Talk:Flying Tigers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
More information about this article... ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article is currently undergoing an A-Class review. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): Chinese military history task force United States military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

Contents 1 Movies/Films? 2 Paid Mercenaries 3 Trivia 4 American Volunteer Group 5 Volunteer Army 6 government support 7 About that "blood chit" 8 Inflated Kills 9 Roosevelt's secret exec order 10 Interesting article 11 Thumbs Up 12 CAT Civil Air Transport 13 Locations - where were their bases? 14 Requested Move 15 that website source 16 The Buck Danny comic strip 17 superscript 17.1 That "secret order"

[edit] Movies/Films?

I'm curious, have any movies/films ever been made of this squadron? I have to confess that I'm rather surprised that there haven't been any made if not.66.175.212.168 10:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Gee whiz, how about Flying Tigers (1942) with John Wayne? Does that count? ;^) Binksternet 11:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paid Mercenaries

I added that the group were paid mercenaries, due to another wiki article stating: " The pilots earned roughly $600-700 basic pay per month, plus an extra $500 per confirmed Japanese aircraft that was shot down courtesy of Madame Chiang Kai-shek."

-intranetusa

[edit] Trivia

Can't we just get rid of the Trivia section, which seems to be a magnet for -- well, trivia, most recently the false assertion that AVG veterans created the Hell's Angels motorcycle group. Why mention a Chinese police squad and not, say, the current Flying Tigers helicopter and Warthog squadrons, or the radio-controlled model club? If Panda Bears etc are worth mentioning, why not "English" the entry and put it in the body of the article? --Cubdriver 20:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Later: right! Another addition that made me cringe, so I deleted the section. It is obviously a magnet for bits of nonsense. If any of these items seriously belong in the article, then they should be placed at a logical place in the text, and there justified by their importance. --Cubdriver 18:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American Volunteer Group

"Flying Tigers" of course was never more than a nickname for the unit known at the time as the First American Volunteer Group. That being the case, shouldn't the article be titled Flying Tigers (American Volunteer Group)? Are there other cases where Wiki articles show alternate titles in this manner? --Cubdriver 20:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone has now found it necessary to add that "Flying Tigers" also referred to successor units. All the more reason that this ought to be have American Volunteer Group in its title! --Cubdriver 00:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be "American Volunteer Group (Flying Tigers)".

[edit] Volunteer Army

ĒHere I create a section about 'Volunteer Army'. I hope the section to be to be complemented. Poo-T 18:29, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your English is shoddy and you don't know the first thing about protocol in regards to proving your claims. I removed it until you can give Wiki a valid link to the controversy.

I know I'm not so good at writing English. So I have asked to refine the text I wrote. Then I want ask you about a few points. #1 There was no discussion page before I wrote here. If you see 'Write something and Write discussion simultaneously' as a problem, you should remove all the text in this WikiPage. :P) #2 If you think the source of the text is poor, I can add some additional links about it. As I 've tried to keep the balance of the page, I didn't add so long text/many links. Do you really want many links limited to the text? #3 I'm not sure I can catch your meaning. If you think, free online link/source is needed as a reference, It's worth listening to. #4 Do you understand your doing 'Remove text without discussing, Remove text without signature, Remove text without logging in' is valid? IMHO, Your doing seems not so "WikiPedian style". Don't you think so? Poo-T 23:47, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] government support

The AVG was certainly a U.S.-supported unit. Early on, it was largely run by Lauchlin Currie, a staffer in the White House, and its financing was handled by China Defense Supplies which was largely the creation of Roosevelt friend Tommy Corcoran. The money was provided by the U.S.; the planes were American; the pilots and ground crews were recruited mostly from the U.S. military.

Yet all those men were volunteers, and (though some of them now claim otherwise) they were released from U.S. service with no formal understanding that they would ever return--and many never did go back into the U.S. military. So I don't see what is wrong with the title, American Volunteer Group.

As for violating neutrality laws, the financing and organization of the AVG was very carefully done in a manner that would *not* violate the letter of the law. Tommy Corcoran in an unpublished memoir has told us that, at Roosevelt's request, he went to Capitol Hill and floated the plan to to see if they had any objection to it. They didn't, and the plan proceeded. I don't see any violation.

