Best pilots

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules



Soren - where did Renrich 'bash' LW pilots, at least more than RAF or USAAF, etc? The guy he quoted was equal opportunity guy and clearly liked squids more than littel boys (just a little joke Rich).

Soren, as you know I have studied the air battles between the Luftwaffe and 8th AF with some 'intensity' for the last 20+ years. I have read most of the english versions of LW pilot biographies, looked at AAF Encounter reports, the USAAF Award system, dialogued with many Prien readers and compiled LW "Awards" versus USAAF "actual losses".

My research is works in Process and I will not propose to you that you accept them.

I'm neither claiming that the LW Awards are grossly overstated or that USAAF awards are correct. We know the bomber claims were grossly overstated.

Having said this Woods/Butler lists combined with Prien's documentary histories are the best I have seen to date. Are you arguing that either of these do not reflect actual LW awards?

If you say they are as accurate as possible to validate today, I will say they contain numerous examples of Awards that were simply overstated by a factor of 2x or more in many documented cases. Conversely the USAAF 8th FC awards are overstated but in percentages not multiples.

The above comments have zero reference to the quality of the LW pilot which as everyone knows was superb... it addresses more to statement that all the actual awards process made on basis of either film or witnesses fell short of what they actually shot down.

If Woods/Butler lists are not as accurate as some you would refer me to I would truly like to see the new and better sources.
 

Soren - where could you point me to the OKL records for 1944 and 1945..and do you personally think that the rescords are complete?
 
Soren, Do you get your exercise jumping to conclusions? If you will read my posts carefully you will see that I am quoting from books written by John Lundstrom. Lundstrom has written at least two books on the early days of the Pacific War that are, in my opinion, the best researched books on any war I have ever read. I am not bashing anyone but rather trying to add to the discussion about the relative abilities of pilots serving in the US air forces during recent wars. If you will also read carefully the quotes from Lundstrom you will notice that he credits foreign pilots with learning deflection shooting on their own after much experience. At any rate his opinions about the training early in the war in shooting are, as far as I know, just that, his opinions and may not be accurate. As far as deflection shooting is concerned, two of the best fighter pilots ever, Hartmann and Marseille, If I recall correctly were noted for getting in very close, less than 100 yds. before opening fire and Marseille(hope I am spelling that right) was noted for the small amount of ammo used in downing enemy AC. Getting in that close is not deflection shooting. If one were less than 100 yards away before opening fire in a full deflection shot a collision would probably occur. Perhaps the LW pilots were so skilled and there AC so good at maneuvering that they did not need to practise deflection shooting since they were always close and on the six of their opponent but that was not true of the F4F and the A6M in a fight. The Wildcat was not likely to be on the Zero's tail unless the IJN pilot was careless. Read the quote from Thach.
 
Sorry Soren, I misspoke in that I thought the quote from Jimmy Thach was in this thread. It is #132 in the thread, One Plane. His remarks after the Midway battle are worth reading.
 

Rich - try as I might I can only think of one ACM in which nose length would be a factor. In a horizontal turn, while pulling through the target to get the lead to lead him.. In a Lufberry that would be maybe a 30 to 45% off angle assuming you were in relatively same bank angle. You would lose sight of him as you pulled through - but I doubt that was much of a factor one way or another based on a foot or two of nose length? Maybeso.

For shooting the station 4 shot you would more likely start the first shot relatively level as he crossed your nose, then bank and pull the Gs to turn and close on tail... or start that way and when he spots you, you bank and pull through, take the shot and keep on going. A lots of Zero combat film looks like the latter for deflection shots..

On doves (actually pigeons) I prefer the high deflection shot a.) because they are more fun, and b.) because the head is exposed... but the zero to small deflection is easier to hit - no question
 
Renrich, no need for us to argue cause reading your last post I agree with you completely. You did indeed put ""'s to indicate that you were making a quotation, I missed that, I apologize. (Just recently dragged myself up after a wild night out in town, I can feel I'm getting old )


Bill,

The OKL's std. procedure for confirming claims made within the LW was to have atleast one witness to the shoot down or a guncam recording, and if possible confirmation from ground personnel witnessing the shoot down and noting the crash site. If none of these could be presented by the claimant then the victory simply could not and would not be confirmed, these were strict rules.

Note that accuracy in terms of actual shoot downs was taken VERY seriuosly by the OKL as vital intelligence and every attempt to avoid overclaiming was made, including the fixed ruleset above. Do not confuse Nazi propoganda claims with actual incidents confirmed by the OKL!

Now last but not least I don't think any pilot wether it be from the LW, USAAF, RAF etc etc would purposely claim a kill he did not wholeheartedly believe he had bagged. LW fighter pilots during BoB for example claimed only a fraction more RAF fighters shot down than actual RAF losses, the bomber crews like you said yourself however often massively overclaimed.
 
Bill, here I go with all this typing but thoroughly enjoy this dialogue. Lundstrom-"Aside from lack of knowledge of the proper ways to make deflection shots, tangible reasons existed why other air forces had trouble emulating the US Navy. The most important was visibility over the nose of the attacking fighter. When executing overhead and side runs from a full deflection angle(60 to 90 degrees), the attacker had to place his point of aim well ahead of the target, the distance depending on the target's speed. To shoot accurately and obviate the risk of collision, ideally the fighter pilot had to see both the target and where his tracers were going; thus both the target and the aiming point shoud appear in his gunsight. This required excellent visibility over the nose of the attacker's aircraft. Otherwise when allotting sufficient lead for full deflection, the pilot would lose sight of his target when it disappeared under the nose of his own plane." He goes on to say that " a down angle of 6.5 degrees was required for full deflection shooting." This would be an angle between the view of the pilot horizontally from the cockpit and the sloping cowling of the nose of the AC. In landbased AC the pilot sat low and far back from the engine in comparison with naval fighters. Bill, this situation may have had something to do with the gunsight used on AC of that day. At this point(during Midway) the Navy was using an adaptation of the Army N2A gunsight.
 
AL, I rember to have read somewhere (long, long time ago...so I don't know where anymore), that at the begin of the invasion of russia the german army later on (when they reached the area) found much more destroyed aircrafts on the airfields by ground attacks, than the pilots have claimed...several times more! The same with shot down russian aircrafts.
 
Soren said:
As I suspected you don't know the difference between claims and confirmed victories.

You have no other source than Adler's comment.

PS: Did you know that according to the claims made by the RAF the LW was nearly extinct by 1941 ?
Click to expand...
What do you not understand

"Rudi" Müller was credited with 92 victories.
(credit: Recognition or approval for an act)
Therefor the 92 were confirmed claims.

I know the difference Soren.

So you are calling Adler a liar? Btw, I came across posts by Erich here saying the same. Is he a liar as well?

The difference is Soren, the RAF knew the LW was NOT extinct by 1941 while your beloved Germans thought the RAF was on its last legs.

Around Nov 44, the confirmation of claims began to back up, with the backlog of the claims as 1945 wore on to almost nil confirmation. One would think one as knowledgeable about Nazi Germany as you are would be well a where of this.

Now last but not least I don't think any pilot wether it be from the LW, USAAF, RAF etc etc would purposely claim a kill he did not wholeheartedly believe he had bagged.
Click to expand...
There was a certain staffel in North Africa that certainly did.
 
LoL, and now you're going to go on about how Marseille conciously made false claims right ?? Give me a break!

I repeat the ruleset was followed as thuroughly in 1945 as it had been since the beginning of the war, the only difference was that far less claims were confirmed as far less requests ever made it to the OKL. You've got to remember that the administration was at an enormous pressure while they were being bombed by Allied bombers.
 
I am joining this debate late in the proceedings so I hope you don't mind me going back to basics

i.e the Question 'Which country had the best pilots'

To a degree it depends on the timeline.

In 1939 at the start then its Germany. They had fought in Spain, modified their aircraft and developed the best tactics.

In 1940-41 Germany probably still had the edge, The British learnt a lot and made a considerable improvement, but were always slightly behind the curve and to be honest, tended to be slow to apply them across the entire airforce.

1942 things get interesting.
Japan had some advantages over the USA namely combat experience, but stresses individuality. The USA is probably slightly behind the Japanese as they are building up their training programme and don't have the combat experience but stress teamwork.
Germany and the UK are about even by this time. Lessons are learnt and the training times are similar.

1943 - 1945 I believe that the American Pilots are the best trained for a number of reasons.
1) their pilots are the best educated, a point often overlooked
2) they have plenty of resources and are safe from attack
3) Their training equipment is of the highest quality
4) Their pilots have plenty of training hours
5) The USA shows itself to be imaginative in its tactics, willing to try new ones and can quickly spread the best approach across its forces.
i) The Thatcher weave is a good example.
ii) Another is the daylight raids. They tried one approach, it didn't work so they looked at the problems, adapted developed and tried again using extra equipment and made it work.

So these are my views, feel free to shoot them down and comment
 
Glider, Actually, the question was which of the US services had the most competent pilots but if everyone wants to debate all countrie's pilots it is fine with me.
 

Soren - first I agree the process, and similar for at least 8th, 9th, 12th and 15th AF. Not as uniform in PTO, at least in early days.

Having said that, the issues today surface in reconciliation of awarded victories (both sides) versus actual losses (both sides). The only references I have found on LW side for Awards in a tabular form is Woods. Do you have another?

I don't care about propaganda one way or other, just looking for solid data. Woods references include the OKL award number and in many cases a film reference. However, I have done a lot of cross checking and the awards are in many case twice (or more) the actual losses experienced by the 8th AF.

That makes Woods/Butler (or OKL) suspect in the cross reference tasks. If Butler/Woods are not credible in your opinion what would you tell me to check instead?
 
