Were the P-40 Flying Tigers Worth It???

Most definetely. In one span of 8 months the flying tigers were credited with shooting down 286 enemy planes while losing only 8 of their own. Commander Claire Chennault (hope I'm spelling his name right) also warned the U.S.A. that the Japanese were probably going to attack Pearl Harbor. Should've listened.

 

Found this on the History channel, posted by Robert. Hope its of interest

The Chinese Government paid the Flying Tigers for
297 kills, but in reality they had about 115.

Dan Ford's excellent research in "Flying Tigers: Claire Chennault and the American Volunteer Group" cleared up most of the misconceptions about the Tigers' inflated victory claims. Ford offers the following comments:

"Some readers of 'Flying Tigers: Claire Chennault and the American Volunteer Group' are unhappy that I would pay attention to anything the Japanese said about their losses in 1941-1942. Rather than re-examine AVG claims, they prefer to believe that the Japanese lied then and are still lying today. I don't agree, for these reasons:

I've read the American, British, and Japanese accounts, and I find that they all have the kind of unambiguous detail that can't be faked. The pilots tell the truth about their losses -- it's only in claiming victories that they go wrong.

And why not? A commander can come close to 100% accuracy in counting friendly casualties, but he can't be nearly as certain about the losses he has inflicted on the enemy. Other things being equal, you would always be inclined to pay serious attention to what each side says about its own losses, while reserving judgment on its combat claims.

In almost every case I identified the units -- and often the individual pilots -- who flew against the AVG. For example, on Christmas Day over Rangoon, the only retractable-gear Japanese fighters in action were those of the army's 64th Sentai. If the AVG shot down five "Type 0" fighters that day, then not just Lieutenant Okuyuma and Sergeant Wakeyama but three other pilots from the 64th Sentai must have died. Who were they? How did their earlier victories and promotions vanish from the records of the groups?

A man knows when a friend is killed: there is an empty bunk in the barrack, and a empty seat in the mess, and there are personal effects to be disposed of. (Including, in the case of the Japanese, a lock of hair and a fingernail clipping to be sent home for cremation.) No soldier would trivialize the lives of his friend by denying that he ever existed -- and that's what he must do to conceal his loss in combat.

Even if Japanese officials wanted to fake the records, how did they manage to control the memories of the survivors? And how did they carry off this conspiracy through war and peace, victory and defeat, for half a century? In 1941, Major Kato wrote in his diary that two pilots failed to return from Rangoon on Christmas Day. In a book published in 1984, Lieutenant Hinoki identified them. Hinoki was in the hospital (wounded by R. T. Smith) when Kato was killed -- so when did they invent the lie?

The only country I know of that successfully minimized its combat losses was the Soviet Union -- and only until it fell apart. The Japanese Empire not only fell apart but was occupied for several years. Anyhow, Imperial Japan was the least likely country to attempt such a deception, since it taught that death in combat was a soldier's duty and privilege.

The 64th Sentai never had more than 25 fighters in any of its encounters with the AVG. I found that the AVG destroyed 14 (wastage of 50%). If we take AVG claims at face value, then 49 planes were lost (200% wastage). The 64th was also losing planes in Malaya and the Dutch Indies. How many times can a fighter group be wiped out and still turn up over the target?

Similarly with pilots. Of the 25 men who flew to Rangoon on Christmas, 9 were shot down by the AVG before the end of April; 10 were lost to accident or to combat elsewhere; and 3 transferred to other groups. That leaves 3 -- including Hinoki and Sergeant Yasuda, who were still alive when I wrote my book! The 64th Sentai simply didn't have enough pilots to fly all the planes claimed by the AVG, and the same is true of other fighter and bomber groups.

When there was an event unusual enough to be noted by both sides, the Allied and Japanese accounts confirm each other: Parker Dupouy's collision with Okuyuma over Martaban Bay; Neal Martin's death over Rangoon; the night raider exploded by an RAF pilot over Mingaladon airport; the heavy-bomber formation wiped out over South Burma; and on and on.

When Allied observers actually went out and counted wrecks, they confirmed the Japanese numbers. On December 20, Chinese observers reported 3 Japanese bombers shot down during the battle and 1 crashing later -- just what the Japanese say they lost. From December to March, British scavenger teams located 32 Japanese wrecks in South Burma -- about what would be expected from Japanese accounts. On April 8 at Loiwing, AVG ground crews located 3 wrecks near the airfield -- just what the Japanese said they lost.