Note also that by the time the AVG was in Burma in the summer of 1941, the law had changed from "Cash and Carry" to "Lend Lease." Indeed, the planes released to China by the British were replaced by more formidable models of P-40 that were provided (effectively free) under Lend Lease. So events caught up with the AVG before it ever went into combat.

'in an unpublished memoir', 'Tommy Corcoran went to Capitol Hill ' 'Congressional leaders ' no objection' . Can it be a kind of source for Encyclopedia? And, I think, this process doesn't mean 'Official approval'. IMHO, about the violation is gray area, not "white" or "black". If such process can be easily permitted, Iran-Contra Affair would be "white", too. But I don't want to do endless debating about Flying tigers. So I propose to add sentences as follows. >The AVG was certainly a U.S.-supported unit. Early on, it was largely run by Lauchlin Currie, a staffer in the White House, and its financing was handled by China Defense Supplies which was largely the creation of Roosevelt friend Tommy Corcoran. The money was provided by the U.S. The planes were American. The pilots and ground crews were recruited mostly from the U.S. military. But direct military aid was prohibited under neutrality laws. So the financing and organization of the AVG was very carefully done by the president, in a manner that would not violate the letter of the law. -How do you think about the text, Cubdriver? Poo-T 06:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] About that "blood chit"

While the blood chit illustrating this section appears to be reasonably accurate, it contains a copy of the Walt Disney "Flying Tiger" emblem that is 1) ananchronistic (no such emblem on the blood chit) and 2) flipped to show the Bengal tiger leaping to the right instead of the left. Could the image be replaced? For an actual AVG blood chit, see http://www.warbirdforum.com/bloodchi.htm showing the blood chit that belonged to AVG ground crew Jasper Harrington.

This is a photograph showing both the back piece and a chest or leaf piece, in a frame. The piece with the tigre is not part of the back piece. I am not very competant to judge of the authenticity of these, though. Rama 13:25, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Zhang Difei, a native Chinese speaker, translates the "blood chit" text as follows: "This foreign person has come to China to help in the war effort. Soldiers and civilians, one and all, should rescue, protect, and provide him medical care"

Later: okay, I asked a friend to question some of the AVG vets on this matter, and they all agree the blood chit is bogus. Here's a statement by a gent whose avocation it is to appraise AVG memorabilia: "The chit on that site is a fake, as is of course, the patch. There is basically one type of chit used by the AVG. It may have had one tiny character variation by the series number. They are raw silk with a linen backing and silk screened with some variations in the colors probably caused by printing on different occasions and ink level.The earliest chits issued are in the three and four hundreds. The next batch issued with the one minor character variation started with #0001 which Chennault kept."

I will upload a jpeg of the Jasper Harrington blood chit when I can figure out the system for so doing! (Cubdriver)

Later: Okay, with the permission of R.E. Baldwin, I have uploaded a different blood chit, to which he holds copyright. (Cubdriver) As a result of the pilots being paid $500 gold per enemy aircraft shot down, the AVG had the most arduous process for recording a confirmed kill of any aerial combat group in history. For example,in the battle of Rangoon an unknown number of enemy aircraft were shot down which went down in the bay. These were not confirmed kills even though they were seen to go down. This is ignored in this article.

I personally don't see what would make the interviews of the Japanese pilots more accurate than the AVG claims. As far as "official" Japanese military records from this era, how many commanders are going to accuratly portray their losses when this will be to their detriment in their careers?--Jmb2fly (talk) 13:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inflated Kills

Kill tallies from the time period were often inflated as a method of propaganda. While the official number of planes shot down by the Flying Tigers was relatively accurate, pilots at the time frequently inflated their kill totals. This was also a method for the pilots to earn more money. As stated in the article, unofficial kills ranged from 500-1000 while the "official" number was significantly lower.

You are conflating newspaper reports with pilot claims/credits. The AVG had 297 confirmed kills (the number varies by one or two depending on when and who filed the reports). The pilots weren't over-claiming for propaganda, nor were they over-claiming for money, since for a good part of the time they were in combat, they didn't know that the bonus money would be paid to them. They over-claimed for a variety of very good reasons, which have pertained to most aerial combats in most wars. To bring up propaganda and money misleads the reader. You might consider starting a new article on the subject of fighter pilot over-claiming, a very fertile field for speculation. Cubdriver

Cubdriver is quite correct in asserting that pilots due tend to exaggerate. The figure of "1,000 kills" comes from an infamous booklet issued at an AVG reunion. One wonders what the writers were smoking at the time. The actual figure is indeed around 300, though that depends whether or not you only count air-to-air victories or you include parked aircraft destroyed by strafing.Archangel

AVG Air and Ground Claims

The official list of AVG victory credits was published in 1996 by researcher Dr. Frank Olynyk (now cited in the bibliography.) The actual total was 229 air and 69 ground: a total of 298. Yes, that's well beyond the 115 determined by Ford but it's within bounds for the normal exaggeration in aerial combat, especially when some good money was at stake. ($500 in 1942 = over $6000 today.)

I changed the original statement that Boyington "created" the Black Sheep: he merely assumed command of a reconstituted squadron that had existed before. The biography alluded to here was written by Bruce Gamble, who also compiled a fine squadron history.

[edit] Roosevelt's secret exec order

On April 15, 1941 President Roosevelt signed a secret executive order authorising personnel on active duty to resign from the military services in order to sign up for the AVG.

I found information stating that this happened in US Army: A Complete History published by the Army Historical Foundation. What's your source for saying that it didn't happen? Drogo Underburrow 12:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

FDR allowed the resignation of military personnel, but the disputed part, was the claim by recruiters that they could return to active duty with the time served in AVG counting toward their time on Active Duty. Similar to the sheep dipping on U-2 pilots going to work for the CIA. PPGMD 15:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The statement says nothing about returning to active duty. All it says is that Roosevelt signed a secret executive order. Drogo Underburrow 15:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

No one has ever found such a document, and most Roosevelt scholars I've spoken to point out that issuing one would have been against FDR's style. I spent two days combing through the FDR Library at Hyde Park looking for that supposed order. Except for one instance (not in April, and not referring to the 1st AVG} did Roosevelt sign his name to a memo (not a "secret executive order") to the military dealing with the Special Air Unit for China. Otherwise everything was handled by Lauchlin Currie. If the AHF book gives a file locator for the order, I'll look again, but I'll bet it doesn't. There's a new book coming out in June that might shed some light on this. --Cubdriver 15:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Still the fact remains that the Army Historical Foundation says that Roosevelt did this. You still have given no other source that says he didn't do this. Here at Wikipedia, its our job to report what sources say, not what our original research tells us. Wikipedia is not about reporting "the truth", but simply about reporting what sources say, so even if you find a source that contradicts this source, you shouldn't delete this statement, but should modify it to add the newer source not as the truth, but impartially as an alternate view. In fact, even if you called and spoke with the Army Historical Foundation, and they told you that they had made a mistake in their book, and you were right, you still could not put that information into Wikipedia, see the policy page. So discussing what "really" happened, and the scholars you have spoken with on this talk page is a waste of time, and not what talk pages are for. Drogo Underburrow 02:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's not unheard of that e-mails to scholars on the subject being used as a source on Wikipedia, so if he does contact the AHF and they report that they were wrong it's not unheard of, that the e-mail being used as proof to verify other sources. That is counter productive, and is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. PPGMD 03:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The policy page specifically states that information be published. It does not say that private e-mails are acceptable sources. So if you have heard of people using e-mails, please refer them to the policy page. I don't know what you are refering to when you say "that is counterproductive". Drogo Underburrow 03:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It's counter productive because it isn't in the spirit of Wikipedia. Using policy to silence others isn't in the spirit of wikipedia and sharing information. There are alot of cases where published sources are wrong, and certain sources aren't mentioned because they are wrong, or based on incorrect information particular when they come from broad reference sources. Your source is an example of such a broad source, and it's more likely that more focused sources are more correct. PPGMD 04:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The policy page on original research SPECIFICALLY gives an example of how even if the source itself admits it is in error, that Wikipedia must not use that information. The policy pages define the "spirit of Wikipedia". The "spirit of Wikipedia" says that Wikipedia is for reporting published sources that are verifiable. It is not for presenting the "ultimate truth". Your idea of what Wikipedia is about is wrong. Your argument is with the policy pages, not with me. Finally, Wikipedia, as the policy pages explain, is not about picking and choosing which sources are right and wrong. Its not about using "more focused sources are more correct". I am pretty much not going to say anything more on this issue. I ask you to carefully read the policy pages and attempt to adhere to them, rather than using your own ideas about what Wikipedia is and isn't. Abiding by the policy pages helps to prevent edit wars, and prevent wasting a lot of time, by making sure editors are all trying to do the same thing, and not some editors trying to write one sort of reference work, while others try to make it another sort. Drogo Underburrow 05:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I had time to look up your source at a local bookstore, that book is the historical equivalent of a Farmer's Almanac, no citations, doesn't go into very much depth on any of it's subjects, but it makes a good coffee table book (I own two of the series's myself, I wouldn't rely on them as sources). I agree with Cubdriver I believe it should be stated "It's widely believed that FDR issued an executive order allowing pilots to resign for AVG service, however there is no evidence that such a order was ever published, the State department in fact blocked the issuing of passports of a number of pilots that had a history of volunteering for such service." Flying Tigers by Daniel Ford is the citation for that last part. PPGMD 14:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, gosh, I didn't mean to start a policy war! I don't mind at all if the text says something like "It's widely believed that FDR signed a secret executive order on Apr 15" etc, because that appears in most of the Flying Tigers histories, though never with a citation. And FDR did know all about the project. It's just that his style was to govern by a wink and a nod, and the Secret Executive Order is not only unavailable to us, if it ever existed, but was unlike him. --Cubdriver 10:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

