Re: revising air war kill tallies

[jose castillo <felizguajiro@yahoo.com>]

now that's what i call constructive criticism!! let me
digest what y'all sent me, that is exactly what i was
hoping for in airing this.
thanks very much joe & cookie for taking time to
respond thoughfully to this. i'm absorbing everything
i can on the subject, so i'll follow up on the
material you've mentioned. 
sincerely, jose c.

--- AMPSOne@aol.com wrote:
> Jose,
> 
> I've been following the thread and must say that I
> have had a long running 
> exchange with Diego on the subject. 
> 
> Alas, the quote you cite is from one of the Russian
> books as reason why their 
> claims are valid and the US ones are not, and at the
> end of the day there 
> appears to be an overclaiming rate of between 6 and
> 10 on the part of the Soviet 
> pilots. The Chinese are much worse, as they appear
> to have used "KGB Math" and 
> cut their own losses by 50% while multiplying US
> losses by a factor of 5. The 
> North Korean claims (last I saw them they were
> something like 5,800 shot down 
> in air-to-air combat) are patently ridiculous. 
> 
> US claims seem to be about 80-100% accurate for
> USN/USMC ones (there are only 
> 23 as separate services) and about 70% for the USAF.
> 
> 
> But at the end of the day, it's still a "who shot
> John" he-said-he-said 
> affair. Joe Brennan and I have been looking at it
> from two sides (he has pretty 
> good US records, and I have most of the Soviet ones
> released so far) and it's 
> pretty easy to figure out who was cooking the books.
> 
> 
> Cookie Sewell
> AMPS 
> 

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree