# were the tuskegee airmen the most skilled pilots in the war?



## freeair10 (Jan 12, 2012)

despite not having alot of aces, or top aces (i think they had at least 1 ace)

but anyways, aces don't mean anything, in terms of flight, they were the most skillful pilots in the war

agree or disagree

they were better then there white counterparts


----------



## TheMustangRider (Jan 12, 2012)

Welcome to the forums freeair10.
I'm pretty sure the Tuskegee Airmen tried their best as every outfit during the war did.
Given the tough circumstances in which they served, I am certain their bravery knew no boundaries.


----------



## freeair10 (Jan 12, 2012)

thanks for answering The MustangRider.... but that really doesn't answer the question, not to be rude...

but when it comes to pure flight skill were they the best... is there any unit that is considered more skillful then the tuskeegee airmen


----------



## TheMustangRider (Jan 12, 2012)

freeair10 said:


> thanks for answering The MustangRider.... but that really doesn't answer the question, not to be rude...
> 
> but when it comes to pure flight skill were they the best... is there any unit that is considered more skillful then the tuskeegee airmen



Not offense taken freeair10, without any official records -let's wait for our knowledgeable members- or some other factual evidence to offer, I can tell you there were more successful American outfits operating in the ETO which achieved a greater number of kills and aces.
One thing I can tell you is that the Tuskegee Airmen were very disciplined in their escort missions which lead to a very effective cover of 15th AF bombers.
Without doubt they were a superb group of young and skilled fighter pilots.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 12, 2012)

".... aces don't mean anything, in terms of flight, they were the most skillful pilots in the war"

Apples to oranges to pears, freeair.

Why would a squadron of Fighter Pilots necessarily be "the best" over a squadron of Bomber Pilots or a squadron of Air Transport Pilots flying supplies over the Himalayas.

Frankly, you're question is naive and insulting to _all_ pilots.

MM


----------



## Erich (Jan 12, 2012)

agree wholeheartedly with Mike, in a word NO. do some research on the other P-51 grps. of the 15th so you can make an educated answer for yourself.


----------



## Rosco P. Coltraine (Jan 12, 2012)

freeair10 said:


> agree or disagree
> 
> they were better then there white counterparts


Disagree.

How the hell could you possibly say that? on what basis?

Are you trying to say that all other pilots were less skillful on the account of them being _white_? how racist and backward.
The records would strongly suggest otherwise.


----------



## Catch22 (Jan 12, 2012)

Race should have nothing to do with this particular discussion. Bottom line, there's no way as a group they were the most skilled pilots period. If you ask this question, how can aces be nothing? Often times the most skilled pilots were aces. There was of course an element of luck, so some potentially great pilots didn't get the scores they could have but we can't conclude who's better than who if we don't use qualifiers such as kills etc.

I think if you're looking for the best pilots, look at some of the Germans who fought through the entire war and survived while putting up large scores.


----------



## freeair10 (Jan 12, 2012)

Rosco P. Coltraine said:


> Disagree.
> 
> How the hell could you possibly say that? on what basis?
> 
> ...


 
what units had better records then the tuskegee guys?


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jan 12, 2012)

I think there are a few German units that far surpassed them.


----------



## freeair10 (Jan 12, 2012)

vikingBerserker said:


> I think there are a few German units that far surpassed them.



but then again, just because you were a high scoring ace doesn't mean you were a better pilot

i mean you can't say Erich Hartmann was a better pilot then any of the tuskegee guys, just cause he had 352 kills


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 12, 2012)

Easy Rosco. This forum is frequented by people from all over the world. Their English skills are not always superlative and their ages range from very young to old. I do not think that FreeAir was being racist nor insulting. I suspect that he is just asking a question and expecting a knowledgeable answer.

The Tuskegee airmen were certainly highly trained, capable and effective. Were they the most skillful as a group? Surely not. But were they skillful. Absolutely. And deserving of their record.

Perhaps the question ought to be whether they were more motivated than the average pilot. I would say yes they probably were on average, as they had a social stigma that they were likely eager to prove incorrect. Irrespective, they were wariors that deserved equal respect to white counterparts for their contributions to the war effort. But do not forget all the other African Americans that contributed behind the lines in logistic support. Not every worthy WWII participant was on the frontline holding a gun, flying a bomber, fighting in an airplane or manning a ship. Most were supporting our thin red line.


----------



## Rosco P. Coltraine (Jan 12, 2012)

freeair10 said:


> what units had better records then the tuskegee guys?


Most of them.

Start with the 357th.


----------



## Catch22 (Jan 12, 2012)

freeair10 said:


> but then again, just because you were a high scoring ace doesn't mean you were a better pilot
> 
> i mean you can't say Erich Hartmann was a better pilot then any of the tuskegee guys, just cause he had 352 kills



Actually, yes you can.

1) He has shot down more planes than anyone. Ever. It's not necessarily easy to accurately shoot while maneuvering in an aircraft, particularly then without modern technology.

2) He survived long enough to amass 352 kills. The fact he wasn't killed while fighting non-stop for 3 years proves he is an excellent fighter pilot.


----------



## freeair10 (Jan 12, 2012)

Rosco P. Coltraine said:


> Most of them.
> 
> Start with the 357th.



you think the 357th was better then the 332nd? interesting


----------



## Rosco P. Coltraine (Jan 12, 2012)

Matt308 said:


> Easy Rosco. This forum is frequented by people from all over the world. Their English skills are not always superlative and their ages range from very young to old. I do not think that FreeAir was being racist nor insulting. I suspect that he is just asking a question and expecting a knowledgeable answer.
> 
> The Tuskegee airmen were certainly highly trained, capable and effective. Were they the most skillful as a group? Surely not. But were they skillful. Absolutely. And deserving of their record.
> 
> Perhaps the question ought to be whether they were more motivated than the average pilot. I would say yes they probably were on average, as they had a social stigma that they were likely eager to prove incorrect. Irrespective, they were wariors that deserved equal respect to white counterparts for their contributions to the war effort. But do not forget all the other African Americans that contributed behind the lines in logistic support. Not every worthy WWII participant was on the frontline holding a gun, flying a bomber, fighting in an airplane or manning a ship. Most were supporting our thin red line.


This freeair has made the extraordinary claim the the said unit's pilots were the most skillful.
And made specific mention that their counterparts were white.

How is that *not* a racist implication?

Anything about discrimination and blah blah does not change the fact that there's nothing to base any assumption that these pilots were any more skillful than the rest.


----------



## freeair10 (Jan 12, 2012)

i don't want to sound like a troll or a ahole, im just trying to find out if they were the best when it came to pure skill

i had a friend, who is black, said the "tuskegee airmen were the best pilots in ww2..." bias, maybe.. but im just trying to find out


----------



## Rosco P. Coltraine (Jan 12, 2012)

freeair10 said:


> you think the 357th was better then the 332nd? interesting


Yes I think that.

Count the # of aces.


----------



## Rosco P. Coltraine (Jan 12, 2012)

freeair10 said:


> i don't want to sound like a troll or a ahole, im just trying to find out if they were the best when it came to pure skill
> 
> i had a friend, who is black, said the "tuskegee airmen were the best pilots in ww2..." bias, maybe.. but im just trying to find out


Sounds like bias to me. And an inferiority complex.


----------



## Catch22 (Jan 12, 2012)

I don't know about an inferiority complex, but I have a feeling we'll be seeing a lot of announcements that they were the best squadron in WW2 due to the film coming out. I'm of course not against the film, and am looking forward to seeing it, but movies have a way of giving people false impressions or people only know about what was in the movie, and don't know the bigger picture or other units.


----------



## freeair10 (Jan 12, 2012)

Catch22 said:


> I don't know about an inferiority complex, but I have a feeling we'll be seeing a lot of announcements that they were the best squadron in WW2 due to the film coming out. I'm of course not against the film, and am looking forward to seeing it, but movies have a way of giving people false impressions or people only know about what was in the movie, and don't know the bigger picture or other units.


 on youtube if you look at the trailer, you see alot of comments that they were the best, and the tuskegee airmen best pilots in the war, and im just trying to see if there any units in the allies or axis that were better then the,


----------



## Catch22 (Jan 12, 2012)

freeair10 said:


> on youtube if you look at the trailer, you see alot of comments that they were the best, and the tuskegee airmen best pilots in the war, and im just trying to see if there any units in the allies or axis that were better then the,



That's exactly what I mean. Were they a great unit? Yes. Were they trail blazers? Yes. Did they have a good combat record? Absolutely. But other units in the USAAF, Navy, RAF and Luftwaffe had better combat records. At this point that's really the only way to determine if they were the best since we don't have the ability to test their "raw skill", so we have to use the numbers available.


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 12, 2012)

418 Squadron (city of Edmonton) was unit that had better numbers


----------



## freeair10 (Jan 12, 2012)

you have a great point, im sorry if i presented my self to be a snob, im just trying to connect the dots, i guess with the movie coming out, its stuck in alot of people's heads, espespecially casual... im sure there were british and canadian units that were better, and probably american units..

you are right though, since you can't measure raw skill when it comes to flying, you have to go by raw numbers


----------



## Rosco P. Coltraine (Jan 12, 2012)

freeair10 said:


> on youtube if you look at the trailer, you see alot of comments that they were the best, and the tuskegee airmen best pilots in the war, and im just trying to see if there any units in the allies or axis that were better then the,


Piece of advice;

Don't get your history from movies.

Movies exist to make money, not tell the truth. Documentaries are supposed to tell the truth.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 12, 2012)

And raw numbers can be very misleading. To take a totally stupid example, a unit of P-51s which only ever came across Ju-52s would have an amazing number of aces and a fantastic kill-to-loss ratio, whereas a P-51 unit which came up against seasoned pilots in Fw190s at a tactical disadvantage would have far a far worse record "by the numbers". So which unit is better? Puerile example, I know, but numbers are not an effective measure of a units operational effectiveness.


----------



## freeair10 (Jan 12, 2012)

the movie doesn't look that good to be honest, though.... it seems like its cheezy, the dialogue looks mediocre, and the flying scenes look unrealistic

im not sure it will be even better then pearl harbor (that movie blowed)


----------



## freeair10 (Jan 12, 2012)

buffnut453 said:


> And raw numbers can be very misleading. To take a totally stupid example, a unit of P-51s which only ever came across Ju-52s would have an amazing number of aces and a fantastic kill-to-loss ratio, whereas a P-51 unit which came up against seasoned pilots in Fw190s at a tactical disadvantage would have far a far worse record "by the numbers". So which unit is better? Puerile example, I know, but numbers are not an effective measure of a units operational effectiveness.



so would you say the tuskegee airmen were the best


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 12, 2012)

I wouldn't claim any single unit as "the best" and to try to justify one is pointless. Experience shows that operational effectiveness can change very quickly - lose a much-respected CO and a couple of other key personnel and a top-flight unit can rapidly descend into mediocrity, accompanied by low morale. In my experience, the "best unit" is the one you're serving in. And next week, if you get posted to the neighbouring squadron, that becomes the best unit. Fighter pilots have to believe they are better than the rest, otherwise they lose their edge - that comes with the territory or else they risk losing their mojo and believing ever more that they're in a "bad luck" unit.


----------



## Rosco P. Coltraine (Jan 12, 2012)

When you think about it;

The most skilled unit could've been some Soviet unit wiped out in their out-of-date Polikarpov's at the beginning of Barbarossa.
How could you really ever know?

You could say a unit was more _successful_ based on their operational record.
And there's nothing stand-out in the operational record of the "Tuskagee airmen".


----------



## Crimea_River (Jan 12, 2012)

What the hell does "best" mean anyway? It's a highly vague and interpretive adjective.

If someone said to me that so-and-so was the "best" I'd smile and nod and walk on.


----------



## claidemore (Jan 12, 2012)

freeair10 said:


> but then again, just because you were a high scoring ace doesn't mean you were a better pilot
> 
> i mean you can't say Erich Hartmann was a better pilot then any of the tuskegee guys, just cause he had 352 kills



Sure you can. If you want to say one person is better than another you have to choose a method of measurement. If you choose number of kills, it's no contest, Hartmann was the best, period.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jan 12, 2012)

freeair10 said:


> but then again, just because you were a high scoring ace doesn't mean you were a better pilot
> 
> i mean you can't say Erich Hartmann was a better pilot then any of the tuskegee guys, just cause he had 352 kills



Why can't you?


----------



## freeair10 (Jan 12, 2012)

for the new tuskegeee arimen

the official plot synopsis regarding their mission of escorting the bombers in daylight. Apparently so dangerous the RAF won't do it.


----------



## Rosco P. Coltraine (Jan 12, 2012)

freeair10 said:


> Apparently so dangerous the RAF won't do it.


Well then the film is going to be a pile of poop.

Because it's an established historical fact that the RAF units escorted US daylight bombing raids.

And what's more is that the 332nd Fighter Group was based in Italy and mostly performed tactical "close support" missions.


----------



## TheMustangRider (Jan 12, 2012)

freeair10 said:


> i had a friend, who is black, said the "tuskegee airmen were the best pilots in ww2..." bias, maybe.. but im just trying to find out



I have a feeling where this is coming from. Sometimes people that have not a deep knowledge on a specific subject, military aviation in this case, tend to inflate achievements done by people or groups of people that they are in a way associated with by a big sense of pride.
I remember talking to a Spanish girl some months ago about the Spanish Civil War, and she kept insisting that Franco was not "really" a Fascist dictator and how an entry of Spain into the war during WWII would have tilted the balance overwhelmingly on the Axis side. 
What would have happened if Spain would have joined the Axis Powers openly? I really don't know, but we can all agree here that Nazi Germany was indeed the most fearsome Axis opponent in Europe which was something that she did not agree with.
Bottom line with my little story is that we will always hear more opinionated statements that factual evidence, and the latter will only come to light by deep scrutiny.
Will the Tuskegee Airmen will come up on top of every air group of the war based on a statistical analysis? maybe not.
Does that take away their value as one of the greatest units in USAAF history which proved to the world how capable colored fighting men are? not at all.


----------



## pinsog (Jan 13, 2012)

freeair10 said:


> for the new tuskegeee arimen
> 
> the official plot synopsis regarding their mission of escorting the bombers in daylight. Apparently so dangerous the RAF won't do it.



WIthout offending you, may I ask your age please?


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jan 13, 2012)

This is a case of disproving the maxim, "there are no stupid questions, only stupid people"

The question is fundamentally flawed freeair, unless you quantify what "the most skilled" means. The question is way to open ended and, given the segregated nature of the USAAF at the time, too easy to jump to conclusions about.

There are any number of measures as to how you could measure what the 'most skilled' fighter pilot was:

Most kills
Fastest to XXXX kills
Most number of aces
Best kill-to-loss ratio
Best kill-to-mission ratio
Best loss-to-mission ratio
Best kill-to-engagement ratio
Least losses
Most ground kills
Least bombers lost on escort missions
Lowest abort rate

and any number of variations of the above.

In the ETO, a P-51 unit in early 1944 had many more opportunities to score kills than a Spitfire unit. Does that make the Spitfire unit less skilled? NO. All it means was their tactical situation was entirely different and they faced a far less target rich environment. 

Likewise, a Luftwaffe unit facing half trained Soviet pilots in early 1942 with superiority in equipment and doctrine and racking up a favourable kill to loss scores is not necessarily more skilled than another Luftwaffe unit facing Spitfires defending Malta and on the losing side of the exchange rate.


----------



## Siegfried (Jan 13, 2012)

Objective or empirical analysis don't matter when Hollywood has an agenda.


----------



## freeair10 (Jan 13, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> Objective or empirical analysis don't matter when Hollywood has an agenda.


 
hollywood is basically saying the tuskegee airmen were the best pilots in the war


----------



## Kryten (Jan 13, 2012)

the Tuskagee guys greatest achievement was blowing a battleship sized hole in the notion black men could not operate complicated machinery, an absurd notion based on the fact someones ancestors skin was more suited to sunny climates!
As to whether they were the most skilled, that I doubt, as mentioned above, pilot losses and rotations mean units change continuously, add to that there were many units doing sterling work in appaling circumstances with inferior equipment!
just take a look at the photo recon unit on malta during the siege, Warburton became an ace, flying shot to bits Marylands on recon missions, and his outfit were the real trailblazers in developing photo recon tactics throughout the war, theres more to flying skill than dogfighting after all!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2012)

freeair10 said:


> i don't want to sound like a troll or a ahole, im just trying to find out if they were the best when it came to pure skill
> 
> i had a friend, who is black, said the "tuskegee airmen were the best pilots in ww2..." bias, maybe.. but im just trying to find out



How can you say they had the most skill? What criteria are you using? 

Seriously...

They were good pilots, just like pilots from every squadron. Every time the discussion of the Tuskegee airmen comes up, it turns into a race issue. If someone does not buy into the Hollywood (yes the myth started long before Hollywood got a hold of it) myth that the Tuskegee airmen never lost a bomber then they are automatically labeled a racist. 

Fact of the matter is, there is no way to determine if they were more skilled than any other squadron. They did their job and they did it well. Just like all the other squadrons, they pilots of varying skill.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Jan 13, 2012)

As you get older, it's extremely likely that your level of cynicism, with regard to the motives of others, will grow with your wrinkles; the question, around which everyone pussyfoots, is are the Hollywood moguls telling the story because the pilots were out on their own (in which case, why has it taken 65 years to discover this?,) with regard to their skill level, or because they were black, and now is a good time to exploit this fact, and make money out of it? 
I feel more than slightly aggrieved at the probability that the story of these men (who, just like hundreds of thousands of like-minded men, volunteered to fight against an evil regime) is being told because of the colour of their skin, not their deeds. If this is so, and I'm just cynical enough to think this, I feel that it actually demeans their achievements.


----------



## Rosco P. Coltraine (Jan 13, 2012)

freeair10 said:


> hollywood is basically saying the tuskegee airmen were the best pilots in the war


And _why_ would you regard Hollywood films as a decent source of information?


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 13, 2012)

Rosco P. Coltraine said:


> And _why_ would you regard Hollywood films as a decent source of information?



Sadly many people believe Hollywood is correct. Not saying that's the case on this forum but there is a tendency among the uninformed who watch "historical" movies to conflate what they've watched with the truth.


----------



## Coors9 (Jan 13, 2012)

Didn't Blakeslee have the 336 in their brand new Stangs take off from a short grass field together. That's skill !!! Best .....no .


----------



## drgondog (Jan 13, 2012)

freeair10 said:


> despite not having alot of aces, or top aces (i think they had at least 1 ace)
> 
> but anyways, aces don't mean anything, in terms of flight, they were the most skillful pilots in the war
> 
> ...



Short answer - no.

Not to denigrate the 332nd FG who certainly had motivation to excel but consider simple facts. Their flight time before arrival in combat was the same as the average USAAF cadet to wings, and subsequent advanced training. Then consider say, JNAF naval pilots and thier training before assignment to a carrier group as well as the combat record. Consider JV44 (squadron of experts) which not only had a high percentage of the LW top ranking aces, including Galland, but also averaged 300+ combat missions for the LOW time aces.

Consider any USAAF squadron of 'pursuit pilots in the 1940 (or USN or USMC) or RAF pilots pre-war with enormous flight time in their logbooks compared to the rookies (including the 332nd FG and 99th Squadron) entering combat in 1943/44.

We can salute their courage and dedication but contrary to Hollywood, the neither 'saved' the 15th AF bombers nor did they 'cahnge the war'.

THE measure of success for USAAF Fighter Groups tasked for escort duties in 1944-1945 was to Destroy the Luftwaffe - which had the beneficial effect of 'protecting the bombers'. On that scale, the 332nd FG was dead last of the 8th and 15th AF escort fighter groups. On a scale of 'Losing the fewest escorted bombers' they were probably at or near the top for the time they were in service. Having said that, they entered combat After the biggest battles for control of the air were fought, and they fought in a theatre which was drawing down LW day fighter resources to send to the defense of the Reich.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 13, 2012)

freeair10 said:


> for the new tuskegeee arimen
> 
> the official plot synopsis regarding their mission of escorting the bombers in daylight. Apparently so dangerous the RAF won't do it.



That is simply a stupid and uninformed observation. Just which units did you have in mind that WERE escorting US bombers in Africa and MTO and in ETO when the US Fighter Commands were just beginning to form??? and the 'Tuskeegee Airmen' were a mere figment of organizational imagination? The RAF! (along with all the other Commonwealth AF's). The RAF would have LOVED having the P-51B and responsibility for escort and would have been just as effective (if not moreso in 1943 and early 1944).

As to US units that conceivably 'might have a better record' versus the LW? How about ALL of them. 

To name a few, every US Fighter Group in the 8th and 15th AF had a much better record than the 332nd, including those that started on or around the same time as the 332nd - and that is just ETO and MTO. If I had to speculate and examine every squadron in the USAAF, USN, USMC, RAF, VVS, LW, RCAF, etc that flew extended combat in an active air to air theatre (i.e Aleutians would not fit that description), then the squadrons within the 332nd would fit near the bottom.

As an example, each of the SQUADRONS in the top USAAF 10 Fighter Groups in the ETO/MTO shot down more German fighters than ALL FOUR of the 332nd FG squadrons. If you take out the 99th FS which was the first all 'Negro' staffed unit in Combat and began in April, 1943 (it had 31 destroyed, 8 probable and 11 damaged), the other 3 squadrons (100, 301 and 301) combined had 82-7-13. 

Out of 90 '0ther' 8th and 15th AF Fighter Squadrons (i.e 1/4 strength of 332nd FG), only 23 had a lower score than the combined four squadrons of the Entire 332nd FG

None of the other 8th and 15th AF USAAF Fighter Groups fighting the Germans had four squadrons - all had three. But- ALL had better records. Some fighter groups, like the 357th that you questioned as having a better record (but also 56th, 354th) , had more air to air victories in ONE fight than any single 332nd FG Squadron had during their entire wartime combat record.. 

If you want to engage in the debate, set your criteria and do some research.


----------



## Messy1 (Jan 13, 2012)

I am hoping because George Lucas is at the helm of this movie, or involved in it, that there will be a strong dependance on historical fact to tell this story. So far it is looking like a typical Hollywood aviation movie. I am hoping the pilots are portrayed as the true professionals most WW2 pilots were, no matter the side. Driven by a sense of duty to their country, and loyalty to their fellow soldiers. Would love to see some examples of the chivalry many pilots experienced, and hope the movie puts a human touch to each side and does not make the Germans out to be cold-hearted, in-human minions of Hilter.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 13, 2012)

Freeair - I suggest that you do some homework (as mentioned before) about ALL the fighter units based in the ETO and make your analysis accordingly. The Tuskegee airmen were unique because they had to rise above the racism of the day to prove that blacks were just as capable to become skilled combat pilots in the USAAF as their white counterparts. They served bravely and that history is written in stone. There are those in Hollywood however who are trying to make more of them than what they really were and those who point this out fall into the gray area of being called racists.

Were some of the Tuskegee Airmen Excellent pilots? Some were.

Did they meet the call and serve bravely? Yes

Did they lose a bomber during their escort missions over Germany. *YES* This myth has been busted many times and there were even admittance of this by some Tuskegee pilots.

Were they better than their white counterparts? That shouldn’t even be a question - in reality as a whole they could be considered "just as good." There might have been some better, there might have been some worse, the race card needs to be discarded!


----------



## Thorlifter (Jan 13, 2012)

Well said, everyone. I really don't think Freeair meant anything bad by his question, but it wasn't phrased very well.

Freeair. We are all here to learn and share stories and experiences. I am, by far, not the most experienced or learned person on this site. Stick around and keep asking questions if you don't know, but try looking a few things up first and have a general understanding. And please, please....don't go by anything Hollywood. Since George Lucas is doing the Red Tail movie, I'm sure an X-wing will be escorting the B-17's, but that doesn't make it real. 

Perhaps a better way to ask your initial question would have been, "I have a friend who told me the Red Tails were the best squadron in the ETO. Can anyone tell me or give me a site where I can look up to see how statistically they ranked against other fighter groups?"

Just trying to help.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 13, 2012)

... and, Freeair, you might try also being a wee bit more critical (analytical) of what your "friend" says .... like, you know, if he said you could jump off the roof .... safely, would you? 