there is no evidence that such a order was ever published, - What is your source for this? Drogo Underburrow 16:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence that there is no evidence, so therefore there must be evidence? I have no evidence that aliens didn't land at Rosewell, but still I think it's safe to say that they didn't. As for FDR, see for example www.warbirdforum.com/fdrnote.htm

I put it in for four reasons, first in Black Sheep One (forget the author, it's in the Boyington article), the author mentions that most of the official recognition never came (official probably means the promised Executive order), second the State Department denied the passport of at least one member of the AVG on the grounds that they though he was going to fight for China (this is mentioned in Flying Tigers by Ford), third is the lack of evidence of such order in the FDR library (this is not classified original research, it's called verifying sources), and fourth there is no citation of where your "source" got the information.

I also checked the policy pages and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Evaluating_sources Because your source does not have citations and it's a very broad book, I do not consider it an academic source, thus any claims it makes it dubious, but I included it none the less because it's in the official AVG history (along with it's claimed 1000 kills). PPGMD 18:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

So, you agree that multiple sources all say that on April 15, 1941 President Roosevelt signed a secret executive order authorising Army Reservists on active duty to resign from the Army Air Corps in order to sign up for the AVG. Therefore, I'm going to put that in the article, just as stated here. Furthermore, you have no source which claims these sources are mistaken. The only questioning is coming from you and Cubdriver; that makes it original research, and not suitable for inclusion in the article. Finally, I'll attribute your questioning of the Army Historical Foundation's book to a desire on your part to win an argument, and not a serious statement that you have actually investigated. Please go to their website and check out the institution you are criticizing before making rash accusations: www.armyhistory.org Drogo Underburrow 19:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Checking sources is not considered Original Research, if you read the OR page, you will note that Jimbo says that the policy is in place to prevent original theories to be published on Wikipedia, checking for such Secret Order in the FDR archives, and not finding any citation of a order number, or any evidence that such an order existed is not OR. Your source, and web sources do not provide a citation, and there is no known publication of the order, thus as far as one can tell it doesn't exist.

Your "source" comes from a find foundation, that doesn't mean that the particular source you have chosen isn't junk, with no citations, and covering such a broad topic, it is hardly considered an original source. Based on my checking of multiple sources, I find my citable evidence that such an order was published, thus I will revert any addition that outright claims that there was such an order. PPGMD 19:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I put a statement into the article and gave the source for that statement. That's all that is required. The book said what it said, that is a fact. The book is a reputable source. Therefore, the material belongs in the article. If you find material from a different source, that makes a different argument, by all means include it as well. But don't make the article POV by deleting what the Army book said or putting unsourced words in the article questioning what it said. It seems to me that you are ignoring the NPOV policy, making wild accusations such as questioning the Army Historical Foundation as a valid source, and simply being obstructive at this point. Drogo Underburrow 20:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Your book is not a reputable source, it lacks one of the keys to be considered an academic source, citations. Just like Wikipedia, if you want a source to be consider reputable, it must have citations so other may check on it's work. PPGMD 20:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

