# Best WWII fighter pilot....?



## Lucky13 (Apr 5, 2008)

I know that we've been going over this over and over and over again...who was the best fighter pilot of WWII, but to be honest have we really? Let's be honest, the russians didn't have much to write home about in the Great Patriotic War and the same for the Japanese at the end of WWII.... The Luftwaffe was way ahead of the VVS in the beginning, the same for IJN and IJAAF against the USN, USMC and USAAF.....before they catched up and passed with the Hellcat and Corsair...
But WHO was really the better pilot of the war if you look at skills, imagination, ability to switch from one fighter type to another, brains to come up with new tactics etc. etc..who was the COMPLETE fighter pilot?
Nationality won't do anything good here, who would come out on top in a mock fight in Bf 109G-6....Gunther Rall or Hans-Joachim Marseille, P-47D....Richard I. Bong or Gregory "Pappy" Boyington....and so on...could even put Rall and Marseille in a P-51D, just for the sake of the discussion? Put two pilots in a similar fighter, launch them at the same time from two different airfields....in the end, who'd be the last man standing?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 5, 2008)

I personally have to go with Heinz Bär.

Short bio:

*Missions flown:* 1000

*Theatres flown in:* West, East and Med

*Kills:* 221 (124 in the West and 16 with the Me 262)

*Shot Down:* 18

*Acft Flown:* 
Junkers Ju 52/3m
Messerschmitt Bf 109E
Messerschmitt Bf 109F
Focke Wulf 190 A-7
Messerschmitt Me 262

*Units Assigned To:*
JG 51
JG 77
JGr. Süd
JG 1
JG 3
EJG 2
JV 44

*Units Commanded:*
12./JG 51
I.JG 77
JGr. Süd
II./JG 1
JG 3
III./EJG 2
JV 44

*Awards:*
Silver Would Badge
German Cross in Gold (27 May 1942) 
Front Flying Clasp of the Luftwaffe in Gold with Pennant "1000" 
Honor Goblet of the Luftwaffe
Africa Cuff Title
Iron Cross 2nd Class
Iron Cross 1st Class (July 1940)
Knights Cross (2. July 1941)
Oakleaves (14. August 1941)
Swords (16. February 1942)


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 5, 2008)

Didn't he die in a private plane crash after the war Adler.....70's or so?


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 5, 2008)

I guess Erich Hartmann for his all time high of kills. There were a lot of German pilots probably as good or better than him but didn't have time to reach his score or met with bad luck, such as Hans-Joachim Marseille. Some just didn't have the luck to meet enemy aircraft on missions. Dick Bong was one of those, he often met enemy aircraft at a unusual rate and in odd places. 

Galland was a good warrior in every way, he didn't care for Hitler much and his policies. 

Pappy Boyington was certainly a good fighter pilot. He also let his pilots under him have a lot of freedom in dogfighting, and didn't restrict their movements as some squadron commanders did. It was also risky at the same time, but a lot of his men became aces so it certainly worked. 


The British always downplayed their high scoring pilots, so often you hear less about their individual albilities than other countries pilots, who would often make national heroes out of them. But some pilots, like Douglas Bader by sheer charisma and skill, did make headlines and change tactics.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Apr 5, 2008)

I've always thought that Hans-Joachim Marseille was one of the best, if not the best. 158 kills in 382 missions. Had it not been for a bailout accident that killed him in 1942, his victory total could have possibly surpassed Hartmann's 352. The "Star of Africa" was a fitting nickname.

TO

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## plan_D (Apr 5, 2008)

The Luftwaffe seem to posess the greatest pilots of the war when it comes to individual skill; the numbers speak for themselves. The Luftwaffe pilots did have a lot of oppurtunity to hone their skill before meeting an air force on par with their own, so it's hardly surprising that their kill numbers are so high. 

The question that should be asked here is, what makes a good pilot? Is a pilot target practice? Is a good pilot a pilot than can stay alive? Is a great pilot a man who can shoot down enemy aircraft? Is an amazing pilot a man who can lead his whole squadron into ace status? 

You have to really wonder - who's more important?


----------



## Catch22 (Apr 5, 2008)

ToughOmbre said:


> I've always thought that Hans-Joachim Marseille was one of the best, if not the best. 158 kills in 382 missions. Had it not been for a bailout accident that killed him in 1942, his victory total could have possibly surpassed Hartmann's 352. The "Star of Africa" was a fitting nickname.
> 
> TO



I completely agree. I read somewhere that his ground crew counted how many bullets he used per plane after a mission and it was something like 60. Ironically he delayed switching from the Friedrich to the Gustav because the G's were having teething problems with their engines, and once he was forced to switch, that's what ended up killing him.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 5, 2008)

The german pilots records speak for themselves but I'd like to take PlanD's statement and add an Allied pilot for consideration 
Lloyd Chadburn with 20 kills 2 DSO's 2 E boats 1 destroyer badly damaged his wing in escorting 60 9th AF missions in 1943 lost only lost only 1 B26 to fighters while shooting down 66 enemy aircraft without loss to the wing. The 9th AF called him the Angel. He was killed in a mid air with another Spit in june 44


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 5, 2008)

How about "Butcher' Bob Hansen?

_"A master of individual air combat, he downed 20 enemy planes in six consecutive flying days."_

Robert M. Hanson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 6, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> Didn't he die in a private plane crash after the war Adler.....70's or so?



Yes he did die in a private plane crash at the age of 44 on 28 April 1957.

He would actually get himself in trouble a lot because he did not believe in authority. He just went out and flew his missions which was his job. He was actually recommended the Diamonds for his Knights Cross on 3 seperate occasions and was turned down by Göring himself because he was not a "good" little Nazi.

Erich Hartmann has the most kills and he is my favorite pilot but he was not the most technicaly best pilot. There were plenty of pilots that were better than him on all sides. 

Now having said that he does deserve the title as "Greatest" because his kill list is the highest and will never be approaced.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 6, 2008)

Heinz Bar actually reminds me a bit of the Americans pilots.


With today's technology, wouldn't it be possible for a really good pilot flying a "stealth" plane to score a really high numbers of kills? He would sneak up on his opponents from miles away, and shoot them all before they could even locate them. I don't think there has been a fighter like that yet. It wouldn't be the same as the old fighter pilots, who really went head to head with their opponents, but it could be chillingly effective.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 6, 2008)

With all the stealth and other weapons....we'll soon be back to square one, when it all will be up to the pilots and GUNS....


----------



## claidemore (Apr 6, 2008)

I think many of the qualities needed for a good fighter pilot would be inherited. In that case I would look pretty closesly at Arthur Bishop. Between his father (William) and himself, they accounted for 73 German planes. Best father/son combo AFAIK.


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Apr 6, 2008)

Its hard to choose the greatest pilot of WW2 but my guess is that it would be a Luftwaffe pilot, although the Finns had great pilots and so did my country.In the end we can only guess and imagine who would have been the greatest of them all.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 6, 2008)

Victories, Date and Time Notes Hans-Joachim Marseille
– 1940 –
I. (Jagd)/LG 2 
1-24 August 1940 
Hurricane/Spitfire over Kent. 
2-2 September 1940 
Spitfire over Detling, Kent.
Marseille's aircraft was severely hit so that he had to crash land near Calais-Marck. Bf 109 E-7 W.Nr. 3579 was 50% damaged.

3-11 September 1940 17.05 
Spitfire over southern England.
Marseille flew as wingman to Hauptfeldwebel Helmut Goedert. Marseille's aircraft was severely damaged by a Hurricane pilot forcing him to crash-land at the French coast near Wissant. Bf 109 E-7 W.Nr. 5597 was 75% damaged.

4-15 September 1940 Hurricane over the River Thames, England. 
5-18 September 1940 Spitfire over southern England. 
6-27 September 1940 Hurricane over London. 
7-28 September 1940 Spitfire over southern England. 

– 1941 –
I./JG 27 
8-23 April 1941 12.50 
Hurricane over Tobruk.
Marseille's Bf 109 E-7 (W.Nr. 5160) sustained 100% damage after combat and belly landing at Tobruk. 
9-28 April 1941 09.25 
Bristol Blenheim Mk IV over the sea north of Tobruk.
The Blenheim was T2429, from No. 45 Squadron RAF, piloted by Pilot Officer B. C. de G. Allan. The crew and passengers were killed in the crash. 
10 – 11 1 May 1941 09.15 and 09.25 
Two Hurricanes south of Tobruk.
His adversaries were No. 274 Squadron RAF and No. 6 Squadron RAF. I./JG 27 claimed four victories. Pilot Officer Stanley Godden, an ace with seven victories, was killed in action. 
12 – 13 17 June 1941 17.15 and 18.45
Two Hurricanes, the first northeast of Tobruk and the second east of Sidi Omar.
Germans pilots claimed 13 Hurricanes in numerous engagements, the German authorities confirmed 11 claims, of which seven were credited to I./JG 27. The Allies lost at least 10 aircraft. Around noon, seven Hurricanes of No. 1 Squadron SAAF engaged Bf 109 and lost four aircraft, one of which was lost to ground fire. In the afternoon No. 73 Squadron RAF lost one aircraft to flak, No. 229 Squadron RAF lost two Hurricanes in aerial combat with Bf 109s and No. 274 Squadron RAF also lost two aircraft to German fighters. No. 33 Squadron RAF lost one Hurricane to an Italian Fiat G.50 and a German Ju 87. The Italians claimed three aerial victories. Marseille’s adversaries therefore most likely belonged to 229 Sqn and/or 274 Sqn RAF.

14 28 August 1941 18.00 
Hurricane northwest of Sidi Barrani over the sea.
Marseille’s adversaries were 12 Hurricanes of No. 1 Squadron SAAF. Lieutenant V.F. Williams fighter crashed into the sea. Although injured he was rescued. 
15–16 17 June 1941 17.12
17.18 Two Hurricanes southeast of Bardia. 
17 13 September 1941 17.25 Hurricane south of Bardia. 
18 14 September 1941 17.46 Hurricane southeast of Sofafi.
Marseille’s opponents were Hurricanes from No. 33 Squadron RAF on an escort mission for Martin Marylands from No. 24 Squadron SAAF. Three Hurricanes were lost in combat with 12 Bf 109s and six Fiat G.50s. The Italians and Germans combined claims were three Hurricanes in this encounter. 
19 24 September 1941 13.30 Four Hurricanes and a Martin Maryland of No. 203 Squadron RAF.
Marseille’s opponents were nine Hurricanes of No. 1 Squadron SAAF and nine aircraft of an unidentified unit. The South Africans lost a total of three Hurricanes. Captain C. A. van Vliet and 2nd Lieutenant J. MacRobert returned unhurt while Lieutenant B.E. Dold remains missing. I./JG 27 claimed six aerial victories in this engagement. It is possible that the unidentified aircraft were Mk IIB Tomahawks of No. 112 Squadron RAF. This unit was bounced by a Bf 109, while returning from a shipping escort mission. Pilot Officer D. F. "Jerry" Westenra, a New Zealander and a future ace, baled out. 
20 – 23 16.45
16.47
16.51
17.00 
24 – 25 12 October 1941 08.12
08.15 Two P-40s from No. 112 Squadron RAF near Bir Sheferzan.
JG 27 aircraft encountered 24 Mk IIB Tomahawks of No. 2 Squadron SAAF and No. 3 Squadron RAAF. The Australians lost three aircraft, while the South Africans reported one loss plus one severely damaged. I./JG 27 claimed four aerial victories in this engagement. 
26 5 December 1941 15.25 Hurricane.
The adversaries were 20 Hurricanes of No. 274 Squadron RAF and No. 1 Squadron SAAF. Both squadrons reported the loss of one aircraft. I./JG 27 reported two aerial victories in this engagement. 
27 - 28 6 December 1941 12.10
12.25 Two Hurricanes south of El Adem. 
29 7 December 1941 09.30 Hurricane west of Sidi Omar.
JG 27 fought Hurricanes from No. 274 Squadron RAF, which lost three fighters in combat with 15 Ju 87s, six Bf 109s, 12 MC 202s and MC 200s. The Italians and Germans claimed three aerial victories in this engagement. 
30 8 December 1941 08.15 P-40 southeast of El Adem.
Marseille’s opponents were misidentified Hurricanes of No. 274 Squadron RAF. This unit lost three fighers in aerial combat with 30 Bf 109s, MC 200s and MC 202s. 
31 10 December 1941 08.50 "P-40" southeast of El Adem.
The victory was over a Tomahawk IIB from No. 2 Squadron SAAF. The pilot, Lieutenant B. G. S. Enslin, bailed out uninjured. 
32 11 December 1941 09.30 P-40 southeast of Tmimi.
A Tomahawk IIB, AK457, of No. 250 Squadron RAF. The pilot, Flight Sergeant M.A. Canty, remains missing in action. 
33 – 34 13 December 1941 16.00
16.10 Two P-40s northeast of Martuba and north east of Tmimi.
One of his victories was a Tomahawk IIB, AM384 of No. 3 Squadron RAAF, piloted by Flying Officer Tommy Trimble, who was wounded and had to crash-land his aircraft. 
35 – 36 17 December 1941 11.10
11.28 Two P-40s west-northwest of Martuba and southeast of Derna.
Marseille’s opponents were eight misidentified Hurricanes of No. 1 Squadron SAAF on an escort missions for eight Bristol Blenheim from No. 14 Squadron RAF and No. 84 Squadron RAF. The South Africans suffered heavy losses to 12 Bf 109s. Three Hurricanes were reported missing; a fourth was shot down, a fifth crash-landed and a sixth sustained heavy damage. I./JG 27 claimed five aerial victories in this engagement. 
– 1942 – 
37 – 38 8 February 1942 08.22
08.25 Four P-40s east-northeast of Martuba, north of Martuba, northwest of Bomba Bay and over the sea northeast of Bomba Bay.
The first action took place directly over the airfield at Martuba. The first victory was a Flight Sergeant Hargreaves, who belly landed his fighter and was taken prisoner.
It seems that Marseille's third victory was mistakenly identified as a P-40. The victim was most likely a Hurricane IIB, Z5312, of No. 73 Squadron RAF, piloted by Flight Sergeant Alwyn Sands (RAAF), who also crash-landed. Marseille's 40th claim was probably Sgt A. T. Tonkin of No. 112 Squadron, who was killed. 
39 – 40 14.20
14.30 
41 – 44 12 February 1942 13.30
13.32
13.33
13.36 Three P-40s and a Hurricane northwest of Tobruk.
The Hurricanes came from No. 274 Squadron RAF. This unit lost in aerial combat with four Bf 109 fighters in the vicinity of Tobruk: Sergeant R. W. Henderson crashed south of Tobruk and Sergeant Parbury bailed out with his parachute; both of them were uninjured. Pilot Officer S. E. van der Kuhle crashed his Hurricane IIA DG616 into the sea. Flight Lieutenant Smith (Hurricane IIB BD821) did not return from this mission and remains missing in action. 
45 – 46 13 February 1942 09.20
09.25 Two Hurricanes southeast of Tobruk.
Marseille's adversaries were seven Hurricanes from No. 1 Squadron SAAF and No. 274 Squadron RAF. These units lost in aerial combat with three Bf 109 fighters in the vicinity of Tobruk. I./JG 27 claimed three aerial victories in this engagement. Marseille's first victory was Lieutenant Le Roux; the South African crashed his burning Hurricane but escaped the wreck, although he was injured. 
47 – 48 15 February 1942 13.00
13.03 Two P-40s southwest of Gambut
Kittyhawk Is from No. 3 Squadron RAAF, near Gambut airfield. The Kittyhawks were bounced by two Bf 109s during takeoff. Marseille's first victory was Kittyhawk I AK594; the pilot, Tommy Briggs, bailed out at an altitude of 100 m and was injured. The second victory was Kittyhawk I AK605; Flight Sergeant Frank Reid was killed in action.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 6, 2008)

49 – 50 21 February 1942 12.10
12.18 Two P-40s west of Fort Acroma, probably from No. 112 squadron, who lost three aircraft.
Marseille's opponents were 11 Kittyhawks I from No. 112 Squadron RAF, which lost three aircraft in aerial combat with six Bf 109s. I./JG 27 reported three aerial victories in this engagement. 
51 – 52 27 February 1942 12.00
12.12 Two P-40s east-northeast of Fort Acroma. Probably Mk I Kittyhawks belonging to No. 3 Squadron RAAF: Sergeant Roger Jennings, in AK665 was killed; Dick Hart in AK689 bailed out and returned to his unit. 
53 – 54 25 April 1942 10.06
10.09 Two P-40s north of the Italian airfield at Ain el Gazala and over the sea north of Ain el Gazala.
Opponents were Kittyhawks I from No. 260 Squadron RAF and Tomahawks IIB from No. 2 Squadron SAAF and No. 4 Squadron SAAF. These units had the following losses in this engagement: Three Tomahawks and one Kittyhawk missing (one pilot later returned wounded), two Kittyhawks and two Tomahawks crash landed after aerial combat, and one heavily damaged and one lightly damaged Kittyhawk. On the German side I.JG 27 reported five P-40s, II./JG 27 three P-40s shot down. The combat reports indicate that Marseille's opponents were Kittyhawks from No. 260 Squadron RAF. 
55 – 56 10 May 1942 09.13
09.15 Two Mk I Hurricanes, southeast of Martuba airfield.
The Hurricanes belonged to No. 40 Squadron SAAF and were on a patrol mission. Both pilots, Captain Cobbledick and Lieutenant Flesker, are missing in action. The first victory was a Hurricane I, serial number Z4377. 
57 – 58 13 May 1942 10.10
10.15 Two P-40s: southeast of Ain el Gazala and over Gazala Bay.
On this occasion, 12 Mk I Kittyhawks from No. 3 Squadron RAAF were bounced by two Bf 109s coming from the sun. Flying Officer Harrold Graham Pace, flying Kittyhawk I AL172, was killed by a bullet in the head. Sergeant Colin McDiarmid bailed out, injured from his Kittyhawk I AK855. Flying Officer Geoff Chinchen reported that he damaged a Messerchmitt and Marseille's aircraft was hit in the oil tank and propeller on this occasion. 
59 – 60 16 May 1942 18.05
18.15 Two P-40s, east of Ain el Gazala and east of Fort Acroma.
Following the first action, Flight Sergeant Teade of No. 3 Squadron RAAF crash-landed his burning Mk I Kittyhawk, AL120, west of El Adem and returned to his unit uninjured. The second combat involved four Mk I Kittyhawks of No. 450 Squadron RAAF. Pilot Officer Parker bailed out uninjured. His pilotless fighter crashed into the Kittyhawk of Sergeant A. J. Metherall. Both Kittyhawks, AK604 and AK697, were lost in the crash and Metherall was killed in action. Marseille only observed Parker bailing out and therefore claimed only two victories. 
61 – 62 19 May 1942 07.20
07.30 Two P-40s south and southwest of Fort Acroma.
These were Kittyhawks from No. 450 Squadron RAAF. The Kittyhawk I AK842, piloted by Flight Sergeant Ivan Young, was hit in the engine. Young crash-landed without injury to himself; his fighter was destroyed by a resultant fire. Young managed to make it back to Allied lines. 
63 – 64 23 May 1942 11.05
11.06 Two Douglas Boston southeast of Tobruk harbour.
These were really Mk I Martin Baltimores, of No. 223 Squadron RAF. Four Baltimores attacked the airport at Derna, without a fighter escort and three (AG703, AG708 and AG717) were shot down. The fourth bomber crash-landed on its return flight. I./JG 27 claimed four aerial victories that day. 
65 30 May 1942 06.05 P-40 northwest of El Adem.
Marseille’s adversaries were 20 Mk I Kittyhawks of No. 250 Squadron RAF and No. 450 Squadron RAAF, who were attacked by four Bf 109s between Tobruk and El Adem. The Kittyhawk I AK705 of No. 250 Squadron RAF started burning and crashed. Sergeant Graham Buckland (RAAF) bailed out, but his parachute failed to open. 
66 – 68 31 May 1942 07.26
07.28
07.34 Three P-40s west of Bir-el Harmat and south-west of Fort Acroma, probably belonging to No. 5 Squadron SAAF; one of the pilots was Maj. Andrew Duncan (5.5 claims), who was killed. 
69 1 June 1942 19.15 A P-40 southwest of Mteifel Chebir.
Potentially the involved Allied adversaries were Kittyhawks I from No. 112 Squadron RAF. This unit lost Pilot Officer Collet on this day (exact time and location is unknown). I./JG 27 claimed two aerial victories on this evening mission. 
70 – 75 3 June 1942 12.22
12.25
12.27
12.28
12.29
12.33 Credited with six kills in 11 minutes against nine Mk IIB Tomahawks of No. 5 Squadron SAAF, which were engaged in aerial combat with Ju 87s and Bf 109s near Bir Hacheim. Among the South African losses were four shot down Tomahawks (Tomahawk IIB AK384, AK421, AM401 and AN262) and two heavily damaged Tomahawks. Robin Pare was killed in this action; Captain Morrison, Lieutenant Muir and 2nd Lieutenant Douglas Golding were wounded. 2nd Lieutenant Martin crash landed in the fortress of Bir Hacheim and returned. Captain Adrian Jacobus Botha made an emergency landing at Gambut.
Three of these adversaries were the aces Douglas Golding, Robin Pare and Adrian Jacobus Botha. 
76 – 77 7 June 1942 16.10
16.13 Two P-40s southwest and northeast of El Adem.
Marseille’s adversaries were two Kittyhawk Mk Is, from No. 2 Squadron SAAF. The two fighters (AK611 and AK628) were lost in combat. Lieutenant Frewen bailed out from his burning aircraft and was uninjured. Lieutenant Leonard James Peter Berrangé was killed in the action. 
78 – 81 10 June 1942 07.35
07.41
07.45
07.50 Four P-40s near Mteifel Chebir.
Among the opponents were 24 Hurricanes from No. 73 Squadron RAF and No. 213 Squadron RAF. These two units lost four Hurricanes in aerial combat with Bf 109s in the vicinity of Bir Hacheim. Since II./JG 27 reported aerial combat with 40 to 50 P-40s, further Allied units are likely to have been involved. It seems certain that Marseille's fourth victory was Hurricane IIB BM966 from No. 213 Squadron RAF. Pilot Officer A. J. Hancock crash landed near El Gubbi, after he was chased for more than 30km. On the German side I./JG 27 reported the destruction of seven P-40s while II./JG 27 claimed one Hurricane. 
82 – 83 11 June 1942 16.25
16.35 One P-40 southeast of Fort Acroma and one Hurricane northwest of El Adem. Both were from No. 112 Squadron RAF, which lost two Kittyhawks. 
84 – 87 13 June 1942 18.10
18.11
18.14
18.15 I./JG 27 claimed four P-40s and one "Hurricane" near El Adem/Gazala. Marseille claimed four and Leutnant Hans Remmer one.[69] These were P-40s from No. 450 Squadron RAAF; no Hurricanes were involved and only four aircraft were lost. Flight Sergeant Bill Halliday and Flt Sgt Roy Stone (RAF) were both killed in action. 
88 – 91 15 June 1942 18.01
18.02
18.04
18.06 Marseille was credited with four kills in five minutes, including a P-40 near El Adem.
The Allied unit remains unidentified. I./JG 27 claimed six aerial victories in combat with 12 P-40s. An indication for the veracity of this claim is No. 204 Group RAF "Intelligence Report" which reported the loss of four aircraft that day. 
92 – 95 16 June 1942 18.02
18.10
18.11
18.13 Four claims accepted; all fighters. No. 5 Squadron SAAF lost two: Lt. R. C. Denham was killed and the highest-scoring member of an SAAF squadron during the war, Major John "Jack" Frost, remains missing in action.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 6, 2008)

96 – 101 17 June 1942 12.02
12.04
12.05
12.08
12.09
12.12 Marseille was credited with six kills in seven minutes over Gambut (becoming the 11th pilot to score 100 kills).
His adversaries were Mk I Kittyhawks of No. 112 Squadron RAF and No. 250 Squadron RAF, as well as 12 Mk IIC Hurricanes of No. 73 Squadron RAF. The first two victories were misidentified Mk IIC Hurricanes (BN121 and BN157) of 73 Sqn. The pilots, Pilot Officer Stone and Flight Sergeant Goodwin, bailed out uninjured. The next two victories were Mk IIC Hurricanes (BN277 and BN456) also of 73 Sqn. Both pilots, Squadron Leader D. H. Ward and Pilot Officer Woolley, were killed in action. Marseille's century appears to have been Sergeant Roy Drew (RAAF) of 112 Sqn,[70] in Kittyhawk I, AK586. Drew was separated from his flight and did not return. The Spitfire was a Mk IV reconnaissance aircraft, BP916, flown by Pilot Officer Squires. 
102 – 103 31 August 1942 10.03
10.04 Two Hurricanes, south-south-east of El Alamein in the morning and one Spitfire east of Alam Halfa at 6:25 PM.
It seems that one of Marseille's opponents was Pilot Officer L. E. Barnes. Barnes bailed out of his Hurricane IIC (BP451), but was severely wounded and died in a field hospital on 12 September 1942. 
104 18.25 
105 – 108 1 September 1942 08.26
08.28
08.35
08.39 Marseille was credited with 17 kills in three separate sorties over El Taqua, Alam Halfa and Deir el Raghat.
His adversaries on the early morning missions were Mk II Hurricanes (No. 1 Squadron SAAF and No. 238 Squadron RAF) and Mk V Spitfires (No. 92 Squadron RAF). One South African, Lieutenant Bailey, was injured in a crash landing, while Major P. R. C. Metelerkamp managed to fly his heavily damaged fighter back to his base. Flying Officer Matthews of 238 Sqn was posted as missing in action. Pilot Officer Bradley-Smith (92 Sqn) bailed out of his burning Spitfire VC BR474. Bradley-Smith was uninjured.
Among Marseille’s adversaries during the midday combat were Mk IIB Tomahawks of No. 5 Squadron SAAF and Mk I Kittyhawks of No. 2 Squadron SAAF, to which was attached pilots of the 57th Fighter Group USAAF. [71] Lieutenant Stearns was wounded in the crash-landing of his P-40, Lieutenant Morrison (Kittyhawk I, ET575) remains missing in action, Lieutenant W. L. O. Moon bailed out of his Kittyhawk I, EV366 and was uninjured. Lieutenant G. B. Jack also remains missing in action.
Marseille's 117th official victory was over a Hurricane Mk IIB, BN273. The pilot, Sergeant A. Garrod, bailed out uninjured. 
109 – 116 10.55
10.56
10.58
10.59
11.01
11.02
11.03
11.05 
117 – 121 17.47
17.48
17.49
17.50
17.53 
122 – 124 2 September 1942 09.16
09.18
09.24 Two P-40s and a Spitfire south of Imayid in the morning and two P-40s southeast of El Alamein in the afternoon.
Marseille's adversaries on the early morning mission were Mk I Kittyhawks of No. 2 Squadron SAAF, including pilots from the US 57th Fighter Group and Mk II Hurricanes of No. 33 Squadron RAF. One of Marseille's victories was Lieutenant Mac M. McMarrell (USAAF) who crash-landed his fighter and was wounded in this engagement. Lieutenant Reyneke crash-landed his Kittyhawk I. It seems certain that one of Marseille's kills was over a misidentified Hurricane II, piloted by Pilot Officer G. R. Dibbs, who remains missing in action.
Marseille's opponents in the afternoon combat were IIB Mk IIB Tomahawks of No. 5 Squadron SAAF. Marseille also shot down Lieutenant E. H. O. Carman (Tomahawk IIB AM390) and Lieutenant J. Lindber (Tomahawk Mk IIB, AM349) who remain missing in action. 
125 – 126 15.18
15.21 
127 – 129 3 September 1942 07.20
07.23
07.28 Marseille claimed two Spitfires and a P-40 near El Hammam, early in the morning, two P-40s near El Imayid in the afternoon and one more P-40 south-southeast of El Alamein in the late afternoon.
Marseille's adversaries in the early morning action were 24 Mk II Hurricanes, of No. 127 Squadron RAF and No. 274 Squadron RAF, 15 Mk I Kittyhawks of No. 260 Squadron RAF, No. 2 Squadron SAAF and No. 4 Squadron SAAF and eight Mk V Spitfires of No. 145 Squadron RAF. Pilots of the US 57th Fighter Group were attached to some of the above units. The pilot of the first aircraft destroyed by Marseille bailed out and appears to have been Sergeant M. Powers of 145 Sqn (Spitfire VB AB349), who was wounded in the engagement. 
130 – 131 15.08
15.10 
132 15.42 
133 – 136 5 September 1942 10.48
10.49
10.51
11.00 Marseille was credited with four kills, despite a cannon malfunction, near Ruweisat and El Taqua.
Flight Lieutenant Canham and Pilot Officer Bicksler of No. 145 Squadron RAF both bailed out of their Spitfire V. It seems that one of them was Marseille's first victory. Mk I Kittyhawks of No. 112 Squadron RAF and No. 450 Squadron RAAF were also involved in this engagement. 
137 – 140 6 September 1942 17.03
17.14
17.16
17.20 Three P-40s and a Spitfire south of El Alamein.
Among Marseille's opponents were eight Mk I Kittyhawks of No. 260 Squadron RAF, Mk IIB Tomahawks of No. 5 Squadron SAAF to which was attached pilots of the US 57th Fighter Group. 260 Sqn lost one Kittyhawk and a second fighter was damaged. 5 Sqn SAAF reported three losses and a fourth Tomahawk was damaged beyond repair. No. 7 Squadron SAAF lost five Hurricanes. It is unknown whether the Americans reported losses I./JG 27 claimed five aerial victories in action against 20 P-40s; II./JG 27 reported aerial combat with 12 DAF P-40s and 11 American fighters, claiming one victory. III./JG 53 claimed one P-40 in combat with12 P-40s and six Spitfires. 
141 – 142 7 September 1942 17.43
17.45 Two P-40s southeast of El Alamein and southwest of El Hammam.
Marseille’s opponents were Mk I Kittyhawks of No. 4 Squadron SAAF and Mk IIB Tomahawks from No. 5 Squadron SAAF. The South Africans lost two Tomahawks and one Kittyhawk. Two further Tomahawks and one Kittyhawk sustained battle damage. I./JG 27 claimed four aerial victories in this engagement. 
143 – 144 11 September 1942 07.40
07.42 Two P-40s southeast of El Alamein and west-southwest of Imayid.
Marseille's opponents were likely Hurricanes II from No. 33 Squadron RAF and No. 213 Squadron RAF. No. 213 Sqn RAF reported the loss of Hurricane IIC BP381. Flight Sergeant S.R. Fry was shot down. I./JG 27 reported combat with 20 fighter bombers, an indication which points more to Hurricanes rather than Spitfires V from No. 145 Squadron RAF and No. 601 Squadron RAF, these were engaged with Ju 87s and Bf 109s at the same time. 
145 – 151 15 September 1942 16.51
16.53
16.54
16.57
16.59
17.01
17.02 Marseille was credited with seven kills against P-40s from No. 239 Wing (No. 3 Squadron RAAF, No. 112 Squadron RAF and No. 450 Squadron RAAF) in 11 minutes. However, RAAF and RAF squadron records indicate that their total losses to enemy action that day were only five P-40s, while German claims were 19 or 20 destroyed.[72][73]
One of the P-40s shot down was piloted by Flight Sergeant Peter Ewing of 450 Sqn, who bailed out, was captured and spent a day as a guest of I./JG 27. 
152 – 155 26 September 1942 09.10
09.13
09.15
09.16 Seven kills near El Daba and south of El Hammam, including three Spitfires.
Marseille's adversaries on an early morning mission were Mk II Hurricanes of No. 33 Squadron RAF and No. 213 Squadron RAF, plus eight Mk V Spitfires of No. 92 Squadron RAF. It seems certain that Marseille's first victory was over a misidentified Hurricane IIC, BN186, flown by Pilot Officer Luxton, who crash-landed his aircraft. Marseille's last victory was Pilot Officer Turvey, who bailed out of his Spitfire VC, BR494.
Marseille's adversaries in his last aerial combat, that afternoon, included 11 Spitfires from No. 145 Squadron RAF and No. 601 Squadron RAF. 
156 – 158 15.56
15.59
16.10


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 6, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> Victories, Date and Time Notes Hans-Joachim Marseille
> – 1940 –
> I. (Jagd)/LG 2
> 1-24 August 1940
> ...


here is W. Nr3579


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 6, 2008)

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2gHQGqKnGg_


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7k1ilpbOUk_


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QHnPk6TrjA_


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RXU7C4paPU_


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvOE_ROg1RI_


----------



## Catch22 (Apr 6, 2008)

Marseille took a while to get rolling, but once he did, my god.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 7, 2008)

Same our mutual friend Hartmann, he was also a slow starter if my memory serves me right....

Here's another two....






Major Walter "Nowi" Nowotny with 258 confirmed 
victories in 442 missions, 255 victories over Russian 
pilots. By many considered as greatest fighter pilot 
of all time, by considering relation of his victories to 
his sorties.





Colonel Hermann Graf. He is credited with 212 victories, 
202 of which were on the Eastern Front. He flew more 
than 830 sorties.


----------



## timshatz (Apr 7, 2008)

Go with Hartman. First, he has the numbers. Kinda like who is the richest guy? Well, it's the guy with the most money. Who is the best fighter pilot? The guy with the most kills. That's Hartman. Probably plenty of other better pilots (a very subjective evaluation) but nobody shot down more aircraft. 

Another point, the guy flew pretty much continously from 1942 to 1945 and showed no signs of Combat Fatigue. That is truely amazing. Had a couple of month break here and there but that was about it. He was a machine. To handle that kind of stress on almost a daily basis and not deteriorate but seemed to get stronger is incredible.


----------



## phoenix7187 (Apr 7, 2008)

Both hartmann and marseille were well liked my many of the people under them and respected my the other side. hartmann never lost a wing man and marseille basically holds the record for aircraft shot down in a single mission and number of kills in the shorest time I think. I would say It's between these two.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 7, 2008)

Just for fun a Poll has been started. 

This Poll will only be open for 30 days. After 20 days the top pics will be put into another poll which will last 15 days and so forth and will continue until we all decide who we think is the best pilot.

Everyone this is just for fun and should bring up some interesting conversations.

Obviously I can not add every pilot known to man, so if there is someone not on the list, write them down in a post with an explanation as to why they should be added and I will ad them to the poll.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 7, 2008)

claidemore said:


> I think many of the qualities needed for a good fighter pilot would be inherited. In that case I would look pretty closesly at Arthur Bishop. Between his father (William) and himself, they accounted for 73 German planes. Best father/son combo AFAIK.



Better than the President Bush Duo? 


Um, Adler, how big of a percentage does a pilot need in the poll to make it to the next level? 15% or more?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 7, 2008)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> Um, Adler, how big of a percentage does a pilot need in the poll to make it to the next level? 15% or more?



I figured I would just do the top 10 or top 20 by number of votes.

Not really sure yet, I have 20 days to figure it out!


----------



## Marcel (Apr 7, 2008)

Had great problems deciding between Hartman and Marseille. Hartmann was the one who got the tactic right, but I feel Marseille was the better pilot (although probably only slightly). He was the master of deflection shooting.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Apr 7, 2008)

Marcel said:


> Had great problems deciding between Hartman and Marseille. Hartmann was the one who got the tactic right, but I feel Marseille was the better pilot (although probably only slightly). He was the master of deflection shooting.



I feel exactly the same way. I lean toward Hartmann for sentimental reasons, not to mention his 352 kills. I've got his original signature (along with Galland's) on a print by Heinz Krebs hanging in my living room.


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 7, 2008)

U know, there already is a Greatest Fighter Pilot Poll....


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 7, 2008)

I think I'll vote for an American pilot in this poll, just to help get one to the next level. It's a patriotic thing, anyway, I know the German pilots will win, so I'll vote for them when the group gets smaller. 

But I'm not sure if I should vote for Dick Bong or George Preddy or Robert S. Johnson.


----------



## Wayne Little (Apr 8, 2008)

While I'm a fan of both Hartmann and Marseille, my vote goes to Heinz Bar.

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!


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 8, 2008)

220 grounded pilots with one enemy pilot still flying. 

Yeah, not bad at all!


----------



## rochie (Apr 8, 2008)

i went for nowotny because 258 kills in 442 missions says a lot to me
would love to have gone for bader ( a favorite of mine) or evan saburo sakai but felt a lufwaffe pilot had to get my vote for the amount of combat they had to go through against ever increasing odds


----------



## Schwarze_13 (Apr 8, 2008)

plan_D said:


> The question that should be asked here is, what makes a good pilot? Is a pilot target practice? Is a good pilot a pilot than can stay alive? Is a great pilot a man who can shoot down enemy aircraft? Is an amazing pilot a man who can lead his whole squadron into ace status?



Indeed. What exactly is the criteria for _best_ WWII fighter pilot?

I would have to agree with Adler that Hartmann should be considered the _greatest_ purely for an _official_ score that will never be surpassed.

Then there is Marseille - yes he was a brilliant pilot and superb marksman:

*"Combat reports analysed in Berlin show that, at the height of his powers, he expended an average of fifteen shells and bullets per victory. More than one wingman has described the first shells hitting the nose of the enemy aircraft then 'walking' back to the cockpit area."* - Mike Spick

However, Marseille was reckless and was it not for his unfortunate death he would probably have stayed with JG27 and ended up flying _Reichsluftverteidigung_ - in which case how long would he have survived?

Moreover, how successful would Hartmann have been in the West and how long would he have survived in the RLV? Look at Barkhorn - after he was transferred to the West as _Kommodore_ of JG6 he failed to score. Whereas Rall (who was by many of his contemporaries considered to be the best deflection shot in the Luftwaffe), when sent to the West to command II/JG11, added only 2 (those being his final 2) victories before being shot down and hospitalized.

In fairness though, some Luftwaffe pilots failed to make the transition the other way!

You may notice i have not mentioned any pilots of other nationalites. Whilst i have my favourites from other air forces, it is obvious that the winner of the poll will be a German

So - I would personally have to go with someone like Galland, Priller, Mayer, Oesau, Bühligen or Bär. These men were not only very successful in the West but were also outstanding tacticians and formation leaders.

I voted for 'Pritzl' for the same reasons as listed by Adler and because *" a disagreement with Göring kept him from any higher decorations, and his outspoken refusal to obey orders he considered reckless brought him a demotion in 1943."* - Donald Caldwell.

...he was NOT a "good litlle Nazi"!


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 8, 2008)

> ...he was NOT a "good litlle Nazi"!




.


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 8, 2008)

Heinz Bar on my side as well, for the same reasons I put up eveytime we talk on this subject...


----------



## Marcel (Apr 8, 2008)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> I think I'll vote for an American pilot in this poll, just to help get one to the next level. It's a patriotic thing, anyway.



 unfortunately Bob van der Stock or Gerben Sonderman are not on the list, so I cannot be patriotic. But Van der Stock mostly got his fame because he was one of the three successful fugitives of the great escape, anyway.


----------



## Njaco (Apr 8, 2008)

Going with Heinz as well.... just to expand upon the previous posts:

First kill against French aircraft in September '39
7 victories during the Battle of France
10 victories during Battle of Britain
reached 60 kills during Barbarossa including 6 in one day 30 Aug 1941
60 kills during operations over Malta and North Africa 1942
Then to Reich Defense for his final scores.

among those kills are single and twin engined fighters and multiple engined bombers.

A very well rounded pilot operating in all theatres and scoring and surviving. You may have the highest score or the most accurate deflection shot but Heinz Bar was everything, everywhere.


----------



## phoenix7187 (Apr 8, 2008)

I was just reading about bar and you all make strong argument in his case. He did fly everything from the old 109's to the 262. Now you got me thinking.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 9, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I personally have to go with Heinz Bär.
> 
> Short bio:
> 
> ...



I voted for Bar but it is impossible (for me) to make an objective choice. Absent each of these guys entering combat from a level head on pass and then having an elimination 'fly off' at different altitudes to force different tactics and skills how would we have a perspective of the best combat flyer, much less the 'best fighter pilot'.

I could have just as easily picked Preddy or Hanson or Bong or Gabby Gabreski or Johnny Johnson or Stanford Tuck or anyone on that excellent list - all great fighter pilots that didn't have near the opportunity to score - and almost all of their scores over enemy territory where there was no second (or 18th) chance.

Of the German community, the ones that fought long and survived in the West should probably have a 'leg up'.. ditto some of the Jap fighter pilots and top Russians because of the quality they faced day after day.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 10, 2008)

drgondog said:


> I voted for Bar but it is impossible (for me) to make an objective choice. Absent each of these guys entering combat from a level head on pass and then having an elimination 'fly off' at different altitudes to force different tactics and skills how would we have a perspective of the best combat flyer, much less the 'best fighter pilot'.
> 
> I could have just as easily picked Preddy or Hanson or Bong or Gabby Gabreski or Johnny Johnson or Stanford Tuck or anyone on that excellent list - all great fighter pilots that didn't have near the opportunity to score - and almost all of their scores over enemy territory where there was no second (or 18th) chance.



I agree with you 100%. That is why I said this poll is just for fun. I really wish people would start voting for pilots not based off of how many kills they had, it would start up interesting conversations.

I really hoping that was going to happen and then people could learn about other pilots as well.


----------



## Njaco (Apr 10, 2008)

Since alot of us are voting for Heinz, I would like to add another overlooked pilot of the Luftwaffe that closely parralled Bar's combat record.

Major Erich Rudorffer of JG 2

from;

Aces of the Luftwaffe - Erich Rudorffer

Erich Rudorffer scored a total of 224 victories, placing him 7th on the all time list. This score did not come without a cost: Rudorffer flew over 1,000 missions, entering combat on 302 occasions, was shot down 16 times, and baled out 9 times! Of note are the 58 Il-2 Sturmoviks included in his 138 Eastern Front victories (all while flying the Fw 190) and the 10 four-engined bombers shot down in Reichsverteidigung missions.

Flew in every theatre as Bar and had almost a carbon copy of Bar's war record.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 10, 2008)

As indicated I voted for Marseille , as i think he was the best of WW2 but if I had to opt for an allied pilot it would have to be Buerling he much the same as the pilots flying in Guadalcanal was battling disease , small rations , beat up aircraft but he was also flying against a better foe IMHO. There is no doubt in my mind the LW and RA aircraft would be much tougher foes then the Japanese for one reason the aircraft he was facing were a tougher bird.


----------



## Soren (Apr 10, 2008)

I can't deside between Marseilles or Hartmann... 

Hartmann was an aw inspiring shot and Marseilles was a master of dogfighting. Furthermore Marseilles fought exclusively against the Western Allies whilst Hartmann flew almost exclusively against the VVS.

That having been said, it's really very hard to decide which pilot is the best with so many great choices, I mean there are probably a dozen or more German pilots with 100 or more kills which were as good as the top scoring aces but didn't get as many opportunities, and the same goes for some Allied pilots.


----------



## Soren (Apr 10, 2008)

Josef Priller is another excellent choice, having shot down 68 Spitfires, 2 P-47's 2 P-51's.


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 10, 2008)

Three letters for my answer:

Bar


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 10, 2008)

Njaco said:


> Since alot of us are voting for Heinz, I would like to add another overlooked pilot of the Luftwaffe that closely parralled Bar's combat record.
> 
> Major Erich Rudorffer of JG 2
> 
> ...



Added him.


----------



## Njaco (Apr 10, 2008)

Thanks Adler, I just mentioned him for discusion sake.


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 10, 2008)

Njaco said:


> Since alot of us are voting for Heinz, I would like to add another overlooked pilot of the Luftwaffe that closely parralled Bar's combat record.
> 
> Major Erich Rudorffer of JG 2
> 
> ...



Rudorffer was a good pilot no doubt, but there is some question about more then a few of his claims.


----------



## Marcel (Apr 10, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I agree with you 100%. That is why I said this poll is just for fun. I really wish people would start voting for pilots not based off of how many kills they had, it would start up interesting conversations.
> 
> I really hoping that was going to happen and then people could learn about other pilots as well.



OKay, as for brilliant pilots who didn't shoot down many, dutch pilot Gerben Sonderman is a contender. He was a test pilot with Fokker before the war, entered service in 1940 and flew G.I's. He shot down 1 a/c during the mobilisation and 3 german a/c during 10-14 of may 1940. More than any other dutch fighter pilot. Didn't have the change to fly anymore during the war, but went into the resistance. Collegues thought of him as a brilliant pilot, very skillfull. He died in the USA while demonstrating a Fokker S.4 jet trainer in 1955. I bought the book about his live, but didn't read it, yet. But I think he was a promising one, not having the chance to prove himself more as he only flew for 5 days during the war.


----------



## JimmywiT (Apr 10, 2008)

I voted for Ginger out of Patriotic fervor  

He epitomizes the idiotic British eccentric pilot fellow. He lost so many planes getting his 28 kills you wonder if it was worth it. He was a lunatic flyer who cared little for his own safety and an all round nice chap.

Reactions: Optimistic Optimistic:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schwarze_13 (Apr 10, 2008)

Soren said:


> I can't deside between Marseilles or Hartmann...
> 
> Hartmann was an aw inspiring shot and Marseilles was a master of dogfighting. Furthermore Marseilles fought exclusively against the Western Allies whilst Hartmann flew almost exclusively against the VVS.



Hi Soren,

I am curious as to where you read that Hartmann was an 'awe-inspiring shot'. He was certainly a very shrewd fighter pilot - he had a very cautious style and wouldn't engage unless he had all the advantages possible. In short he had the qualities of a great fighter pilot in that he was like a bird of prey; he would only attack when the risk to himself (and to his wingman) was minimal and the chances of success were very great.

However, as to him being an awesome shot; he said himself that he would only open fire when the windshield was filled with the enemy, when he was so close he couldn't miss!

Marseille on the other hand WAS considered to be an amazing 'marksman', both officially and by his squadron-mates (see my last post in this thread). 



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I agree with you 100%. That is why I said this poll is just for fun. I really wish people would start voting for pilots not based off of how many kills they had, it would start up interesting conversations.



Indeed. The question was 'Best WWII fighter pilot'. 

Surely there are other, and in some respects more important, qualities than just shooting ability! What about being less concerned with personal victory scores and more about the welfare of a wingman/flight/squadron/group and completing mission objectives? What about the foresight and perception to develop new tactics/test new weapons? What about the ability to lead a large formation into battle and to have both the situational awareness to survive yourself AND to make 'on-the-spot' decisions/give commands regarding the bigger picture?

How many pilots could do all of these things and still make the kills???


----------



## Njaco (Apr 10, 2008)

> Surely there are other, and in some respects more important, qualities than just shooting ability! What about being less concerned with personal victory scores and more about the welfare of a wingman/flight/squadron/group and completing mission objectives? What about the foresight and perception to develop new tactics/test new weapons? What about the ability to lead a large formation into battle and to have both the situational awareness to survive yourself AND to make 'on-the-spot' decisions/give commands regarding the bigger picture?



Thats exactly why I choose Bar. I'm more impressed with him being able to successfully function in all theatres and aircraft throughout the war. Rudorffer, although his claims are questionable, I feel followed this criteria also.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 10, 2008)

That was a great post JimmywiT!  

I decided to read more about him so here is a short biography:

James 'Ginger' Lacey







James Harry Lacey was born on February 1st 1917 at Wetherby, Yorkshire, and left King James’ Grammar School, Knaresborough in 1933. After four years as an apprentice pharmacist he joined the RAFVR (Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve) in January 1937 as a trainee pilot at Perth, Scotland. Two years later, he joined 1 Squadron at Tangmere

When war was declared in September 1940 he was posted to 501 Squadron, which was based at Filton. On May 10th, 1940, the Squadron moved to France where he experienced his first combat. On May 13th, Lacey destroyed a Bf109, a He111 and a Bf110. He shot down two more He111’s on May 27th before the Squadron was withdrawn back to England in June. During his operational duties in France he was awarded the French Croix de Guerre

During the Battle of Britain, Lacey became one of the highest scoring pilots of the conflict. His first kill of the battle was on July 20th when he shot down a Bf109. He then claimed a destroyed Ju87 and a “probable” Ju87 on August 12th along with a damaged Bf110 and damaged Do17 on August 15th, a probable Bf109 on August 16th, he destroyed a Ju88, damaged a Do17 on August 24th and shot down a Bf109 on August 29th

On August 23rd, Lacey was awarded the DFM

On August 30th, during combat over the Thames Estuary, Lacey shot down a He111 and damaged a Bf110 before his Hurricane was badly hit from enemy fire. His engine stopped and he decided to glide the stricken aircraft back to the airfield at Gravesend instead of baling out into the Estuary

A highly successful August was completed when he destroyed a Bf109 on the 31st

On September 2nd Lacey shot down two Bf109’s and damaged a Do17. He then shot down another two Bf109’s on September 5th. During a heavy raid on September 13th he engaged a number of He111’s over London and Kent where he shot down one of the bombers that had just bombed Buckingham Palace before his Hurricane was badly hit from return fire. He baled out of his burning aircraft sustaining small injuries and burns

Returning to the action shortly after, he shot down a He111, three Bf109’s and damaged another on September 15th, one of the most heaviest days of fighting during the whole battle which later became known as “Battle of Britain day”

Two days later on the 17th, he was shot down over Ashford, Kent during a dogfight and baled out without injury. On September 27th he destroyed a Bf109 and damaged a Ju88 on the 30th. During October he claimed a probable Bf109 on the 7th, shot down a Bf109 on the 12th, another on the 26th and on October 30th he destroyed a Bf109 before damaging another

During the Battle of France and the Battle of Britain, Lacey had been shot down or forced to land due to combat no less than nine times

On November 26th, Lacey received a Bar to his DFM for his continued outstanding courage and bravery during the Battle of Britain

In January 1941 he was commissioned and promoted to Acting Flight Lieutenant in June. On July 10th, as “A” Flight Commander, he shot down a Bf109 and damaged another a few days later on the 14th. On July 17th he shot down a He59 seaplane and two Bf109’s on the 24th. He was posted away from combat during August 1941 as a flight instructor

During March 1942, Lacey joined 602 Squadron, based at Kenley and by March 24th had claimed an Fw190. He shot down another Fw190 on April 25th before a posting to 81 Group as a Tactics Officer and later that year, in November, as Chief Instructor at the No: 1 Special Attack Instructors School, Milfield

In March 1943 Lacey was posted to 20 Squadron, Kaylan in India before joining 1572 Gunnery Flight in July of the same year to convert from Blenheims to Hurricanes and then to Thunderbolts. He stayed in India, being posted to 155 Squadron in November 1944 and then 17 Squadron later that same month. Whilst based in India, Lacey’s only “victory” was on February 19th, 1945, shooting down a Japanese, Nakajima “Oscar”

After the War was over, he went to Japan with 17 Squadron in March 1946 before returning back to the UK in May 1946. After receiving a permanent commission in December 1948, Lacey finally retired from the RAF on March 5th, 1967, as a Flight Lieutenant and retained the rank of Squadron Leader

James “Ginger” Lacey died on May 30th 1989 at the age of 72. In September 2001, a plaque was unveiled at Priory Church, Bridlington, Yorkshire in memory of the fighter pilot and ace.

World War II Aces - James "Ginger" Lacey

Not too short I guess.  

I think I will vote for Heinz Bar over Hartmann in the later polls, as many have already. He does sound like a couragous pilot and more worthy than his competitor, Gordon Gollob.

Gordon Gollob





A very Pro-Nazi man, he was not well liked by his fellow pilots. He achieved 150 victories, and was fond of attacking beneath an enemy formation with a spiraling climb. 

Johannes Steinhoff had this to say about him:

"Well, I will say this, then I will say nothing else about Gollob. Losses soared under his leadership everywhere he went, much like Göring in the first war. He placed leaders in command of units not because of their competence, but due to their loyalty to the Nazi Party, which were very few in the Jagdwaffe." 

In many ways Gollob was the opposite of Heinz Bar.



Poor Galland hasn't got a vote yet. I wonder if he will survive to the next level.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 14, 2008)

Should we include nightfighter aces into this or was/is there another tread for that....? Can't remember....too lazy to look..


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 14, 2008)

If you wish to add a night fighter pilot, post it here and tell why you think he should be included and then he will be added.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 14, 2008)

I was more thinking for the sake of discussion Adler...It's plenty of names that list you've put up already, don't want the thing cover a whole page do we... 

Maj Heinz-Wolfgang SCHNAUFER, 121 
Obst Helmut LENT, 102
Both flying the Bf-110

Hptm Heinrich Alexander Prinz SAYN-WITTGENSTEIN, 83 
Flying the Ju-88

Obst Werner STREIB, 66 
Flying the Bf-110 and the He-219

Hptm Heinz ROEKKER, 64 
Six kills in one night....

Maj Rudolf SCHOENERT, 64 
Flying the Dornier Do-217 and Bf-110


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 16, 2008)

Vote Adolf Galland!


----------



## Wildcat (Apr 16, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> Maj Heinz-Wolfgang SCHNAUFER, 121
> Obst Helmut LENT, 102
> Both flying the Bf-110



Speaking of Schnaufer, here is a pic I took of his tail fin from his Bf-110 which is part of the Australian War Memorial's collection. Most impressive..


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 16, 2008)

Wow! That's a lot of planes! I have never seen an ace's plane with so many kills on it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 16, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> I was more thinking for the sake of discussion Adler...It's plenty of names that list you've put up already, don't want the thing cover a whole page do we...
> 
> Maj Heinz-Wolfgang SCHNAUFER, 121
> Obst Helmut LENT, 102
> ...



I will add them in for you tomorrow.


----------



## Schwarze_13 (Apr 16, 2008)

Is that an MG-FF 20mm in front of it?


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 17, 2008)

Here is a picture of an MG FF Cannon. 

You know, seeing so many kills on a Bf 110 somewhat disaproves the opinion that it was poor plane. In the hands of an ace it could be deadly, just like the Iron Dog P-39.


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 17, 2008)

Schnaufers kills were night kills, where the inadequecies of the 110 didnt rear their ugly heads....

Not too many 110 DAY fighter pilots who lived to tell the story....


----------



## marshall (Apr 17, 2008)

I voted for Gabreski, I did it not because I think he was the best pilot of ww2 but first to make a small protest  that there's no any single Polish pilot on the list and second I really don't feel that I'm able to tell who was the best.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 17, 2008)

If you wanted a Polish pilot on the list all you had to do was state which pilot you wanted and why he should be on the list. He could have been added then.


----------



## Ramirezzz (Apr 17, 2008)

Moelders and Pokryshkin . The guys who revolutionized the tactics of their respective airforces and who were great personalities as well.


----------



## marshall (Apr 17, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> If you wanted a Polish pilot on the list all you had to do was state which pilot you wanted and why he should be on the list. He could have been added then.




I just thought that in that wide spectrum of pliots it would be nice to see one from Poland. Here's my proposal, though as I said earlier I'm not any kind of expert in these matters so I'm not able who was the best.

Witold Urbanowicz
17 official kills
15 on Hurricane mk1 (5x Bf109, 2x Bf110, 4x Do215, 3x Ju88, 1x He111) all just in one and a half month (between 18.08.1940 - 30.09.1940) one of the 109s was piloted by Hauptmann Joachim Schlichting (8 kills?) commander of III./JG 27
2 on P-40N (2x Ki-43)
unofficialy around 28 kills (He claimed 17 in BoB and 11 in the Far East)
Commander of No. 303 Polish Fighter Squadron - highest Allied scoring squadron in BoB
He flew with 75th Fighter Squadron "Flying Tigers"
He mastered the art of flying, never any enemy bullet hit his plane.
His score seems to be small when compared to other great aces but Urbanowicz didn't have many occasion to fly, during the war he had a lot of diplomatic duties and was Air Attache in the USA.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 17, 2008)

So do you want your vote changed?


----------



## marshall (Apr 17, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> So do you want your vote changed?



Yes, please.


----------



## Njaco (Apr 17, 2008)

Great choice Marshal. I've read about him alittle and he would make a good canidate.


----------



## marshall (Apr 17, 2008)

Njaco said:


> Great choice Marshal. I've read about him alittle and he would make a good canidate.



If anybody would like to read a bit more about him here are some links, but it's hard to find info about Urbanowicz in english.

Witold Urbanowicz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WW II ACE STORIES
Gen. Witold Urbanowicz, 88, Polish Fighter Ace in World War II - New York Times

Also I can add to list of his achievements, becoming the youngest squadron leader in whole RAF, shooting 4 enemy planes in one day, twice (27.09.1940 and 30.09.1940), on the 15th September 1940 he lead succesful attack of only 303rd squadron on a formation of 60 bombers escorted by 109s.


----------



## P1234567890 (Apr 18, 2008)

Hans-Joachim Marseille seems like he was history's best fighter pilot. Once he came into his own, his kill rate was phenomenal. On top of that, he fought against Western pilots rather than poorly-trained and equipped Russian ones.

Just imagine what he could have done on the Eastern front! He was extremely frugal with the bullets. On the Eastern Front I could imagine him shooting down 20 planes on a good day... And I imagine that he would have had *many* good days.

Also, for all of you guys voting 'patriotically', I find it interesting that you're bringing up some guys I've never heard of before, and I think that's worth discussing, but why not just say, "Obviously the best pilot of the war was <Insert one of the 3 or 4 obvious German choices here>, but have you guys heard of this guy: <Insert pilot who has less than one tenth the kills here>?

The reason I bring this up is because the poll is about who you think is the best pilot of the war. The argument, "So-and-so came from X, and therefore he was the best pilot of the war." isn't exactly logically compelling.


----------



## P1234567890 (Apr 18, 2008)

By the way, here's an interesting factoid: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa died with the rank of Ensign, despite having almost 100 kills! He was only promoted to Lt. Jr. Grade posthumously!

I guess Imperial Japan wasn't a meritocracy. (I also have a hard time understanding how they were able to be so militant and still call themselves Buddhists, but oh well.)

On a separate note, should Rudel be on the list? Technically speaking, even without any of his ground kills or ships, he did shoot down several enemy planes, and in any other country would have been considered a fighter ace.


----------



## marshall (Apr 18, 2008)

P1234567890 said:


> Also, for all of you guys voting 'patriotically', I find it interesting that you're bringing up some guys I've never heard of before, and I think that's worth discussing, but why not just say, "Obviously the best pilot of the war was <Insert one of the 3 or 4 obvious German choices here>, but have you guys heard of this guy: <Insert pilot who has less than one tenth the kills here>?




Maybe it's becuase I don't think that there are "3 or 4 obvious German choices". If we have looked only on the number of kills then there would be only one choice. I stated earlier why I voted like I voted. And I'm bringing up some guy you never heard of before exactly because you never heard of him before. How can you decide who was the best if you don't even know who to consider? What If someone heard about Hartmann and doesn't heard about Marseille, can he make a good decision? I don't think so. Thousands of pilots took part in ww2 are you sure you heard of the one who was the best before? Maybe not...


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 18, 2008)

This is getting retarded Marshall... The reason why the Germans lead the list is simple....

They survived in a War that took thousands and thousands of airmens lives, and these few skilled pilots lived all the way through it...

U cannot and should not try to compare a guy with 20 kills to a guy that had over 200.... Its stupid to even suggest it...

There were many great pilots, including ur nomination from Poland, but in the end, numbers DO make a difference... Theres a reason why the top 3 vote getters in this Poll are Germans, and it aint because we dont have any idea what we're talking about....


----------



## marshall (Apr 18, 2008)

lesofprimus said:


> This is getting retarded Marshall... The reason why the Germans lead the list is simple....
> 
> They survived in a War that took thousands and thousands of airmens lives, and these few skilled pilots lived all the way through it...
> 
> ...




I haven't said that Urbanowicz was a better pilot than great German aces, also I don't think that you don't have any idea what are you talking about, I said that I'm not able to tell who was the best. I'm not saying that numbers don't have any meaning because efectivness would be of the things that the best pilot had to have, but does in a 1 on 1 dogfight always wins the guy with more kills under his belt? I don't think so.


----------



## P1234567890 (Apr 18, 2008)

marshall said:


> Maybe it's becuase I don't think that there are "3 or 4 obvious German choices". If we have looked only on the number of kills then there would be only one choice. I stated earlier why I voted like I voted.



Yes, you did:



marshall said:


> I just thought that in that wide spectrum of pliots it would be nice to see one from Poland.



I'd like to point out that citing nationality as an argument for why someone was the best pilot of WWII is NOT a compelling logical argument.

Urbanowicz is certainly worth discussing, but you can't say that he was the best pilot of the war; especially for the reason you've given. In fact, I'm not even sure you can make the argument that he was the best Polish pilot of the war; Stanisław Skalski certainly gives him a run for his money.



marshall said:


> And I'm bringing up some guy you never heard of before exactly because you never heard of him before.



And I agree that these more obscure pilots are worth discussing, but it's absurd to say that one of them was the best pilot of the entire war just because he was born on a certain patch of ground. The only reason you're choosing Urbanowicz is because you yourself are Polish. It's not sound reasoning. Someone from New Zealand applying the same reasoning would argue that Colin Falkland Gray was the best pilot of the war. We need to be a little more objective than picking on a patriotic (nationalistic) basis. If nothing else, World War II taught us how bad patriotism/nationalism is.



marshall said:


> How can you decide who was the best if you don't even know who to consider? What If someone heard about Hartmann and doesn't heard about Marseille, can he make a good decision? I don't think so. Thousands of pilots took part in ww2 are you sure you heard of the one who was the best before? Maybe not...



But I do know who to consider. Here is a list of the top aces from WWII:

List of World War II air aces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just look at it! Look how many Germans had more than 100 kills! No pilot from any other country was even into triple digits, and there were 15 German pilots who had more than 200 kills! I think it's interesting to discuss the other pilots, but if we were being objective, then the poll above would include nothing but Germans. Seriously, Hartmann had 20 times as many kills as Urbanowicz! Even if you SQUARED Urbanowicz's kill count, he still doesn't win! He wasn't the best pilot of the war by any stretch of the imagination!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 18, 2008)

P1234567890 said:


> Just look at it! Look how many Germans had more than 100 kills! No pilot from any other country was even into triple digits, and there were 15 German pilots who had more than 200 kills


And many German pilots also flew over 1000 combat missions - ever look into how many missions were flown by the average combat pilot in the ETO?


----------



## P1234567890 (Apr 18, 2008)

marshall said:


> I haven't said that Urbanowicz was a better pilot than great German aces,



Sure you did! This thread and its poll are asking who the best pilot of the war was. You've made it clear that Urbanowicz has your vote. If I am mischaracterizing your opinion, and if you actually think that the best pilot was a German, then by all means say so.



marshall said:


> I'm not saying that numbers don't have any meaning because efectivness would be of the things that the best pilot had to have, but does in a 1 on 1 dogfight always wins the guy with more kills under his belt? I don't think so.



Marseille would have torn him to shreds. Here is an interesting anecdote about him (from his Wikipedia article):



> On 3 June 1942, Marseille attacked alone a formation of 16 Curtiss P-40 fighters and shot down six aircraft of No. 5 Squadron SAAF, five of them in six minutes, including three aces: Robin Pare (six victories), Douglas Golding (6.5 victories) and Andre Botha (five victories). His wingman Rainer Pöttgen, nicknamed Fliegendes Zählwerk the ("Flying Counting Machine"),[36] said of this fight:
> 
> 
> 
> > All the enemy were shot down by Marseille in a turning dogfight. As soon as he shot, he needed only to glance at the enemy plane. His pattern [of gunfire] began at the front, the engine's nose, and consistently ended in the cockpit. How he was able to do this not even he could explain. With every dogfight he would throttle back as far as possible; this enabled him to fly tighter turns. His expenditure of ammunition in this air battle was 360 rounds (60 per kill).



Let's put this into perspective: Marseille attacked a formation of 6 enemy planes all by himself. That's just crazy. Then he shoots down five of them, *including 3 aces* in less time than it takes to make instant soup. These weren't rookie pilots or poorly-trained Russians, and they weren't flying obsolete planes.

The guy obviously had enormous skill.

Here's another argument in favor of Marseille: Galland thought that Marseille was the best pilot ever. In his own words:



> "Marseille was the unrivalled virtuoso among the fighter pilots of World War 2. His achievements had previously been regarded as impossible and they were never excelled by anyone after his death."



Our opinions on the matter (mine included) are worth squat compared to Galland's opinion. If Galland said that Marseille was the best pilot of the war, then how can anyone here argue?


----------



## P1234567890 (Apr 18, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And many German pilots also flew over 1000 combat missions - ever look into how many missions were flown by the average combat pilot in the ETO?



This is a very good point. Even the most experienced Allied pilot didn't have a fraction of the combat experience that literally dozens of German pilots had. It's impossible to become a great pilot if they rotate you state-side to become an instructor as soon as you've flown a few dozen sorties.

By the way, who was the most experienced Allied pilot in terms of combat missions flown?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 18, 2008)

P1234567890 said:


> This is a very good point. Even the most experienced Allied pilot didn't have a fraction of the combat experience that literally dozens of German pilots had. It's impossible to become a great pilot if they rotate you state-side to become an instructor as soon as you've flown a few dozen sorties.
> 
> By the way, who was the most experienced Allied pilot in terms of combat missions flown?


Good question - I do know Col. Don Blakeslee flew over 400 sorties and although *claiming* 15 aircraft (I know JoeB might be watching  ) He spent most of his time "directing: the battle.

I also remember reading that some of the pace of kills by allied pilots closely matched their German counterparts, this being on the Western Front.


----------



## marshall (Apr 18, 2008)

P1234567890, once more time, I haven't said that Urbanowicz was the best pilot of ww2. I said that I'm not able to say who was the best. If you have problem with that I voted on the poll not on the best one because I don't know who was the best one, I can't help you.


----------



## P1234567890 (Apr 18, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Good question - I do know Col. Don Blakeslee flew over 400 sorties and although *claiming* 15 aircraft (I know JoeB might be watching  ) He spent most of his time "directing: the battle.
> 
> I also remember reading that some of the pace of kills by allied pilots closely matched their German counterparts, this being on the Western Front.



Kill-pace is a reasonably good measure of skill. Hartmann flew 1404 combat missions and shot down enemy 352 planes, which is 0.2507 kills per mission. 

With 400 sorties and 15 kills, Blakeslee had a ratio of 0.0375 kills/mission. Even if you consider that Hartmann was flying against Russians, that's one heck of a difference.

Does anyone know how many combat missions Marseille flew? I'm guessing that he had a very high ratio.

Also, does anyone know who had the highest ratio of all pilots in the war? (Let's say with a minimum score of 15, or else there'll be a bunch of pilots who only flew a couple of missions and got lucky and shot down a few planes.)

Another point to be made is that by the end of the war the Germans had run out of pilots and were sending totally green kids up into the air, so kills against Germans at the end of the war aren't as impressive as during, say, the Battle of Britain.


----------



## P1234567890 (Apr 18, 2008)

marshall said:


> P1234567890, once more time, I haven't said that Urbanowicz was the best pilot of ww2. I said that I'm not able to say who was the best. If you have problem with that I voted on the poll not on the best one because I don't know who was the best one, I can't help you.



Can you narrow it down to a top 10 list?


----------



## ToughOmbre (Apr 18, 2008)

P1234567890 said:


> This is a very good point. Even the most experienced Allied pilot didn't have a fraction of the combat experience that literally dozens of German pilots had. It's impossible to become a great pilot if they rotate you state-side to become an instructor as soon as you've flown a few dozen sorties.



There's no reason to think that American pilots would not have had more impressive victory totals if they had not been rotated back as instructors. But the object was not to see who could shoot down the most aircraft, the object was to gain air superiority and win the war. The American aces were far more valuable instructing new/replacement pilots, and that policy paid off when the new pilots got into combat. Germany could not afford that luxury, nor could Japan. I'm taking nothing away from the great German pilots, (I voted for Hartmann, could have voted for Marseille). 

TO


----------



## P1234567890 (Apr 18, 2008)

P1234567890 said:


> Does anyone know how many combat missions Marseille flew? I'm guessing that he had a very high ratio.



I found the answer to my own question. Apparently he flew 388 combat missions. He had 158 kills, so that's a ratio of 0.4072. That's a lot higher than Hartmann's ratio, AND he was flying against Western pilots rather than Russians. He died in 1942 just when he was really getting going. Who knows how many total kills he might have had if he hadn't died in that freak accident.

Here's a picture of him; he was a skinny little guy!


----------



## marshall (Apr 18, 2008)

P1234567890 said:


> Can you narrow it down to a top 10 list?




I was thinking about it earlier but I haven't come up with any good, in my opinion, system of ranking the pilots. Maybe I will have some idea how to do it well, till then I will hold to that I'm not able to say who was the best.


If anyone would be intrested about the ranking system, I was thinking about something like that:
(the numbers are just examples)
1 point for a kill in a superior aircraft, 2 poinst for a kill in a inferior aircraft (maybe different ammount of points for fighters and bombers)
plus some extra points for the skills of enemy, I mean more points for fighting with early Luftwaffe pilots than with late Luftwaffe pilots, or more points for shooting down west Allied pilots then Soviet pilots, then all diveded by sortie number
as you can see the system would be quite complicated and I'm not sure if it would have worked.


----------



## P1234567890 (Apr 18, 2008)

That's an interesting scoring system, but I guess my claim is this: Marseille and Hartmann (and the other top Germans) will be at the top of *ANY* reasonable scoring scheme that anyone could possibly come up with.

Barring that, all we could do determine if one pilot is better than the other is to somehow bring them back to life, put them in identical planes, and starting in identical conditions let them dogfight it out. Repeat this experiment a thousand times, and then look at the score. In my opinion, all of the evidence suggests that Marseille would do the best in this experiment.


----------



## P1234567890 (Apr 18, 2008)

By the way, Heinz Bär had a ratio of 0.221, which is slightly fewer than Hartmann, and only about half of what Marseille scored.


----------



## marshall (Apr 18, 2008)

P1234567890 said:


> That's an interesting scoring system, but I guess my claim is this: Marseille and Hartmann (and the other top Germans) will be at the top of *ANY* reasonable scoring scheme that anyone could possibly come up with.



There is very high probability of that. But such a system could show some interesting overlooked normally things.




P1234567890 said:


> Barring that, all we could do determine if one pilot is better than the other is to somehow bring them back to life, put them in identical planes, and starting in identical conditions let them dogfight it out. Repeat this experiment a thousand times, and then look at the score. In my opinion, all of the evidence suggests that Marseille would do the best in this experiment.




I would like to see some of these fights. 


BTW Walter Nowotny had a 0.583 ratio


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 18, 2008)

Then you had Bob Hansen - 20 enemy planes in six consecutive flying days.


----------



## P1234567890 (Apr 18, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Then you had Bob Hansen - 20 enemy planes in six consecutive flying days.



Not bad, but Marseille shot down 17 enemy planes in one day (Sept. 1st, 1942) during which he flew three sorties. By the time he got really good, he was shooting down 3 or more planes per sortie on a regular basis.

The really strange and amazing thing about him is that he was *really* good at shooting down several planes within a matter of a few minutes. The guy was absolutely deadly when he tore into an enemy squadron, and being heavily outnumbered didn't scare him at all. Hartmann was much more cautious.

Here is a pretty good write-up on him:

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/hanstate.html


----------



## P1234567890 (Apr 18, 2008)

marshall said:


> BTW Walter Nowotny had a 0.583 ratio



Wow, that's really good! Were his kills mostly soviets?

Is his the highest ratio of all times?


----------



## marshall (Apr 18, 2008)

P1234567890 said:


> Wow, that's really good! Were his kills mostly soviets?
> 
> Is his the highest ratio of all times?



255 out of 258 over Soviets (source wikipedia). I don't know if it's the highest ratio ever but I think that for such a scale (number of kills) it is.


----------



## P1234567890 (Apr 18, 2008)

Here's an interesting one: David McCampbell.

David McCampbell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Relevant passage:



> On October 24, 1944, he repeated the feat, the only American airman to do so. McCampbell and his wingman attacked a Japanese force of 60 aircraft. McCampbell shot down nine, setting a single mission aerial combat record.



Nine kills in one sortie is pretty darned good, although in fairness he ended the war with only 34 kills, and his famous mission was flown in late 1944, a time when Japanese pilots were hardly getting any training at all anymore.

I'd like to know his ratio. Does anyone know how many combat missions he flew?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 18, 2008)

P1234567890 said:


> Not bad, but Marseille shot down 17 enemy planes in one day (Sept. 1st, 1942) during which he flew three sorties.


Yep -well aware of that feat and that's why I eventually voted for him - but I think if you did a ratio for him (Bob Hansen) he'd be up there with the top German aces although at the time of his feat the quality of Japanese fighter piolts was diminishing.


----------



## P1234567890 (Apr 18, 2008)

Incidentally, there is good reason to believe that in a full-out modern war, U.S. pilots would be able to duplicate the feat of getting 9 kills in one mission.

Check it out:

F-22 Pilot Scores NINE "Kills" On a Single Mission, page 1

Still, it isn't quite the same thing. I'll bet that pretty much anyone who can land would be able to rack up plenty of kills in an F-22; it's technology and not skill which matters today.


----------



## Njaco (Apr 18, 2008)

I'm trying to find somewhere that I read that with ammo expended and kills who was the most accurate shot in the Luftwaffe. While doing that I found this:

from "Luftwaffe Fighter Aces" by Mike Spick

"The main factor was opportunity. By and large the _Experten _flew more sorties than thier Allied opponents, and encountered the enemy in the air far more times. In 'Full Circle', British top scorer Johnnie Johnson compared his record to that of 'Pips' Priller: _.....with 38 victories, which may be compared with Priller's 101, for we both fought over the same territory for about the same time, but he saw many more hostile aeroplanes than I did...._
....At the other extreme, Hartmann entered combat on no fewer than 825 occasions, so, given that he survived and shot straight, his enormous score is hardly surprising. By comparison with some, his sortie-to-victory ratio was realtively modest. Some Allied pilots did much better: to quote but one example, American ace Robert Johnson took only 91 sorties to accumilate his 28 victories. And he flew the supposedly inferior Thunderbolt!"

Scoring is great but how long and how much ammo it took I think should be considered.


----------



## P1234567890 (Apr 18, 2008)

Njaco said:


> Scoring is great but how long and how much ammo it took I think should be considered.



Well, Marseille was famous for being very frugal with the bullets. He was such an excellent shot that he was often able to shoot enemy planes down using only a few bullets each.

According to this web site: http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/hanstate.html



> Facts are that Marseille is still acknowledged as among the best marksmen in the Luftwaffe. The Germans were very meticulous in filing combat reports with all relevant data to include time of battle, area of operation, opposition encountered, as well as an in-depth armorers report. At the end of a mission, the armorers would count the number of bullets and cannon shells expended during the fight. Marseille would often average an astonishing 15 bullets required per victory, and this with a combat resulting in his downing of several allied aircraft. No other German pilot was close to Marseille in this area.


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 19, 2008)

marshall said:


> I haven't said that Urbanowicz was a better pilot than great German aces,


 When Adler asked if u wanted ur vote changed from Gabreski to Urbanowicz, u said yes, which means u voted for him.... Nationistic pride is great and all, but be realistic... Voting for something simply for a nations pride is dumb and uneducated, to say the least.... If u dont know enough about the subject, why fu*kin vote???



> also I don't think that you don't have any idea what are you talking about,


Oh really dumb-ass??? I guess that since my Grandfather was an Ace, and I grew up in the Black Sheep Community with other Aces, including Boyington, I guess I am clueless... Or how about the conversations Ive had with Galland or Yeager or Gabreski or Vejtasa or etc etc... I guess I have no idea on the subject.... U had best keep ur fu*kin moth shut moron or I will break it off in ur ass.... Dont piss of a Moderator, ever heard of that???



> I said that I'm not able to tell who was the best.


Then why should ur opinion in this thread have any bearing??? U are un-educated in this topic, so maybe u should shut ur yap and read what others who DO have the experience on the subject are saying....



> but does in a 1 on 1 dogfight always wins the guy with more kills under his belt? I don't think so.


Then u think wrong.... 9 outta 10 times, the more experienced pilot will take it to the greenie, in a very bad way... Ask the Russian VVS about that, would u.... And always is a strong word however, since there are a few instances where a rookie took out an accomplished Experten, but they are VERY very limited....

And besides the point, over 75% of all shootdowns were not dogfights, but bounces where the victim had no idea he was flying straight into an Aces gunsight....


----------



## P1234567890 (Apr 19, 2008)

lesofprimus said:


> Oh really dumb-ass??? I guess that since my Grandfather was an Ace, and I grew up in the Black Sheep Community with other Aces, including Boyington, I guess I am clueless... Or how about the conversations Ive had with Galland or Yeager or Gabreski or Vejtasa or etc etc... I guess I have no idea on the subject.... U had best keep ur fu*kin moth shut moron or I will break it off in ur ass.... Dont piss of a Moderator, ever heard of that???



I think you misunderstood our Polish friend. He wasn't saying that we are clueless. His original sentence contained a double negative. He said, "I don't think that you don't have any idea..." He also seems to have changed his mind, and now he isn't voting for anyone.

In any case, I have a question for everyone here who voted for Baer over Marseille. Why do you think he was the best?


----------



## Wayne Little (Apr 19, 2008)

P1234567890 said:


> In any case, I have a question for everyone here who voted for Baer over Marseille. Why do you think he was the best?



Reasons were given....as to why....


----------



## Catch22 (Apr 19, 2008)

And the Minister has spoken...

And as for your question my fellow Canadian, If you just look at the score he racked up in such short a time, and the fact that he used like 60 bullets per kill just shows that he was the best. Don't get me wrong, Baer was a great pilot, but Marseille would have easily beaten his score, and most likely Hartmann's as well.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 19, 2008)

P1234567890 said:


> In any case, I have a question for everyone here who voted for Baer over Marseille. Why do you think he was the best?



Because I think he was overall the better pilot...

Why? For reasons that I stated above and because I think he was an overall more rounded pilot. He few everything from the Ju 52 to the Me 262.

Now if Marseille had survived the war then my opinion might have changed.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 19, 2008)

Hartmann shot down his first Soviet victim on 5 November 1942, an Il-2 from 7 GShAP (7th Guards Ground Attack Aviation Regiment)..... Marseille, shot down his last 156-158 on the 26th of September 1942...
One just getting started and one KIA. I wonder what kinda score Marseille would have racked up if he'd been posted on the eastern front later....


----------



## Catch22 (Apr 19, 2008)

Speaking of aces, I know he's not on the list, but how many kills did Rudel actually have? On Wikipedia it says both 13 and 9. I need to know the correct one for my project.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 19, 2008)

Well, he did like to cause a lot of damage....flew 2,530 combat missions and successfully attacked many tanks, trains, ships, and other ground targets, claiming a total of 2,000 targets destroyed - including 800 vehicles, 519 tanks, 150 artillery guns, a destroyer, two cruisers, a battleship...
How mayn aircrafts do you get for a destroyer, cruiser or a battleship?


----------



## Catch22 (Apr 19, 2008)

I would say at least 25 haha.


----------



## P1234567890 (Apr 19, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> Hartmann shot down his first Soviet victim on 5 November 1942, an Il-2 from 7 GShAP (7th Guards Ground Attack Aviation Regiment)..... Marseille, shot down his last 156-158 on the 26th of September 1942...
> One just getting started and one KIA. I wonder what kinda score Marseille would have racked up if he'd been posted on the eastern front later....



This is a really interesting question. If Marseille had survived to fight on the Eastern Front, and if he'd been active for the whole war, I'm guessing he would have ended up with 500+ kills in total.

Who knows, maybe it would have been even more than that. Hartmann knew enough to cut and run when the odds were too heavily against him. Marseille's idea of a good time was to do the exact opposite. He was outrageously aggressive, and that would have served him well on the Eastern front. There would have been lots of targets consisting of poorly-trained pilots in inferior aircraft. He might even have ended up with 1000+ kills. Who knows.


----------



## Njaco (Apr 19, 2008)

Hartmann had fantastic number of kills.

Marseille was an expert shot especially deflection.

But are those the only criteria for a 'Best" pilot? Maybe if Marseille had survived to the end of the war? Maybe if Hartmann flew Defense of Reich? or maybe switched to the Fw 190 and then to the Me 262? How would Hartmann do against a Fortress? How about Marseille against a P-51? Would Marseille end up in a Me 163?

For a 'Best' pilot I'm taking into account number of kills, length of service, type of aircraft flown, who did he fly against, what theatre.

Heinz Bar either excelled or at the very least was just better than average in all those categories. Thats why I choose him.


----------



## Ramirezzz (Apr 19, 2008)

P1234567890 said:


> This is a really interesting question. If Marseille had survived to fight on the Eastern Front, and if he'd been active for the whole war, I'm guessing he would have ended up with 500+ kills in total.
> 
> Who knows, maybe it would have been even more than that. Hartmann knew enough to cut and run when the odds were too heavily against him.
> Marseille's idea of a good time was to do the exact opposite. He was outrageously aggressive, and that would have served him well on the Eastern front.


Well, who survived the war and who - not?



> There would have been lots of targets consisting of poorly-trained pilots in inferior aircraft. He might even have ended up with 1000+ kills. Who knows.


why not 10000?  I believe with his style of flying he wouldn't last much longer on the eastern front as well. The poorly-trained pilots were not that poor at all since late 1943 and aircraft quality was rather equal, so with his bad*ss flying he wouldn't have much greater chances to survive and to achieve victories like in Africa.
BTW, there were other pilots on the Eastern Front who had as good shooting skills as Marseille. Rudorffer is just to mention.


----------



## Catch22 (Apr 19, 2008)

You can't really blame Marseille's death on lack of pilot skill, just bad luck.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 19, 2008)

If economic shooting is a skill at the top of the heap would be Beurling several times he said a that he hit the aircraft with so many rounds in through the cockpit and when his ammo and the wreck were examined it was confirmed. 12 rounds to drop a 109 and 3 cannon rounds in a Macchi with the same result . But aside from shooting eyesight would be the best weapon as the first to see his opponent has the advantage.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 19, 2008)

> He might even have ended up with 1000+ kills. Who knows.



I don't know. If Marseille was so reckless he might have been killed before reaching it. 

Like you said, Hartmann only did so well because he was cautious as well as being agressive. 







A *Thank You *to the person who voted for Adolf Galland! *But he still needs more votes to survive to the next poll!* 

If not sure who to vote for, then........


*Vote for George Preddy, the top P-51 Mustang Ace of WWII!*


----------



## P1234567890 (Apr 19, 2008)

Ramirezzz said:


> Well, who survived the war and who - not?



Marseille survived every single encounter with the enemy. In fact, his apparent suicide attacks against multiple enemy fighters usually ended up with all of them shot down and him without a scratch.

He died in a silly accident, and not in combat.



Ramirezzz said:


> why not 10000?  I believe with his style of flying he wouldn't last much longer on the eastern front as well. The poorly-trained pilots were not that poor at all since late 1943 and aircraft quality was rather equal, so with his bad*ss flying he wouldn't have much greater chances to survive and to achieve victories like in Africa.



You're just saying this because you're biased, and it sounds a whole lot like you think that Marseille was killed in combat. There's no way you can make the argument that Russian pilots and fighters were as good as Western pilots and fighters. If Marseille could chew up Western pilots and aces, then he would certainly have been able to do the same on the Eastern Front.

And when you say that in late 1943 the aircraft quality was rather equal, exactly which planes are you comparing? Are you saying that the state-of-the-art Soviet planes of 1943 were as good as the best German planes of the same time?!?



Ramirezzz said:


> BTW, there were other pilots on the Eastern Front who had as good shooting skills as Marseille. Rudorffer is just to mention.



Look, Marseille invented and mastered absolutely deadly tactics which nobody else could even pull off. There's a reason why Galland said that he was the best fighter pilot of the war. I trust Galland's judgment on the matter. I'd like to know what Hartmann thought of Marseille's skills.


----------



## P1234567890 (Apr 19, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> If economic shooting is a skill at the top of the heap would be Beurling several times he said a that he hit the aircraft with so many rounds in through the cockpit and when his ammo and the wreck were examined it was confirmed. 12 rounds to drop a 109 and 3 cannon rounds in a Macchi with the same result . But aside from shooting eyesight would be the best weapon as the first to see his opponent has the advantage.



Hey, I want old Buzz to win the greatest ace award as much as any Canadian, but we've got to be honest here. He was a great pilot, but we can't compare him with the top Germans.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 19, 2008)

P1234567890 said:


> Hey, I want old Buzz to win the greatest ace award as much as any Canadian, but we've got to be honest here. He was a great pilot, but we can't compare him with the top Germans.


look who I voted for and he can be compared to great pilots but in my mind Marseille was better. I'll vote for him as top allied pilot definately the top shot


----------



## P1234567890 (Apr 19, 2008)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> I don't know. If Marseille was so reckless he might have been killed before reaching it.



If he'd survived North Africa, then he might have been killed later on by a mechanical malfunction in Russia. Who knows.

Besides, I'm not sure that reckless is the right word. If he could fly into a wing of 6 Western planes and shoot them all down in a few minutes, then is that a case of recklessness, or is it a case of audacious skill and courage?

Here's a little story about Marseille: (From Hans Joachim Marseille)



> His most "classic" combat, by some analysts, was on June 6, 1942 at noon. While in a bomber escort mission, he saw a formation of 16 P-40 Tomahawk fighter and ground attack aircraft, but initially remained with his formation, escorting the German bombers. After ten minutes, he left his formation with the escorted bombers and flew alone to attack the 16 Tomahawks, but his faithful wingman followed him. Marseille climbed above a tight formation of four, then dived at them. From a range of just 200ft he selected his first victim and turned at him. From a very short range of just 150ft he fired and shot it down. He then pulled up, turned, and dived at his 2nd victim, shooting it down from a range of 150ft. The others began to dive, but Marseille dived at them, turned at his 3rd victim and shot it down at altitude of about 3500ft (1km). He passed thru the smoke from his 3rd victim and leveled at low altitude, and then climbed again. He then dived again, at his 4th victim. He fired from just 100ft, but his guns didn't fire, so he fired his machine guns from very short range and passed thru the debris from his 4th victim. At the moment he hit his 4th victim, his 3rd victim hit the ground after falling 3500ft, approximately 15 seconds between victories, an indication of Marseille's speed. The remaining Tomahawks were now all at very low altitude. He leveled at them and quickly closed distance. He found himself beside one of the Tomahawks, he turned at him and fired, hitting his 5th victim in the engine and the cockpit. He climbed again, watched the remaining Tomahawks, selected a target, dived, levelled, and fired, and passed just above his 6th victim. He then climbed to his wingman which observed the battle from 7500ft above, and then, short of fuel and ammunition, flew back to base.
> 
> In 11 minutes of combat, fighting practically alone against a large enemy formation, he shot down six victims, five of them in the first six minutes. He was the only attacker in the battle, and not a single round was fired at him. The surviving Tomahawk pilots said in their debriefing that they were attacked "by a numerically superior German formation which made one formation attack at them, shot down six of their friends, and disengaged". In a post-war analysis of this dogfight these pilots testified the same.


----------



## P1234567890 (Apr 19, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> look who I voted for and he can be compared to great pilots but in my mind Marseille was better. I'll vote for him as top allied pilot definately the top shot



I totally agree that he was one of the top allied pilots of the war, and was probably the best marksman.

Ironically, he died in a stupid accident, just like Marseille.

Buzz seems to have been popular with the ladies:






On a separate note, when we say 'allied pilot', are we including Soviet pilots as well?


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 20, 2008)

Yes, Allied pilots include Soviet/Russian pilots as well....


----------



## P1234567890 (Apr 20, 2008)

lesofprimus said:


> Yes, Allied pilots include Soviet/Russian pilots as well....



On that topic, I have a question which is unrelated to aviation but I've been wondering about it for years and could never find an answer. Maybe someone here knows.

When Germany invaded Poland, France and Great Britain honored their treaty with Poland and declared war on Germany.

But the Soviet Union attacked Poland as well. Did Great Britain and France declare war on them as well?

If so, then this little factoid has been more or less extinguished from the history books. But if not, then why the hell not? In either case it's pretty interesting.


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 20, 2008)

The Soviets attacked Poland when it was under control of the Germans, unless theres something I missed here.....

Did the USA/England/Canada invade France???


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 20, 2008)

No they did not declare war on the Soviets. That is a good thing as well because they certainly would not have been able to fight the combined forces of the Soviets and the Germans.

Eventually either the Soviets or the Germans would have turned on each other either way.



lesofprimus said:


> The Soviets attacked Poland when it was under control of the Germans, unless theres something I missed here.....



No the Soviets and the Germans had a pact and they both invaded Poland before Poland was conquered.

Germany invaded Poland on: 1 Sept 1939

Soviet Uniond invaded Poland on with the excuse of protecting Russians in the Polish areas on: 17 Sept 1939

This was all part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact that broke up Eastern Europe into German and Soviet spheres of influence.

Poland capitulated on: 6 Oct. 1939.


----------



## P1234567890 (Apr 20, 2008)

Hey, I just found an interesting claim buried in Wikipedia's FW-190 article:



> Erich Rudorffer, a 222 victory ace was the highest '190 ace in the Luftwaffe. Rudorffer destroyed 138 aircraft on the Focke-Wulf, 13 in 17 minutes on 11 October 1943.



They cite Weal 1998, p. 92.

If this is true, then Rudorffer might have the record for the number of planes killed in one mission.


----------



## P1234567890 (Apr 20, 2008)

lesofprimus said:


> The Soviets attacked Poland when it was under control of the Germans, unless theres something I missed here.....



No, Poland hadn't capitulated yet at the time of the Soviet invasion.



lesofprimus said:


> Did the USA/England/Canada invade France???



D-Day?



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No they did not declare war on the Soviets. That is a good thing as well because they certainly would not have been able to fight the combined forces of the Soviets and the Germans.



I agree that it probably would have been stupid to declare war on the USSR, but Britain and France had a treaty with Poland... It seems morally questionable to declare war on Germany because of the treaty, but not the USSR for doing exactly the same thing that Germany did.

In any case, are we absolutely sure that Britain and France DIDN'T declare war on the Soviets? At the time they were allies with Germany. They were supplying Germany with massive amounts of strategic resources such as oil and food.

I can imagine that they did declare war on the Soviets, but then rescinded it as soon as Hitler attacked Russia. Bigger things have been made to disappear from the history books, especially when concerning the Soviet Union. For example, the U.S. and Great Britain invaded the Soviet Union after World War I, and yet that little fact seems to have disappeared from history.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 20, 2008)

> Besides, I'm not sure that reckless is the right word. If he could fly into a wing of 6 Western planes and shoot them all down in a few minutes, then is that a case of recklessness, or is it a case of audacious skill and courage?



It is great courage, but it also requires good confidence in your skills. If you overestimate your chances, your dead.


While Marseille was one of the best pilots of WWII, his action on June 6 1942 agains't 16 P-40's was really more of a terrific "bounce" than a dogfight. That he was able to destroy so many in a single bounce is almost too amazing to believe. But it happened, so I see your point.







What Erich Rudorffer did sounds also pretty amazing, and James E. Swett, with his 7 kills (in under 30 minutes?) time sounds also pretty amazing.


----------



## Juha (Apr 20, 2008)

"In any case, are we absolutely sure that Britain and France DIDN'T declare war on the Soviets? "

You can be absolutely sure on that.
During Winter War, between Finland and SU 30th Nov 39 - 13th March 40, there was a risk that France and GB would drift to war against SU and there were for ex plans to bomb oil industry around Baku from a/fs in Middle East, just because soviet export of significant amount of oil to Germany, but nothing came out of those plans. Except some recon flight over Baku by RAF Blenheims.

On Rudorffer, if you dig some of his claims deeper you might find some suspicious. And it seems that of Novotny's first 10 victories most were "air" with little "victory" included. That at least by the studies of some serious Russian researchers. I cannot say anything of his later career. It simply was that some pilots were more reliable claimers than others. 

Juha


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 20, 2008)

P1234567890 said:


> I can imagine that they did declare war on the Soviets, but then rescinded it as soon as Hitler attacked Russia. Bigger things have been made to disappear from the history books, especially when concerning the Soviet Union.



No they did not declare war on Russia and they did not rescind a declaration of war. 

If there had been a declaration of war it would have been announced and common history today. No declaration was announced. Britain and France protested the Soveit Invasion and condemned it but nothing else. 



P1234567890 said:


> For example, the U.S. and Great Britain invaded the Soviet Union after World War I, and yet that little fact seems to have disappeared from history.



What are you talking about????

*Edit I finally realized what you are talking about. Sorry...*

Yes it is true that allied nations including the United Kingdom (Britian and Ireland), Japan, The United States, France and Canada supported the Russian "White Army".

However it was not an invasion of Russian per say. The Expeditionary forces were allready there to prevent strategic places from falling into German hands after the Russian Offensive of 1917 was stopped by the Germans by launching a counter offensive.

Then in 1918 they intervened in the Russian Civil War and supported side of the White Army who were fighting against the Communists until 1920.


----------



## P1234567890 (Apr 20, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No they did not declare war on Russia and they did not rescind a declaration of war.
> 
> If there had been a declaration of war it would have been announced and common history today. No declaration was announced. Britain and France protested the Soveit Invasion and condemned it but nothing else.



You're probably right, but this means that Britain and France did not live up to their treaty with Poland, at least not in spirit.



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> What are you talking about????



It's true: The U.S. invaded the Soviet Union after World War I. It was done in the context of the Russian Civil War. The Western Allies fought alongside the 'White Russians' against the Bolsheviks.

Weird History 101 - Google Book Search

See page 267.

Here is another good reference: Russian Civil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And another: Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The fact that the U.S. and Britain sent so many troops deep into Russia in order to fight against Communism is one of the main reasons why the Communists were so paranoid about the West for the next six decades.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not pointing out any of this in order to garner sympathy for Communism. I think that it's terrible and that the Western Allies probably did the right thing at the time.

But I do think that it's very interesting that an event which really happened has been so well censored and forgotten.

This is why I am asking suspicious questions about whether or not the Allies declared war on the Soviets after they attacked Poland.

In any case, this is all very off-topic. I don't know what the rules are around here about bringing up topics which are irrelevant to the original intent of the thread, and if this is a big no-no, then I apologize.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 20, 2008)

P1234567890 said:


> You're probably right, but this means that Britain and France did not live up to their treaty with Poland, at least not in spirit.



No they did not live up to there treaty at all. Did they invade Germany or come to the aid of the Polish?

No...





P1234567890 said:


> It's true: The U.S. invaded the Soviet Union after World War I. It was done in the context of the Russian Civil War. The Western Allies fought alongside the 'White Russians' against the Bolsheviks.
> 
> Weird History 101 - Google Book Search
> 
> ...



Yes I know. If you go back and read my post you will see that I said:

*Edit: I realize now what you are talking about*

And then go and read what I posted underneath that and you will see that I posted the same information that you just posted.


----------



## Juha (Apr 20, 2008)

I haven’t participated this poll because it’s very difficult to say who was the best. But what a heck, I voted W/O Illu Juutilainen because I know he had many good qualities.

Cons: He seemed not to be very reliable claimer.

Pros: Many Finnish pilots testified that he had very good situational awareness.
He was a very good pilot
He was a good shot
He shot done a quite a lot enemy planes even if not over 90, not even 70.
He was a good teacher in air tactics and in air combat in general and was always ready to give advises to others and was able give them in humorous and easily remembered ways
His plane was never hit in his numerous air combats
His many times rather harsh leg pulling and practical jokes made probably good on his units morale during the long war.
He was also a very good recon pilot.

And I have one more candidate to the poll list, Captain Helmut Lipfert, 203 kills, because

He seemed to be a reliable claimer
He was a good teacher, liked by his men and by those Hungarian and Romanians he taught. 
And he wrote a very good memories

Juha


----------



## P1234567890 (Apr 20, 2008)

Wow, isn't it funny how people love to vote patriotically... Come on, you can't *seriously* think that Illu Juutilainen was the *best* pilot of the whole war! You're just saying that because you're Finnish!

I want someone from Bulgaria to weigh in on this debate and argue that Stoyan Stoyanov was the best pilot of the war.


----------



## Juha (Apr 20, 2008)

P123...
Pah, I voted him because of the reasons I gave. And BTW his exchange rate was better than that of Hartmann because he was never hit in air combat, Hartmann lost at least 4 planes, possible more. And because nobody could win war by himself, it was very important to advise greener ones. And seriously I don't know who was the best, but that same to all us. You might think that you know, but what you know for sure? Do you know how many of Hartmann's 352 were officially accepted by the OKL or how many planes he really shot down? So there is much guesswork and feelings on this question, so we can vote as we wish, seriously or not.

Juha


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 20, 2008)

I don't know enough about the Finnish end of things to make a comment on individual FAF pilots but what they did with their sometimes outdated and varied equipment against a much larger foe is remarkable 
Would the circumanstances be the same if they were fighting the Germans as opposed the Russians ?


----------



## marshall (Apr 20, 2008)

lesofprimus said:


> When Adler asked if u wanted ur vote changed from Gabreski to Urbanowicz, u said yes, which means u voted for him.... Nationistic pride is great and all, but be realistic... Voting for something simply for a nations pride is dumb and uneducated, to say the least.... If u dont know enough about the subject, why fu*kin vote???
> 
> *Same remark as to P1234567890, I voted on him even though I don't think he was the best, if you have a problem with that, I can't help you.*
> 
> ...



About the last thing I'll give few examples, Rall shot down 8 times, Batz shot dwon 4 times, Rudorffer shot down 16 times, Bar shot down 18 times. Though I don't know how many of these shot downs were made by enemy fighters. But I guess it wasn't that rare.


And last thing, I don't know why you are trying to offend me. I just posted my opinion, if you don't agree with that opinion just say you don't and why you don't agree with it. Then I can try to answer to your arguments and we can have a discussion.


----------



## Marcel (Apr 20, 2008)

P1234567890 said:


> Wow, isn't it funny how people love to vote patriotically... Come on, you can't *seriously* think that Illu Juutilainen was the *best* pilot of the whole war! You're just saying that because you're Finnish!



And why not? This is the first round an Juutilainen was a great pilot, so he belongs in the next one. 
And about patriotically votes: I'm sure there are probably many pilots who could be up there, but didn't make a name for themselves because the didn't get the chance. And if their countrymen wouldn't mention them, nobody would never know who they were. I would choose Gerben Sonderman (see my port 50 in this thread) if he were on the list, only to let you know about him. 

And remember, you're here to learn, not to try press your believes on others.


----------



## P1234567890 (Apr 20, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No they did not live up to there treaty at all. Did they invade Germany or come to the aid of the Polish?
> 
> No...



Sure, but at least they declared war. Apparently they didn't even do that against the Soviets...


----------



## P1234567890 (Apr 20, 2008)

Marcel said:


> And why not? This is the first round an Juutilainen was a great pilot, so he belongs in the next one.



Why not? Because Juutilainen wasn't the best pilot of the war by ANY stretch of the imagination, and voting for him the best just because of what it said on his passport is completely uncompelling.



Marcel said:


> And about patriotically votes: I'm sure there are probably many pilots who could be up there, but didn't make a name for themselves because the didn't get the chance. And if their countrymen wouldn't mention them, nobody would never know who they were.



Then go ahead and say, "Hey, check out so-and-so; he was a great pilot!". That doesn't mean that you have to vote for him as being the BEST pilot ever!



Marcel said:


> I would choose Gerben Sonderman (see my port 50 in this thread) if he were on the list, only to let you know about him.



I'm all for learning. I encourage you to encourage us to learn about pilots like Sonderman. But it's absurd to suggest that he was the best fighter pilot of the war!



Marcel said:


> And remember, you're here to learn, not to try press your believes on others.



I am here to learn, but I simultaneously find it to be absurd when people vote for someone who has one tenth as many kills as the top Germans as the best pilot ever, and ESPECIALLY if they do it just because the guy came from their country!

Do you understand that you can tell us about a pilot without automatically claiming that he was the best fighter ace of the war?

On a related note, does anyone else here find it to be absurd that Beurling has more votes than Rall, Barkhorn, and Nowotny ALL PUT TOGETHER?!? Their combined kill total was 834, and Beurling shot down only 31. Does this make any sense?!? (And I'm Canadian!)

Seriously people, it's pretty absurd that Witold Urbanowicz has more votes than any of these three German pilots. Where's the objectivity here?!?

I'd like to take this opportunity to remind everyone of the kill table on this page:

List of World War II air aces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Marcel (Apr 20, 2008)

P1234567890 said:


> Why not? Because Juutilainen wasn't the best pilot of the war by ANY stretch of the imagination, and voting for him the best just because of what it said on his passport is completely uncompelling.



*Your opinion*



P1234567890 said:


> ]
> Then go ahead and say, "Hey, check out so-and-so; he was a great pilot!". That doesn't mean that you have to vote for him as being the BEST pilot ever!






P1234567890 said:


> I'm all for learning. I encourage you to encourage us to learn about pilots like Sonderman. But it's absurd to suggest that he was the best fighter pilot of the war!


 How on earth would you know? Maybe he was better than any of them, but he didn't fly in the war for more then 4 days, so hadn't a chance to prove himself. I'm not saying he was, but I'm only showing you that there can be different ways of looking at "best".





P1234567890 said:


> I am here to learn, but I simultaneously find it to be absurd when people vote for someone who has one tenth as many kills as the top Germans as the best pilot ever, and ESPECIALLY if they do it just because the guy came from their country!


 If you think most kills means best then that is *your* opinion. Let others have their own. People tend to pick their heroes from their own country, I don't think you should judge that here. If you have a problem with that, just keep it for yourself. If you can prove someone was a bad pilot, please do that with facts.



P1234567890 said:


> Do you understand that you can tell us about a pilot without automatically claiming that he was the best fighter ace of the war?


I think I did in post 50, so yes. But remember, "best" is subjective at best, please let other people have their own opinion.


----------



## JoeB (Apr 20, 2008)

P1234567890 said:


> and courage?
> 
> Here's a little story about Marseille: (From Hans Joachim Marseille)


Perhaps they mean June 3, 1942 when Marseille claimed 6 Kittyhawks (per some sources, though 7 in OKL claims list)? He made no claims on the 6th. On the 3rd his claims and those of JG53 occurred at about the same time. A total of 9-10 Kittyhawks were claimed; 5 Sdn SAAF lost 4 Kittyhawks plus another 'force landed' back at base, an unknown RAF unit lost 2 Hurricanes apparently at around the same time; the South Africans downed at least 3 Ju-87's the Bf109's were escorting; per "Fighters Over the Desert" by Shores and Ring p. 120. The maximum claim accuracy of 70% (counting the force landing and assuming the Hurricanes were really lost in the same incident) is excellent, the minimum of 40% (counting only 4 Kittyhawks and assuming the Hurricane losses might have been to other causes) is still probably no worse than the WWII average.

On a related thread 'Hartmann's claims', two other examples of Marseille's claiming accuracy were given: Sept 1 when he claimed 17, the Germans claimed a total of 26 or 27 (varies by source), a total of 20 Allied fighters were lost, again excellent apparently ~75% claim accuracy. And, another example where it wasn't as good, Sept 15 '42 Marseille again claimed 7 Kittyhawks of 20 total Kittyhawk and 1 Spit claimed by the Germans at around 1800; but in that case only 6 Kittyhawks total were lost around that time, one attributed to AA by the Allies, plus 2 Spits time unknown, max rate ~40%, min ~25%, depending whether you accept the AA attribution and include the Spits or not.

Rudorffer flew in West too; some of his claims in Tunisia don't check out well. For example February 9th, 1943, he was credited 8 victories (6 P-40 and 2 P-38's); his unit II./JG 2, was awarded a total of 15 victories that day, 12 P-40's and 3 P-38's. The P-40's were F's of the French GC II/5, who lost 3. The P-38's were of the 94th FS, who suffered no losses; per "Focke Wulf 190 in North Africa" by Arthy and Jessen. Prorated accuracy of his claim, <20%.

It's would be a big job to do such analysis broadly, and involves uncertainties and ranges of numbers as given above, but still worthwhile IMO, even to see a few examples, as *one* input into 'who was best'. Although IMO that's a quite unanswerable question, because depends on lots of stuff besides how many planes were 'really' downed, like how hard was the overall situation for the ace's side. 

On East v West front though, the German fighters probably had at least as high an overall kill ratio v the Desert Air Force in Marseille's time as the they did v the VVS in Hartmann's time, which was mainly after the 'happy times' on the Eastern Front of '41-42, he didn't start until late '42. I say that based again on "Fighters Over..." summaries of day by day combats, the Bf109's were posting a quite high real fighter-fighter kill ratio v the Hurricane/P-40/Spit opposition in that period; as say compared to total reported Soviet and German fighter air combat (and 'failed to return' in Soviet case) losses in 1944, which was still, perhaps surprisingly, in the Luftwaffe's favor but not by as high a ratio as v the Desert AF mid 1942. But as noted on that thread, a highly reliable analysis of Hartmann's claims v Soviet losses in particular incidents is yet to surface AFAIK, analyses that have been published are controversial.

Joe


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 20, 2008)

P1234567890 said:


> Wow, isn't it funny how people love to vote patriotically... Come on, you can't *seriously* think that Illu Juutilainen was the *best* pilot of the whole war! You're just saying that because you're Finnish!
> 
> I want someone from Bulgaria to weigh in on this debate and argue that Stoyan Stoyanov was the best pilot of the war.



Hey chill out allright! 

He gave the reasons he voted for that person and he has every right to do so. Just like you are entitled to your opinion, he is entitled to his. So back off!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 20, 2008)

P1234567890 said:


> Why not? Because Juutilainen wasn't the best pilot of the war by ANY stretch of the imagination, and voting for him the best just because of what it said on his passport is completely uncompelling.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



All of that is nothing more than your opinioin, and opinions are like assholes, everyone has one!


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 20, 2008)

And some are bigger than others, right Adler...?     

Haven't been able to decide yet, it's a difficult one....


----------



## P1234567890 (Apr 20, 2008)

Marcel said:


> *Your opinion*



Not really; there are only so many 'reasonable' criteria on which a pilot can be judged, and we've already seen many of them in this thread:

1. Total number of kills,
2. Kills / combat mission ratio,
3. Marksmanship,
4. Piloting ability,
5. Variety of planes flown,
6. Number of fronts fought on,
7. Number of times shot down vs. kills,
8. Quality of opponents and enemy equipment,
etc.

Judging pilot skill inevitably boils down to some kind of weighted combination of these measures. My claim is that for *any* 'reasonable' weighted combination of these 'reasonable' measures, the top pilots will be German.

That's not particularly subjective.



Marcel said:


> How on earth would you know? Maybe he was better than any of them, but he didn't fly in the war for more then 4 days, so hadn't a chance to prove himself. I'm not saying he was, but I'm only showing you that there can be different ways of looking at "best".



Not really. You can't base your definition of 'best' on complete hypotheticals. Well, you can, but it isn't very reasonable.



Marcel said:


> If you think most kills means best then that is *your* opinion.



I don't. My definition of best includes some kind of weighted metric of the qualities I listed above. If I thought that most kills meant best, then I would have voted for Hartmann, but I didn't. I voted for Marseille.



Marcel said:


> Let others have their own. People tend to pick their heroes from their own country, I don't think you should judge that here. If you have a problem with that, just keep it for yourself.



Why? I believe that World War II taught the world exactly how bat nationalism is. This is a discussion forum pertaining to World War II. If people here are being nationalistic, then I argue that it's fair game to criticize them for it, especially if they are saying things which are unsound.



Marcel said:


> I think I did in post 50, so yes. But remember, "best" is subjective at best, please let other people have their own opinion.



I'm all for people having their own opinions, but if their opinions are nationalistic, then I think that it's ok to criticize their reasoning. Why not?


----------



## P1234567890 (Apr 20, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Hey chill out allright!
> 
> He gave the reasons he voted for that person and he has every right to do so. Just like you are entitled to your opinion, he is entitled to his. So back off!



I'm new here, so I'm not familiar with the culture. I saw some other posts in this thread which made it seem like it's ok to debate.

I'm not trying to insult anyone, but I do think it's ok to criticize people for voting nationalistically. If World War II taught us anything, it's that nationalism is bad. If it is not ok for me to do this, then just say so and I'll stop doing it. No problem.


----------



## P1234567890 (Apr 20, 2008)

By the way, in retrospect I am willing to concede that Juutilainen was a great pilot and should be on the list. I took issue with voting nationalistically, which is the main reason for my objections.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 20, 2008)

Don't see anyone on that list that shouldn't be there except for the last entry of Bishop with one kill


----------



## Njaco (Apr 20, 2008)

P123, what is wrong with voting nationalistic? Maybe someone from Finland has more of grasp of why their particular favorite pilot should be on the list. And I really don't want to get into politics but....



> If World War II taught us anything, it's that nationalism is bad.



That line really got me going. Nationalism is bad? What is wrong with having pride in where you come from? We should all be one global community, nameless and faceless?

That is exactly what is wrong with the world - one side of the mouth spits something like that and the other side claims to be mexican, african, arab, even Swedish ) I hear Lucky getting the herring ready!) while parking their butt in another country.

