|
Post by batteryboy on Feb 11, 2014 16:25:30 GMT 8
Gents,
Last weekend I met with Osamu "Sam" Tagaya, the well known WWII aviation historian and author who has written books and articles for Smithsonian, Osprey, Aviation Historic Society, Maru, and several publications. He is a son of a former Technical Officer at the Yokusuka Naval Arsenal during WW2 and his father worked on almost all types of active IJN Naval Warplanes including the experimental aircraft prototypes like the Shinden, Kikka, etc.
He was kind enough to sign one of his Osprey books that I already have: Mitsubishi Type 1 Rikko "Betty" Units of World War 2, and to my surprise he gave me a signed copy of his latest book: Aichi 99 Kanbaku "Val" Units 1937 - 42. The Val book is just part I and there will be a part II soon. Both books were well researched and written.
During our long afternoon discussion, we touched on the Corregidor defenses and he was clear to point out one thing: That of all the research and interviews that he has done with several Japanese pilots in different units who flew in Asia and in the Philippines, the most intense and accurate AA fire during the early days of the war up to May 42 was over Corregidor. It was second to none as far as volume and accuracy and they did acknowledge losses and heavy damage to a number of aircraft. He confirms the loss of two Type 99 Vals over Manila Bay and in one of the planes, the crew was captured in Bataan and interned and later released when the peninsula fell. There were several other aircraft types that fell victim to the AA gunners as well.
Respect goes to the AA gunners of the Rock!
|
|
|
Post by okla on Feb 11, 2014 22:55:06 GMT 8
Hey Battery....I wonder if this fellow would have a fairly accurate assessment of the actual number of Japanese A/C shot down by the Corregidor AA Gunners. You and I have spoken of this previously, if memory serves. I have read/heard of the total ranging from only five (I will never accept this number) to claims that were so high that no one could possibly accept them for the truth. Only the Japanese would have a creditable "ballpark" number, methinks. "You tha man" with the best chance to solve this little riddle. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by batteryboy on Feb 13, 2014 12:15:53 GMT 8
Hi Okla,
The figures that can be accepted would be around 35 -40 (some argue 30 to 35). 5 is too low and 76 - 100 would be a little bit high. Over-claiming was typical by both sides during the war.
|
|
|
Post by okla on Feb 14, 2014 1:57:13 GMT 8
Hey Battery. Thanks for setting the record straight. These numbers seem very reasonable to me. Destroy Claims have always been a problem, I suppose, whether they be Allied or Enemy, Europe or Asia/Pacific. During my stint in Korea, I worked in Opes/Intelligence of a Fighter/Interceptor Wing and, at times, was involved with evaluating claims made by our F-86 pilots after missions to Mig Alley, as it was called. It was emphasized, that after the inflated numbers from WW 2, tighter restrictions were used when evaluating Destroy numbers. Of course many were downgraded to "Probable", which, or course, displeased many of the Jet Jockeys. Everybody wants to be an Ace with 5 Kills, but after the Big War, the Pentagon wanted accurate assessments. We were told that the USN actually claimed more Japanese planes knocked down than were manufactured during the conflict. I don't know if this was the case or not, but that's what was driven home to us. You throw in claims made by the Army Air Corps and it was a whopping total. Thus, we were really required to really check out the gun film and statements made by the claimant and his Wingman,etc. The gun film had to clearly indicate major damage being done before a Kill was awarded, i.e. major explosion, wing flying off, actual pilot ejecting, tail assembly shattering, etc. I have babbled about this for too long. Thanks again for providing some realistic figures. They ain't too shabby for our side, especially when the limited range/ceiling our AA Batteries experienced. Wouldn't you imagine that most of the Kills should be credited to the .50 Caliber machine guns?
|
|
|
Post by oozlefinch on Feb 14, 2014 13:58:56 GMT 8
Okla, nice info about your time in Korea. I always thought that the kills claimed (and allowed) seemed high, but I wasn't there. I believe, however, that the .50 caliber guns didn't come in to action until the last days of the campaign, and I wonder how many were capable of effective fire at that point in time. My feeling is that most of the damage was done by the 3in earlier in the campaign.
|
|
|
Post by batteryboy on Feb 14, 2014 17:29:02 GMT 8
Hi Okla,
The damaged were made mostly by the 3-inch AA. I have seen a derelict G4M Betty at Clark in 1942 with damaged that cannot be done by a .50 The MGs were good as keeping the low level planes at bay. Maybe a couple were smoked by the .50s. Even the use of the MG towers on the Rock were minimal as the gunners had a feeling of being to "high" and exposed to a strafing attack.
Thanks for sharing your experience in Korea about the tabulation of claims. Regardless of the outcome, those F-86 Sabres did their "kills" with the old and reliable .50s.
|
|
|
Post by The Phantom on Feb 15, 2014 7:48:01 GMT 8
Yeah, thanks okla for sharing your experience in Korea. Thanks for your service.
Batteryboy, must be very interesting for you to meet such people with real history of the events of the Second World War.
|
|
|
Post by okla on Feb 15, 2014 9:41:04 GMT 8
Hey Phantom....You might find this little tidbit of interest. I have shared this item on this board previously, but it was probably before you and I kibitzed back and forth. My Unit, the 51st Fighter Interceptor Wing, had as its' Commander, Colonel John MItchell, the Army Air Corps Pilot who led the "bushwhack" mission that took out Admiral Yamamoto in 1943. Although I, and a couple of other "flunkies" from the Ops/Intel Section took turns posting his Situation Map every morning, he didn't even know our names, which was understandable. He was the Wing Commander, but the Exec, who shared his billet, knew all our nick names. I always thought this odd, since Colonel Mitchell, was the "good ole' boy from Mississippi, and the Exec was from the suburbs of New York City and one would think he would fill the stereotype of the aloof "city slicker". Personality wise, they were exact opposites. Colonel Mitchell seemed to be a regular guy, though. Just standoffish. If memory serves, he had three Mig-15 "Kills". It would have been great if he could have scored two more making him an Ace in both WW 2 and Korea. Still, he had a pretty good military career. Leading the Yamamoto mission was a career in itself, methinks. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by oozlefinch on Feb 15, 2014 10:22:40 GMT 8
okla - good story about command personnel. It just goes to show you that it doesn't matter where you come from, it's how you were raised. Coming from money doesn't always mean you've got your nose in the air; e.g., John Kennedy. I could be wrong, but I doubt the men on his boat thought he was stuck up.
|
|
|
Post by oozlefinch on Feb 15, 2014 10:24:34 GMT 8
batteryboy - do you have any hard facts just where they 1) actually had machine gun towers; and 2) did they actually use them?
|
|