That is absolutely ridiculous. You could hardly ask for a better source than the Army Historical Society. Furthermore, you already agreed that the fact I attributed to the Army Historical Society is also stated by multiple other sources. Drogo Underburrow 20:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

In web sources yes, a common myth doesn't mean it's right. The book you quoted is not an academic source, personally I expected better from the AHS, but since neither of my two copies of books from the same series has citations either, it seems to be a common theme, find me a source that has citation on this executive, and I will not revert, until then it's uncited, with more evidence (like Boyington having a hard time re-entering the USMC, State Department denying passports to Army pilots, and lack of publication at FDR library) that points that there was no order. PPGMD 20:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Lets get this straight: You are now objecting to my putting one sentence in the article, that is sourced by a book published by the Army Historical Society, because there is no footnote in the book; but you already agreed that what the sentence is saying, is widely stated by others was well. Meanwhile, the entire rest of the article is completely uncited. Don't you think you are being a bit argumentative and unreasonable? There is only one footnote in the entire article. Its to a website; that website doesn't footnote its information. Yet you are arguing against including material given by the Army Historical Society in its published book. And arguing against a sentence that you already agreed is widely stated in many histories.

Ok, here's the bottom line. I'm going to include the statement, and cite the source. You are welcome to include statements by your sources in the article as well. Just don't stick in POV statements that are unsourced, written by you, saying that the Historical Society's statement is untrue. Drogo Underburrow 20:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You are the one that brough Policy into it, I was going to take a more laid back approach and contact the editor looking for his source (a process that I have already begun). But according to the Reliable Sources Policy, US Army: A Complete History is not considered a reliable secondary source, it lacks both footnotes, and an extensive bibliography so you can check up on it's sources. No primary source is available from the main publishing source, and there are a number of issues that said document would have come in handy when dealing with the State Department and the USMC (according to Black Sheep One, and Flying Tigers both extensively cited books that qualify as reliable secondary sources). I have started an attempt to find the primary source, until then I will revert any changes made to the article based on that book.

Seriously take a look at that book, is it comprehensive (check the Nam section and check for Mi Lay and other embarrassments), is it extensively sourced, would they be considered an expert on the AVG? Do you seriously believe that a book under 1,000 pages can contain accurately 200+ years of Army History? 21:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Your objection to the US Army book is bogus. The only reason you are objecting to the book is because its the one I happen to have gotten the information from. You have already acknowledged that any number of sources say the same thing. Furthermore, nowhere in the policy pages does it require that in order to be included in Wikipedia, the original material must contain footnotes. Drogo Underburrow 21:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The only reason I am objecting is from a lack of a primary source (the original document), and I find it suspect that there is no citation in any document I have that states such an order was published. Note "These standards include a format that includes footnotes and bibliographies pointing in great detail to the sources used." thats from the Reliable Sources Policy page under the History Section, US Army: A Complete history wouldn't qualify. If the editor can point me in the direction of a academic secondary source, or the primary source then I will gladly re-write that sentence, but no earlier. PPGMD 21:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it anywhere. Make a link to what you are talking about. Drogo Underburrow 21:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Right here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources also if you want a source, here we go http://www.warbirdforum.com/faq.htm#10 that FAQ was written by Daniel Ford, an expert on the AVG, and author of a number of book that would qualify as secondary sources. 21:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The page you linked me to is a guidelines page, not a policy page. So its not binding on Wikipedia. It states: that besides footnoted materials, There are many other sources of historical information, but their authority varies. A recent trend is a proliferation of specialized encyclopedias on historical topics. These are edited by experts who commission scholars to write the articles, and then review each article for quality control. They can be considered authoritative for Wikipedia. This book by the Army Historical Society falls in this category. Its edited by experts and reviewed.

Now, again, neither you, nor the second link you refered me to, dispute that most Flying Tiger histories claim that in April 1941 President Roosevelt issued a "secret executive order" to create the American Volunteer Group. Since that is all that I am quoting from the Army book, I don't want to hear any more objections to it. Its an agreed on fact. It doesn't even need a citation between us.

That is all I am insisting on...that that statement be in the article, only in the form of a direct statement in the following form: Most historians say that on April 15, 1941 President Roosevelt signed a secret executive order authorising Army Reservists on active duty to resign from the Army Air Corps in order to sign up for the AVG. That most historians SAY it, you have to admit that this is fact. That is all I want the article to say, I am not pressing for the article to say that the historians are correct.

