Jim D Burns
Posts: 2759
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FatR
The Allies did not enjoy this ratio during the war. I'd say that overall aircraft losses during the war are around 2:1 in the Allies' favor. According to known losses data from Guadalcanal campaign to the air campaign over Rabaul, for most of 1942 and 1943 losses usually were around 1.1-1.2:1 in the Allies' favor.
I won't go into dissecting various number-juggling of the various degrees of bias, used to posit whatever ratios the author feels like seeing,
You can't just cherry pick a few tough attrition battles and then make blanket statements about those kind of losses being the average for the war, it's intellectually dishonest. Then you outright lie and try to infer I somehow juggled the numbers in an historical document created by and published by the Navy department, which I linked it its entirety so it isn't even possible I "juggled" any numbers.
As we've seen in this thread many do not even bother to read the links posted, so this is a blatant attempt to simply defame me as many might believe what you say is true without bothering to actually go in and check the evidence for themselves, you lie, I juggled nothing.
quote:
ORIGINAL: FatR
but I'll point out that your source
a)Admits to using claims as its source of Japanese losses. Which alone merits dividing figures of said losses in two.
Now you are again being intellectually dishonest. Yes claims were found to be over-reported during the war by a large margin. But that was discovered to be occurring during the confirmation process when they tried to confirm claims with eye witness accounts and gun camera footage. The document posted was published after the vetting process so most over-reporting had already been filtered out. Could there still be some over-reporting in the numbers? Sure, but there are no Japanese records available to do the last possible step of filtering out the ones that slipped through, so when it comes to the raw stats these are as good as it gets, there is no better record available.
quote:
ORIGINAL: FatR
http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t100.htm
Sorry, but this site wants to install something on my computer and won't allow me to back out of the site (had to use ctrl-alt-del to force shutdown the site), so I am not about to let it install whatever it is trying to install.
quote:
ORIGINAL: FatR
In case you try to argue, that operational losses should not count -
Operational losses have nothing to do with combat related air losses when you are comparing the relative combat abilities of the two powers. Sure many of the ops losses were caused due to air to air and flak damage, but there is simply no reliable records to use to filter those out from the ones caused simply because a mechanic needed parts or weather related causes or accidents etc. etc.
My whole point was the allied air power was far superior to Japan in combat. Were all op losses combat related then I'd say sure count them, but the vast majority were not combat related so it really has no bearing on the topic I was addressing.
Jim
< Message edited by Jim D Burns -- 3/4/2013 10:54:54 PM >
_____________________________
|
Printable Version
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 
?
Actually he had his qualities. Frankly, I think he was just too old for Korea and past his prime. 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread