STORMO! Forums

Hello All,
I have been doing a little research on aircraft claims and losses by the USAAF in the Italian campaign 1942-1945 and have discovered some interesting information, both conflicting results and missing data.
For example, there was an air battle on March 31, 1943 over the skies of Tunisia between P38s of the 82nd FG, escorting B25s of the 321BG., against a flight of Macchi 200s and ME 109s.
According to the report submitted by the pilots of the 95th FS, 82nd FG (Mission No. 99, March 31, 1943), 321 BG lost two B25s, which were attacked by Macchi 200s and also lost two P38s, which were attacked by both ME 109s and the MC. 200s. The two missing P38 pilots were 2nd Lt Joseph R. Sheen and 2nd Lt. Francis M. Molloy.
The source for this information is from the 82nd fighter Groups web site. www.82ndfightergroup.com
Now, when I visit the Army Air Forces web site that deals with the same reports, AAF combat chronology, MACR (Missing in Action Report), identification. etc to cross reference, the MACR only shows two B25s missing and does not list the P38s as shot down. www.armyairforces.com
I have also found conflicting and missing information on a few other reports.
The point that I am trying to make is that many of the books, articles, etc that I have read, regarding the RA/ANR fighting the Allies seem to have these type of errors, wrong or incomplete data and even sometimes mistaken identification of Italian-German aircraft.
Therfore, it appears to me that there are many aviation researchers who should not rely entirely on the Army Air forces data base, because a lot of the information is either wrong, misspelled, missing and even omitted.
Any thoughts?
Vincent.

This is interesting information and no doubt inconsistencies and errors dot the war time records on all sides, which raises questions about how researchers check the claims of pilots/aces or even if its a worthwhile exercise to do so. I would be interested to know what references make use of the of 82nd FG records and those of the Army Air Forces. Both should be reconciled when investigating the records of pilots. I'm pretty sure you can list some cases when only one set of records is used. Thanks for sharing your work.

Hi Vince,
I think you hit the nail on the head!
How do reserachers check pilots claims, especially when some of the sources they use, don't even record the loss.
There is also another US government USAAF Serial Numbers http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/usafserials.htm
This web site supposedly lists all the aircraft manufactured in the US, that were lost in WW2 and even this source's cross references do not match with the the 459ths report. Example, on April 25, 1944 459 BG was on a mission to bomb Turin, during the air battle, they lost two B24 aircraft, serial #s 42-52195 and 42-52377 all listed and described in the 459ths web site. www.459bg.org/
The Army Air force MACR only lists one a/c # 42-52195 as lost, the 459 BG reports both lost and the USAAF Serial #s lists 42-52195 as lost.
So, as one can see, different versions, therefore re-enforcing what you have stated that this kind of activity raises the question, are researchers checks of the claims of pilolts/aces worthwhile doing, when there is no consistency among the government sources.
Vincent.