[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: revising air war kill tallies
Cool..looking forward to your feedback
Dan
----- Original Message -----
From: "jose castillo" <felizguajiro@yahoo.com>
To: <KOREAN-WAR-L@listproc.cc.ku.edu>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 12:54 PM
Subject: Re: revising air war kill tallies
> dan-- i would love to communicate with cookie! i also
> intend to educate myself personally on this
> interesting subject! i'm new to the game, so give me
> some time to get up to speed.
>
> as for relying too heavily on any one interpretation,
> it is good advice to stay away from that mindset. i
> don't believe in "silver bullet" histories that
> explain everything...or even in "correct" answers.
> history is contested terrain, and i think that is
> healthy for the discourse.
>
> since you ask, here are jose's motives for
> "revisionism." i have no hubris about us, or anyone,
> "settling" historical questions; all history is
> provisional. each generation does the best job they
> can with the information available, then passes the
> project on to the next generation. i think you & i are
> reading off the same page regarding this.
>
> if we put out revisionist information, we should do it
> in a modest & humble way, like to say, "hey, here's
> another way of looking at it," rather than arrogantly
> saying "look, we got it all figured out."
> (by the way, is revisionism a dirty word among
> military historians? i like the idea, as long as it is
> done evenhandedly, and like you say, in a quest for
> knowledge rather than to invoke an agenda...)
>
> ok, somebody else's turn...
>
> --- Love Shack <Home@DanSources.com> wrote:
> > 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 -----
> > From: rbmooney
> > To: KOREAN-WAR-L@listproc.cc.ku.edu
> > 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
> > remooney@bellsouth.net
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Love Shack" <Home@DanSources.com>
> > To: <KOREAN-WAR-L@listproc.cc.ku.edu>
> > 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
> > > >
> > >
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
> http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
>