I don't mind if you then add to the article the viewpoint expressed on the website you showed me...as long as you attribute it to the author of the site, stated so that its clear that its an alternate view. Neither of the two views will the article claim to be the "correct" one. That is the NPOV way. Can we agree on this? - Drogo Underburrow 22:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not an agreed on fact, the second link is from an author that is widely considered an expert on the AVG, if he can't find such an order, it's unlikely to have existed. Combine that with problems that said executive order may have fixed (such as that State department not granting passports) there is more evidence that suggests that it didn't happen. As is quite often a myth is purported as fact. Without a primary source, I simply can't agree. I also simply don't consider US Army: A Complete History a specialist encyclopedia, particularly on the subject on the AVG. PPGMD 22:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Also the way that it's phrased right now is very NPOV, it states that it's a widely held believe that such an order was signed, but it notes that there is no primary source evidence to prove it. PPGMD 22:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

No, right now its POV, it implies that one side is right and the other is wrong. The NPOV way is to state both sides views as views, not saying either is the truth. The article has to state "side A believes this and side B belives that isn't true, instead this is true." Drogo Underburrow 22:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it notes that many believe that there was an executive order, but it also states that authors are unable to find evidence (aka primary source, the original document) that such an order exists, and it states that there were issues that said order may have fixed that cropped up, so it's unlikely that such order exists. It covers all sides of the story. PPGMD 22:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

When you say "it states that there were issues that said order may have fixed that cropped up, so it's unlikely that such order exists." this is being POV, its arguing which of the two sides is correct. You can't do that, you can only allow each side to make its own case. Drogo Underburrow 23:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Such order would apply to the State Department if it was issued, so it's further proof that such an order didn't exist. PPGMD 23:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting article

April 1942 Kienow, China Air Task Force Base.

A hour before darkness fell over eastern China, the silence was broken by a frantic cry from the Chinese officer on duty in the operations cave that a lone aircraft was approaching. Was it an enemy Japanese plane? The Japanese never sent out single aircraft but perhaps they might be trying a new tactic to catch the eight Warhawk P-40 fighter planes formerly known as the famed Flying Tigers on the ground.

Not taking chances, Flight Leader John Hampshire ordered 2 P-40s up into the air. The unknown aircraft was only 30 miles to the east and fast approaching.

10 miles from the Kienow airfield, the two pilots spotted the mystery plane flying low 200ft above the ground. It was a American made P-40 with American insignia! Where did it come from? The pilots noticed that it was very badly shot-up, the fuselage looking more like a sieve, and through the shattered windshield was the bloody face of the pilot, but the plane held steady, flying straight and true.

However, minutes later, the aircraft suddenly plunged downwards, hitting the ground with an explosion.

Who and what was that P-40 doing so far from the nearest US airbase? Where did it come from?

Apparently, so they learnt much later on that the pilot was one "Corn" Sherill based on the Philippine Island of Mindanao. After the fall of most of the Phillipines to the Japanese in the Spring of 1942, Corn Sheril and 11 mechanics decided to field one last mission against the invaders. Cannibalising parts from a few decrepit airplanes, they put together a single flight-worthy P-40 and fitted it with a few bombs and a large auxiliary fuel tank. The mission? An improbable bombing run at the heart of the Japanese empire, a naval base on the island of Formosa (Taiwan, then a Japanese Colony).

Corn Sherill flew the patched-up aircraft north to Formosa and 5 hours later, so unexpected was his attack that he was able to drop his bombs virtually unopposed, strafing and destroying a large number of grounded Japanese aircraft lined up in neat rows and bearing the rising sun insignia.

Leaving a wake of destruction, Corn Sherill turned westward, towards China and his one chance of survival, the Chinese nationalist airbase of Kienow. However, his plane was now riddled by shrapnel from anti-aircraft fire and low on fuel. Japanese Zeros, scrambled to intercept, poured yet more punishment into the P-40. Flying a desperate weave, a badly wounded Corn Sheril performed the best flying of his life, flying by the seat of his pants and finally escaped his pursuers in the clouds.

