[SKUNKY]

I was just thinking.......Boyington was such a liar, is it just possible he could have been lying when he said he was less than honest?..........hmmmmmmm?......

[Aircrafty]

Originally Posted by mustangdriver

Actually according to schilling who drew all of the sharks mouths that is wrong. He said that everyone always says that the AVG got the idea from some RAF aircraft they saw in a magazine. But in reality it came from a pic of an ME-110 that he saw.

It's true that 112 Sqn adopted the Shark Mouth from the Me 110's of ZG 26. However it is also well documented that Charlie Bond was the first pilot in AVG to paint a Sharks Mouth on his P-40. And he said he got the idea from a magazine featuring the Tomahawk's of 112 sqn in Africa. Which is far more likely than Mr Shilling's statement when you consider the P-40 and Tomahawk were the same aircraft and German magazines would be unlikely to get into the possesion of allied aircrew.

[mustangdriver]

With a little bit of research I can see that the Japanese stats are off. The Japanese claim that they AVG only shot down 115 using your number. Yet according the the Official AVG Association they downed 75 aircraft while losing 6 in just three days.On Jan. 23rd they shot down another 21 aircraft while losing only one. All together they claim 217 confirmed kills, 43 probables, and only lost 16 planes. All of this in 31 encounters with the enemy while they faced an enemy that out numbered them every time.

[Aircrafty]

Originally Posted by mustangdriver

Since the Japanese claimed to shoot down over 500 of the AVG planes, I am not sure how you can trust the facts of what they lost, while dismiss the AVG as lying to get more money.

Most countries lied about losses etc during the war for propaganda reasons. However, the figure of 115 was established in recent years following investigations into the matter. Don't forget that the AVG claimed to have shot down numerous Zero's but these claims have been proved to have been mistakes in identiity with other Army airforce aircraft. The Zero was mainly a Naval aircraft used for long distance bomber escort duty and protection of carriers. But I suspect we will never know the whole truth about most claims of WWII.

As for overarrated/underrated aircraft. Some aircraft are just better known than others and some remain popular in the public's eye whereas others never receive the attention they deserve. I agree that it is fair to say that the Zero was overrated and the P-40 was underrated, mainly because the Zero is well known whereas the average person would not know what a P-40 was. Which is not to say the P-40 was a better aircraft than the Zero, nor would I say that the Zero was the most overrated aircraft of WWII, which would still be the B-17 imo. Another example of the B-17 legend. If you asked the average guy in the street what was the first B-17 to achieve 25 operations, they would most likely say the "Mephis Belle", when it was in fact "Hell's Angel's".

[Aircrafty]

Originally Posted by mustangdriver

With a little bit of research I can see that the Japanese stats are off. The Japanese claim that they AVG only shot down 115 using your number. Yet according the the Official AVG Association they downed 75 aircraft while losing 6 in just three days.On Jan. 23rd they shot down another 21 aircraft while losing only one. All together they claim 217 confirmed kills, 43 probables, and only lost 16 planes. All of this in 31 encounters with the enemy while they faced an enemy that out numbered them every time.

Check back with me when you've done a LOT of research then

Meanwhile I'm off to bed.

[mustangdriver]

The Memphis Belle now? So you are taking this to yet another level. Funny that you only think that US aircraft are over rated. I work on the real Memphis Belle. it is under restoration in the NMUSAF in Dayton, OH. The Memphis Belle was the first B-17 to complete 25 missions AND return home. Hell's Angels was the first to complete her missions, by a few days, but was not assigned to come home until after the Belle was already bound for the U.S. I have done a great deal of research on aircraft and units. Do I know it all? Of course not. There is always stuff to learn. I talk to veterans(the guys that were really there), and help restore the aircraft that fought for the freedom we enjoy. I also fly warbirds for a small local museum. I think I have done more than a little research on aircraft. The fact of the matter is that as soon as the zero had an airplane to fight against that was built in the same time frame, it was shown up. The Hellcat out flew the Zero all together. It is obvious that no matter what statistic I show you, that you are not going to approve of it if it favors the U.S., a U.S. aircraft, or a U.S. fighter grooup. You will either dismiss the stats, or move on to attack yet another subject, or say that the group of veterans lied.

