking' the story of the Flying Tigers and expect to find universal acclaim and support. There are other places, where those that 'know the real truth' can backslap each other and congratulate themselves on knowing what 'really' happened. This is just not that place. Some seem to feel that they must be agreed with before they'll let the matter drop. One more attempt to "prove" the AVG to be less than we believe, will not change our opinions. There will not be agreement on the subject in this quarter. We've heard the argument(s). Look elsewhere for validation. R.I.P.

[This message has been edited by BillC (edited 06-12-2007).]

---