Low one fuel and forced to nurse a badly damaged plane without working instruments, he flew by dead reckoning alone. Somewhere between Formosa and Kienow, Corn Sheril died, but somehow his aircraft held true, perhaps from a braced stick against his knees. The plane continued on its course, flown by a dead man, directly towards the safety of the Allied airbase. That was where the two pilots from Kienow found the lone fighter, after a long and amazing flight through the heart of the Japanese empire.

From http://forum.china-defense.com/showthread.php?t=16205 -- Миборовский 03:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, interesting, but known to be bogus. See http://www.warbirdforum.com/phantom.htm Oldpilot 21:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thumbs Up

My father balked when I told him the Chinese got thumbs up from the pilots. It means "number one" in Chinese, and I've seen photos and film of Chinese making this gesture. Can anybody verify that the pilots got this from the pilots, rather than just being a theory? He was a college student there when these guys were flying the skies over China.--Wiarthurhu 23:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CAT Civil Air Transport

US Airmen over the Battle of Dien Bien Phu, precursor of CIA's "Air America".

Takima 14:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Locations - where were their bases?

I flew with the Chinese Air Force out of a base in Yang Jia Shan, a village 25 km from Han Zhong. (Han Zhong is 145 km SW of Xian).

Residents of the village tell me that they watched American pilots fight the Japanese during WWII. I heard from a number of local people that Americans flew from that base.

What did this base do? Were Flying Tigers stationed there?

What air bases did the Flying Tigers use?

[edit] Requested Move

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 17:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The Flying Tigers were officially the First American Volunteer Group, which we would now render 1st American Volunteer Group. The 2nd AVG was actually organized and ready to go, with men at sea and others ready to fly the Pacific on December 10, 1941. A 3rd AVG would have been recruited in January 1942. These followup groups deserve mention but do not belong in a discussion of the Flying Tigers. So I like the organization whereby American Volunteer Group is a landing page of its own, referring the reader to Flying Tigers. That's the present setup. To combine them would require a major rewrite. Oldpilot 21:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

So ... can we now remove the flag at the top of the article? Whenever I see these flags, I become suspicious of the article!

There being no objection, I removed the flag. Oldpilot 17:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] that website source

There are several cites to the Centennial of Flight website, which strikes me as being of dubious worth. For example we read: The salary lured some--$500 a month plus $400 per confirmed kill bonus--nearly double the average military pilot salary. Some joined to gain combat flying experience, others for the adventure. During the summer of 1941, 300 men posing as tourists and carrying passports that identified them as teachers boarded boats for Asia. Here in just three sentences we have three errors: the minimum salary for pilots was $600, the victory bonus was $500, and I can't think of a single AVG who went out as a teacher, though perhaps one or two did. Certainly they didn't all do so, as the website suggests. Daniel Ford 20:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Buck Danny comic strip

I think that this comic strip covers the period after the absorption in the USAAF. I read them as a child and I remember that the first two Buck Danny books cover the aftermath of pearl harbour in the pacific up to the battle of midway. After that the main characters are sent back home for a rest. In the third album they are then sent to China to a unit that is called "the flying tigers". Thus the comic strip is set definitely after pearl harbour and the "flying tigers" in it must be either the 23rd fighter group, the china task force or the 14th air force.

Though no doubt interesting to a very few who read the comic strip in their youth, this is really the most trivial of trivia. I think the "Legacy" reference to Buck Danny ought to be removed. Any objections? AVGbuff (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait a second, you posted here days after you already removed the item? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC).

[edit] superscript

Someone keeps putting one instance of 1st American Volunteer Group in superscript. Could we belay that, please? Wiki gravely informs us: 'Sometimes, ordinal endings for numbers are written as superscripts (1st, 2nd, 3rd rather than 1st, 2nd, 3rd), although many style guides recommend against this use.' Indeed. The Chicago Manual (14th edition) nowhere allows it. Further, the usage isn't consistent in this article or in the main American Volunteer Group article, nor are superscripts used elsewhere e.g. 23d Fighter Group. AVGbuff (talk)

[edit] That "secret order"

This addition was made by an anonymous editor: However, copies of the order have been found by researchers in private archives and at Stanford University, to which a more responsible citizen added: [citation needed]

Indeed! The claim is so improbable that I have removed it pending such evidence. The reference to Stanford almost certainly means the Chennault Papers, which contain no such document. It is famously impossible to prove a negative proposition ("there was no such order"), but to assert the positive ("there was such an order") absolutely requires documentation. AVGbuff (talk) 11:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)