# Best WW2 Fighter Pilot Poll Round 2



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 27, 2008)

Well here we are at Round 2.

This is based off of the results from Round 1 voting:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/best-wwii-fighter-pilot-12686.html

Direct all discussion of the pilots to this thread.


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 27, 2008)

Heinz Bar... 

Anyone who can fly the entire War, on all fronts, while racking up over 200 kills against the British, French, Russian and American, deserves my vote...


----------



## Njaco (Apr 27, 2008)

along with flying the Bf 109, Fw 190, Me 262 and trained to fly bombers and the Ju 52 in 1937 and as commander of a jet fighter school at Lechfield in January 1945, he flew the He 162 apparently.

Bar gets my vote!


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 27, 2008)

some compelling arguements in the last poll and I'm going to reserve my vote for a while


----------



## ToughOmbre (Apr 27, 2008)

Changed my vote from the first poll (Hartmann) to Hans-Joachim Marseille this time. Tough choice since "Bubi" is my personal favorite.

158 kills, all in the West in 382 missions.

Bar ain't too bad either.

TO


----------



## Soren (Apr 27, 2008)

Can't deside between Marseilles and Hartmann....


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 28, 2008)

If u cant decide, go with the obvious choice Soren, Bar.... He did after all have the most jet kills in WW2...

How many would Hartmann have had if he accepted the transfer???


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 28, 2008)

Wow! The list is a lot smaller. 

I'm not sure who to vote for either. I'll think about it, and thanks Adler.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 28, 2008)

Voted Heinz Bär this time for above mentioned reasons....


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 28, 2008)

Not sure who to vote for?

Then vote for *Pappy Boyington!* A vote for *Pappy* means a vote for *Free Beer!*


----------



## rochie (Apr 28, 2008)

i've gone with hienz bar this time after reading compelling posts mainly from les and njaco then doing a bit of research of my own !
decided i should have picked him in the first round before nowotny


----------



## Marcel (Apr 28, 2008)

Voted Marseille again, to go against the standard opinion and leave the elections open  Furthermore I believe he was a s good as Bar, but unlike the latter unfortunately died in an accident for which he wasn't to blame.


----------



## Wayne Little (Apr 28, 2008)

Well, I continue to give my vote to Heinz Bar, as stated previously.....

"Participated in the air war from start to finish, flew on all fronts, flew all the primary fighters, fought against all types of enemy in all kinds of conditions and continued to rack up kills anywhere,any time, 220 is not a bad effort, I think!"

The pilots who continued scoring after changing between multiple theatres and lived to tell the tale are few and far between.......


----------



## Kruska (Apr 30, 2008)

Hello everybody,

greetings from a new forum member.

According to the forwarded list I would go along with Heinz Baer, however it struck my mind, that there was a Luftwaffe Pilot who downed 40 or more four-engined bombers. Would anyone of you remember his name? If so I would like to forward that pilot as the No.1

Besides the vote list the best Pilot could be my uncle (old time family friend -not really related) he flew as fighter pilot from 1939 till the very end of 45. Among the planes he flew was also the Ta-152, and the best part is; he never got shot down nor did he shot down anybody - (according to his say)

Regards
Kruska

View attachment 62192


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 30, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Hello everybody,
> 
> greetings from a new forum member.
> 
> ...



You can no longer add anyone to the poll. This is Pt. 2 to a poll that was allready started with the winners of the last poll.


----------



## tango35 (Apr 30, 2008)

Again you forgot the Top fw 190 ace Kittel in your list !

But its always very difficult to value who was the best pilot ( ok you can count the kills, thats easy ), but maybe a good pilot is a B-17 pilot who brought his flak crippled aircraft back, or the young german fighter pilot at the end of the war with lack of training who started with no chance of return.
Or the pilots of the 332nd FG who fought a war against 2 enemies.

I think its ok to make a poll about the aces, but we shouldnt forget the unnumbered pilots; they fulfilled their duties like the aces, too.

greets

Thomas


----------



## Njaco (Apr 30, 2008)

There was no Luftwaffe pilot who downed 40+ bombers. The closest would be Major Georg-Peter Eder who downed 36 viermots.

Aces of the Luftwaffe - Georg-Peter Eder

"On the Eastern Front he scored 10 victories and on the Western Front 68, of which no less than 36 were four-engined bombers. With the Me 262 he scored at least 24 victories (most of them couldn`t be officially confirmed). He was the leading scorer against the four-engined bombers, although Eder himself was shot down 17 times, baling out 9 times. He was wounded 14 times."

What pilot were you thinking about?


Tango, like Adler said, this is the second part of a poll. The first part invited numerous pilots for voting and this section was rounded down. You will see pilots missing from this because of that.


----------



## Kruska (Apr 30, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You can no longer add anyone to the poll. This is Pt. 2 to a poll that was allready started with the winners of the last poll.



Hello D.A.I.G. ) it's a long name you got there

Sorry I didn't mean to interrupt the polls, so I will stick to Heinz Baer (so far he looks good in the polls).

Hello NJACO, hey thanks it was Eder correct and it was 36, sorry for the 40/40+ (actually I was thinking about the pilot maybe being Lent).

Regards
Kruska
View attachment 62199


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 30, 2008)

tango35 said:


> Again you forgot the Top fw 190 ace Kittel in your list !
> 
> But its always very difficult to value who was the best pilot ( ok you can count the kills, thats easy ), but maybe a good pilot is a B-17 pilot who brought his flak crippled aircraft back, or the young german fighter pilot at the end of the war with lack of training who started with no chance of return.
> Or the pilots of the 332nd FG who fought a war against 2 enemies.
> ...



No we did not forget anyone in the polls. These are the winners of the last poll which was a much larger poll that you could also add pilots too. 

The is the 2nd Round and we are going to dwindle it down until we have our forums top pilot.


----------



## Njaco (Apr 30, 2008)

Kruska, no problem. Unless, like you say, it might have been a night-fighter. Forgot about that myself. They were bombers like Lancs and Wellingtons, etc. Could be Lent with 102 night and 8 day victories.

Who was your uncle?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 30, 2008)

tango35 said:


> Again you forgot the Top fw 190 ace Kittel in your list !
> 
> But its always very difficult to value who was the best pilot ( ok you can count the kills, thats easy ), but maybe a good pilot is a B-17 pilot who brought his flak crippled aircraft back, or the young german fighter pilot at the end of the war with lack of training who started with no chance of return.
> Or the pilots of the 332nd FG who fought a war against 2 enemies.
> ...



I think if you look some of the older post and threads recognition has been given to bomber and fighter pilots alike and it is also recognized that during WW2 air-to-air combat and dropping bombs was just one aspect of aerial warfare. Patrol, logistics, and my personal favorite, flying through the "soup" could all be just as hazardous (or even more) than dropping bombs and/ or shooting or getting shot at air-to-air.

Personally I think it's just as hazardous to shoot an old NDB beam approach and breaking out of the overcast at 300' than it is flying through flack or getting bounced by a gaggle of -109s.


----------



## Kruska (May 1, 2008)

Njaco said:


> Kruska, no problem. Unless, like you say, it might have been a night-fighter. Forgot about that myself. They were bombers like Lancs and Wellingtons, etc. Could be Lent with 102 night and 8 day victories.
> 
> Who was your uncle?




```

```

Hello Njaco,

well the No.1 (4 engine a/c) could have been Lent, but according to offical stats. it was Eder - who knows?

My uncle is O. v. Kruska, he is pictured on a group photo in the book "Holt Hartmann vom Himmel" sitting in an armchair and (sorry long time ago - 25 years -that I read this book) he was the Fliegerschulen Leiter or 2nd in command during the training flying course in which Hartmann was enroled. 

Regards
Kruska
View attachment 62236


----------



## Juha (May 1, 2008)

I voted Bär
on German top aces I would have difficulties to chose between Rall and Bär but because Rall didn't get into 2nd round, the choise was rather easy. Bär fought through war, had experience from every front and had at least enough cockyness for an excellent fighter pilot.

Juha


----------



## RabidAlien (May 2, 2008)

I've always favored Maj. Thomas McGuire. Seems to me, from the reading that I've done, that the way "kills" were counted in the Pacific made it much more difficult to rack up a score than in the ETO. Aircraft shredded on the ground didn't count. Aircraft that were "shared" kills were settled with a coin toss. McGuire ended up with 38 before crashing while swatting at a Zero on his wingman's tail, so who knows how many kills he would've accumulated had he won a few more coin tosses or been able to count planes on the ground? I love the fact that he never lost a wingman on any combat mission...that, and he practically wrote the book on P38 tactics. 

...then again, I haven't read much from the German side, either. Yet.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 2, 2008)

And McGuire is not an option in this poll because he did not recieve eneogh votes in round one.

If you want to discuss him in this thread that is fine, but you can only vote for one of the ones up there.


----------



## Njaco (May 2, 2008)

Kruska, Did he ever speak to you about his time at the school or about Hartmann? That is a very interesting part of the Luftwaffe.


----------



## Kruska (May 3, 2008)

Njaco said:


> Kruska, Did he ever speak to you about his time at the school or about Hartmann? That is a very interesting part of the Luftwaffe.




```

```

Hello Njaco,

Sorry, unfortunatly he was KIA on the Eastern Front and I was born about 15 years later. According to his sister and my father as well as another pilot-uncle (not really related) whom I met many times, he was a Flieger of great humor and as such very liked by his students.

If I recall Hartmann's book correctly, nobody actually thought before 1942 that this "Bubi" would make it one day to be the top scorer or even a good fighterpilot. So I wouldn't be surprised about my uncle maybe not even having taken notice about him - just as one of many during flight-school.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## KrazyKraut (May 3, 2008)

Hello everyone!

I still go with Hartmann for 2 reasons:

1. He was fine comrade and soldier: Never lost a wingman killed and refused to leave his squadron on the eastern front even though he had a few opportunities. He paid bitterly for it: 10 years of various Soviet POW camps including countless "interrogations", solitary confinement in darkness (probably comparable to what you see in "Pappilon") and he still came out unbroken.

2. While many disregard his kills in the east as easier, he certainly knew what his job was as a fighter pilot. You know how many Luftwaffe pilots in the BoB saw JaBo- or bomber escort-duties as direct insults because they failed to fully grasp the nature of the war they were fighting. Hartmann's 300+ kills include many Il-2s, the plane that was probably the most dangerous to the men fighting the battles on the ground.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 3, 2008)

Good argument!


----------



## Kruska (May 3, 2008)

KrazyKraut said:


> Hello everyone!
> 
> I still go with Hartmann for .......
> 
> 2. While many disregard his kills in the east as easier, he certainly knew what his job was as a fighter pilot. You know how many Luftwaffe pilots in the BoB saw JaBo- or bomber escort-duties as direct insults because they failed to fully grasp the nature of the war they were fighting. Hartmann's 300+ kills include many Il-2s, the plane that was probably the most dangerous to the men fighting the battles on the ground.




```

```

Hello KrazyKraut,

Surely I want to refrain from “maybe” putting words in your mouth, but regarding your expressed opinion to Hartmann’s IL2 attacks or BoB I want to forward the following;

Pilots or even fighter pilots were not “free” to fly around at random deciding on the target, they were given a mission or ordered/briefed about their tasks. As such Hartmann was simply given the order to support German ground troops and by doing so encountered or attacked IL2’s or whatever a/c that he happened to run into during his mission.
There is a lot of heroic bull….t, tales or exaggeration of the Jaeger or Experten mystical status in many books. Mainly due to the Nazis or Goering’s desperate PR efforts regarding his “falcons”. 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## KrazyKraut (May 3, 2008)

Thank you, Soundbreaker!

Hello Kruska,

what you say is true, although I think there was a certain, varying degree of autonomy on the eastern front.

What I meant to say however, is that quite a few pilots felt insulted or punished by orders like the mentioned bomber protection. At least that's what you read in the books. And apparently this was exactly what Goering meant to achieve with these kind of orders. It might be exaggregated though.

Hartmann was, in my eyes, a very realistic soldier. His views on air combat were based on accomplishing his mission while minimizing the risk to himself and his men. Very straightforward and not as romanticizing as some others.


----------



## Kruska (May 4, 2008)

KrazyKraut said:


> Hartmann was, in my eyes, a very realistic soldier. His views on air combat were based on accomplishing his mission while minimizing the risk to himself and his men. Very straightforward and not as romanticizing as some others.




```

```

Hello KrazyKraut,

I surely do agree on your viewpoint expressed towards Hartmann and the same would apply to Baer and many other pilots of all nations. So it isn't really an outstanding feature in regards to evaluating the Best.

Again in regards to escort duties:

Off course it was a very common task that was ordered and fulfilled by the Jagdstaffeln, it was actually their sole purpose/objective - securing the airspace during their mission.
The BoB changed that in view of “securing the airspace” before the actual bomber raids got started. So the “Freie Jagd” – Free Hunting was ordered for many weeks, its main goal was to annihilate the British fighters mainly over the channel or coastal area. 
And exactly this caused / enabled the Kill Statistic fever and was spurned by Goerings PR addiction – glorifying the “Falcons”, Fliegerhelden or Aces. 

The actual reason why the fighter pilots disliked the “close escort” in regards to the bombing raids over England was the insufficient range of the 109 not allowing them to actually utilize their skills or providing sufficient time to engage in dog-fights. They also knew that once hit or their a/c damaged they would end up in captivity. Not that they felt insulted/punished besides a few who felt it negative in regards to their "Halsschmerzen" (Throatpain) a German expression used for ambitious soldiers to receive the Knightscross. 

Therefore according to official Luftwaffe reports and also remembrances of my uncle the numbers of “broken off flights” due to reported “Engine problems”, low oil pressure, or “strange sounds” increased dramatically as the BoB prolonged. It was the Channel that made close escort a suicidal or a no return ticket job and as such “unpopular” / feared amongst any Luftwaffe pilot. 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## P1234567890 (May 4, 2008)

I think it's really strange that Nowotny didn't make it to round 2. He had 258 confirmed kills in 442 missions!

How some of the more questionable pilots up there made it and he didn't is beyond me.

Not to mention Barkhorn, Rall, Kittel, Batz, Rudorffer, or any of the other German pilots who had more than 200 kills...

In any case, it's nice to see that Hartmann, Marseille, and Baer are the top three in the polls.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 4, 2008)

P1234567890 said:


> I think it's really strange that Nowotny didn't make it to round 2. He had 258 confirmed kills in 442 missions!
> 
> How some of the more questionable pilots up there made it and he didn't is beyond me.
> 
> ...



They did not make the poll because they did not get eneogh votes. It really is not that hard to understand?

People vote for different reasons than you do. Some people might put more weight on other things other than just how many kills they got.

Sorry but you are not the only authority on who is best...


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 5, 2008)

I voted for Galland, because he's one of my favorite Axis Pilots, and a great leader.


----------



## P1234567890 (May 6, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> They did not make the poll because they did not get eneogh votes. It really is not that hard to understand?



No, I understand the system just fine; that's not the problem here. I'm just expressing my dismay at the results of said poll, that's all. In any case, at least the top three are right.



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> People vote for different reasons than you do. Some people might put more weight on other things other than just how many kills they got.



Two comments:

1. I don't 'just' consider how many kills a pilot got. If that were the case, then clearly I would have voted for Hartmann.

2. You are right when you say that other people put more weight on other things. Unfortunately one of those things seems to be the latitude and longitude of where the pilot was born and grew up.



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Sorry but you are not the only authority on who is best...



Are there any serious, professional military historians (a.k.a. 'authorities') who claim that Witold Urbanowicz or Robert S. Johnson or Pappy Boyington or even Buzz Beurling was the best fighter pilot of the war?

Are there *any* authorities on World War II aviation who would NOT include Nowotny in a top ten list of the best pilots of the war?


----------



## pbfoot (May 6, 2008)

P1234567890 said:


> No, I understand the system just fine; that's not the problem here. I'm just expressing my dismay at the results of said poll, that's all. In any case, at least the top three are right.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why not it ain't just numbers , 99.9% of the time after 41 the Germans were flying over or very near there own lines they weren't tredding deeply into unfamiliar territory and when they did they didn't fare all that well. I would like to know how you rate yourself an expert what qualifications do you have ? have you ever talked to some of these guys


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 6, 2008)

And the US PTO aces scored allot of kills in superior planes in greater numbers against poorly trained/inexperienced Japanese pilots. (which was usualy the case for the better part of the war)


----------



## P1234567890 (May 6, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> Why not it ain't just numbers , 99.9% of the time after 41 the Germans were flying over or very near there own lines they weren't tredding deeply into unfamiliar territory and when they did they didn't fare all that well.



That's a pretty weak point. First of all, there are many factors which are more important than whether or not a pilot was flying over his own lines.

In fact, one might argue that it's *totally* irrelevant, especially seeing that as the war went on, the allies had an ever-increasing level of air superiority, and scoring kills under conditions where the enemy has you outnumbered counts as a plus for the Germans.



pbfoot said:


> I would like to know how you rate yourself an expert what qualifications do you have ? have you ever talked to some of these guys



Nope, I've never met a WWII fighter ace personally, but I'm interested in the subject, I read a lot, and I'm aware of a lot of relevant facts and statistics. Most importantly, though, I have a background in mathematics, and I understand how to compare things across multiple orthogonal categories as objectively as possible. In the case of World War II fighter pilots, the statistics are skewed so far in favor of the top Germans that there really doesn't seem to be any way a non-German could come out on top of *any* reasonable comparison model.

And seriously, am I making any unreasonable claims here? Is it really that unreasonable of me to express disapproval at the fact that Nowotny isn't on the list up there and that so many of those other guys are???

By the way, it seems like I'm just agreeing with what the professional military historians have to say. If there's anyone here who believes that the best pilot of the war wasn't German AND can cite a reputable military historian specializing in WWII air combat (a.k.a. a real expert) who agrees, then I'd love to hear about it.

I for one can cite Galland, who stated that Marseille was the best fighter pilot of the war.


----------



## P1234567890 (May 6, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> And the US PTO aces scored allot of kills in superior planes in greater numbers against poorly trained/inexperienced Japanese pilots. (which was usualy the case for the better part of the war)



Good point. There's a reason why the Japanese started resorting to Kamikazi attacks. At least part of it was to avoid the whole war being a Marianas Turkey Shoot. By the end of the war, the Japanese pilots were getting almost no training. (Same with the Germans.)

In my opinion, shooting down a Russian plane at any point during the war was worth more than shooting down a Japanese or German plane late in the war.


----------



## buzzard (May 6, 2008)

I'm still with Hartmann. The raison d'etre of a fighter pilot is to find and shoot down the enemy, and Hartmann's score is head and shoulders above anyone else. All the 'what ifs' about who would have done what are irrelevant. Hartmann, like Bar, fought where he was ordered to fight, and if he chose not to accept the offer to join the jet squadrons against the Allied bombers, it was because he had a realistic and pragmatic understanding of his abilities...and the conviction that stopping the advance of the Red Army was at least as important to the future of Germany, as stopping the 8th Air Force was. 

If achievements other than the sheer number of kills are to factor into the analysis of who was the pre-eminent fighter pilot, than the one man who has the most valid claim to this title is not even in the poll: Werner Moelders.

JL


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 6, 2008)

P1234567890 said:


> By the way, it seems like I'm just agreeing with what the professional military historians have to say. If there's anyone here who believes that the best pilot of the war wasn't German AND can cite a reputable military historian specializing in WWII air combat (a.k.a. a real expert) who agrees, then I'd love to hear about it.


But than again I've met a lot of so-called professional historians who never served in the military and never flew an airplane, so how do they really specialize in aerial combat?


----------



## Njaco (May 6, 2008)

> Unfortunately one of those things seems to be the latitude and longitude of where the pilot was born and grew up.



I don't see how you can make that assumption. This poll is part 2 of another poll. Those listed here were the top voted. Unless someone stated in the thread who they voted for, how would anyone tell?

I've never set foot in Germany and barely outside of New Jersey but I voted on my opinion of who I thought was the most well-rounded pilot, facing a multitude of challenges and surviving to score again. Of the many - and there are many for all countries! - I chose Bar for all thats been stated before. In the last poll I pushed for Rudorffer and I admired a pilot from Finland along with Bar. There are numerous good arguments for all the pilots mentioned - and all the points are valid - but to me, a pilot that reaches the top has many criteria to overcome and that leaves very few. Thats why I chose Bar.

That being said, again this poll is for the ones that won the poll from Round One. Nothing is gonna change that for this poll.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 6, 2008)

True on the training part, (I think the IJA was not in as bad of shape as the IJN though, for multiple resons including the training progrsm) there were a hell of allot more experienced German pilot left in the late par of the war than Japanese (the survivability of the aircraft obviously played a role, though there were other factors).


But when comparing the German aces you also have to remember many had pre war experience and some kills, and more importantly experience even before the war. They also tended to be significantly older than most allied (particularly US) counterparts, along with their greater experience and much longer flying time. And they stayed in long after most allied pilots would have withdrawn. (particularly with the US, with the pilot rotation with vets often to aid in training)
The previous experience is also very true for the Finnish pilots as well. (winter war Vets) And the Germans, and Particularly the Finns were fighting for their homeland for long periods of time, which adds a ferocity of its own. (the Brits had it too in the BoB) 

I'm not saying that diminishes their acheivements in any way, I just wonder how the some of the US British, commonwealth etc. would have done had they been in that situation, granted in the BoB they did, but that didn't last all that long.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 6, 2008)

nd in round one not even all the top scoring pilots made it on the list (Otto Kittel for example), but that thread started out as a simple discussion, and when the thread was added anyone was open to request an addition.

So it was fair, and if you notice most of the lower scoring pilots (Robert S.Johnson for example) barely mad it on from the last thread, so it's not like it tilted to a bias, plus look at who got, and who is currently getting the most votes. And I think any one with 2+ voted made it on.

see the results http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/best-wwii-fighter-pilot-12686.html


----------



## P1234567890 (May 6, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> But than again I've met a lot of so-called professional historians who never served in the military and never flew an airplane, so how do they really specialize in aerial combat?



This is an interesting point, which is why I am citing Galland as an authority. But in defense of the historians, they've actually done the research. They're aware of a lot more facts than anyone here is aware of. If you write a Ph.D. thesis on WWII aviation history, you're bound to pick up a lot of deep insights along the way.


----------



## P1234567890 (May 6, 2008)

Njaco said:


> I don't see how you can make that assumption. This poll is part 2 of another poll. Those listed here were the top voted. Unless someone stated in the thread who they voted for, how would anyone tell?



If you click on the numbers in the poll, you can see exactly who people voted for. Same with the first part of the poll. Plus you can read people's discussions and reasoning in the threads.

Go check it out; there's a correlation between the nationality of the voter and the nationality of the pilots.

By the way, go to the first round poll and see who voted for who. Many of the questionable pilots who made it through to the second round have people voting for them who have like zero posts on this discussion board. Also, if you look at the people voting for Baer in the second round, you'll see that almost all of the really serious members of this forum are voting for him. I think that says something.


----------



## pbfoot (May 6, 2008)

Well sometimes the ones that are amongst the best recieve no attention and if nothing else I learn , you can take all the math in the world and it can't possibly come anywhere close to helping you make a decision . I can name 30 variables in combat flying now if you can come up with a formula to account for all the variables you would be working at Edwards but your not so your opinion means no more then anyone elses


----------



## buzzard (May 7, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> But than again I've met a lot of so-called professional historians who never served in the military and never flew an airplane, so how do they really specialize in aerial combat?



John Keegan admits to the validity of this point in the 'Face of Battle'. He also makes a convincing argument that such experience is not a priori proof of competence as a historian. Instead, he argues that by careful weighing of the testimony and evidence of the players and events, a careful historian can combine the evidence so as to give a broader and more balanced perspective of events than can any single individual, regardless of of personal experience. With, of course, the caveat that important factors in the event may have missed his eye. All histories are inevitably incomplete (and have at least a degree of bias), but this does not render them worthless, it simply demands that they be regarded with a healthy degree of skepticism. That's what cross-referencing is for. 

Few of us have had the abilities or opportunities afforded people like Capt. Eric Brown, but this doesn't necessarily mean that because a non-pilot disagrees with one of his aircraft assessments, he is automatically in error. Brown has his biases also, and is the first to admit it. So, we can compare his assessments with those of other experienced pilots, take into consideration the varying circumstances under which the flights were made, and come to a reasonable conclusion as to whom is more likely correct. The Revealed Truth is only found in holy books, not histories...

From what I've read here, you're an experienced aviator with a lot of time in the aerospace industry, but while the gaps in your knowledge may be smaller than most of us, they still exist. I'm not a licensed pilot, but I've spent a fair amount of time at the controls of small prop planes, and have some understanding of the nature of flying. Neither of us, however can ever have more than a rudimentary idea of what is was actually like to fly and fight on the Eastern Front. Nor can Eric Brown...

Non-pilots and civilians can, with care, arrive at credible conclusions about military aviation history.

JL


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 7, 2008)

P1234567890 said:


> If you click on the numbers in the poll, you can see exactly who people voted for. Same with the first part of the poll. Plus you can read people's discussions and reasoning in the threads.
> 
> Go check it out; there's a correlation between the nationality of the voter and the nationality of the pilots.
> 
> By the way, go to the first round poll and see who voted for who. Many of the questionable pilots who made it through to the second round have people voting for them who have like zero posts on this discussion board. Also, if you look at the people voting for Baer in the second round, you'll see that almost all of the really serious members of this forum are voting for him. I think that says something.



Your point being? Maybe to them they were the best pilot. Does that make them wrong. 

No because you can not prove it otherwise...


----------



## Marcel (May 7, 2008)

P1234567890 said:


> Go check it out; there's a correlation between the nationality of the voter and the nationality of the pilots.


Oh, not that discussion again...


----------



## Kruska (May 7, 2008)

Hello P1234567890

```
By the way, it seems like I'm just agreeing with what the professional 
military historians have to say. If there's anyone here who believes that the best pilot of the war wasn't German AND can cite a reputable military historian specializing in WWII air combat (a.k.a. a real expert) who agrees, then I'd love to hear about it.
```

Military associated historians usually only account for topics of well known historical events or persons involved with a historically known “outstanding” participation; Otherwise who would buy their books and let them make $$$.
As such they usually reflect as in this poll (best, outstanding pilot) on to those that are “worth mentioning” ($$$).
In your opinion only a German Pilot could be among the best, because you might not have ever considered or heard about those pilots that are not public action Hero’s.

Hartmann’s frontline flying experience rests solely on the shoulders of the Bf109 (plus derivates) as for my uncle he has 2 years more of flying experience then Hartmann and he flew, Bf110, Bf109, Bf108, Fw190-A, Fw190D-9, Fw190D-12 or Ta152 (on the latter I am not 100% sure). In the GAF he flew F-84, and F104G’s.

He has/had far more flying hours then Hartmann and he never got shot down, but he never shot down an a/c (according to his say) therefore = Ich war Flieger – kein Killer. 

Now I would never exclude the chance that there are respective opposites to my uncle in other countries which would refrain me from saying that only German pilots can be amongst the best. 

The present poll is based on Pilots that according to other forum members opinion/believes are supposed to be amongst the best, now taking the above into account why shouldn’t a non German pilot be amongst them or even the best? just because off less Kills? 


```
I for one can cite Galland, who stated that Marseille was the best fighter pilot of the war.
```

B.T.W. my uncle (just his opinion) stated that the most overrated LW Pilot was Galland.

Personally I voted for Baer due to some of the above stated, but I might just as well be wrong.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 7, 2008)

buzzard said:


> From what I've read here, you're an experienced aviator with a lot of time in the aerospace industry, but while the gaps in your knowledge may be smaller than most of us, they still exist. I'm not a licensed pilot, but I've spent a fair amount of time at the controls of small prop planes, and have some understanding of the nature of flying. Neither of us, however can ever have more than a rudimentary idea of what is was actually like to fly and fight on the Eastern Front. Nor can Eric Brown...


You don't have to be a Brown or test pilot - again I've met and read articles written by professional historians and they didn't even have a grasp in understanding how the aircraft they were writing about worked!


buzzard said:


> Non-pilots and civilians can, with care, arrive at credible conclusions about military aviation history.


Yes they can but they better do their homework because there are some out there who could poke holes in some of their conclusions....


----------



## P1234567890 (May 7, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> Well sometimes the ones that are amongst the best recieve no attention and if nothing else I learn , you can take all the math in the world and it can't possibly come anywhere close to helping you make a decision .



There are way more examples of where math actually *does* help you make decisions. That's sort of the point of getting an education.



pbfoot said:


> I can name 30 variables in combat flying now if you can come up with a formula to account for all the variables you would be working at Edwards



I explained my method for comparing pilots across multiple categories in round 1 of this poll, and it is perfectly sound. The formula is for comparing pilots, and not for simulating air combat, so your point is not valid. As for working at Edwards, I'm sure they could find some use for my abilities, but my career plans lie somewhere else.



pbfoot said:


> but your not so your opinion means no more then anyone elses



Except that I'm the only one here who has suggested anything remotely resembling an objective, mathematical way of comparing pilots.


----------



## P1234567890 (May 7, 2008)

buzzard said:


> Non-pilots and civilians can, with care, arrive at credible conclusions about military aviation history.



Absolutely. Otherwise almost all of history would be useless. Not many historians alive today experienced political life in ancient Rome or fought on a battlefield against Napoleon. Academia really is worth something.

That being said, of course the opinions of other pilots who were there are worth a lot as well. Galland said that Marseille was the greatest pilot of the war, and that means something coming from him.

And history regards the top German pilots as being the best pilots of the war. Again, that means something.

We can't just go and ignore what the experts have to say.


----------



## Njaco (May 7, 2008)

It still all comes down to opinion, P123. This is not an end all-be all poll to finally decide the question. As stated in the very beginning, its for fun and discussion.

There are numerous ways that a single person can vote for a pilot. I, myself, have never taken the controls of any plane, have never served in the military and just love the history of flight. My post count is nearing 5,000 but if you look its mostly just stupid, dumb posts because I could never have an intelligent discussion about many subjects here, like the attributes of the 109 vs the Meteor - I'd be flamed in a heartbeat. But within those limits, I tried to objectively come to a conclusion about war pilots and voted.

