History and Headlines Corrects What
History Got Wrong About the Flying Tigers

Good article. Thanks for the post. If you go read it, be sure to read the long first comment after the article, it clears up some misinformation in the main piece.

Very good read. Thanks!

Although “Major Dan” (why no last name?) writes as though he is the authoritative source, the commenter Daniel Shen has a lot to say that is worthwhile. And not all of it agrees with Major Dan. I’ll warrant that none of these writers was alive during the era of the Flying Tigers, so they rely on the writings of others for their information and pass it on. They also don’t know what we know and what we don’t know.

Not sure why this is in the news, nor what is the claimed history that was "got wrong." The article doesn't say :-) But the Flying Tigers never met a Zero over China. Their planes were brand new P-40s diverted from Great Britain and had Brit cammo. The Shark Mouth artwork was copied from a magazine photo of a Brit plane, and the Brits copied it from a German warplane BION. The P-40 was a good plane but could not dog fight with a Japanese one, or with any German fighter for that matter, and had to use "zoom and boom" tactics taught by Chenault. No one really knows where the "flying tiger" name came from, but some say it was Madame Chiang who in a newspaper article extolled the flyers as "our flying tigers!" At least according to one account I've read.

This is posted #4 because this is the anniversary of the Tigers' first combat in 1941. An interesting read.

It was not pleasant duty. They slept in 100 deg heat at 90% humidity. They had to struggle into their fleece jackets as they went from 100 to -30 as they gained altitude. Monsoon rains were the worst. Fuel was limited so engagements were brief. Radio was poor and there were no AWACS planes. Not fun at all. And little glory--no news coverage.

Referenced after the article: "Kleiner, Sam. The Flying Tigers: The Untold Story of the American Pilots Who Waged a Secret War Against Japan. Penguin Books, 2018." A good read. Read it last year.

I stopped when the author makes the claim that the P-40s were not obsolete, and were a fair competitor for the Zero. THIS is patent nonsense. The P-40 (regardless of his factual but still non-sense "fresh from the factory" - they were making brand new examples of an obsolete design) was a obsolete design, and entirely unable to evenly dogfight with the Zero which would easily out-turn it due to much lower wing loading. Our pilots did learn to use the strengths of the P-40 against the weaknesses of the Zero, but it was definitely an obsolete aircraft against a more modern, more effective design - but still with some weaknesses, notably no self-sealing tanks or armor plate. I am wary of revisionist history, it is often very, very wrong. Occasionally we learn some new things, but often it is just shoddy, incomplete research being sold as " a new look". I stopped reading after the lame attempt to sell the P-40 as an even competitor with the Zero in a dogfight. Hit and run attacks could and did work, using the diving speed advantage on attack and to escape was often the best strategy. If the first pass from surprise was unsuccessful against a Zero, best get away. Trying a turning fight with a Zero was a guaranteed loser for a P-40.

I enjoyed the article, with thanks to OP for posting. However, the author knows less than he thinks he does, and he's not helped by claiming to "debunk" known history with unknown or forgotten facts. As others have already noted above, the commentator after the article provides useful correction. First, it is absolutely clear where the name came from, and it is not Japanese tiger shark phobia. As the commentator notes, there is a four-character phrase in Chinese that reads "Ru Hu Tian Yi," which translates as "Add Wings To Tiger." Four-character phrases (chengyu) are a common way for the Chinese to express a complex thought by means of a simple aphorism drawn from a much longer story. (Often, if you don't know the story, the aphorism makes no sense. For example "Old Man Loses Horse" comes from a long fable about a man who refuses to bemoan the loss of his horse, which ultimately turns out to be the best thing that could have happened to him.) Adding wings to a tiger is easy; it means to render the powerful and fearsome even more so and, hence, "The Flying Tigers." Second, while the men of the AVG were not regulation military and were paid bounties, it is unfair to portray them as simple mercenaries. They were more akin to the Merchant Marine, who also performed heroically and suffered greatly. Not all heroes wear standard uniforms. Nonetheless, it is still a fascinating story. You can read more in reporter Teddy White's wonderful trenchcoat memoir "In Search of History" and Barbara Tuchman's "Stilwell and the American Experience in China, 1911–45." Neither were hagiographers of General Chennault and both provide useful context. P.S. In 2015, I happened to visit the Republic of China Armed Forces Museum in Taiwan during an exhibit commemorating the anniversary of what they call the "Second Sino-Japanese War." There was much Flying Tiger memorabilia and pro-American sentiment on display.