|
Blake ...
You make good points as this NG has had extensive
discussion with Harold and Diego
on this topic in the past. They have their opinion
and facts others have theirs, most notably Cookie.
Jose needs to do his own research outside of the
three NG references.
He can then come back and discuss the
findings.
If his intention is to be a revisionist instead of
putting facts together then he will not learn anything.
Nothing wrong with revising and updating
history. There is if you are defending an ideology.
Dan Fahey
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 12:24
PM
Subject: Re: revising air war kill
tallies
Jose,
First thing that comes to mind is that your premise is not
acceptable: who are these 2 sources you refer to and how do they know such
accurate US Defense Dept. details; Chinese details; Soviet Union
details? Where is the evidence that anything is different from what
the US Defense Dept. says? You offer 2 names, but at Defense they offer
thousands. Rather "begging the question" to submit 2 names of
"aces" or researchers who offer nothing by way of US Defense Dept. statistics
which base their stats on the ultimate premise: "we maintain and
hold the official records." Prove those records wrong, or some
aspect of them wrong, and write that up. Woodward & Bernstein did it
with Deep Throat--a false alternative--in their book, but you'll need more
than you have: you're appealing to our ignorance. The conclusion
you've reached is interesting but wrong because the premise is an "assumed
premise." How would anyone accept it? What you've produced
is, I'm afraid, a non sequitur: a conclusion that does not
follow from the premises. Statements by "harold fisher" and "diego"
are interesting, in themselves, but hardly the foundation of any premise
as you've derived. We simply don't know what is completely true.
Layout--side by side--3 columns, and include the actual stats of kills sourced
from the leaders of the separate Defense Departments of China, Soviet Union,
and the United States and let us draw our own conclusions. As it stands
your premises are irrelevant to your conclusion. However, I hope you
pursue the subject further. It could be an historical
contribution!.
Blake Mooney
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 9:46 AM
Subject: Re: revising air war kill
tallies
> My opinion:
> It
seems the US system was fairly accurate.
> Jose:
> My suggestion,
identify the reasons each kill was over claimed.
> At the same time some
kills may have occcured and not counted.
>
> One of the issues
was that I suspect more Migs were
> shot down by Prop planes then
recorded. What were these?
>
> Mustang pilots dogfighting the
Migs stated they got excellent hits.
> Cookie states that there were no
Mustang claims,
> though one Corsair and 3 Fury pilots managed to knock
a few down.
>
> Dan Fahey
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "jose castillo"
<felizguajiro@yahoo.com>
> To:
<KOREAN-WAR-L@listproc.cc.ku.edu>
> Cc:
<dzampini@hotmail.com>
> Sent: Friday,
November 14, 2003 10:28 AM
> Subject: revising air war kill
tallies
>
>
> > hello to the group, this is my first
message here.
> > korean war jet ace harold fisher once said, "it
is
> > interesting to compare our claims of victory with the
>
> numbers from the other side. we found many aerial
> > victories
that needed recounting." in this spirit, i
> > am trying to come up
with more accurate kill tallies
> > for US korean war aces, based on
the best data
> > currently available. my friend diego from
argentina, a
> > contributor here, has provided the information.
what
> > we have is a provisional list of the top five
american
> > aces, giving them the benefit of the doubt for
all
> > their chinese kills, but modifying their soviet kills
>
> to come up with a new total for each. (the chinese
> > records,
diego tells me, provide only monthly kill
> > totals, not day-to-day,
making systematic correlation
> > with US records difficult.)
> >
> > *joe mcconnell, 16 kills: 9 of his 16 claims
were
> > actually against soviet MiGs. 6 are fully admitted
by
> > the russians and 3 were overclaims. his score would be
>
> 13.
> >
> > *james jabara, 15 kills: he claimed 6 MiGs
in his
> > first tour, but only 4 actually happened. all his
>
> kills in his 2nd tour were against chinese, so his
> > tally
would be 13.
> >
> > *pete fernandez, 14.5 kills: 4 of his
air battles were
> > against soviets, and he scored in 3 of them. the
march
> > 9, 1953 kill was an overclaim, so pete's score is
13
> > 1/2.
> >
> > *george davis, 14 kills: he
was credited with 11 MiGs
> > and 3 tupolevs; he actually got 10 MiGs
and 2
> > tupolevs. his score is 12
> >
> > *royal
baker, 13 kills: 5 of his claims were against
> > soviet planes, and
3 actually happened. his score is
> > 11.
> >
> >
NEW TALLIES:
> > fernandez 13.5
> > mcconnell 13
>
> jabara 13
> > davis 12
> > baker 11
> >
> > what do folks think of this? as for the chinese data,
>
> any ideas for incorporating it into my revisionist
> > history?
thanks! jose c.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
__________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> >
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
> > http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
>
>
>
|