And thanks, I was not aware that you could do that within a poll. Learn something new every day.

And regardless of all the finer points, nationally must be a consideration because it will rear its head. Its natural and no guilt should be passed around.

Mathematical evaluation is but one of the factors, I agree. But one shouldn't base the whole vote upon that single criteria.


----------



## pbfoot (May 7, 2008)

p183798774747
I believe you have a point of view whereby a little education gives you the feeling you are a little smarter then most, well I think your mom lied to you


----------



## P1234567890 (May 7, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Military associated historians usually only account for topics of well known historical events or persons involved with a historically known “outstanding” participation; Otherwise who would buy their books and let them make $$$.
> As such they usually reflect as in this poll (best, outstanding pilot) on to those that are “worth mentioning” ($$$).



I'm not talking about authors. I'm talking about serious military historians in academia. Every major university has some. These are people who are not motivated so much by money but rather by writing history as objectively as possible. They are tenured and guaranteed their income, regardless of how popular their findings are.



Kruska said:


> Hartmann’s frontline flying experience rests solely on the shoulders of the Bf109 (plus derivates) as for my uncle he has 2 years more of flying experience then Hartmann and he flew, Bf110, Bf109, Bf108, Fw190-A, Fw190D-9, Fw190D-12 or Ta152 (on the latter I am not 100% sure). In the GAF he flew F-84, and F104G’s.
> 
> He has/had far more flying hours then Hartmann and he never got shot down, but he never shot down an a/c (according to his say) therefore = Ich war Flieger – kein Killer.
> 
> Now I would never exclude the chance that there are respective opposites to my uncle in other countries which would refrain me from saying that only German pilots can be amongst the best.



I'm sure that your uncle was a fine pilot, but we're talking about combat pilots here... We're talking about killers. If your uncle wasn't a killer, then he's not really in the running, and neither are his opposite numbers among the allies.



Kruska said:


> The present poll is based on Pilots that according to other forum members opinion/believes are supposed to be amongst the best, now taking the above into account why shouldn’t a non German pilot be amongst them or even the best? just because off less Kills?



No. I am arguing that any reasonable combination of reasonable statistics will yield a comparison model in which the Germans come out on top. They're just so far ahead in so many categories than the allies that it's just not possible that an allied pilot could come out on top if we're being at all objective.

Incidentally, it isn't really the case that 'forum members' voted for the weaker pilots on the polls. Check it out (especially in the first round): Many of the questionable choices up there were voted for by people who have less than three posts here.



Kruska said:


> Personally I voted for Baer due to some of the above stated, but I might just as well be wrong.



No, Baer is a reasonable candidate. I personally voted for Marseille, but I fully admit that Baer and Hartmann (and Nowotny for that matter) are all reasonable choices, and reasonable people can disagree about which of them is better. In those cases I'll bet that any reasonable comparison model breaks down. 

But just because we can't make fine doesn't mean that we can't make coarse distinctions.


----------



## P1234567890 (May 7, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> p183798774747
> I believe you have a point of view whereby a little education gives you the feeling you are a little smarter then most, well I think your mom lied to you



Hey, if you're anti-education, and you don't think that there's any benefit to going to school, then you're welcome to your opinion. I doubt that you believe this, though. I've got no idea how old you are or how many kids you have, but I'll bet that when your kids get old enough, you're going to tell them to go to university, and you're not going to urge them to drop out.

Professional military historians spend their lives doing research. They go through the log books and through as much first-hand information that they can possibly find. If you don't respect that, then you're being unreasonable.


----------



## P1234567890 (May 7, 2008)

Njaco said:


> It still all comes down to opinion, P123. This is not an end all-be all poll to finally decide the question. As stated in the very beginning, its for fun and discussion.



I for one have learned a lot about some interesting pilots in these threads. And in my defense, I assert that I am helping to stimulate discussion here.



Njaco said:


> And regardless of all the finer points, nationally must be a consideration because it will rear its head. Its natural and no guilt should be passed around.



Yeah, but it shouldn't. Nationality really is an irrelevant pilot characteristic, and it should be ignored completely. Anyone who is letting it factor into their decisions is making a mistake.



Njaco said:


> Mathematical evaluation is but one of the factors, I agree. But one shouldn't base the whole vote upon that single criteria.



I'm trying to say that we can use a mathematical model to compare pilots using *ALL* of the criteria which we could possibly come up with.


----------



## Njaco (May 7, 2008)

I guess in some unconscious way we're all using a mathematical equation to decide. I believe its how opinions do come about.

Agree with the nationality part but you can't deny that it is a factor regardless of mistake or not. Its that floating variable!

and as for professors - those are some people I have met and I have yet to find one that isn't all knowing, "my way or the highway" type attitude who look down their long noses at you if you don't abide by their superior intellect. I take them with a grain of salt and a spoonful of Imodium.


----------



## pbfoot (May 7, 2008)

P1234567890 said:


> Hey, if you're anti-education, and you don't think that there's any benefit to going to school, then you're welcome to your opinion. I doubt that you believe this, though. I've got no idea how old you are or how many kids you have, but I'll bet that when your kids get old enough, you're going to tell them to go to university, and you're not going to urge them to drop out.
> 
> Professional military historians spend their lives doing research. They go through the log books and through as much first-hand information that they can possibly find. If you don't respect that, then you're being unreasonable.


I am not anti education I very much pro education but also realize a little education is a dangerous thing, I am 56 yrs old and have been involved in aviation most of my life either by employment or flying or as now preserving . I'll close todays statement off because I going to the field now maybe I'll give Marseilles 109 a little rub for you. I really suggest you try and talk to some of the guys that flew fighters then and now as the game has changed very little


----------



## P1234567890 (May 7, 2008)

Njaco said:


> I guess in some unconscious way we're all using a mathematical equation to decide. I believe its how opinions do come about.



Yes, exactly. Some people put a 100% weighting on the number of kills, and ignore everything else. Others do a combination of kills/kills per mission/quality of enemies, etc. Some people rule out anyone from a different country and then try to figure out who the best pilot from their own country is. Everyone is using some kind of implicit equation.



Njaco said:


> Agree with the nationality part but you can't deny that it is a factor regardless of mistake or not. Its that floating variable!



It unfortunately is a factor. But look at you; you didn't automatically vote for a pilot from your country. You didn't fall into the trap. Why not?



Njaco said:


> and as for professors - those are some people I have met and I have yet to find one that isn't all knowing, "my way or the highway" type attitude who look down their long noses at you if you don't abide by their superior intellect. I take them with a grain of salt and a spoonful of Imodium.



Really? My experience with academics is exactly the opposite. If you can make an argument supporting your opinion, then they sort of have to listen to you. Good academics are open-minded, but not so open-minded that their brains fall out.


----------



## P1234567890 (May 7, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> I am not anti education I very much pro education but also realize a little education is a dangerous thing,



What about a lot of education?



pbfoot said:


> I am 56 yrs old and have been involved in aviation most of my life either by employment or flying or as now preserving



And I hope you don't think I disrespect your opinion, because I do respect it.



pbfoot said:


> . I'll close todays statement off because I going to the field now maybe I'll give Marseilles 109 a little rub for you.



Cool; it sounds like you know what you're talking about, so I'll ask you this question: I'm in Toronto; where is the best aviation museum in the area which has WWII fighters in it?



pbfoot said:


> I really suggest you try and talk to some of the guys that flew fighters then and now as the game has changed very little



But you and I voted for the same pilot... If I follow your advice, it's probably only going to make my opinion more like yours, which means that it won't change, since we already have the same opinion!


----------



## Marcel (May 7, 2008)

P1234567890 said:


> I explained my method for comparing pilots across multiple categories in round 1 of this poll, and it is perfectly sound.


We have discussed this before P123 and I still don't agree. Although I must admit that, being a scientist myself, a mathematical approach to analyze these pilots appeals to me, I also think it won't come anywhere close to give you a definite answer.



P1234567890 said:


> Except that I'm the only one here who has suggested anything remotely resembling an objective, mathematical way of comparing pilots.


That's because others realize there's no way you can do that. Data is mainly at fault. The data that is known is either 1. inaccurate, 2. not complete 3. biased. Therefore you cannot draw real conclusions. I do however agree with you that it could be a nice way to get some more insight in these well known pilots.


----------



## Njaco (May 7, 2008)

Pb works at one of the gems of the North Americas with Marseilles Bf 109 at his fingertips!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 7, 2008)

McNamara applied a mathematical statistical approach to the Vietnam War - that worked real well!


----------



## Kruska (May 7, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> McNamara applied a mathematical statistical approach to the Vietnam War - that worked real well!




```

```


  so was the Bay of Pigs operation and the F-111 besides many others.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## P1234567890 (May 7, 2008)

Marcel said:


> That's because others realize there's no way you can do that. Data is mainly at fault. The data that is known is either 1. inaccurate, 2. not complete 3. biased. Therefore you cannot draw real conclusions. I do however agree with you that it could be a nice way to get some more insight in these well known pilots.



Just because we don't have *all* of the information doesn't matter. It's obviously still better to factor in the information that we do have than to ignore huge chunks of it.

I argue that anyone who votes for one of the 'lesser' pilots above is ignoring huge chunks of very important information.


----------



## P1234567890 (May 7, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> McNamara applied a mathematical statistical approach to the Vietnam War - that worked real well!



Sure, but there are plenty of examples of a scientific analysis doing a *much* better job than any other technique.

I don't think there's anything wrong with the algorithm I suggested in part one of this thread, but if there is, then I'm certainly open to criticisms which would improve it or show that it is invalid.


----------



## P1234567890 (May 7, 2008)

Njaco said:


> Pb works at one of the gems of the North Americas with Marseilles Bf 109 at his fingertips!



Seriously? Where is it? What is it called? I didn't even know that Marseille's plane still existed! Is it in the Niagara area?


----------



## Kruska (May 7, 2008)

Hello 123......

Quote:
I'm not talking about authors. I'm talking about serious military historians in academia. Every major university has some. These are people who are not motivated so much by money but rather by writing history as objectively as possible. They are tenured and guaranteed their income, regardless of how popular their findings are.

Oh yeah..I do remember one of those, he had been a lecturer at the USAF Academy in Colorado Springs, and being his Students we had to listen and accept all his “questionable” conclusions in order to get our grades done. He had never been a pilot but he knew everything, according to stats, books and conclusions. Interesting wise most of what he spread did not stand up to the comments or real live experience and knowledge of former WW2 fighter pilots, Vietnam pilots or Bob C from Col. Springs, a U-2 pilot (Cuba-crisis) or from Johannes Steinhoff during his time in Springs, not to mention my uncle and others.

Quote:
but we're talking about combat pilots here... We're talking about killers.

No we are having a poll for the best pilot - If that implements a Killer to you
then that is your personal interpretation - so you should vote for a pilot who shot down another pilot dangling at a parachute, or hunting down a damaged a/c with 6-8 others, or strangling a pilot - which by the way would make a Russian or US Pilot the best.

Because mathematically and by equations this would indeed proof them as the best Killers.

Not some German pilot, since historians and academic writers consider them to be Ehrenmaenner und Helden der Luefte (Man of Honor and Heros of the air)

Regards
Kruska


----------



## P1234567890 (May 7, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Oh yeah..I do remember one of those, he had been a lecturer at the USAF Academy in Colorado Springs, and being his Students we had to listen and accept all his “questionable” conclusions in order to get our grades done. He had never been a pilot but he knew everything, according to stats, books and conclusions. Interesting wise most of what he spread did not stand up to the comments or real live experience and knowledge of former WW2 fighter pilots, Vietnam pilots or Bob C from Col. Springs, a U-2 pilot (Cuba-crisis) or from Johannes Steinhoff during his time in Springs, not to mention my uncle and others.



Are you saying that because this guy was wrong about some things, that all academic military historians must be wrong about all things? That's quite a leap of inductive reasoning.



Kruska said:


> No we are having a poll for the best pilot -



It is my understanding that we're talking about the best fighter pilots. It's kind of hard to shoot down a lot of enemy planes and not kill someone. Good fighter pilots are killers. They're not good because they're killers; they're killers because they're good.

At least that's how most people here seem to interpreting the polls. Very few people are suggesting bomber pilots or test pilots or instructors as being the best pilots of the war.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 7, 2008)

Kruska said:


> The present poll is based on Pilots that according to other forum members opinion/believes are supposed to be amongst the best, now taking the above into account why shouldn’t a non German pilot be amongst them or even the best? just because off less Kills?



Dont hold your breath. That is what we have all been trying to say to him.



P1234567890 said:


> Check it out (especially in the first round): Many of the questionable choices up there were voted for by people who have less than three posts here.



That makes your opinion better? On whose authority?


----------



## drgondog (May 7, 2008)

Bar - for me. He lived and scored in the most lethal air battles during the battle for air supremacy over Germany - when he was encountering not just Mustangs, Lightnings and Jugs flown by good pilots over Germany, but also the 'golden BB's from hundreds of B-17s and B-24s.


----------



## P1234567890 (May 7, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> That makes your opinion better? On whose authority?



It stands to reason that the people here who have thousands of posts are probably WWII aviation enthusiasts. Being an enthusiast about something tends to mean that the person is well-informed. And if you look at the people voting for Baer, they tend to be the ones who have thousands of posts on this forum. You're a fantastic example.

I put more stock into what you have to say about the topic of WWII aviation than I do about someone who has zero posts here.

A person with zero posts *might* be a WWII expert for all we know, but on the other hand he might not know anything. The people with thousands of posts, though, they probably know quite a bit.

So I assert that the number of posts the different voters have does count for something, and it is relevant.


----------



## Marcel (May 7, 2008)

P1234567890 said:


> Just because we don't have *all* of the information doesn't matter. It's obviously still better to factor in the information that we do have than to ignore huge chunks of it.
> 
> 
> I argue that anyone who votes for one of the 'lesser' pilots above is ignoring huge chunks of very important information.



Or maybe know other things that you don't know...
Your idea of categorising the different points is interesting but relying on a mathematical model is dangerous as the info is usually inaccurate.
I started to doubt "hard facts" about the war when I read German reports about their attack on The Netherlands. Most of them talked about numbers of opponents that couldn't have been there, given the state the Dutch army at the time. Also equipment they were talking about couldn't have been there, as the Dutch didn't have them. Quite often these reports mentions one or two men that were the heroes, defeating the enemy by the two of them. Obviously, the Germans were in dire need of heroes. I'm not saying that they did the same with these experten, but it makes you cynical about the the known facts. I have no doubt the Allies did the same. Of course, most "facts" have some truth in them (some more, some less) so examining them can give you invaluable info, but to base an opinion on them is probably not very accurate. Therefore, these polls are usually nothing more than an opinion (and as Adler say quite fun  ).


----------



## P1234567890 (May 7, 2008)

Marcel said:


> Or maybe know other things that you don't know...



There are *tons* of things which I don't know, but it would have to be pretty miraculous secret knowledge in order to offset what we do know.



Marcel said:


> Your idea of categorising the different points is interesting but relying on a mathematical model is dangerous as the info is usually inaccurate.



Well, we can only go by what the records say. Unless there is a good reason to doubt certain stats, then we should tentatively accept them.

Some of the records are pretty good. For example, let's take all of the candidates for top pilot that anyone can think of, and rank them according to the following statistics:

1. Total number of kills
2. Total number of combat missions (surviving more missions = indication of being a good pilot)
3. Ratio of kills per mission.

For each of these categories, we have a different ranking. Everyone knows the ranking for category #1. #2 isn't *that* hard to find out. Once you have #1 and #2, you can derive #3.

If we have these three different rankings, then we can do what I suggested in part one of this poll: Create a weighted metric on these three rankings, and then iterate over all possible weightings of these characteristics for some small step value. So for the weighting 100%,0%,0% the ranking comes out to exactly the same as the normal kill ranking. Then we calculate the rankings when we use a weighting of 99.9%,0.01%,0%, and so on, keeping a running total of pilot rankings. We iterate over the entire area, and in the end we come up with a pilot ranking which is about as robust and comprehensive as you want *for those three characteristics*.

We can add as many categories as we want, provided that we have reasonably accurate rankings for that category.

We could also incorporate some way of scaling the values according to quality of enemy faced (eg. shooting down a Japanese fighter in 1945 isn't worth as much as shooting down a German ME-109 in 1940.

If you guys are interested in helping, then I'd be up for writing the program which computes this. I'd need help gathering all of the statistics, though. There are enough people here so that this is doable, though. Who knows, maybe we can even publish a paper in some history journal or conference. It would be interesting for ww2aircraft.net to have a publication!


----------



## Kruska (May 7, 2008)

Hello 123……

Come on calm down,

A mathematical based evaluation or assertion will never be on target as long as it has an unknown factor/variable, which in this case would be the word “might” or as such wrong basic information or missing information. 

I have 54 posts and tomorrow a new forum member will post his first statement in regards to a Black Hawk, according to your mathematical assertion you would bet on me, but the new guy might be D.A.I.G.’s elder brother, best friend or whatever. 

The new guy “might” also be a moron and you “might” win your bet. 

Since when does a mathematically based assertion come up with the definite result of Amount accounts for or is relevant to Quality or knowledge? It might and it may not. 

If the Japanese pilot is a veteran with 5 years of flying experience and the US boy just arrived from fighter school, is the US pilots kill less worth then that of the RAF pilot with 2 years flying experience who downed the 109 whose pilot just arrived from flying school??? Now where are you going to find all the relevant data of the Pilots that Hartmann or Baer shoot down???

How are you going to evaluate the pilot who shoot down Hartmann or Baer, wouldn’t he be automatically the better pilot – so best pilot in WW1 was the Canadian? pilot who shoot down Richthofen right?

So for all these examples your mathematically based assertions due to missing information might proof to be wrong. 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## P1234567890 (May 7, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Hello 123……
> 
> Come on calm down,
> 
> A mathematical based evaluation or assertion will never be on target as long as it has an unknown factor/variable, which in this case would be the word “might” or as such wrong basic information or missing information.



*NO* possible evaluation can be on target if any significant amount of information is missing. But the mathematical one which I am proposing gets around all of the objections of the form, "You're just considering the number of kills." I don't really understand what your objection is; this is a place where math and computer science can come in handy. Isn't it better to use a rigorous and comprehensive method than relying on people's gut feelings?



Kruska said:


> I have 54 posts and tomorrow a new forum member will post his first statement in regards to a Black Hawk, according to your mathematical assertion you would bet on me, but the new guy might be D.A.I.G.’s elder brother, best friend or whatever.
> 
> The new guy “might” also be a moron and you “might” win your bet.
> 
> ...



You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I am only making one mathematical claim here, and that is the model which I propose for comparing pilots. Is it perfect? No. But is it as objective and comprehensive as is possible? Pretty close.

I wasn't making any other mathematical assertions other than that. Although at some point the law of averages does kick in on those other topics.


----------



## pbfoot (May 7, 2008)

P1234567890 said:


> *NO* possible evaluation can be on target if any significant amount of information is missing. But the mathematical one which I am proposing gets around all of the objections of the form, "You're just considering the number of kills." I don't really understand what your objection is; this is a place where math and computer science can come in handy. Isn't it better to use a rigorous and comprehensive method than relying on people's gut feelings?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


if you can do it I see no problem


----------



## drgondog (May 7, 2008)

P1234567890 said:


> I for one have learned a lot about some interesting pilots in these threads. And in my defense, I assert that I am helping to stimulate discussion here.
> 
> *You are being successful. *
> 
> I'm trying to say that we can use a mathematical model to compare pilots using *ALL* of the criteria which we could possibly come up with.



*This is one of several opinions you hold that I would have an opposing POV to, and I fully agree mine could be wrong.

How do you model one pilot's will to chase or desire to fight?

How do you blend maturity to seek advantage over a specific opponent, as one of many opportunities present them?

How do you factor luck when one pilot's skill is overcome by a mechanical malfuntion or a 'lucky' hit?

What is the modelling technique to sort out, statistically, how many scores were obtained by being a better shot, with fewer opportunities to achive high ranking? Conversely how many 'great' US or RAF pilots flew 90-95% of their missions without being able to engage the LW? 

How many of the victims, proportionately, were poor pilots in terrible aircraft?

How does one weight 'survivability' and contrast that with the dominant mission - i.e. how many great LW pilots were killed or crippled attacking a Group of B-17s head on in one case versus another pilot that killed a great many Stukas or IL-2's?*

Simply what statistical process could possibly benchmark a Henry Aaron and Babe Ruth in their high school years, measure the competition, the reflexes, the nutrition - and make a determination that one is better than the other - in a competitive arena that may be more staistically reduceable than air combat in a complex weapon systems (with widely divergent performance characteristics) under changing circiumstances in the fortunes of war.

How would Hartmann have done flying Zeros over Rabaul, or Bar flying P-38s over Germany, or Tuck flying Fw 190A-8s over Berlin, or Marseille in P-40s over Africa or England - or Hartmann flyin P-39s instead of Me 109 over Kursk?

I respect your opinion but uncomfortable with your next step - namely a rational model?

BTW - I voter for Baer for the reasons stated - none of which would hold to a math model. Nor do I have a clue which 'Professional Historian' you might have in mind that would be able to offer a sound approach to this question.

I DO believe one could close on average number of sorties per score, relative use of ammo (maybe), weighting the use of 50 Cal vs 20mm, types of opponents, etc.. but can you imagine comparing Geronimo to a legenday Centurion or Gladiator - with no arena to truly compare fighting/hunting skills?

Respectfully, I can't

Regards,

Bill


----------



## P1234567890 (May 7, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> if you can do it I see no problem



I can program it up; that's the easy part. The hard part would be to get all of the stats. If people here were willing to help me gather stats, then we could make the result arbitrarily good. The more info we find, the better it would be. We could just keep on improving it.

The categories for which we can probably find the best stats are total kills and combat missions flown. From those two we can calculate kills per mission.

Does anyone here have any other suggestions for categories for which there exist good stats? (By the way, it wouldn't be the end of the world if some of them are blank for some of the pilots; we could deal with that).


----------



## P1234567890 (May 7, 2008)

drgondog said:


> *This is one of several opinions you hold that I would have an opposing POV to, and I fully agree mine could be wrong.
> 
> How do you model one pilot's will to chase or desire to fight?
> 
> ...



You raise legitimate objections, but really we have to crawl before we can fly. If the information isn't there, then there's nothing we can do, regardless of whether or not we're using a fancy mathematical model.

I'm not even sure we can find ammo usage statistics for most pilots. We have some for Marseille and Beurling, but I'm guessing that many units just didn't keep those records.

We probably could find stats for what types of planes people shot down, though. That's the kind of thing people really cared about back then.

All I'm trying to advocate is the use of a more rigorous and disciplined approach to comparing pilots. Ultimately it can only be as good as the data we give it, but you can say that about *any* way of comparing pilots. I thought that this would be an interesting little collaborative project for us all to work on.

The other main thing I'm trying to advocate is comparing as many different relevant pilot attributes and achievements as possible. Instead of just looking at kills or ratio or whatever, I'm saying that we should look at as many relevant stats that we can possibly come up with. How can anyone argue with that?


----------



## drgondog (May 7, 2008)

P1234567890 said:


> I can program it up; that's the easy part. The hard part would be to get all of the stats. If people here were willing to help me gather stats, then we could make the result arbitrarily good. The more info we find, the better it would be. We could just keep on improving it.
> 
> The categories for which we can probably find the best stats are total kills and combat missions flown. From those two we can calculate kills per mission.
> 
> Does anyone here have any other suggestions for categories for which there exist good stats? (By the way, it wouldn't be the end of the world if some of them are blank for some of the pilots; we could deal with that).



How about eyesight and ability to discriminate an a/c versus a speck on the windshield.

How about the average number of a/c shot down per encounter (not mission).

How about the total numer of encounters with an enemy aircraft and how many times shots were actually fired when enemy aircraft were encountered.

How about the hand to eye coordination and situational awareness?

How about age?

How about ability to shoot w/o computing gunsight?

What percentage of scores were enemy fighters?

How about 'birth rank' (USAF 85 determined that the statistical position was younger brother or second born) for higher percentage of ace rankings

How about leadership and mentoring background the ace received in early combats..

What about number of flight hours and in which type a/c before flying first combat mission?

How about quality and quantity of opposition, and during which part of the war?


----------



## Kruska (May 7, 2008)

Hello P123.....

What is it so difficult for you to understand? What people here are trying to tell you is that it is impossible to factor/measure certain criteria’s.

How do you factor 6 bad US Killer boy’s hunting down a crippled LW a/c with engine failure, or a LW Experten-pilot who sneaks up behind a Gladiator flown by a drunken Irishman (I am not biased against Irish) Alcohol abuse was a very big issue amongst the LW especially as the war dragged on, and from where would you retrieve all this information?

All you seem to take as an endless main criteria is number of Kills. It is however not about the number of kills but an overall evaluation with a lot of unanswered questions and therefore it is based on GUTFEELING, since no one possesses the necessary data to do a proofed mathematical equation out of this.(at least not me)

Regards
Kruska


----------



## drgondog (May 7, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Hello P123.....
> 
> What is it so difficult for you to understand? What people here are trying to tell you is that it is impossible to factor/measure certain criteria’s.
> 
> ...



Kruska - Thx for saying in one sentence what I wasted many paragraphs trying to convey -

Tip of the hat

Bill

The most profound statement I ever heard by any fighter pilot on key attributes to be 'successful' was 

"Well, you can't want to live forever" - Col Billy Hovde (USAF-ret'd) 1967 0r 68 Fighter Aces Reunion - the last to answer a reporter's question on this subject.


----------



## P1234567890 (May 7, 2008)

drgondog said:


> How about eyesight and ability to discriminate an a/c versus a speck on the windshield.
> 
> How about the average number of a/c shot down per encounter (not mission).
> 
> ...



I think that for some of these stats we have a chance of finding accurate records, and for others we don't.


----------



## buzzard (May 7, 2008)

We could settle this vexing conundrum if only I could get my damn' time machine workin' right... we could go back and abduct all those pilots and put on a rigidly controlled tournament. And we could charge admission!

Alas, even that wouldn't prove much. We might be able to figure out who was the most skilled aerobatic pilot, or maybe the most accurate deflection shot, but the best FIGHTER Pilot? Not likely...

There were so many variables involved in how these pilots attained their success, that no mathematical model can possibly offer any real insight. Best kill-to-mission ratio? Surely anyone can see that luck is a huge factor in this, and many other events that determine who well a pilot does. And how would you factor in elements such lethal cunning? Aeriel combat is not a game. The only rule is to defeat the enemy in such a way as to allow you to live another day. Do we give extra points for cheating?

Statistical methods of analysis require subjective value judgements as to which elements are granted priority over others. And how do you quantify the essential element of luck? Deciding who among fighter pilots is the 'best' is inherently unquantifiable. Unless you stick to the one statistic that matters above all others in the arena of air combat...Victories. 

JL


----------



## P1234567890 (May 7, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Hello P123.....
> 
> What is it so difficult for you to understand? What people here are trying to tell you is that it is impossible to factor/measure certain criteria’s.



If it's impossible when using a mathematical model, then it's also impossible when using your gut or any other model. The advantage of my proposal is that it factors in a lot of things which someone's gut instincts won't.



Kruska said:


> How do you factor 6 bad US Killer boy’s hunting down a crippled LW a/c with engine failure, or a LW Experten-pilot who sneaks up behind a Gladiator flown by a drunken Irishman (I am not biased against Irish) Alcohol abuse was a very big issue amongst the LW especially as the war dragged on, and from where would you retrieve all this information?



I'm not saying you can. I'm not saying that my model is perfect, but just that it's more comprehensive and rigorous than anything else.



Kruska said:


> All you seem to take as an endless main criteria is number of Kills.



I'm quite explicitly NOT doing this. I'm specifically saying that we SHOULDN'T just look at the number of kills, but rather that we should factor in all of the relevant criteria for which we can possibly compile statistics.

The fact that you seem to think I'm only interested in kills suggests that you don't understand my proposed model.



Kruska said:


> It is however not about the number of kills but an overall evaluation



You're not disagreeing with me! This is *exactly* what I am saying. Of course, this is limited by the stats which we can find. I am not saying that my model is perfect. I'm saying it's probably the best we can do in the situation we have where we don't have perfect information.


----------



## P1234567890 (May 7, 2008)

buzzard said:


> There were so many variables involved in how these pilots attained their success, that no mathematical model can possibly offer any real insight. Best kill-to-mission ratio? Surely anyone can see that luck is a huge factor in this,



I don't know about this. If you shoot down a bunch of planes during your first two missions, then fine, maybe you're just lucky. But if you *consistently* shoot down enemy planes over literally hundreds of sorties, then there's something other than luck going on. At some point the law of averages kicks in. Surely some of Hartmann's opponents got lucky flying against him as well. Over thousands of missions, luck washes out.

Was Wayne Gretzky just a lucky hockey player?

In any case, I like your time machine idea!


----------



## buzzard (May 7, 2008)

P1234567890 said:


> Was Wayne Gretzky just a lucky hockey player?



Certainly not. But if he had been killed or crippled in a car accident on his way to join the pros, he would have been just another footnote in the history of professional hockey.

What I'm talking about is the role that contingency plays in the unforgiving world of air combat. Hartmann was certainly lucky, just as Marseille, ultimately, was not.

Lets imagine that Marseille, after the BoB, had been ordered to take part in Barbarossa. Would he have amassed an even larger score against the qualitatively inferior Soviets? Anyone basing their conclusion on his success against the generally superior Allied forces would almost certainly say 'yes'. But how can you really know? While the Soviets were GENERALLY inferior to the Allies, they surely had some very skilled pilots in their ranks. And in an environment unlike the clear skies of N.Africa, he could have been bounced and shot down...just another forgotten casualty of war.

While it is certainly true that achieving a high kill-to-mission ratio was an indication of superior capability, it still demands that there be enemies available to be shot down. Look at all the Americans who flew in the final months of the war. Many rarely, if ever, saw a German AC. In such a situation, no degree of skill will allow the possibility of achieving a high kill/mission ratio. You gotta have some luck!

A comprehensive statistical analysis of the aces would certainly be a useful guide to assessing their relative merits, but the interpretation of which criteria matters most is a subjective judgement. You can sort the truly great from the mere excellent, but to narrow it down to a single 'best'? I don't think so. It's just too damn complex. 

D'ya think that part of the problem with my time machine is the perpetual motion machine that powers it? I'm stumped 

JL


----------



## Njaco (May 7, 2008)

> We might be able to figure out who was the most skilled aerobatic pilot, or maybe the most accurate deflection shot, but the best FIGHTER Pilot? Not likely...



Which leads us back to one's own personal opinion based upon one's own set of criteria - be it kills, deflection, skill or even nationality. Its not possible to find the one true best ever either mathmatically or otherwise because there is always that unknown quotent - personal feeling.

Its not a question whose answer can be found set in stone.

Now, why was Ivan Kozhedub on the list?


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 8, 2008)

I think at leas one of the Finnish pilots should have made it to the second round (I understand the system), but I'm not going to complain, because I could have voted (I didn't because I don't really know enough on the acheivements of a lot of those pilots) and because, while there should be a degree of sincerity to this, but at the same time you can overkill on that. This is, at least to some degree, for fun. 

And even though it's pretty obvious who this is going to boil down to, I like that Johnson made it to atleast round 2, for nothing else, the story of his P-43C coming home with more than a dozen 20mm hits and hundreds of rifle calliber holes.

Same thing with Sakai, he's got some amazing stories tied to him too, particularly with the James "Pug" Southerlan encounter at Guadalcanal. (a RC bullet through his scull brain out the other side and he ended up landing safely and eventually returned to combat blind in one eye, and became a Bhudist after the war)

Though there are amazing stories tied to pretty much all these guys.


----------



## Kruska (May 8, 2008)

buzzard said:


> D'ya think that part of the problem with my time machine is the perpetual motion machine that powers it? I'm stumped
> 
> JL



  

Hello 123.......

Let me please forward my gut feeling on the following issue;

This whole mathematical …… was brought up because you mentioned that according to this method it would proof that all top aces would be Germans.
(And I still think you base that equation primarily on kills)

The USAF and the Commonwealth pilot’s hat fraction kills awarded which makes damn good sense to me and also shows that they were team players who placed the act of annihilating an enemy above personal career motivation or Goering’s pathetic hero pattern.

German pilots were only awarded a Kill as one, kills could not be fractured, the participations were measured within ones personal file but did not contribute much to “heroism” or “promotion” as an individual kill would have done.

Now my gut feeling tells me that a German pilot with, let’s say 105 kills did not achieve these single handed by himself (especially whilst attacking a bomber formation or during the BoB)) chances that the pilot or pilots who really crippled an escort fighter or bomber was/were killed during this action himself or were not even aware about this but another pilot was documented / witnessed as having put out the lights of the respective enemy a/c and as such was awarded the whole thing or a kill. (Can you imagine the total confusion up there during such a mission?) who had the time and ability like a mathematical equation to follow up on his “result” and a witness next to him?

According to my uncle, dozens of young pilots started to open fire at distances of more than a 1000m in order to break of the attack before reaching the defensive bomber fire and then immediately diving away towards home. Who knows what they hit if at all and what some witness really saw. 

I also know from my uncle that reported and witnessed kills were awarded partially as calculated
advantage to certain pilots who were most suitable and could enable the Staffel/Geschwader to produce a “Hero” which in reverse contributed to the overall “Goering likes/favors me/my squadron”. 

(1st JG to achieve 200, 500, 1000, 1500 …… kills and within 2,3,4 …. Pilots with more than 50,70,90 …. kills) = great headlines and a good lick at Goering’s boots. 

I am not saying this in disrespect to any pilot’s true achievements. 

Therefore "my" gut feeling tells me forget about the kills as a major judgment in regards to a pilots overall performance. During the BoB the kills awarded to the respective German fighter pilots was (if I remember correctly) 2.5 times of what the RAF recorded in there loss statistics. 

So if you still want to evaluate math…. the performance, please document to me first the weight that you would allocate to kills.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## P1234567890 (May 8, 2008)

Kruska said:


> This whole mathematical …… was brought up because you mentioned that according to this method it would proof that all top aces would be Germans.
> (And I still think you base that equation primarily on kills)



I've *explicitly* stated that it's not based on kills, and also explained *exactly* how it's not based on kills. It's based on as many things as possible. That's the whole point.

But just for the sake of argument, let's say we rate pilots on number of combat missions flown. After all, staying alive to fly a thousand missions is a pretty good indicator of pilot skill. If we rank everyone by combat missions, probably the top hundred pilots of the war are Germans.

If we rank by ratio, then the top pilots are Germans. If we rank by total kills, then the top pilots are Germans.

The only way anyone could compete with them is if there are some categories in which the Germans do *very* poorly, and some allied pilot does *very* well, and I just don't think there's any reasonable category in which the German pilots sucked.

In order to find categories in which the Germans do poorly and the allies do well, you'd pretty much have to start looking at English ability and stuff like that.



Kruska said:


> The USAF and the Commonwealth pilot’s hat fraction kills awarded which makes damn good sense to me and also shows that they were team players who placed the act of annihilating an enemy above personal career motivation or Goering’s pathetic hero pattern.



I doubt this matters very much. You don't think Hartmann ever damaged a plane which one of his wingmen finished off? Besides, even if you assume that all of his kills were teamwork kills and divide his total score in half, he's still got more than twice as many kills as the best non-German pilot.

Another interesting point is the Battle of Britain. How come there were a bunch of Germans who had literally dozens of kills during the Battle of Britain, and there weren't any British pilots who even came close? And it's not like the Spitfires and Hurricanes that they were flying against were totally inferior machines or that the British pilots were hacks. I assert that the top German pilots were just really well-trained and really talented. Just look at Galland and Moelders during the battle; they didn't have any equals on the opposite side.


----------



## P1234567890 (May 8, 2008)

Kruska said:


> So if you still want to evaluate math…. the performance, please document to me first the weight that you would allocate to kills.



I've explained this. You assign all possible weights to kills, and you do the same with every other category.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 8, 2008)

P1234567890 said:


> I assert that the top German pilots were just really well-trained and really talented. Just look at Galland and Moelders during the battle; they didn't have any equals on the opposite side.


They were well trained and talented but not invincible - Moelders was shot down during the Battle of France. Galland had several close calls during the BoB....


----------



## Hunter368 (May 8, 2008)

I will also add that there were some Allied pilots that scored as high or higher then the top German aces on a kill/mission bais.

Did top Allied pilots score as many kills as top German ones? no

Is there reasons why they did not score as many kills that had nothing to do with skill? yes

Could of top Allied pilots scored as many kills as German aces if they were placed in the same situation? No reason to think they could not of.

Summary:

LW aces were not super human flying machines, they were no better then Allied ones. LW aces were just placed in a target rich zone and served entire war fighting.......Allied pilots were not given that chance. LW pilots did start the war using better tactics and had some experience over Allied pilots......but that evened out soon enough. LW and Allied pilots were equal.

(let me just say when I mean "Allied pilots" I do not mean Russian, thats not to say there were not some very good Russian pilots also)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 9, 2008)

Hunter368 said:


> I will also add that there were some Allied pilots that scored as high or higher then the top German aces on a kill/mission bais.



Yep - I believe in one of Toliver's books he pointed out that Gabreski and Preddy had the same rate of claims as some of the Luftwaffe top aces and had they flown +1400 missions (like many German aced did) they too "would of" had kills into the triple digits.


----------



## marshall (May 9, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Yep - I believe in one of Toliver's books he pointed out that Gabreski and Preddy had the same rate of claims as some of the Luftwaffe top aces and had they flown +1400 missions (like many German aced did) they too "would of" had kills into the triple digits.




I think that we should add to this the fact that as Gabreski writes in his book they couldn't always follow after an enemy into dive and score a kill because they had to stay with bombers and protect them. In case of pilots flying as bomber escort a victory doesn't equals a kill. But is it less important?


----------



## drgondog (May 9, 2008)

marshall said:


> I think that we should add to this the fact that as Gabreski writes in his book they couldn't always follow after an enemy into dive and score a kill because they had to stay with bombers and protect them. In case of pilots flying as bomber escort a victory doesn't equals a kill. But is it less important?



The other factor for Allied pilots is the very few times encounters occurred and the ratios of destroyed aircraft per encounter is important. My father had four encounters with Me 109s and shot down 6-1-1 plus a Stuka for his 7th.

As Marshall said - more opprtunities to bounce were available but escort responsibilities were Prime Directive - all of his 109 scores were taking out high escorts for either Fw 190s or Me 410s while other squadron members took out the bomber killers.

I still voted for Bar because of his scores, the types of scores, the extreme hostile environment he fought in and he survived. But like many I believe Johnny Johnson, Stanford Tuck, George preddy, JC Myer, Joe Foss, Saburo Sakai, Buerling, etc were great fighter pilots - but how do you measure the intangibles - which is why I only 'do' this kind of poll reluctantly - and never get into a 'fact based' discussion.


----------



## P1234567890 (May 9, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> They were well trained and talented but not invincible - Moelders was shot down during the Battle of France. Galland had several close calls during the BoB....



Of course. Anyone who flies long enough gets shot down. Marseille was shot down. Rudel was shot down plenty of times. By the way, these are two more great categories: ratio of planes lost vs. planes shot down and ratio of planes lost vs. number of combat missions flown.

But I think the Battle of Britain was interesting for a few reasons:

1. The allied pilots were fighting on home turf. If a German bails out over England, the war is over for him. If an allied pilot bails out, he lives to fight another day. The Germans only got one mistake.

2. The allies had extra targets to shoot at. Whereas the Germans had to fight fighter-to-fighter, the allies had lots of juicy Stukas to take out. Despite this, the top German scorers like Galland and Moelders had way more kills.

3. (Related to 2) The allies outscored the Germans in the Battle of Britain by something like 2 kills to 1. Again, despite this the top German pilots had way more kills.

Also, do we actually have any facts about how many combat missions the top Germans flew during the Battle of Britain vs. how many missions the top allied pilots flew?

Everyone talks about how sleep deprived the RAF pilots were during the BoB, and how 'never has so much been owed by so many to so few', so it sounds to me like they were flying plenty of missions.

As far as I can tell, during the BoB the average LW pilot was on par (or maybe even worse) than the average RAF pilot, but the top LW pilots were *way* better than the top RAF pilots.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 10, 2008)

Better? More experienced perhaps. Way better? - I think not. If they were they would of been able to clear the skies for the bombers despite the limitations they were up against.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 10, 2008)

P1234567890 do you have any proof that Luftwaffe pilots were better?

Where is proof that Luftwaffe pilot had 100% better training?

Where is proof that Luftwaffe pilots would 100% win in a one on one fight. I mean if they are better they should right?


----------



## JoeB (May 10, 2008)

marshall said:


> I think that we should add to this the fact that as Gabreski writes in his book they couldn't always follow after an enemy into dive and score a kill because they had to stay with bombers and protect them.


That sounds reasonable. However, the reverse argument, that the interceptors had to concentrate on downing bombers, not on killing escorting fighters, and thus left themselves more vulnerable to escorts than they otherwise would have been, also sounds reasonable. In fact that sort of argument is routinely heard in both directions.

I think it tends to oversimplify in either direction. In a prolonged contest between escorted bombers and interceptors, it's very important, of paramount importance really, for the interceptors to try to cause heavy losses in the escort and for the escort to try to cause heavy losses among the interceptors. Because the most bombers will be protected in the long run if the quantity and quality of the interceptor force is run down, and vice versa from the interceptors' POV. The USAAF pretty explicitly accepted that principal as time went on; and in many other similar smaller campaigns there were episodes where the escorts began flying fighter sweeps ahead of bombers, or on days with no bomber missions at all, specifically to destroy interceptors.

There are many differences among the situations where various Axis and Allied aces accumulated their scores, but I don't think in general that a fighter pilot who mainly flew as escort or interceptor automatically had a harder or easier time scoring against opposing fighters. An exception to that would be pilots flying planes heavily modified to kill bombers so less capable against fighters, or inherently less capable (big twin engine interceptors).

Joe


----------



## P1234567890 (May 10, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Better? More experienced perhaps. Way better? - I think not. If they were they would of been able to clear the skies for the bombers despite the limitations they were up against.



Well, there were only two or three superstar fighter pilots on the German side. That's not enough to change the outcome of the battle.


----------



## P1234567890 (May 10, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> P1234567890 do you have any proof that Luftwaffe pilots were better?
> 
> Where is proof that Luftwaffe pilot had 100% better training?
> 
> Where is proof that Luftwaffe pilots would 100% win in a one on one fight. I mean if they are better they should right?



I'm not sure you're reading my posts. I wrote this:



> As far as I can tell, during the BoB the average LW pilot was on par (or maybe even worse) than the average RAF pilot, but the top LW pilots were *way* better than the top RAF pilots.



The top-scoring RAF pilot of the Battle of Britain was Sgt J Frantisek#, 303 Sqn. He had 17 kills, which is certainly good, but it isn't even remotely close to what Galland and Moelders were pulling off.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 10, 2008)

P1234567890 said:


> Well, there were only two or three superstar fighter pilots on the German side. That's not enough to change the outcome of the battle.


Then so much for those way more superior Luftwaffe pilots.

BTW Molders had 30 kills during the BoB, Galland had 23, certainly no over bearing contrast when comparing to the RAF folks who were alledgely on the ropes...


----------



## buzzard (May 10, 2008)

"The true test of merit in my profession is success..." ~ General Albert Sidney Johnston, CSA.

It is, as he also said, a hard one, but fair. The same test validly applies to fighter pilots. And who was more successful than Hartmann? Accusations of 'false' awarding of kills to selected pilots for the purpose of Jagdgeschwader self-promotion, nowithstanding...

While I am not impressed by the utility of statistical methodologies as a means of reducing the topic question to a mathematical solution, (It reminds me of the 'QJM' formulas expounded by military theorist Trevor Dupuy...) the self-same incorrigible complexity inherent in the question leaves little choice but to accept numerical success as the only truly quantifiable factor in determining who was 'best'. Appeals to 'what-ifs' are irrelevant. As are the claims that those who fought the Allies are apriori superior to those who fought in the East. Plenty of BoB/WF experten fell under the guns of Soviet fighters. And while a high score against the murderous 8th AAF bomber formations is certainly evidence of skill, it is also, given the hundreds of thousands of .50 cal bullets whizzing around, a testament to the role of luck...Bar was very good, but he was also very lucky.

In regards to the scoring disparitiy between the top German and British aces in the BoB, at least some of of this may be attributed to the differing tactical doctrines employed by the two air forces. The Luftwaffe doctrine, with its well-honed Schwarm/Rotte system, was vastly superior to the overly rigid pre-war developed tactics of the RAF. Whereas in the German system, the Rotte leader could concentrate on the attack while protected by his wingman, the RAF flight leader often found himself vulnerable and alone once his flight entered the maestrom of the furball. It took a lot of dead RAF pilots to convince the RAF brass of the errors of their precious airfighting theories. Remember all those hapless 'tail-end Charlies'? The top Germans also benefited from their superior combat experience. And the fact that a German escort pilot would always have targets available, whereas the RAF aces spent a lot of their air time chasing after false leads from the RAF GCI controllers, also contributed to the disparity.

JL


----------



## Kruska (May 10, 2008)

buzzard said:


> "The true test of merit in my profession is success..." ~ General Albert Sidney Johnston, CSA.
> 
> It is, as he also said, a hard one, but fair. The same test validly applies to fighter pilots. And who was more successful than Hartmann? Accusations of 'false' awarding of kills to selected pilots for the purpose of Jagdgeschwader self-promotion, nowithstanding...
> 
> JL



You bet it happened. Scores were admitted only by the Geschwader Kommodore after reconfirmation with the Gruppenkommandeure and Staffelfuehrer. Upon an uncertain situation – non withstanding witness reports, double, triple and …. claims or lack of evidence the Gruppenkommandeure dismissed the kill (very seldom) or forwarded the pilot with the most kills who claimed of the respective Staffel, rather than awarding these to a pilot with none kills who might not be around anymore the next week. Important was to “document” the kill – to Goering – instead of dismissing one.
The fact that the LW over claimed by almost 2.5 during the BoB shows / indicates that a lot of reports regarding witnesses are already doubtful and therefore questionable. 
This was not only reported to me by my uncle (JG 2 during BoB) but also from a couple of other pilots (JG.2 and 26). 
I think Erich on this forum has some good existing contacts to former LW pilots, let’s hear his opinion or knowledge to this matter.

Even in today’s Bundeswehr, were I served it is not uncommon as probably in any other Army to forward soldiers for certain awards, citations more due to the liking then actual performance.
Very good example the award of the Schuetzenschnur or sharp shooter badge.

With all respect, I think that you and P123…. have never talked or met a veteran pilot and as such simply have to rely on what certain books forward. These books usually only describe the kill and not the preparation as such.
First of all the LW was a military organization and as such dominated by orders, regulations and not by individual decision makers.

Once the Staffel, respectively the Schwarm and Rotten were on mission, let’s say to make it easier “Freie Jagd” they “eyed” for prey if not some other hunter already had an eye on them. Once found the Rottenfuehrer or Staffelfuehrer gave the order of who and how to go and get the prey – to get themselves into a favorable position – in most cases it was off course the Rotten or Staffelfuehrer who took the chance to get his prey and these pilots were man such as Galland or Moelders due to rank and experience gained in previous combat (Spain) or Poland/Low countries and France. Mostly the Rottenkamerad (Wingman) had problems following due to not being so experienced or simply because he would have hindered or given away a favorable position of his Chef. 

This system also applied to the RAF or USAAF, the main difference to the LW however was the sharing of kills. Therefore do you know how many of Sgt J Frantisek 17 kills were made up of fraction kills? Let’s say, assume amongst his 17 kills he had 2 1/2 kills, 4 1/4 kills and 6 1/6 kills according to the RAF awarding system he had a Total of 3 Kills, according to the LW awarding system he would have had up to 12 Kills and 9-35 other LW pilots none or 12 -LW pilots got at most one kill each (depending on the witness protokol), or whatever totals 12 fraction x pilots particpating kills as full kills. (Can you still follow me?) Now how do you think the LW forwarded those 12 participation kills – according to what system? If not by “selecting”/ awarding them to certain pilots as single (full) kills since fraction kills were not admitted. 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## buzzard (May 10, 2008)

Kruska,

Geez...don't get all het up, I'm not calling you a liar. I have no problem believing such incidents may have happened, but that still does not really explain the massive disparity in kills between top Luftwaffe and Allied aces. Nor does the issue of over-claiming (RAF BoB claims also exceeded Luftwaffe recorded losses by a wide margin). And I'm also familiar with the Luftwaffe practice of not sharing kills. In any case, given the lack of documented evidence about the specifics of falsifying kill records for propaganda purpose, what else can we work with but the official records? Speaking of which, after the war, the Allies were very skeptical of the astounding scores of the top experten, and there was a great deal of research into the Luftwaffe archives before the German scores were reluctantly accepted (with the tacit acceptance of the fact that none are completely definitive)as reasonably accurate.

We're already in agreement as to the fact that the top scorers had precedence when initiating attacks (as implied in my previous post) but that only demonstrates the tactical doctrine of the Rotte/schwarm system. It doesn't say anything about WHY an individual Rotte leader was given that privilege. And why should it? Command hath it's privileges in all air forces...

Unless you can offer hard evidence and unimpeachable corroboration for specific incidences of malfeasance on the part of the record-keepers vis a vis individual pilots, than the existing records remain the valid primary source of data. Anecdotal testimony and hearsay may be accurate at times, but all too often, they are not. Precisely why both have come to be regarded with grave suspicion by jurists, scientists, and historians. 

JL


----------



## Kruska (May 10, 2008)

Hello buzzard,

I am not heated up (well maybe I was  ), what I am trying to point out is the problem regarding the sharing of kills. Since only full kills were acknowledged the chance for egoism within the LW was far higher than in the RAF or USAAF.
It was also far easier for a “popular” LW pilot to gain additional kills booked fully on his account then for the Allied pilots.
If the enemy a/c was actually shot down by let’s say 3 pilots then one German got lucky by getting the total kill awarded only by himself the others got nothing, so it is far more “easy” for a LW pilot to score far higher (accumulate) then for an allied pilot.

And for this reason I do not let number of kills get too much into my evaluation regarding a LW pilot. That’s all and has not much to do with “forging” or faking accounts, since actually one a/c was reported in the above case to be shot down – it’s the “distribution – allotting of the Kill. 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Glider (May 10, 2008)

I don't know enough to be able to identify a particular pilot but have always been impressed by the Polish aces. A number of them flew against the Germans in PZL11's clearly against all the odds, then flew with the French again in inferior aircraft. They then went to the RAF, fought the Germans in Hurricanes and became the highest scoring RAF squadron in the BOB by a substantial margin. In a Hurricane, again an inferior aircraft to the 109 but a lot better than they had flown before.

If your flying the better aircraft, with the advantage of numbers it is easier to get a high score, than if your in the lesser of the two aircraft and often at a tactical disadvantage.

I would choose one of the Polish pilots Stanisław Skalski


----------



## drgondog (May 10, 2008)

buzzard said:


> Kruska,
> 
> We're already in agreement as to the fact that the top scorers had precedence when initiating attacks (as implied in my previous post) but that only demonstrates the tactical doctrine of the Rotte/schwarm system. It doesn't say anything about WHY an individual Rotte leader was given that privilege. And why should it? Command hath it's privileges in all air forces...
> 
> JL



The LW doctrine and the USAAF Doctrine was the same. Lead pilot is the normal 'shooter' and the wing covers him. two ship Element is the core unit

Usually the element and flight leaders were the better pilots and the wingman was either new or deemed less skilled than the lead..or good pilot but inexperienced in combat ops

Sometimes skilled pilots were selected for wing - that is usually where RHIP, or simply because they liked each other.

Near the end of the war in ETO my father, an ace and the Group Deputy CO, flew a couple of missions on the wing of the Group CO - Lt Col in lead, Lt. Col. on wing. Fairly top heavy exception to rule.


----------



## Kruska (May 11, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Near the end of the war in ETO my father, an ace and the Group Deputy CO, flew a couple of missions on the wing of the Group CO - Lt Col in lead, Lt. Col. on wing. Fairly top heavy exception to rule.



Hello drgondog,

Your father an USAAF ace? That sounds very interesting. My Father was with the LW Flak, so maybe they were trying to get each other  ,
Do you have any knowledge from your father in regards to kill verifications on the USAAF side? Did they frequently share the spoils, or did they prefer to allocate a common kill rather on behalf of just one pilot?

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Der_blaue_Ritter (May 11, 2008)

I voted for Baer but I can't help feeling admiration for any pilot (German, Russian or Japanese) who flew against superior forces and still scored well. They say 10 percent of the pilots score 90 percent of the victories. The aces of any nationality are alike in their love of flying, adrenalin, and the hunt.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 12, 2008)

Kinda feel bad for the other 90 percent of Pilots that didn't get kills. But they still did their job, taking out ground targets, strafing, calling out "bogies" to the lead pilots, which might have been killed if there weren't so many eyes in the squadron, attacking enemy planes and shooting at them, even if they don't bring a single one down, and also providing support in shared kills, basically a lot of things. Simply trying, that's what counts. Having a good number of bad pilots in reserve is always better than just a few really good pilots that will get killed eventually most likely. Also troop morale. 

Seeing a whole gaggle of P-51's always looked a bit intimidating for a Luftwaffe Top Ace, I'm sure, even if most of them couldn't shoot him down, because one of them may be really good, or one may have luck, and then he's shot down, because that whole pack of planes is hard to run away from and fight all at once. 

Besides, the 1 kill pilot still did his job. He got the kill when he was needed. Even the 0 kill pilot should feel happy, he helped to scare enough of the enemy away so that nobody could shoot him down at least, and at best wore out or scared a couple of enemy pilots in the process. 

Anyway, my point is bad pilots are better than no pilots. But it helps to have at least 1 good pilot in the buch, so everybody has somebody to aspire to.


----------



## marshall (May 12, 2008)

Glider said:


> I don't know enough to be able to identify a particular pilot but have always been impressed by the Polish aces. A number of them flew against the Germans in PZL11's clearly against all the odds, then flew with the French again in inferior aircraft. They then went to the RAF, fought the Germans in Hurricanes and became the highest scoring RAF squadron in the BOB by a substantial margin. In a Hurricane, again an inferior aircraft to the 109 but a lot better than they had flown before.
> 
> If your flying the better aircraft, with the advantage of numbers it is easier to get a high score, than if your in the lesser of the two aircraft and often at a tactical disadvantage.
> 
> I would choose one of the Polish pilots Stanisław Skalski



It's so nice to hear that someone in London remembers about it.



I again voted for Urbanowicz, anyone can think about me what he wants it's a free world but I did it for few reasons. First I'm not 100% sure that he was the best but I don't think he was worse pilot than others on that list, he scored 15 kills on a Hurricane Mk1 in BoB in about 45 days later he didn't had real opportunities to have many kills, he fought Germans and Russians in P.11 and didn't get shot down, he never did get shot down, he never was hit by enemy fighter fire due to his exeptional situational awarness (IMO the most important skill for a fighter pilot) some will say that I vote patriotically and that this is stupid, I won't say that the fact that he was a Pole doesn't matter for me but still I think he wasn't worse pilot than others and when I'm not able to clearly state who was the best I will choose someone from my country. That's all.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 12, 2008)

And if there wasnt a Pole on the Poll, who would u place ur vote with???


----------



## Kruska (May 12, 2008)

Any Czechs on this forum?  I think they too had a couple of pilots flying for the RAF.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## marshall (May 12, 2008)

lesofprimus said:


> And if there wasnt a Pole on the Poll, who would u place ur vote with???




From the above list I would hesitate between (order as they appear on the list) Hartmann, Baer, Galland, but if I should choose anybody except Poles than I probably would voted for Juutilainen.


----------



## P1234567890 (May 12, 2008)

marshall said:


> but if I should choose anybody exept Poles than I probably would voted for Juutilainen.



You're basically admitting that the only reason you voted for the guy is because his nationality is the same as yours. Although in fairness to you, if I were Polish, I would probably also be biased against the Luftwaffe.

But in any case, I still have to say that I'm very surprised that Urbanowicz has 10% of the votes here and that he's only one vote behind Hartmann...


----------



## Marcel (May 12, 2008)

Every tried to fight a Bf110 with a PZL 7a?


----------



## marshall (May 12, 2008)

P1234567890 said:


> You're basically admitting that the only reason you voted for the guy is because his nationality is the same as yours. Although in fairness to you, if I were Polish, I would probably also be biased against the Luftwaffe.




Not the only reason but the deciding one. A big difference.

And you're right, I'm probably biased against Germans and Russians but I have great respect for some of them for their personal achievements.


----------



## P1234567890 (May 12, 2008)

I got to see Marseille's real (and airworthy) plane today! That was totally cool; thanks pbfoot; you're awesome!


----------



## Njaco (May 18, 2008)

envious!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 18, 2008)

I sat in it when it was at Mojave...

Good stuff guys, hope you took some pictures.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 22, 2008)

I wonder if Bar and Hartmann will be the final two or not.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 22, 2008)

I need to start the next poll. Fell behind when the forum crashed.


----------



## seesul (Jul 6, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Besides the vote list the best Pilot could be my uncle (old time family friend -not really related) he flew as fighter pilot from 1939 till the very end of 45. Among the planes he flew was also the Ta-152, and the best part is; he never got shot down nor did he shot down anybody - (according to his say)
> 
> Regards
> Kruska
> ...


...and his name is...?


----------



## seesul (Jul 6, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Hello everybody,
> 
> greetings from a new forum member.
> 
> ...



Haven´t found anyone with more than 40 4 engine kills, more at
Viermot-Killers


----------



## seesul (Jul 6, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Any Czechs on this forum?  I think they too had a couple of pilots flying for the RAF.
> 
> Regards
> Kruska



Here you go http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/stories/s-ldr-josef-stehl-k-four-airforces-1603.html
That´s my vote...


----------



## drgondog (Jul 6, 2008)

seesul said:


> Haven´t found anyone with more than 40 4 engine kills, more at
> Viermot-Killers



Killing B-17s and B-24's took the balls of an elephant and a lot of luck to survive the defensive firepower.

Killing fighters, in my opinion, took more skill - and even more luck if the numbers are high.

To me the LW pilot that survived throughout the war on the Kanal Front and ETO is the one that flew against the most capable adversaries..

He flew against everything the Allies had to offer and flew a lot of target rich missions.

I have zero doubt that many VVS, USAAF, USN, RAF, etc pilots had the same skills - but zero had the longevity.


----------



## Amsel (Jul 26, 2008)

I have always admired Otto Kittel.But I have a bias for JG54.Kittel had 267 victories when he was killed on Valentines day in 1945,by some IL-2's.


----------



## Marcel (Jul 28, 2008)

When do we get the final poll? This one is long over due.


----------



## Catch22 (Jul 28, 2008)

Yes, I agree and great sig Marcel!


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jul 28, 2008)

I agree. 

And that dutch pilot is pretty humble in your siggy. 

I would still be thinking about Anti-aircraft fire!


----------



## proton45 (Aug 9, 2008)

I don't remember if I voted or not... but I have always admired the high scoring Japanese aces. It seems to me that it takes a pretty good pilot to bring down a P-38 or F6F with a Zero or Hayabusa. Japanese pilots where frequently asked to do more with less, and some of them actually managed to get the job done even though their hardware was horribly underpowered and without protection. 

Their are some dam impressive German pilots who managed to survive the war (with unbelievable victory numbers) even though they where horribly outmatched (numerically), but without question German hardware managed to maintain a competitive edge (pretty much) through out the war... for me Hiroyoshi Nishizawa, Saburo Sakai, and Tetsuzo Iwamoto where impressive pilots...