I'd like to close with two points that tend to get lost in this argument:

First, both sides reported their aircraft losses with surprising accuracy, while wildly overestimating their kills -- the AVG by 150%, the Japanese by 400% This does not mean that anybody was lying. With the exception of the "Emperor's birthday" shoot-out of April 28, I have no trouble reconciling AVG and Japanese accounts where both survive.

(The same is probably true of all air forces in all wars. Do you really believe that Saburo Sakai shot down 64 Allied planes? I suspect that the actual figure was less than 20, to judge by the claiming habits of Japanese navy pilots as shown in John Lundstrom's book, THE FIRST TEAM. . . . Lundstrom, by the way, found that U.S. Navy and Marine pilots in 1941-1942 overclaimed by about the same amount as the AVG.)

And second, that the Japanese Army Air Force lost approximately 115 planes and 400 airmen in seven months of fighting the AVG. The cost to the AVG was 14 pilots killed or missing on combat missions. By any standard, that was a victory without comparison in the annals of fighter operations, including those that astonished us over Kuwait and Iraq. AVG veterans should be proud to have their success confirmed in Japanese accounts. "

 

ABSOLUTELY!!!! They were one of the greatest aerial groups to give battle to the enemy ever!!! Their natural ability, and immense contribution to the Allied war effort, especially in the early days when the Japanese were going berserk all over the Pacific was such that it can never be disputed that they laid the groundwork for the ultimate aerial victory in the Pacific.

Mustang-great posts-keep them coming-great work indeed!!!

 

Thanks Panzerknacker. Redcoat, that was an AWESOME post. It does make you wonder though, whether or not aces were really aces. Getting friendly losses nearly 100% right and overclaiming the number you shot down is really just another asspect of war. It really does make you wonder.

 

I think they were worth it, their combat record shows it and also they are some of the most remembered fighting men in WWII. Also, their commander Claire Chennault was pretty much the typical though 'yank' officer. I kind of like him.

 

Nice picture of Claire Friedrich. Wasn't he the guy who passed the M-15 semi-automatic gun into service even though the government tried to keep it from going into service? I'm not sure, but I think I read it somewhere...

 

Get real guys! For decades everyone has known that "Dan Ford" was a fake name, like Mark Twain instead of Sammuel Clemments, to spread conflict and therefore sell his book. There are many documented accounts of the Flying Tigers by all accountable sides, not by Danny boy, who is afraid to use his real name. Anyone who studies history and reads the memories of the pilots who were there (on BOTH sides)will realize the bull-shit in this persons attempt to change history.
What the hell is going on with him? Why give him any credit as a spokesperson? Why did he pick the Anglo name Ford to make his attack?
I hate these fake people....like Rosie O'Donnell....not her real name! And she is not Irish!! A liar is a liar.
I hate anyone who tries to change history especially from those who fought so bravely alone against an enemy in his own backyard! We cannot let them be forgotten!

[ 04 October 2002, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: mott5ranch ]

 

Gary, what are you referring to, talking about?

 

Why do so many people try to down play the contributions of the Flying Tigers? The media has had a love/hate relationship with the Tigers for decades. It seems to be a media thing of misinformation. These guys were volunteers before war was declared. They kicked ass and took names. It just riles my cage when I hear the old stories that they were not "worth it".....the majority of these pilots were from Texas and they went in there quietly, kicked ass, and went on about their business. Are they "HEROS?" Hell yea! Do they beat their own drum, hell no. I guess that is my job. These men are the same as Rangers, Seals, Special Forces, and everything else we have now. These were the first, American Special Forces!

 

The Flying Tigers are not liars and they did not infalate their kills. As a matter of fact, the majority of their kills had to be confirmed by the Nationalist Chinese Army on the ground!

Where is this, "They were OK, but not that good story coming from?" The Flying Tigers were AWESOME, many of their kills were NOT recorded because the Chinese Army could not confirm them. I get riled when someone says their numbers are inflated, NOT TRUE! Who comes up with this BS?

[ 04 October 2002, 09:50 PM: Message edited by: mott5ranch ]

 

Well said. The Flying Tigers were worth it even if the accounts are slightly innacurate. I agree. Heroes, heck ya. They were volunteers for crying out loud. If there are still any vets then it would be nice to hear their accounts.

 

My friend Carl knows, through personal meetings or letters, more WW2 German Kinghts Cross winners than anyone on the planet.

I have met and got to know a few (14) German vets from WW2. I was raised and brought up by dozens of WW2 vets from both theatres.

My personal research has been towards pre WW2 Texas pilots. I have met personally only a hand ful. These men were fighter pilot officers in San Antonio, Texas before Pearl Harbor. The US government was well aware of Japanesse agression in China. In an effort to slow the Japnaesse expansion in the region and also give American pilots combat experience a very quiet arrangement was made. Active pilots in San Antonio were offered the Chinese experience. They were promised rank and title if they survived the clandesant endeavour. Quietly they resigned their US commission (With the support and backing of the US governmnet) and volunteered for China service. After the war the surviving vets recieved credit for time served in China. These mem were the first Special Forces, if killed in action, they would be denied by their own government.
Most of their kills could not be confirmed, or were not confirmed, because each one cost the short of cash Chinese government money.

 

You're very lucky to have been raised around vets. I've never met a vet, but that's another story. Another nice point Mott. The Flying Tigers were the first special forces. Making them worth even more.

Nice posts Mott keep them coming!!!

 

mott5ranch "The Flying Tigers are not liars and they did not infalate their kills".

The article I posted did not say the Flying Tigers were liars or even that they had inflated their claims, it just pointed out a basic fact of air combat in WW2. All claims made by ANY airforce in WW2 are prone to be overclaims.
In his book "The Most Dangerous Enemy, a History of the Battle of Britain" ( a very good book )Stephen Bungay makes the following observations

"Claims are usually used to show who got what. This may be of interest to the participants, but it is knowing the total losses inflicted on the enemy in the air, whoever caused them that matters, Because of its importance, both sides insisted on rigorous citeria for confirming claims, which had to to be independently witnessed by another pilot or verified through the location of the crash-site. Dispite this , it is an endemic feature of all air-fighting that claims are too high , by a factor of at LEAST two. There are good reasons for this.
The first is simple mistakes usually made by inexperienced pilots. If he was firing at an enemy machine and it dived steeply away, a new pilot might think he had a kill. In fact, engines usually emit smoke when an aircraft bunts, They can also get into spins, fall out of control and then recover low down out of sight.
The second is that verification is very difficult and also dangerous. To be accurate, the observing pilot, who is usually fighting for his life, rather than playind umpire, would have to follow the victim from the first bullet strikes on it, to its crashing into the ground. All he would usually be able to see would be several plane firing at each other, catch a glimpse of one spinning down a few seconds later, and then perhaps an explosion on the ground some time after that. All three impressions might be connected. On the other hand the spinning plane may have recovered in cloud and gone home and the crash be of an entirely different machine actually shot down in a different dog-fight. When moving at 200-300mph in three dimentions large distances are covered very quickly. Pilots who tried to follow down aircraft they had hit usually turned into victims themselves. Experienced pilots forgot about confirming claims and kept their precious height for better purposes.
Multiple claims were also a major reason for over claims, the same machine would be seen and attacked by different pilots at different altitudes and in different stages of disintergration and be identified as different machines."

 

In my experience overclaiming also took place in every air force. The Japanese may have been the worst if that 400% mentioned above is a standard figure. The Luftwaffe also has a rate of about 150%, similar to Americans and British (although the Brits had a rate of about 500% during the BoB).

 

Gary--I think we NEED to post our pictures of David Lee "Tex" Hill, and the one of the Navigator on the Enola Gay, that we got signed at the Gun and Miliatria show in Houston back in February.

PLEASE. NO SALTGRASS PICS PLEASE

[ 05 October 2002, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: C.Evans ]

 

And about the Flying Tigers, here an awesome picture:

 

Awesome picture Friedrich!!! You can kind of see the "Sharks Mouth" behind one of the pilots. Didn't Claire Chennault have them painted on in order to boost morale? Then shortly thereafter they became famous?.....

The Brits originally asked North American to build a plane that would replace the outdated P-40. North American modeled the P-51 after the P-40. Which is why the P-40 looks somewhat like a P-51.

[ 05 October 2002, 08:08 PM: Message edited by: Mustang ]

 

Mustang "The Brits originally asked North American to build a plane that would replace the outdated P-40. North American modeled the P-51 after the P-40. Which is why the P-40 looks somewhat like a P-51.

Mustang, the British did not ask North American to build a replacement aircraft for the P-40, they were asked if they could build the P-40 on licence. They said "we can build a better aircraft than the P-40" the British said OK go ahead, and the P-51 was born.
As for the statement that the P-51 "looks like" the P-40 What part of the P-40 looks like the P-51???

 

That's just my opinion. I'm not saying that the P-40 was as pretty as a P-51 or a Spitfire. It's just got that rugged look to it. That's all. Both the P-51 and Spitfire are a work of art. The P-51 is, quite simply, one of the most beautiful things on the face of the earth. The sound that a P-51 makes one to be fond of.