Debate is fine but brow-beating isn't debate. Marcel had every right to list Juutilainen and from what little I've read about him, he was an excellent pilot. Going by your list, even Marseilles only achieved three or four out of the eight you stated. If he had said he voted Juutilainen because he likes the color of his eyes, I would support you in your contention.

Discussions like this are hardly black and white. Like Adler said its for fun and thats a very big grey area because personal opinion is involved.

And for the record I have hardly ANY clue about American aces - my South Jersey butt has always been interested in the Luftwaffe, and throw in a few from the RAF.


----------



## P1234567890 (Apr 21, 2008)

Njaco said:


> That line really got me going. Nationalism is bad?



Are you kidding?!? Yes, nationalism is VERY bad! Neither world war would have been possible without nationalism! Thinking that your own group of people is superior to another group of people NEVER ends well!



Njaco said:


> What is wrong with having pride in where you come from?



Having pride in where you come from may be how things start, but they get out of control *very* quickly when it comes to nationalism.

If you want to have pride, then let it be pride in yourself. The fact that Wayne Gretzky was the greatest hockey player who ever lived doesn't somehow make me a better person just because I'm from the same country. It's just bad reasoning. Be proud of yourself for the things that you've achieved. Don't be proud of yourself for the things that others who happen to be from the same country have achieved. And the opposite is true as well: Don't be biased in favor of someone just because they're from the same country as you.



Njaco said:


> We should all be one global community, nameless and faceless?



What are you talking about? When did I ever advocate abolishing all borders?!? All I'm saying is that people should be a little more objective in their reasoning. Voting nationalistically is not ok.



Njaco said:


> Marcel had every right to list Juutilainen and from what little I've read about him, he was an excellent pilot.



I criticized the vote because it seems to me like there are a lot of people here who just coincidentally happen to believe that the best pilot of the war was someone from their own country. If a German votes for Hartmann or Marseille, then that's one thing, but if a Dutch or Polish person votes for a Dutch or Polish pilot as having been the best pilot of the war, then there's an obvious lack of objectivity going on. Perhaps Juutilainen is a bad example, because he was the top-scoring non-German pilot of the war. Nevertheless, there are literally *dozens* of Germans ahead of him on the list, so I hope you understand why I found it suspicious that a Finnish person was voting for him.



Njaco said:


> Going by your list, even Marseilles only achieved three or four out of the eight you stated.



Really? I think he does well in at least six of the categories.



Njaco said:


> If he had said he voted Juutilainen because he likes the color of his eyes, I would support you in your contention.



Color of his eyes / color of his passport... What's the difference?



Njaco said:


> Discussions like this are hardly black and white. Like Adler said its for fun and thats a very big grey area because personal opinion is involved.



I'm new here, and I don't really have a feel for the culture here yet. I'm not quite sure how serious this forum is. World War II was a pretty serious event, so I imagine that some spirited (albeit good-natured) debate is in order. If I'm overstepping, then by all means correct me. I already seem to be getting some negative feedback on my anti-nationalism comments, so that's telling me to lighten up, which I'm very happy to do.

By the way, here are some more criteria:

1. Total number of kills,
2. Kills / combat mission ratio,
3. Marksmanship,
4. Piloting ability,
5. Variety of planes flown,
6. Number of fronts fought on,
7. Number of times shot down vs. kills,
8. Quality of opponents and enemy equipment,
9. Surviving a huge number of combat missions,
10. Never losing a wingman,
11. Number of missions in which multiple kills were scored.

If anyone else wants to add to this list, feel free!


----------



## P1234567890 (Apr 21, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> Don't see anyone on that list that shouldn't be there except for the last entry of Bishop with one kill



Fair enough, but if this is the case, then there are more than a hundred Germans currently not on the list who should be included...

Shouldn't every single German on this list List of World War II air aces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia from Gustav Rödel upwards be a contestant in the poll?

I'm not trying to say that they should actually be put into the poll... That would be silly since it would make the poll outrageously long. But it does show how many outrageously good German pilots there were, and I think that it puts a lot into perspective.


----------



## Marcel (Apr 21, 2008)

P1234567890 said:


> Why? I believe that World War II taught the world exactly how bat nationalism is. This is a discussion forum pertaining to World War II. If people here are being nationalistic, then I argue that it's fair game to criticize them for it, especially if they are saying things which are unsound.



I don’t want to discuss your ideas about nationalism here, as I feel it belongs to the “political” forum. But you must remember that people vote for things they know best and usually that are things from their own corner of the world.
And why is it different if Germans vote for a german pilot against Juha voting for a finish one? You already admitted his choice was a good one. Is this because the Germans confirm your own opinion?



P1234567890 said:


> I'm all for people having their own opinions, but if their opinions are nationalistic, then I think that it's ok to criticize their reasoning. Why not?


Fine, so you don’t mind me criticizing yours?



P1234567890 said:


> Not really; there are only so many 'reasonable' criteria on which a pilot can be judged, and we've already seen many of them in this thread:
> 
> 1. Total number of kills,
> 2. Kills / combat mission ratio,
> ...


While you seem to have an scientific approach, you really haven’t, as you seem to pick your criteria to be in favor of your own bias towards German pilots and some are still subjective. Your subjectiveness (and this counts for all people here) can be seen by the criteria you pick. And your criteria are flawed to say the least. For instance criteria 1. So based on this you’ll pick the german that shot down 5 I-15’s over a Brit who shot down 3 Bf109’s?
Furthermore several of your criteria are not relevant as they depend on circumstances rather than the quality of the pilot. Number of fronts fought on really isn’t in the pilot’s hands and neither is the variety of planes flown.



P1234567890 said:


> Not really. You can't base your definition of 'best' on complete hypotheticals. Well, you can, but it isn't very reasonable.



To show your flawed logic I will make an example of comparing Hartman vs Sonderman. It’s not to take away any of the greatness of Buby, but just to show the mistake you make. Hartman shot down most planes but it took a while and many combat missions before he started to pile up victims. Sonderman shot down 4 planes in his first (and only) 5 combat missions. This is already better, but also gives Sonderman a ratio of about 1:1, which is better than any German ace discussed here. Further more, Sonderman did this with inferior material against superior numbers (Dutch numbered to Germans 1:10) and superior tactics, also a combination no German pilot can claim. The Germans never had inferior planes and most of the time had a better strength then 1:10. So now I proved that Sonderman was superior to Hartman by carefully choosing my criteria. So what I’m saying is there is no objective way to chose here.


----------



## Juha (Apr 21, 2008)

pbfoot
“Would the circumanstances be the same if they were fighting the Germans as opposed the Russians ?2

Short answer is no. Reasons, while some Soviet units were very good, some were poor. IMHO the quality of units varied more in Soviet AF during the WWII than in other major AFs. Generally speaking tactically Soviet formations became good in 43 but at that time they still tended to open fire too far away. But that is only a generalization. There were from 39 onwards Soviet pilots who were good shots and knew the axiom “Get very near before opening fire.” In 1944 they were dangerous opponents; their best units were at that time probably as dangerous as Germans. But before 44 I would say that Germans would have been much more difficult opponents.

P1234567890
” Because Juutilainen wasn't the best pilot of the war by ANY stretch of the imagination…”

Now Juutilainen had clearly better exchange rate than Marseille, who seems to be your choice, 91:0 vs 158: at least 6, four planes lost at Kanal front (against 7 claims) and IIRC he was shot down at least twice in North Africa. We can argue how important the exchange rate was. To Finns, who didn’t have a/c industry to speak of, it was very important indeed. Germany wasn’t ready to sell but a token number of 109s to Finland before the summer 44. Finns had to even in 1943 bought more Morane-Saulnier M.S.406s and Curtiss Hawk 75s from German war booty debots, some of which had probably stand outdoors almost 3 years before the deal, to get even some sort “new” fighters to replace those lost or too wore. And when the fighter recon Flight of Recon Sqn 16 finally got rid from its Gloster Gladiator Mk IIs during the summer 44 its “new” planes were Polikarpov I-153s, so still old biplanes.

Juutilainen got kills in 3 different planes, Fokker D.XXI, Brewster Model 239 and Bf 109G. All rather different types needing very different tactics if one want to be successful. Marseille got all his kills while flying Bf109s.

Now it was much easier to shoot down Hurricanes while flying Bf 109F than shoot down newer Soviet fighters while flying Model 239, I would say that it was easier to shoot down Hurricanes when flying Bf 109F than when flying Model 239.

etc


Juha


----------



## P1234567890 (Apr 21, 2008)

Marcel said:


> I don’t want to discuss your ideas about nationalism here, as I feel it belongs to the “political” forum. But you must remember that people vote for things they know best and usually that are things from their own corner of the world.



Except that the topic of nationalism is relevant here because people like you are promoting pilots from your own country who have less than 10 kills as being the best pilot of the war. It's great that you're teaching us about obscure Dutch pilots, but ultimately there's a reason why he's obscure and why the people on the list above are not.



Marcel said:


> While you seem to have an scientific approach, you really haven’t, as you seem to pick your criteria to be in favor of your own bias towards German pilots and some are still subjective. Your subjectiveness (and this counts for all people here) can be seen by the criteria you pick.



Not really. We can all get together and decide on any reasonable criteria we want for judging pilot skill. Then we can create some kind of weighted metric on it, and apply it. I claim that this is as objective a measure as we could possibly come up with, and I further claim that for any reasonable metric, the Germans will come out at the top of the list.



Marcel said:


> And your criteria are flawed to say the least. For instance criteria 1. So based on this you’ll pick the german that shot down 5 I-15’s over a Brit who shot down 3 Bf109’s?



No, my proposed metric takes *everything* into account and in fact 3 109 kills would probably count more than 5 Sturmovik kills.



Marcel said:


> Furthermore several of your criteria are not relevant as they depend on circumstances rather than the quality of the pilot. Number of fronts fought on really isn’t in the pilot’s hands and neither is the variety of planes flown.



Variety of planes flown in which the pilot scored kills should count for something. It shows versatility. For example, it's impressive that Juutilainen scored kills in three different planes. Is it as important as total kill count? No, but it should count for at least something. 



Marcel said:


> To show your flawed logic I will make an example of comparing Hartman vs Sonderman. It’s not to take away any of the greatness of Buby, but just to show the mistake you make. Hartman shot down most planes but it took a while and many combat missions before he started to pile up victims. Sonderman shot down 4 planes in his first (and only) 5 combat missions. This is already better, but also gives Sonderman a ratio of about 1:1, which is better than any German ace discussed here.



And this would help Sonderman's score using the metric I am suggesting, but ultimately you have to factor in total number of kills, number of missions flown, etc. in which Sonderman is WAY behind. If you ONLY use ratio, then sure, Sonderman does very well. But that's a totally unreasonable way to measure pilot skill. You have to measure all of the relevant criteria involved, which is what I'm suggesting. For example, ratio should obviously be tempered by number of missions flown, and it isn't hard to make the argument that a ratio of 0.58 over 442 missions (Nowotny) is a whole lot more impressive than a ratio of 1.0 over 5 missions. Do you seriously think that Sonderman would have been able to keep up that ratio if he'd flown hundreds of missions?!?



Marcel said:


> Further more, Sonderman did this with inferior material against superior numbers (Dutch numbered to Germans 1:10) and superior tactics, also a combination no German pilot can claim.



And again that would reflect well in Sonderman's overall rating, but it isn't NEARLY enough to lift him above the top Germans.



Marcel said:


> The Germans never had inferior planes and most of the time had a better strength then 1:10. So now I proved that Sonderman was superior to Hartman by carefully choosing my criteria. So what I’m saying is there is no objective way to chose here.



That's just it: You had to carefully choose your criteria. I'm saying that we should compare the pilots based on *all* relevant criteria weighted in some reasonable way. Your criteria are unreasonable because you cherry-picked them in order to make Sonderman look good. It's pretty hard to argue that judging pilots based on *all* relevant criteria is unreasonable.

The bottom line is this: Under any set of reasonable criteria which does not ignore any important facts and which is weighted in some reasonable way, the top Germans will always come out on top.

This shows that it's not all subjective.


----------



## P1234567890 (Apr 21, 2008)

Juha said:


> P1234567890
> ” Because Juutilainen wasn't the best pilot of the war by ANY stretch of the imagination…”
> 
> Now Juutilainen had clearly better exchange rate than Marseille, who seems to be your choice, 91:0 vs 158: at least 6, four planes lost at Kanal front (against 7 claims) and IIRC he was shot down at least twice in North Africa. We can argue how important the exchange rate was. To Finns, who didn’t have a/c industry to speak of, it was very important indeed. Germany wasn’t ready to sell but a token number of 109s to Finland before the summer 44. Finns had to even in 1943 bought more Morane-Saulnier M.S.406s and Curtiss Hawk 75s from German war booty debots, some of which had probably stand outdoors almost 3 years before the deal, to get even some sort “new” fighters to replace those lost or too wore. And when the fighter recon Flight of Recon Sqn 16 finally got rid from its Gloster Gladiator Mk IIs during the summer 44 its “new” planes were Polikarpov I-153s, so still old biplanes.
> ...



You make some compelling arguments, and I concede that when I said that Juutilainen wasn't the best pilot of the war by any stretch of the imagination, I was being too harsh. I agree that he does very well in a lot of important categories.

Nevertheless, I argue that if you factor in all of the important criteria, Juutilainen still isn't up there with the top Germans. He probably was the best non-German ace of the war, though.

Maybe that would be a good way of doing things: Have one poll for who was the best German pilot, and have another one for the best non-German pilot.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 21, 2008)

> Having pride in where you come from may be how things start, but they get out of control *very* quickly when it comes to nationalism.
> 
> If you want to have pride, then let it be pride in yourself.



I don't think being proud of your country is bad, while being proud of yourself is the only good kind of pride. If you never admire what your country does right, or what your countrymen do right, you won't ever be very liked by your countrymen.

That's just a fact.

And Hitler wasn't just proud of his country when he started WWII, he himself wanted to be dictator of the world and rule. And in the end what Hitler did to his country, making stupid decisions and not listening to good advice, was just plain stubborness in the face of defeat.


----------



## Marcel (Apr 21, 2008)

Not enough time too give a long response:


P1234567890 said:


> Except that the topic of nationalism is relevant here because people like you are promoting pilots from your own country who have less than 10 kills as being the best pilot of the war.


 I'm not, I'm just using Sonderman to get my point through. 


P1234567890 said:


> It's great that you're teaching us about obscure Dutch pilots, but ultimately there's a reason why he's obscure and why the people on the list above are not.


Yes, the reason was that his air force surrendered after 5 days, nothing to do with himself. 
I am teaching you about these men to give them the credit they deserve. The only reason that I must be a dutchman to give credit to a Dutchman is that these guys are unknown to the rest of the world.



P1234567890 said:


> Not really. We can all get together and decide on any reasonable criteria we want for judging pilot skill. Then we can create some kind of weighted metric on it, and apply it.


Okay what about this: Being able to take off under fire, being out gunned, out numbered(vastly), against a tactically and technically superior and experienced opponent. Having no speed or altitude advantage whatsoever. And still being able to shoot down 3 opponents without being shot himself. That must count for something. It proves that he was one hell of a pilot. The best? I don't know, but neither do you.



P1234567890 said:


> I claim that this is as objective a measure as we could possibly come up with, and I further claim that for any reasonable metric, the Germans will come out at the top of the list.


And I claim that you'll never be able to have an unbiased opinion. You put out these "metric" out of your own hypothesis that the German pilots were the best. But you do not see that yourself. You proved that by your first reaction on Juha's choice. "No way that anyone could have been as good as the Germans." The reason that you had to reconsider after tremendous facts from Juha enhances my view about you. You reacted out of your own bias without considering even the facts. And I don't think you were wrong in doing that. I only think it was wrong that you condemn people because of having a biased opinion, while your own opinion was as biased as theirs abnd preaching against them



P1234567890 said:


> Variety of planes flown in which the pilot scored kills should count for something. It shows versatility. For example, it's impressive that Juutilainen scored kills in three different planes. Is it as important as total kill count? No, but it should count for at least something.


No it shows he had the time to fly different planes and his airforce was in the war long enough.




P1234567890 said:


> And this would help Sonderman's score using the metric I am suggesting, but ultimately you have to factor in total number of kills, number of missions flown, etc. in which Sonderman is WAY behind. If you ONLY use ratio, then sure, Sonderman does very well. But that's a totally unreasonable way to measure pilot skill. You have to measure all of the relevant criteria involved, which is what I'm suggesting. For example, ratio should obviously be tempered by number of missions flown, and it isn't hard to make the argument that a ratio of 0.58 over 442 missions (Nowotny) is a whole lot more impressive than a ratio of 1.0 over 5 missions. Do you seriously think that Sonderman would have been able to keep up that ratio if he'd flown hundreds of missions?!?


Yes on the last question, he had it undoubtedly in him, but nothing to prove as he didn't fly more.. And consider the circumstances in which he got his kills. No altitude advantage, totally surprised by superior numbers of enemies, no speed, nothing of that kind. Can you say that about the Germans? As I said, you must be one hell of a pilot to be able to do that.



P1234567890 said:


> And again that would reflect well in Sonderman's overall rating, but it isn't NEARLY enough to lift him above the top Germans.


According to your standards. I think there were many pilots that could be considered the best, not only the list above. These are unknown, unsung men, never made a name for themselves because of circumstances, independent of themselves. Using clinical statistics like you do doesn't do justice to them. I'm only using Sonderman as an example, but there are many more from every nationality.






P1234567890 said:


> Your criteria are unreasonable because you cherry-picked them in order to make Sonderman look good.


Now you get the hang of it, exactly my point.




P1234567890 said:


> The bottom line is this: Under any set of reasonable criteria which does not ignore any important facts and which is weighted in some reasonable way, the top Germans will always come out on top.
> 
> This shows that it's not all subjective.


Yes it is, you choose yourself which is important and judge by that, that's subjective.


----------



## telsono (Apr 21, 2008)

I would place "Pat" Pattle as my top pick. Unlike many of the pilots listed he had to fight primarily in aircraft that were inferior to his opponents, if not obsolete. His victory total is listed at between 40 and 50 with some saying as high as 60 victoriers. Although from South Africa he was a regular RAF pilot and rose to the rank of squadron commander during the thick of the Greek campaign where his leadership qualities were adamant. His aerial markmanship was reknown in the service. You can read more with this link.