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 9, 2008)

Kind of like the Finns. (although not as extreme)


----------



## machine shop tom (Aug 9, 2008)

I would have voted for Robert S. Johnson. IF I could have voted.

tom


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 10, 2008)

An interesting pilot, the top US ace of the ETO (I particularly like some of the back story in training, and of course the amazing encounter in his P-47C) I'm glad he made it to round 2 , but to be honest I don't think he can really be compared with some of the accomplishments of some pilots on here. Though I really don't know a whole lot about some of these guys. (hence why i haven't voted)


----------



## proton45 (Aug 10, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Kind of like the Finns. (although not as extreme)




true that... some really interesting story's their.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 11, 2008)

Yep, but to clarify (I was a bit vague), I meant the case of the Japanese pilots was not as an extreme example as the Finns. (the Finns being a much smaller force, with a much higher percent of excellent pilots making the best of fairly outmatched equipment)


----------



## Vraciu (Aug 18, 2008)

My question - WHERE IS ALEX VRACIU?!


----------



## drgondog (Aug 18, 2008)

Vraciu said:


> My question - WHERE IS ALEX VRACIU?!



Still alive in So Cal - at least he was this time last year...

Still complaining he didn't get the CMH for his spectacular week of work in June 1944.. and perhaps deserved.


----------



## maverick61 (Aug 18, 2008)

Robert S johnson -P47 ACE'
tez


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 30, 2008)

I've been enjoying this (and round 1's) thread, but I was wondering why Hans-Ulrich Rudel wasn't mentioned.

I know he only had 9 kills to his credit...but he achieved those in a Stuka.


----------



## Marcel (Sep 1, 2008)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> I agree.
> 
> And that dutch pilot is pretty humble in your siggy.
> 
> I would still be thinking about Anti-aircraft fire!



well, Linzel was quite a character. He still lives ageing 94 or so, somewhere in Ireland. He's one of my ww2 heroes.


----------



## Njaco (Sep 1, 2008)

> I've been enjoying this (and round 1's) thread, but I was wondering why Hans-Ulrich Rudel wasn't mentioned.



Because he wasn't a fighter pilot. He flew ground attack - very different.


----------



## BIG BIRD (Sep 1, 2008)

Hans-Joachim Marseille was amazing. At one point he averiged only 15 rounds of amunition per kill. He was the best marksman in the luftwaffe and many higher scoring aces ecnoliged it them selves. He acheved all of his kills against the western allies, he was the highest scoring ace to operate soly against the western allies. And he did all of this in just under three years. He was just plane AMAZING!

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 1, 2008)

Njaco, Rudel did indeed specialize in ground attack, but he also flew a Fw190.

I think the most impressive thing about him as a pilot, was his disclipline...even at war's end, continuing to fly even after being severely wounded.

I know there's a huge list of great aces over him, but I figured he should at least get honorable mention with his 11 kills!


----------



## moomoo2 (Sep 5, 2008)

Rudel was brilliant, i'm sure he would have been a better fighter pilot than any other Nazi if he wanted to be, he just liked blowing up stuff with bombs


----------



## mkloby (Sep 5, 2008)

moomoo2 said:


> Rudel was brilliant, i'm sure he would have been a better fighter pilot than any other Nazi if he wanted to be, he just liked blowing up stuff with bombs



Aside from your post being moronic, why would you refer to German servicemen as "nazis?"


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 7, 2008)

Rudel was to a Stuka as Hartmann was to a Bf109.

People have things that they are comfortable with, and add to that a good work ethic, and you end up with people that rise to the top of thier class.

Rudel flew a total of 2,350 combat missions and in those missions, he took out 2,000 targets. This includes 800 vehicles, 519 tanks, 150 artillery units, 11 confirmed aircraft kills (some argue 9), 4 armored trains, 70 assault boats, 1 destroyer, 2 Cruisers and a battleship. His tail-gunner may have also shot down one of the Soviet Union's top aces, Lev Shestakov, during an encounter.

He was also credited with innovating the 37 m/m cannon adaptation on the Stuka, the prototype being the Ju87D.

His service began in 1936, his first combat being in 1941 and last in 1945, having survived some of the most intense combat assignments of the war, he even had a bounty on his head placed by Joe Stalin (100,000 Rubles).

Even at war's end, flying a Fw190, he used it as ground attack more than a fighter.

His decorations read like a book, having some of the highest decorations Germany awarded, and he was wounded many times.

And years later, he was an advisor to the developement of the U.S. A-10 Thunderbolt...

Not bad for a guy who likes to blow stuff up, huh?


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 7, 2008)

Rudel was awarded the HIGHEST German award, and was the only person to get it.... He was a staunch Nazi and one hell of a propoganda tool for the Nazi Party....

He was a hellofa pilot as well.... He was shot down alot of times as well....


----------



## Bluehawk (Sep 17, 2008)

Seems a shame to have left Johnson out of any vote at all...

Here's some info about him:
Robert S. Johnson


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 18, 2008)

Yeah, but at least he made it to the second round.


----------



## MikeGazdik (Dec 18, 2008)

I don't even know if anyone will read this. I joined the forum too long after this topic was discussed. The best I have found yet while looking through the "past" in this forum!

I am torn between a few German pilots, they without a doubt were incredible. However I have a wrench to throw into this machine. Allied pilots were rotated out of theatre, AND, were fighting over enemy territory. So when they were shot down, likely thier war was over! All of the high, high scoring German pilots have been shot down numerous times, but over thier own country or occupied lands. Which of these German pilots, had the highest amount of kills before being shot down the first time??? Suppose after he himself was shot down, his score was done??? How does that would that change the voting in this poll????


----------



## Njaco (Dec 18, 2008)

Marseilles, I think had zero when first shot down during BoB.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 19, 2008)

Regarding fighter pilots....I think it's actually good for WW II era fighter pilots to get shot down (and of course survive) early in their careers. It teaches you like no other lesson could. Many of the best pilots of WW II on any side were those who were shot down early and learned their lesson the hard way. Sorta like Joe Louis getting knocked out early in his career...he learned, and wasn't knocked out again for more than a decade.


----------



## MikeGazdik (Dec 19, 2008)

I guess what I am trying to say is, what would the victory to sortie ratio be if you stopped counting once the pilot was shot down for his first time? That _may_ be a better way to gauge the allied pilots vs the German pilots. Maybe a 30 or 40 kill allied pilot could then statistically even up with some of these great German flyers.

I think I would have to pick Hartmann because of the incredible number he racked up. There is just no way in my mind to count him out. Plus, I like the fact that he stayed with his unit the entire time, and chose to stay in the Bf 109 the entire time.


----------



## Venganza (Dec 20, 2008)

mkloby said:


> Aside from your post being moronic, why would you refer to German servicemen as "nazis?"



mkloby, I think moomoo2 was just using "Nazi" as a kind of a shorthand for WWII German soldiers and airmen (one I'll admit I've been guilty of using), just as "Bolshevik" is sometimes used to described Soviet servicepeople, even though the vast majority of them weren't in the Communist Party. Sometimes we all use labels a little carelessly.

Venganza


----------



## scylos (Dec 30, 2008)

Hartmann - For doing his job incredibly efficiently. Many pilots fought, many were good shooters and charismatic fliers, but he did it. He lived 3 furious years of combat in which his aircraft was not damaged by enemy fire and only lost a single wingman in well over 1400 missions. He was consistent and became terror to his enemies. In all likelihood his score will never be surpassed by no other pilot. Its easy to forget that in the last year combat in any front for the Germans was not easy. To live that chaotic period when the skies were swarming with enemy fighters and to keep scoring like that... he just is the epitome of the fighter pilot.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Apr 11, 2009)

It was interesting when Hartmann was in Russian custody and was asked if he was the greatest fighter pilot, he responded with either Golland or Marseilles because it was seen that 3 Russian kills would only equal 1 western kill.

I personally have to go with Marseilles.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Amsel (Apr 12, 2009)

Heinz Bär would be my new vote. Great leader as well.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 12, 2009)

Amsel said:


> Heinz Bär would be my new vote. Great leader as well.



I agree!

Hartmann is my favorite, but Bär gets my vote for best.


----------



## Njaco (Apr 12, 2009)

scylos said:


> Hartmann - For doing his job incredibly efficiently. Many pilots fought, many were good shooters and charismatic fliers, but he did it. He lived 3 furious years of combat in which his aircraft was not damaged by enemy fire and only lost a single wingman in well over 1400 missions. He was consistent and became terror to his enemies. In all likelihood his score will never be surpassed by no other pilot. Its easy to forget that in the last year combat in any front for the Germans was not easy. To live that chaotic period when the skies were swarming with enemy fighters and to keep scoring like that... he just is the epitome of the fighter pilot.



I beleive Hartmann was shot down twice: Once after getting his first kill and second when he escaped capture by feigning illness.


----------



## davebender (Apr 12, 2009)

Philippine Army Air Corps Captain Jesus Villamor engaged Japanese fighter aircraft with a P-26 Peashooter. And lived to tell about it. 
Jesus A. Villamor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 12, 2009)

Hartmann wasnt shotdown but was brought down by colliding with debris...


----------



## TheMustangRider (Apr 14, 2009)

Erich Hartmann was a great pilot indeed, but from my perspective he was a great tactician more than a dogfighter. I deeply admire American pilots like George Preddy and Robert S. Johnson and feel a great deal of respect for Axis pilots like Hans Joachim Marseille and Saburo Zakai.


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 14, 2009)

And u ended up voting for no one???


----------



## TheMustangRider (Apr 14, 2009)

I am using a cell phone for the moment and it's very difficult and almost frustating to type a simple post but as soon as I get a hold of a real pc I'll make sure to vote for my pilot =)


----------



## luftwaffetiger (Aug 11, 2011)

How is Gunther Rall not in this?? Rall is the third most successful fighter ace in history with 275 kills. I feel embarrassed for you guys really? You're supposed to be ww2 fans??


----------



## Kryten (Aug 11, 2011)

Adrain Warburton is missing from both lists too, and that man made ace as a recce pilot flying Marylands off Malta!

otherwise I would have to go with Bar.


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 11, 2011)

luftwaffetiger said:


> How is Gunther Rall not in this?? Rall is the third most successful fighter ace in history with 275 kills. I feel embarrassed for you guys really? You're supposed to be ww2 fans??


and Werner Mölders. In my opinion, the greatest fighter pilot that ever lived!

edit: ahhh yes this is part II.. if WM is in part I, my appologies.


edit part II:

Werner Mölders infact was in part I.. with ZERO votes. really? why?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 11, 2011)

luftwaffetiger said:


> How is Gunther Rall not in this?? Rall is the third most successful fighter ace in history with 275 kills. I feel embarrassed for you guys really? You're supposed to be ww2 fans??



1. This is part 2 to a thread. I am sure he was in the first part of thread, just did not receive enough votes to be in the 2nd part. 

2. It is not based on just kills. There is more to it than that.

3. Maybe you should read through the thread. It was interesting and you might actually learn something. 

4. If you are embarrassed for us, then find someplace less embarrassing to post. I am sure that no will be offended by you not posting here.


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 11, 2011)

Did you guys happen to notice its part 2 check out part 1 but I really have my doubts Warburton is on it but i guess he rates with Engbrecht and Gillanders


----------



## TheMustangRider (Aug 11, 2011)

Now that I would have been able to vote, the poll is already closed… Talk about being late 

Well, George Preddy isn’t in the poll and he happens to be my guy based entirely on my opinion 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 11, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> edit part II:
> 
> Werner Mölders infact was in part I.. with ZERO votes. really? why?



I don't know, read through the 1st part and you might find out. The polls were based off of the opinions of many members of this forum. Each person might have their own criteria for what makes someone "Best". It is all objective.



TheMustangRider said:


> Well, George Preddy isn’t in the poll and he happens to be my guy based entirely on my opinion 8)



Again this is the 2nd part of the "contest". Preddy was in the first part, but he did not make it the 2nd round.

Here is the 1st part.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/best-wwii-fighter-pilot-12686.html

If people wish, they can always start a new "contest" and see if the opinions of the forum members have changed.


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 11, 2011)

read all of part I thoroughly, and there was only 2 mentions of Werner Mölders. 

Nor anything for that matter about Heinze Knoke, Friedrich Eberle, Herwig Zuzic, Alfred Miksch, Klaus Quaet-Faslem, Horst Petzschler, Kurt Brändle, Franz Ruhl, Joachim Kirschner, Karl-Heinz Langer, Wilhelm Lemke, Wilhelm Moritz, Ernst laube, Ernst Scheufele, Theodor Weissenberger, Günther Specht, Hans-Gerd Wennekers, Hermann Hintzen, Herbert Christmann, Ludwig Franzisket, Willy Kientsch, Dr.Peter Werfft, Otto Meyer, Alfred Grislawski, Alfred Hammer, Herbert Rollwage, Günther Landt, Wilhelm Schilling, Fritz Ungar, Hauptmann Menzel, Heinrich Hackler, Eberhard Gzik, Willi Reschke.

all of whom had better tactical flying skills the Bubi. Bär on the other hand.. he was a hellofa pilot. So was Günther Rall Werner Mölders. I don't think any one particular pilot was the best, but as a whole, the LUFTWAFFE had the best pilots in the world at that or any time.


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 11, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> read all of part I thoroughly, and there was only 2 mentions of Werner Mölders.
> 
> Nor anything for that matter about Heinze Knoke, Friedrich Eberle, Herwig Zuzic, Alfred Miksch, Klaus Quaet-Faslem, Horst Petzschler, Kurt Brändle, Franz Ruhl, Joachim Kirschner, Karl-Heinz Langer, Wilhelm Lemke, Wilhelm Moritz, Ernst laube, Ernst Scheufele, Theodor Weissenberger, Günther Specht, Hans-Gerd Wennekers, Hermann Hintzen, Herbert Christmann, Ludwig Franzisket, Willy Kientsch, Dr.Peter Werfft, Otto Meyer, Alfred Grislawski, Alfred Hammer, Herbert Rollwage, Günther Landt, Wilhelm Schilling, Fritz Ungar, Hauptmann Menzel, Heinrich Hackler, Eberhard Gzik, Willi Reschke.
> 
> all of whom had better tactical flying skills the Bubi. Bär on the other hand.. he was a hellofa pilot. So was Günther Rall Werner Mölders. I don't think any one particular pilot was the best, but as a whole, the LUFTWAFFE had the best pilots in the world at that or any time.


there were many pilots the equal of on both sides its just circumstances decided who got the most opportunity to rack up scores, also in the LW you flew until you dropped as opposed to the Allied pilots being on tours using either hours or missions to limit their exposure to death


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 11, 2011)

sure, the Finns Hungarians had excellent pilots too. and this is far from racking up claims debate. so, the RAF had rotations too? I thought it was just the Americans.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 12, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> read all of part I thoroughly, and there was only 2 mentions of Werner Mölders.
> 
> Nor anything for that matter about Heinze Knoke, Friedrich Eberle, Herwig Zuzic, Alfred Miksch, Klaus Quaet-Faslem, Horst Petzschler, Kurt Brändle, Franz Ruhl, Joachim Kirschner, Karl-Heinz Langer, Wilhelm Lemke, Wilhelm Moritz, Ernst laube, Ernst Scheufele, Theodor Weissenberger, Günther Specht, Hans-Gerd Wennekers, Hermann Hintzen, Herbert Christmann, Ludwig Franzisket, Willy Kientsch, Dr.Peter Werfft, Otto Meyer, Alfred Grislawski, Alfred Hammer, Herbert Rollwage, Günther Landt, Wilhelm Schilling, Fritz Ungar, Hauptmann Menzel, Heinrich Hackler, Eberhard Gzik, Willi Reschke.
> 
> all of whom had better tactical flying skills the Bubi. Bär on the other hand.. he was a hellofa pilot. So was Günther Rall Werner Mölders. I don't think any one particular pilot was the best, but as a whole, the LUFTWAFFE had the best pilots in the world at that or any time.