MM


----------



## freeair10 (Jan 13, 2012)

drgondog said:


> Short answer - no.
> 
> Not to denigrate the 332nd FG who certainly had motivation to excel but consider simple facts. Their flight time before arrival in combat was the same as the average USAAF cadet to wings, and subsequent advanced training. Then consider say, JNAF naval pilots and thier training before assignment to a carrier group as well as the combat record. Consider JV44 (squadron of experts) which not only had a high percentage of the LW top ranking aces, including Galland, but also averaged 300+ combat missions for the LOW time aces.
> 
> ...


 
i usually here the argument, that the 332nd was fighting against a inexperienced luffwaffle at the time, since they were mostly destroyed (the best pilots) before the 332nd took combat flight... if this is true, then it sheds some new light on the 332nd


----------



## freeair10 (Jan 13, 2012)

plus if i remember the 332nd were told not to engage in luffwaffle or chase them down, and stick to the escort

thats why they didn't get alot of kills


----------



## Crimea_River (Jan 13, 2012)

That was true of all units as of the mid 1944.


----------



## Erich (Jan 13, 2012)

as I said on page # 1 do some research on the 332nd fg and find out the dates of their victories/claims. the 15th AF never did have the experienced LW to contend with like the 8th AF did. the most experienced LW units in the south were Bf 109G equipped JG 27 and Bf 110G-2 II./ZG 1 and several LW ground attack units this also includes Romanian and Hungarian 109G units to the listing.


----------



## freeair10 (Jan 13, 2012)

Erich said:


> as I said on page # 1 do some research on the 332nd fg and find out the dates of their victories/claims. the 15th AF never did have the experienced LW to contend with like the 8th AF did. the most experienced LW units in the south were Bf 109G equipped JG 27 and Bf 110G-2 II./ZG 1 and several LW ground attack units this also includes Romanian and Hungarian 109G units to the listing.


 
so all in all... the 332nd was NOT the best?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Were they better than their white counterparts? That shouldn’t even be a question - in reality as a whole they could be considered "just as good." There might have been some better, there might have been some worse, the race card needs to be discarded!



I don't know how many times I have been called a racist, because I did not believe in the "myth".


----------



## Messy1 (Jan 13, 2012)

freeair10 said:


> so all in all... the 332nd was NOT the best?


You are looking for a definite 100% yes or no answer. Forget about receiving a positive yes or no answer! This cannot be done with a topic with as much details and evidence to consider. I would say the 332nd was just as good as any other air unit. Each air unit was made of pilots of varying skill in most cases. The more gifted pilots would generally train or teach the less gifted or experienced. This is far too technical and complex of a question to be answered with a definitive yes or now answer. 

What is fruit is red, a apple or a orange? Simple question, the Apple!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2012)

Messy1 said:


> You are looking for a definite 100% yes or no answer. Forget about receiving a positive yes or no answer! This cannot be done with a topic with as much details and evidence to consider. I would say the 332nd was just as good as any other air unit. Each air unit was made of pilots of varying skill in most cases. The more gifted pilots would generally train or teach the less gifted or experienced. This is far too technical and complex of a question to be answered with a definitive yes or now answer.
> 
> What is fruit is red, a apple or a orange? Simple question, the Apple!



Well said, 100% correct and case closed...


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 13, 2012)

Flyboy I agree wholeheartedly but would like to add this

The Tuskegee airmen lost by, Air Force records 25 bombers.

The Tuskegee airmen flew close escort as did the rest of 15th Air Force trading high kill rates for low bomber loss rates. In Northern Europe the 8th Air Force after mid spring when enough fighters were available to assure moderate bomber coverage the fighters were allowed to follow the German fighter and destroy them. It was decided at that point that the destruction of the Luftwaffe fighter force was worth a slightly higher bomber loss rate.


----------



## Erich (Jan 13, 2012)

time to close this thread guys, it has gone long enough, personally the 332nd fg did not have the experience of the 8th AF boyz even the low scoring 356th fg. As I said and it is important to remember the LW was in greater numbers and flying experience to the 15th AF's north and only interdiction late war -1945 was the 15th AF fighters able to contend with what was left of the LW.

ok presto !


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 13, 2012)

Closed


----------