[Epapazian]

Obviously this is a very touchy subject and emotions seem to be running high. In an effort to channel the debate into a more historical frame of reference, I'd like to suggest we examine WW II airplanes as they were perceived by their opponents. While many were recognized as outstanding warbirds, only a few really scared their opponents, due either to their reputation, potential for causing damage or their actual impact in combat. The Americans had by far the most of these, including the F-6F, F-4U, P-47 , P-51, B-17 and B-29. Of these, the B-17, while doing a fine job, is, in my book, the most overrated, while the B-29 ranks as a close second. There are numerous accounts of German and Japanese fighter pilots who were reluctant to take on the B-17s when they were first encountered , due to their reputation as "flying fortresses". Once the Germans learned how to take on the B-17s, however, they coped very well, albeit while suffering many casualties. The only other warplanes that caused similar "fear factors" were the British Spitfire and Mosquito, the USSR's IL-2M and Yak-3, the Japanese "Zero" and Germany's "Stuka", its FW-190, when first employed against the RAF on the "Channel Front", and the ME-262 and ME-163. The last two really alarmed the U.S. Army Air Force when they first appeared since, at the time it seemed that we had no way to counter them. While there are many mitigating factors to consider, Hitler's "wonder weapons", in this case the ME-262 and the ME-163, were probably the most overrated challenges that Allied air arms faced.

[leeG]

Originally Posted by Aircrafty

Shilling only made one kill "claim", and it was supposedly a bomber, so he isn't exactly a fighter ace is he In additon, he had merely rehashed the well known tactics that Chenault described. And it's not as if the attack from above and clear off tactic was anything new. It's more the fact that most pilots were reluctant to use it early in the war as it was considered to be unsporting at best, and to many pilots it was a cowardly attack. For some time, diving away from enemy aircraft was a courtmarshal offence in the RAF and Japanese pilots were liable to be shot for it. But after the more chivalrous encounters such as the Battle of Britain and the African Campaign it's fair to say the gloves came off.

Are you a fighter ace? I only ask because by dismissing Shilling again as he "only made one kill claim," you seem to be implying that only a fighter ace is qualified to make any judgments on the relative merits of fighter aircraft. I was just wondering if you met your own standard of qualified? I am not a fighter ace.

Early in the war, all the air forces were stuck on the World War I style of dog-fighting. Chenault's tactics moved away from those "sporting" notions. The pilots who tried to fight the Zero the old way paid with their lives. It was an avoidable tragedy. The AVG showed what could be done with proper tactics. Eventually everyone got with the program.

Originally Posted by Aircrafty

To say that making a diving attack from above followed by a continued dive and escape makes the P-40 a superior fighter to the Zero is rather foolish imo. It's like me jumping off a roof and wacking Mike Tyson over the head with a baseball bat. It would be an effective form of attack I've no doubt, but it would surely not mean I'm a better fighter than Tyson.

The Zero can't catch the P-40 in a dive. By making a diving attack from above followed by a diving escape you dictate the terms of combat giving the Zero no opportunity to retaliate. He can maneuver all he wants, but if he can't catch you he can't shoot your. You can't be forced into battle, while you can attack him at will. Sounds pretty smart to me. Plus, keeping the fight fast eliminates any maneuvering advantage the Zero had. The Zero basically sucked at over 300 mph. And was in grave danger of breaking up by 350. If you were rather foolish you would try to turn fight the Zero at less than 250 mph or just stand there after popping Mike Tyson with that bat.

Originally Posted by Aircrafty

And speaking of top scorers, if you are after some reliable info on the P-40 you'd be best to check the TOP ace in that aircraft. Which was the Australian pilot Clive "Killer" Caldwell. He rated the P-40 as better than the Hawker Hurricane but not as good as the Spitfire which makes it a good all rounder imo.

Clive Caldwell is THE MAN in the P-40, my hero. He demonstrated nicely what a P-40 could do against the Germans and Italians. And yes, the P-40 is a good all rounder. The Zero, on the other hand, is just a turn-fighter and a delicate one at that.

Originally Posted by Aircrafty

As for overarrated/underrated aircraft. Some aircraft are just better known than others and some remain popular in the public's eye whereas others never receive the attention they deserve. I agree that it is fair to say that the Zero was overrated and the P-40 was underrated, mainly because the Zero is well known whereas the average person would not know what a P-40 was. Which is not to say the P-40 was a better aircraft than the Zero, nor would I say that the Zero was the most overrated aircraft of WWII, which would still be the B-17 imo.

We are not to far apart here. I feel the reason the Zero is overrated is because of the initial success it achieved in the opening of the Pacific war. It was on the offensive, always having the advantage of altitude and always outnumbering the opposition trying to dog-fight it. I think the reason the P-40 is underrated is because in the opening of the Pacific war it bore the brunt of the massive Japanese offensive. It was outnumbered and forced to engage at disadvantage with its pilots still trying to dog-fight World War I style. The P-40s were decimated. Thus its perception as not very good. The AVG, on the other hand, used the weapon correctly. With a ground spotter system (important to having height advantage) and proper tactics, they dominated the opposition. Our big difference is I would rate the P-40 over the Zero. The fast diving, robust good all rounder over the delicate turn fighter.

[STARMAN 352ND]

You don't need a flame war here guys
I'm closing this thread until further notice.
JP