Again, these threads were based on peoples opinion. I don't understand what the problem is? Is everyone required to have the same opinion as you? Please let me know and I will make an announcement to the forum membership.


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 12, 2011)

I don't understand, what problem exactly? all that I wrote is just my opinion, like everyone elses. I thought this was an open discusion on 'best pilots'. my appologies if I am wrong and/or offended anybody.


----------



## claidemore (Aug 12, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> I don't think any one particular pilot was the best, but as a whole, the LUFTWAFFE had the best pilots in the world at that or any time.



Apology noted, but Dude, that's not an opinion, that's a partisan, pro-german, biased statement. Note the all caps "LUFTWAFFE". Not to mention preceding that with a list of 30+ German pilots. 

Maybe 'opinion' is too general, how about an 'informed opinion' being what we should strive for?

If you truly believe that no particular pilot was best, why not list some Finns or Americans, Brits, Canadians, or perish the thought... Russians?
How about Lock, Kent, Pattle, Khozedub, Wind,O'Hare, McCambell, McCleod, Russel, Rechkelov, etc etc. 

How about jumping on the feminist bus and giving the best fighter pilot award to one of the two women who achieved ace status, Litvyak or Budanova? Litvyak knocked down one of the guys you just claimed were the best in the world at that or any time, wouldn't that make her better?
Adler, if you could just announce to the forum that Lydia Litvyak was the best fighter pilot of WWII we could put this matter to rest once and for all!  kidding of course.


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 12, 2011)

Best pilot and best fighter pilot might not be the same thing. A fighter pilots duty is to destroy enemy aircraft, not to awe us or anybody else with his skill. We can think of all kinds of theories of how to decide this on pilots that were last in combat over 66 years ago.

To me only one thing matters, results. Erich Hartmann.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 12, 2011)

One of the reasons I don't fool around in these discussions is that I don't know what metrics one should use to determine a good fighter pilot, much less a great one, and still more difficult, "the Best". The USAF spent a lot of $$ trying to figure out whether there were statistical weightings to suggest that one individual might be better suited to flying fighters but never drew any conclusions regarding metric based selection criteria.

Yet here we are. Un questionably every pilot named plus a 1000 un named deserve consideration - but somehow what we end up with is high score/survived. I can't remember whether it was Chris or Joe that introduced the question - "So how many of our top list were shot down multiple times by enemy adversaries"? In the case of the LW top aces - virtually all of them were shot down multiple times - whereas, except for Malta and BoB and Russia, most of the aces on Allied side got shot down once and the war was over!

So, do now search for the victors over Hartmann, Rall, Baer, etc?


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 12, 2011)

tyrodtom said:


> A fighter pilots duty is to destroy enemy aircraft, not to awe us or anybody else with his skill.


Skill and luck keeps you alive until your luck runs out. As Ofw. Franz Meindl demostrated at Y-29. 1.1.45.



claidemore said:


> Apology noted, but Dude, that's not an opinion, that's a partisan, pro-german, biased statement. Note the all caps "LUFTWAFFE". Not to mention preceding that with a list of 30+ German pilots.


thanks. perhaps next time I'll find a different way to express my opinion. I'll be mindfull of that in the future =)


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Jan 5, 2018)

So, if the poll is closed, Herr Landed Eagle, then I may not cast my vote for Chuck Yeager. How about French pilot, in a Spitfire, Pierre Clostermann? His book- "The Big Show" about the Battle of Britain, got me hooked on aviation back in HS-- The German Ace nicknamed "Bubi"- here's a WW11 trivia question based on that German term for a small boy. What other German Officer (not Luftwaffe, however) also was given that nickname, and by whom??


----------



## Marcel (Jan 5, 2018)

Hansie Bloeckmann said:


> So, if the poll is closed, Herr Landed Eagle, then I may not cast my vote for Chuck Yeager. How about French pilot, in a Spitfire, Pierre Clostermann? His book- "The Big Show" about the Battle of Britain, got me hooked on aviation back in HS-- The German Ace nicknamed "Bubi"- here's a WW11 trivia question based on that German term for a small boy. What other German Officer (not Luftwaffe, however) also was given that nickname, and by whom??


Look at the date on the starting post Hansie. This thread is 10 years old.


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Jan 5, 2018)

Oops-my bad. Great poll however. Has anyone heard of or read the book I mentioned by Clostermann?


----------



## pbehn (Jan 5, 2018)

Hansie Bloeckmann said:


> Oops-my bad. Great poll however. Has anyone heard of or read the book I mentioned by Clostermann?


I did in my teens, it was a great read.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jan 5, 2018)

I thought it was a good read, but I know a number of people have questioned his accuracy on some items and events.


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Jan 5, 2018)

Thank you for the replies to my inquiry about Pierre Clostermann. Does anyone care to guess the identity of a high-ranking WW11 German officer, who was nicknamed "Bubi" by a contemporary officer?? I have the answer, and the verification for same. Hansie..Addendum: The answer is found in the thread- Greatest WW11 German General/Field Marshall--


----------



## *SkyChimp* (Jan 20, 2018)

> I don't think any one particular pilot was the best, but as a whole, the LUFTWAFFE had the best pilots in the world at that or any time.



Who was best. 

It seems to me that "who was the best fighter pilot" boils down to who got the job done that needed to be done.

The air war prosecuted by the western allies and the one prosecuted by the Germans were different. Allied fighters were far more likely to be used in the fighter bomber role in close air support of ground troops than German fighters were. In North Africa, for instance, the western Allies used their Hurricanes and Kittyhawks far more effectively in the fighter bomber role attacking German troops than the Luftwaffe used their fighters in defending against them. So what that Hans-Joachim Marseille claimed so many victories (many of which don't jive with Allied records of losses, by the way). His impact on stopping the prosecution of the air war against his side was negligible. Throughout the conflict with the western Allies, German troops were terrified by western Allied fighters. All that even though using a fighter for close supprot was far more dangerous that flying around looking for a dogfight. 

On the other hand, the Germans never got the hang of using their fighters in the close air support role against western allies. Oh, there are instances of it. But nothing like any sort of the doctrine of close air support using fighters that the Allies had. Their use of fighters in the fighter bomber role in North Africa, for instance, was next to nil. Very little made German troops abandon their columns and head for the ditches like approaching Kittyhawks and Hurricanes. On the other hand, western troops viewed what German fighters they actually saw as curiosities. 

The western Allies had a far superior doctirne with respect to the use of their fighters than the Germans did.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 20, 2018)

*SkyChimp* said:


> Who was best.
> The western Allies had a far superior doctirne with respect to the use of their fighters than the Germans did.


A doctrine is only of use if you have the men and equipment to follow it. The Germans only surpassed the UK in fighter aircraft production some time in 1944 I believe and never matched it in four and twin engine bombers. That leaves all of Russian air power and about half of US production as "surplus" in machines. However the real surplus was in pilots, especially good ones.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## *SkyChimp* (Jan 20, 2018)

Moreover, Hans-Joachim Marseille, only had a handful of claimed bomber kills - a tiny fraction of his overall claims. In North Africa, British bombers (and fighter bombers) wreaked havoc on German forces. But Hans-Joachim Marseille sought out fighters almost exclusively. To the extent he engaged and shot down escorts, then an argument can be made that Hans-Joachim Marseille "took the bait." While the allies didn't want to lose fighters, it wanted to lose bombers less. This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of German leadership in general and Hans-Joachim Marseille in particular of what their priorities should have been. Dancing up high in your fighter with other fighters might be glamorous, and certainly makes for good propaganda, but it doesn't win battles. Doing damage on the ground does. The allies were superior in their understanding of this. The allies did as much damage on the ground with all their warplanes, fighters included, as possible. The Germans learned the importance of using their fighters to directly support their ground forces way too late. In North Africa the Germans had the resouces to do it, and didn't. Even when they saw the British do it, they didn't.

In short, the allies used their fighters more wisely than the Germans. While Hans-Joachim Marseille shot down a whole bunch of planes, his impact would have been far greater if he had wisely targeted the right planes. And the Germans in general would have had a greater impact on the battles if they had learned to use their fighters the way the allies did when they had the resources and opportunity to do it.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 20, 2018)

*SkyChimp* said:


> Moreover, Hans-Joachim Marseille, only had a handful of claimed bomber kills - a tiny fraction of his overall claims. In North Africa, British bombers (and fighter bombers) wreaked havoc on German forces. But Hans-Joachim Marseille sought out fighters almost exclusively. To the extent he engaged and shot down escorts, then an argument can be made that Hans-Joachim Marseille "took the bait." While the allies didn't want to lose fighters, it wanted to lose bombers less. This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of German leadership in general and Hans-Joachim Marseille in particular of what their priorities should have been. Dancing up high in your fighter with other fighters might be glamorous, and certainly makes for good propaganda, but it doesn't win battles. Doing damage on the ground does. The allies were superior in their understanding of this. The allies did as much damage on the ground with all their warplanes, fighters included, as possible. The Germans learned the importance of using their fighters to directly support their ground forces way too late. In North Africa the Germans had the resouces to do it, and didn't. Even when they saw the British do it, they didn't.
> 
> In short, the allies used their fighters more wisely than the Germans. While Hans-Joachim Marseille shot down a whole bunch of planes, his impact would have been far greater if he had wisely targeted the right planes. And the Germans in general would have had a greater impact on the battles if they had learned to use their fighters the way the allies did when they had the resources and opportunity to do it.


Good post SC, with regard to Joachim Marseille and the LW in general, Marseille was involved in the destruction and damage of an extraordinary number of German aircraft, almost an allied ace himself. The Nazi propaganda machine loved its heroes and encouraged a sort of cult around them, decorations such as the Iron Cross became ever more elaborate resulting in the Iron Cross with gold oak leaves swords and diamonds and led to over claiming and a sort of "bullfighter" culture where the squadron dedicated itself as a group to advance the famous "ace" to impress the folks at home, little to do with what was actually happening on the battlefield. For all the real or imagined claims by the time he was lost in combat the LW was massively outnumbered and had achieved almost nothing in military terms.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 20, 2018)

With regard to the poll I propose James Denis a Free French pilot who shot down Joachim Marseilles on the 23 April and 21 May 1941 flying a Hurricane, that has to be worth something

from wiki
He scored two more victories on 23 and 28 April, his first in the North African Campaign. However, on 23 April, Marseille himself was shot down during his third sortie of that day by _Sous-Lieutenant_ James Denis a Free French pilot with No. 73 Squadron RAF (8.5 victories), flying a Hawker Hurricane. Marseille's Bf 109 received almost 30 hits in the cockpit area, and three or four shattered the canopy. As Marseille was leaning forward the rounds missed him by inches. Marseille managed to crash-land his fighter. Just a month later, records show that James Denis shot down Marseille again on 21 May 1941. Marseille engaged Denis, but overshot his target. A turning dogfight ensued, in which Denis once again bested Marseille.[31]


----------



## Stig1207 (Jan 22, 2018)

Did the LW in North Africa really have the ressources to fly ground support to same extent as the Allies? 
How are Marseilles claims for aircraft shot down recognised as being pure fighters rather than fighter-bombers?


----------



## *SkyChimp* (Jan 22, 2018)

> Did the LW in North Africa really have the ressources to fly ground support to same extent as the Allies?


I was speaking principally about the use of fighters as fighter-bombers used in support of ground forces. There's no way the Germans had the capacity to do that to the extent of the Allies. But as far as I know, the Germans didn't do it at all in North Africa. Maybe some isolated occurrences, admittedly. But nothing like any sort of real effort.



> How are Marseilles claims for aircraft shot down recognised as being pure fighters rather than fighter-bombers?


Well, the Allies used their principal types in North Africa, the Hurricane and P-40s, as fighter bombers. Whether or not Marseilles knew the capacity in which they were flying when he attacked them is unknown to me. The point is, however, that Marseilles was more interested in fighters than bombers. That's reflected in his kill claims. Especially considering the large quantity of British bombers present that could have been targeted. The history of the Allied air war in North Africa is replete with accounts of bomber attacks on German troops with out any German fighter opposition. JG27 certainly had the opportunity to target bombers but they didn't. It is, without questions, one of the greatest blunders of the German military during the campaign in North Africa. 

I'm certainly not the first to proffer this position. JG27's military contribution to the campaign in North Africa was negligible. British bombers did emense damage to German ground forces and JG27 did very little to stop them. Not because they couldn't, but rather because their priorities were wrong. Pilot rivalry, unit rivalry, glory-seeking, etc. Marseilles was a glory-hound. Even if all his claims were true (and they aren't), the effect on the British air campaign was next to nothing. The proper use of fighters under these circumstances is to prevent the enemy from destroying your ground troops (by destroying bombers), and by destroying enemy ground troops (by use as fighter bombers).


----------



## Stig1207 (Jan 25, 2018)

No doubt the Lw made many mistakes in North Africa; whether or not the issues you outline are as clear-cut, I'm not sure.

As to Marseilles; whether he could or should have shot down more bombers; or him being a glory hunter, well that's certainly possible. It's sure that he overclaimed, but that doesn't really make him stand out from the crowd. He did have the ability to manouvre his fighter into a position where he could shoot at and hit enemy aircraft, which was not a trait shared by most WWII fighter pilots. Any Hurricane or P-40 he shot down, was not coming back the next day to bomb or strafe Axis ground troops.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Jan 25, 2018)

BIG BIRD said:


> Hans-Joachim Marseille was amazing. At one point he averiged only 15 rounds of amunition per kill. He was the best marksman in the luftwaffe and many higher scoring aces ecnoliged it them selves. He acheved all of his kills against the western allies, he was the highest scoring ace to operate soly against the western allies. And he did all of this in just under three years. He was just plane AMAZING!


He was, and will always be, my top pick of all the Luftwaffe pilots--


----------



## *SkyChimp* (Jan 25, 2018)

> As to Marseilles; whether he could or should have shot down more bombers; or him being a glory hunter, well that's certainly possible. It's sure that he overclaimed, but that doesn't really make him stand out from the crowd. He did have the ability to manouvre his fighter into a position where he could shoot at and hit enemy aircraft, which was not a trait shared by most WWII fighter pilots. Any Hurricane or P-40 he shot down, was not coming back the next day to bomb or strafe Axis ground troops.



There's no question that their was military value in shooting down fighters-bombers. They did an immense amount of damage. But Hans-Joachim Marseille and JG27 did little to stop bombers, concentrating on fighters instead. Bombers, by and large, attacked German troops with impunity. 

In North Africa, the Luftwaffe failed in several ways. Among them, and mainly for lack of trying, the failure to blunt the British bomber offensive against their ground troops. And also by failing to supplement their own dedicated ground attack aircraft with fighters equipped for ground attack.


----------



## Stig1207 (Jan 26, 2018)

Once again, I'm not sure it was as simple as that. An interesting topic though, probably worth a thread of it's own.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