Commonwealth biplane fighter aces - Marmaduke Thomas St John ‘Pat’ Pattle

As for US Marine pilots I would place the top Marine Wildcat pilot, Major John L. Smith on the list. 16 of his 19 victories were in Wildcats over Guadalcanal where he commanded the first fighter squadron there, VMF 223. He developed and trained his pilots in the tactics that were highly effective against the Japanese earning him both the Congressional Medal of Honor and the Navy Cross. As a gruff by the book Marine officer he wasn't as glamorous as hi XO Marion Carl. IMHO Boyington only showed true leadership when he was a POW and sober.

John Lucian Smith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mike T.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 21, 2008)

P1234567890 said:


> I'm new here, so I'm not familiar with the culture. I saw some other posts in this thread which made it seem like it's ok to debate.
> 
> I'm not trying to insult anyone, but I do think it's ok to criticize people for voting nationalistically. If World War II taught us anything, it's that nationalism is bad. If it is not ok for me to do this, then just say so and I'll stop doing it. No problem.



Are you 100% sure he only voted because of nationalistic reasons. He stated the reaons why.

You could have countered as to why you disagree but to tell him he is wrong because he did not vote for a German.

Also nationalistic things are not necessarily bad. I am proud to be an American, is that a bad thing.



P1234567890 said:


> Are you kidding?!? Yes, nationalism is VERY bad! Neither world war would have been possible without nationalism! Thinking that your own group of people is superior to another group of people NEVER ends well!



That is bull! There is nothing wrong with being proud of where you come from and being proud of where you come from does not mean you think that you own ethnic group or country is superior to anyone.

I am an American/German. I am proud of being American and German.

Anyone else here proud of where they come from? I sure as hell hope so!


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 21, 2008)

Someone here not a proud Canadian??


----------



## Marcel (Apr 21, 2008)

Enhanced my answers above.


----------



## P1234567890 (Apr 21, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Also nationalistic things are not necessarily bad. I am proud to be an American, is that a bad thing.



It depends on where that leads. If it leads to faulty reasoning, then yes, it is bad. History has shown us that nationalism OFTEN leads to MASSIVE mistakes, the two world wars being excellent examples.



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> That is bull! There is nothing wrong with being proud of where you come from and being proud of where you come from does not mean you think that you own ethnic group or country is superior to anyone.



Really? That's not how nationalism usually manifests itself. Usually nationalism is all about how your own country and/or culture are superior.



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I am an American/German. I am proud of being American and German.
> 
> Anyone else here proud of where they come from? I sure as hell hope so!



It depends on what you mean. All countries have their good points and their bad points. If you acknowledge the bad points and want to fix them, then it's fine to acknowledge the good points as well. But if you ignore the bad points and only focus on the good ones, then there's a problem.

Just look at how people in this discussion thread have been voting. In many cases, nationalism is clouding their judgment. That's not ok. People should try to be as objective as possible in their reasoning.


----------



## P1234567890 (Apr 21, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> Someone here not a proud Canadian??



I think there are plenty of great things about Canada. But is it perfect? Not by a long shot!

I'm certainly not a nationalist; like I said, the 20th century conclusively showed humanity how bad nationalism is. If I were a nationalist, then I obviously would have voted for Beurling. But I didn't, because I'm trying to be objective.


----------



## P1234567890 (Apr 21, 2008)

Marcel said:


> Yes, the reason was that his air force surrendered after 5 days, nothing to do with himself.
> I am teaching you about these men to give them the credit they deserve. The only reason that I must be a dutchman to give credit to a Dutchman is that these guys are unknown to the rest of the world.



I AGREE with you. I think that Sonderman obviously was a good pilot. But he certainly wasn't the best, and it sound to me like you agree that he wasn't the best.



Marcel said:


> And I claim that you'll never be able to have an unbiased opinion. You put out these "metric" out of your own hypothesis that the German pilots were the best.



I don't think you understand what I am saying. The metric which I am suggesting is robust enough to capture any definition of 'best pilot'. Everyone here in some way or other is using my metric. Some people put a 100% weighting on number of kills. Others favor other combinations of pilot skills and achievements.

I claim that any 'reasonable' combination of skills and achievements will result in a ranking in which Germans are at the top of the list.



Marcel said:


> But you do not see that yourself. You proved that by your first reaction on Juha's choice. "No way that anyone could have been as good as the Germans." The reason that you had to reconsider after tremendous facts from Juha enhances my view about you. You reacted out of your own bias without considering even the facts.



I agree that I had a knee-jerk reaction which was too strong, but it wasn't out of bias for the Germans; it was out of bias against nationalism and voting nationalistically.



Marcel said:


> No it shows he had the time to fly different planes and his airforce was in the war long enough.



I'm not sure how you're helping your argument here. Ignoring the number of different planes flown in combat only helps my man Marseille.



Marcel said:


> According to your standards. I think there were many pilots that could be considered the best, not only the list above. These are unknown, unsung men, never made a name for themselves because of circumstances, independent of themselves. Using clinical statistics like you do doesn't do justice to them. I'm only using Sonderman as an example, but there are many more from every nationality.



Ultimately there's a reason why Hartmann, Marseille, Barkhorn, Baer, Nowotny, Rall, etc. are famous and why your unsung heroes are not.



Marcel said:


> Yes it is, you choose yourself which is important and judge by that, that's subjective.



I'm not choosing which characteristics and skills are important. If you notice, my list was compiled by looking at all of the posts in this thread and taking *everyone's* opinions into account.

If you have other characteristics which you feel should be added to the list, then by all means share them with us.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 21, 2008)

P1234567890 said:


> It depends on where that leads. If it leads to faulty reasoning, then yes, it is bad. History has shown us that nationalism OFTEN leads to MASSIVE mistakes, the two world wars being excellent examples.
> 
> 
> 
> Really? That's not how nationalism usually manifests itself. Usually nationalism is all about how your own country and/or culture are superior.



It does not have to be and I am sure if you would open up a bit you would see that most people are not that way.




P1234567890 said:


> It depends on what you mean. All countries have their good points and their bad points. If you acknowledge the bad points and want to fix them, then it's fine to acknowledge the good points as well. But if you ignore the bad points and only focus on the good ones, then there's a problem.



What does that have to do with being proud of your country. Again being a nationalist is not necessarily a bad thing. 



P1234567890 said:


> Just look at how people in this discussion thread have been voting. In many cases, nationalism is clouding their judgment. That's not ok. People should try to be as objective as possible in their reasoning.



Thats bull. You are letting your views skew your judgement here. There may be some (and they have stated it in there posts) but I truely think that people are trying to be objective here.

You on the other hand are getting in peoples cases because they hold a different view from you.

Discussing your different views is great, that is why this poll was started.

I will tell you this however, there is more to what makes a good pilot a good pilot than just kills.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 21, 2008)

p13232134
you are missing the point there were some great pilots out there that weren't German around , with the exceptions of the Russians if the Germans were shot down chances would be that they could fly and fight the next day. If the allied pilot was shot down chances are he would be a pow or something along that lines as from early 41 on they would have been on the offensive . It's not your metric if you have been following the developement of this thread 
I'm curious aside from wiki what sources are you using


----------



## Marcel (Apr 21, 2008)

P1234567890 said:


> I AGREE with you. I think that Sonderman obviously was a good pilot. But he certainly wasn't the best, and it sound to me like you agree that he wasn't the best.


I agree as so far that I can't claim him to be the best, as I said, I'm only using him as an example and chose him because I conveniently read his biography last week. 





P1234567890 said:


> I don't think you understand what I am saying. The metric which I am suggesting is robust enough to capture any definition of 'best pilot'. Everyone here in some way or other is using my metric. Some people put a 100% weighting on number of kills. Others favor other combinations of pilot skills and achievements.


I do understand, I disagree on the point that it is possible to distillate a judgement out of it which isn't biased. The weight you put on every point depends on what you (unconsciously??) want to prove.




P1234567890 said:


> I agree that I had a knee-jerk reaction which was too strong, but it wasn't out of bias for the Germans; it was out of bias against nationalism and voting nationalistically


Okay, I'll have to believe you.



P1234567890 said:


> I'm not sure how you're helping your argument here. Ignoring the number of different planes flown in combat only helps my man Marseille.


look at what I voted 



P1234567890 said:


> Ultimately there's a reason why Hartmann, Marseille, Barkhorn, Baer, Nowotny, Rall, etc. are famous and why your unsung heroes are not.


It's as I said, they had the fortune of serving a country that was winning, half of the war. "My" unsung heroes flew inferior planes, with inferior numbers. What does that have to do with their abilities??





P1234567890 said:


> I'm not choosing which characteristics and skills are important. If you notice, my list was compiled by looking at all of the posts in this thread and taking *everyone's* opinions into account.
> 
> If you have other characteristics which you feel should be added to the list, then by all means share them with us.


As I say, I don't think you'll be able to judge who's "best" by using statistics. But if you want to do it that way, just go ahead.


----------



## P1234567890 (Apr 21, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I will tell you this however, there is more to what makes a good pilot a good pilot than just kills.



I totally agree. That's why I've compiled many of the things which people have been discussing in this entire thread in order to create this list:

1. Total number of kills,
2. Kills / combat mission ratio,
3. Marksmanship,
4. Piloting ability,
5. Variety of planes flown,
6. Number of fronts fought on,
7. Number of times shot down vs. kills,
8. Quality of opponents and enemy equipment,
9. Surviving a huge number of combat missions,
10. Never losing a wingman,
11. Number of missions in which multiple kills were scored.

If you have any other important skills/characteristics to add, then by all means go ahead.


----------



## P1234567890 (Apr 21, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> p13232134
> you are missing the point there were some great pilots out there that weren't German around , with the exceptions of the Russians if the Germans were shot down chances would be that they could fly and fight the next day. If the allied pilot was shot down chances are he would be a pow



Doesn't marksmanship, kill ratio per mission, never losing a wingman, etc. address this?



pbfoot said:


> I'm curious aside from wiki what sources are you using



If you're saying that the Wikipedia articles which I cited are far from complete in their information, then I completely agree with you. Internet articles may not be very well peer-reviewed, but they are the easiest sources to cite. That being said, most Wikipedia articles (and the other web pages) which I've referenced do have citations.


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 21, 2008)

Situation awareness is among top on my list of needed skills for any pilot who wants to live long.


----------



## P1234567890 (Apr 21, 2008)

Marcel said:


> I do understand, I disagree on the point that it is possible to distillate a judgement out of it which isn't biased. The weight you put on every point depends on what you (unconsciously??) want to prove.



That's just it. I claim that even if we put a broad range of different weights on the different characteristics, the top Germans would always end up doing well.

That's the point I'm trying to make, and why I am arguing that the question of best pilot can be explored objectively.

If we were able to create a ranking of pilots based on skill categories, then we would be able to create a multidimensional manifold where the weighting of the different skills are the variables. I claim that the surface of this manifold would be covered almost entirely by Germans.

If this is true, then it really says something.

This wouldn't be very difficult to do. The most obvious way would be to start off with just two variables, maybe ratio and total kills. Plot them on the x and y axes of a graph. Clearly if the weight is 0:100, then Hartmann wins. If it's 100:0, then the Dutch pilot you mentioned (as far as I know) wins. Somewhere in between Marseille wins. The plane would be divided into regions telling you for which weightings the different pilots win.

Then you would add in the other variables one by one. I believe that this would give a very objective picture of which pilots are the best.

Does this make sense?


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 21, 2008)

"Jerry" Gerald Richard Johnson, from the 49th FG I think....how many here have heard about him and what he did? I think thaqt he was unique in one way that he shot down one Australian fighter, which he displayed among his 22 (I think) kills... 
Well, that's not what I'm thinking about anyhoo...the last thing that he did in life, which he didn't have to do, was to offer a passenger his own parachute, when they were flying a B-25 over the pacific ocean which got engine trouble I think it was, they were one parachute short, so he decided to give this other passenger in the flight his own and to try to land the B-25 himself. Needless to say, he was never heard of again....






Gerald "Jerry" Richard Johnson


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 21, 2008)

Ok if you really want to compare then you'd have to go on what rations , sleep deprivation, let alone stress, mission goals ...ad infitum .
Its a personal choice and certainly nationalism must have a part of just so other pilots who might not get a hearing are at least noted for their contributions. My personal choice for best RCAF ace is Lloyd Chadburn . Myself having been reading about airplanes and aviation since I was a kid haven't even heard of many of these guys but through this forum I'm learning about some of these characters .


----------



## Marcel (Apr 22, 2008)

P1234567890 said:


> That's just it. I claim that even if we put a broad range of different weights on the different characteristics, the top Germans would always end up doing well.


Sorry, I still don't believe that, but we'll have to agree to disagree, I think.


P1234567890 said:


> If we were able to create a ranking of pilots based on skill categories, then we would be able to create a multidimensional manifold where the weighting of the different skills are the variables. I claim that the surface of this manifold would be covered almost entirely by Germans.


There would undoubtedly be a lot of Germans on top of the list of "best"



P1234567890 said:


> This wouldn't be very difficult to do. The most obvious way would be to start off with just two variables, maybe ratio and total kills. Plot them on the x and y axes of a graph. Clearly if the weight is 0:100, then Hartmann wins. If it's 100:0, then the Dutch pilot you mentioned (as far as I know) wins. Somewhere in between Marseille wins. The plane would be divided into regions telling you for which weightings the different pilots win.
> 
> Then you would add in the other variables one by one. I believe that this would give a very objective picture of which pilots are the best.
> 
> Does this make sense?


Sounds interesting, but as long as you remember it would always be a very incomplete study. There is much more *un*known of WW2 than known. For instance, you know a lot about Marseille and Hartman, but not of the pilot who was a better marksman then Marseille, but got his engine on fire after his 3rd kill and fell to his death. So, many would "not get a hearing" as PB says.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 22, 2008)

Who wouldn't love to have met these gentlemen here, and had this pic signed by them....? 1000+ kills!


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 25, 2008)

Adler, are you going to include pilots with just 1 vote?


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 25, 2008)

Maybe it has to be an ACE list, anyone with more than 5 votes goes to the next level....


----------



## Glider (Apr 25, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> Who wouldn't love to have met these gentlemen here, and had this pic signed by them....? 1000+ kills!



On the ground certainly, but not in an opposing aircraft


----------



## Dowly (Apr 25, 2008)

My vote goes for someone outside the list. Often forgotten when speaking of Luftwaffe aces, eventhough he was a co-planner of the new LW fighter tactics in Spanish Civil War.

Günther Lützow, well liked and highly respected pilot commander. Too bad he didnt make it.


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 25, 2008)

Theres thousands who didnt make it on the list, or any other list we ever made here.... The number of no vote getters is amzing.... Gabreski??? Molders??? GRAF????

Thats just on this Poll.... We've done around 6 of these... This one is good....

Does anyopne else notice that the top 3 list above, only Heinz Bär flew the entire War... *He flew from 1939 until the end of the War*, claiming 221 victories, on all Fronts, against all the Allies...

During the war Bär had shot down a total of 124 Western Allied aircraft, second only to Hpt. Hans-Joachim Marseille with 158 claims....

His last sixteen victories were claimed while flying the 262 jet fighter, making him top scorer jet pilot of the war.... (Welter dont count)

He should be #1 on this Poll, and any other one...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 25, 2008)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> Adler, are you going to include pilots with just 1 vote?



We will see my friend. I still have 2 days to figure it out!


----------



## Marcel (Apr 26, 2008)

lesofprimus said:


> He should be #1 on this Poll, and any other one...



If he should be #1, then why having the trouble to make a list, while 1 would be sufficient


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 26, 2008)

I agree Marcel...


----------



## Coors9 (Apr 27, 2008)

Came in late on this one.....How about these 3 fellas, Beeson, Godfrey and the greatest fighter pilot.....Gentile.


----------



## Trautloft (Apr 27, 2008)

i got with Marseille because the way he fought. a new,unique way. he adopted a new way,the desert ambiente with the lack of clouds etc. was completely different of other areas.he had to shoot in ANY,often unusual or crazy position and hell,he did it well. in my eyes his marksmanship skill was one of the best ever.


----------



## Njaco (Apr 27, 2008)

Just found what I've been looking for. Regarding marksmanship (and I throw this into the mix for argument sake - not as a vote for a pilot) but this is from "Luftwaffe Fighter Aces" by Mike Spick...........

"The most usual way of assessing the performance of the aces is by victory totals. Using this method, Erich Hartmann is pre-eminent by a considerable margin. There are, however, other factors to consider, the major one of which is opportunity. Ideally, the best alternative would be to divide the number of sorties on which contact was made with the enemy by the number of victories to give a strike rate. Unfortunately this information is available only in rare cases, and the data obtained would be insufficent to give evn a moderately accurate picture. On the other hand, the total number of sorties flown is known in the majority of cases........"

Number one is Gunther Scheel -JG 54 (all Eastern Front) Total of 71 victories attained during 70 sorties for a strike rate of .99. It should be noted that there are 72 other pilots ahead of Hartmann with better strike rates - Marseilles had a stike rate of 2.42 with this formula.

"Interestingly, strike rates for night-fighters where known match the best of those of the day fighters. Heinz-Wolgang Schnaufer scored at the rate of one victory for every 1.36 sorties, beating everyone except Gunther Scheel; Martin Becker came next at 1.43. Wilde Sau pilot Friedrich-Karl Muller matched Werner Schroer's rate of 1.73 while Paul Zoerner averaged 1.83."

and one last word for Heinz Bar......from the same book....

"Who was the greatest ace of all? There are many contenders. Galland as a great fighter leader, Hartmann as the absolute top scorer and Marseilles as top-scorer against the Western Allies - all have their backers. Much depends on what values are assigned to each theatre. The record suggests that victories in the West were much harder to come by than those in the East with North Africa, with its accent on purely tactical operations, somewhere in the middle. Fighter combat called for great flying skills and marksmanship; tackling the American 'heavies' needed nerves of steel with a fair helping of luck to aid survival. And what of the night defence of the Reich, facing not only the guns of the bombers and the technically superior Mosquito intruders but the weather as a third, unrelenting foe?
....Regardless of the relative difficulties of each front, the record shows quite clearly that Experten who were successful on one front frequently failed when switched to another. Only two top scorers did really well wherever they were sent. They were Heinz Bar and Erich Rudorffer...."


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 27, 2008)

Good stuff Jaco...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 27, 2008)

Poll round 2 will be started in a few hours and will last 15 days.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 27, 2008)

Great stuff NJ!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 27, 2008)

Please direct all discussion to Round 2:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/best-ww2-fighter-pilot-poll-round-2-a-12997.html


----------