This observation does not necessarily mean that USAAF pilots or those of other nations were not as competent but it relates more to the "pucker factor" of operating off of carriers. I can't think of any mission in the air more harrowing than in 1942 taking off from a carrier in an F4F, knowing that you were going to fly out 200 or 300 miles, escorting your VSBs or VTs, that your weather reports were likely to be unreliable, that you weren't sure in which direction or how far away your target was, that one piece of the Pacific looks just like another but it all has sharks in it, that your navigational aids were primitive at best, that when you found the target you were likely to be confronted by enemy fighters that probably had a qualitative and quantitative edge over you, that if you were captured by the enemy, you were likely to be, after interrogation, thrown overboard with a length of chain to keep you company, that if you survived the battle you had that 200 miles or so to navigate back to where you hoped your carrier was(if it was still afloat) and when you found that carrier you had to land on a pitching, rolling flight deck, maybe with battle damage. Everytime I ever flew a light plane over a lake in Texas the engine started to make unusual noises.
 
The deck of a carrier does add to the excitement however the North Sea is a lot less hospitable then the balmy Pacific if one has to ditch
 

Al - I've used that website for my own cross reference task went back to it today for stimulate a comparison of LW awards to their pilots for at least downing five Mustangs or five P-47s or both.

The lists there have the following;

22 LW aces were credited with downing 5 Mustangs with Steinmann having 12 at the top. 30 LW aces were credited with downing 5 Jugs with Hoffman and Weissenburger credited with 13 each at the top. Nine of those pilots including Bar, Krupinski, Eder, Lang, Steinmann did both.

I just thumbed through Kent Miller's Fighter Units and Pilots of 8th because he did a pretty good job of detailing the individual records and they match pretty well with USAF 85 and 8th AF VCB totals.

Briefly, there were 119 8th AF fighter pilots with 5 or more of either Me 109s or Fw 190s. Of the 119, 25 shot down at least 5 of both including Meyer, Zemke, Gabreski, the Johnson's, Olds, Whisner, England, etc.

Tops for Fw 190s are Bob Johnson (15), Zemke (15), Schilling (13.5), Gentile (12), Carson (11), Whisner and Gabreski (10).

Tops for Me 109s are Preddy (21), Meyer (14.5), Thornell (13.5), Gabreski (11) and Beeson (11), Moran (10.5), Bryan and Hively and Milliken and Rankin (10).

Since the above totals don't include any aces except 8th AF and I didn't use the P-38 aces although several Mustang aces including Olds and Fiebelkorn and Jeffries got score in the 38. I didn't include Jack Ilfrey in the totals either as most of his were in Med... so this is not heavy re: conclusions to be drawn - more 'interesting statistics'.

If you include P-38 downings (and why not) add another 23 LW aces with 5 or more 38's, some of which like Buhligen got 5 of either P-47s or Mustangs also. Most of those however were gotten in Med and not against the 8th which is reason I left them out initially
 
I'd say being a LW pilot in 1945 was more demanding than being a Navy pilot in the PTO, but thats only because of the situation Germany was in. I agree with Renrich that being a Navy pilot in the early years was very demanding, more demanding than being a pilot anywhere else in the same period.(Except perhaps being a pilot of the VVS, they were litterally turned into meatloaf by the LW)

But I wouldn't call the navigational aids back then primitive, by far the majority of pilots did afterall make it back to the carrier.
 
Bill,

I'm curious, have you tried cross referencing the claims made by the 8th, 9th, 12th 15th with actual LW losses ?
 
Soren said:
Bill,

I'm curious, have you tried cross referencing the claims made by the 8th, 9th, 12th 15th with actual LW losses ?
Click to expand...

Absolutely yes for 8th.

The very difficult issue with the losses of LW is that Prien is perhaps the only credible historian looking at every unit's operations and Caldwell and Goyat plus Erich and others do a great job on individual units of interest - but there is not one holistic reference for all LW ops... and the OKL records did not survive in its entirety.

Second issue in determining a shot down aircraft is that the LW records discuss damage percentage if the a/c was not totally destroyed. This makes it very difficult in some case to compare a German fighter so heavily damged that it can't fly anymore - it crash lands 10 miles away from the combat but perhaps only judged to be "40%".

Prien doesn't include that in LW losses per se. But if a USAAF fighter gets hit and bellies in 100 miles away from Berlin - he is a loss and is classified as such... Rechlin had more than a few Mustangs and P-47s that perhaps had 5% damage but it was on the ground and captured.

For the 355th History I categorize an aircraft hit over Europe, that escapes the battle, but goes down later in the Channel or crash lands at Manston as an 'air to air' loss even if there is no corresponding claim by LW.

This is the fabric behind the 'duels' we had on April 24 Mission I used to illustrate the running battle. Erich and Don Caldwell and Rich Muller assisted me greatly in cross comparing the luftwaffe pilots that were downed, including some that bellied in but not counted as a Loss per se.

I do know there is overclaiming on both sides but this is only way to get to root of the data and information.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Best WW2 Seafire vs. best A6M Zero
Replies
9
Views
1K
Shortround6
S
M
RAF Fighter Pilots Wounded/Injured Compared to US Pilots
2 3 4
Replies
79
Views
5K
GrauGeist
S
Pilots aiming at cockpits?
9 10 11
Replies
207
Views
12K
Peter Gunn
Best "general purpose" prop fighter also capable of best high altitude performance
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
PAT303
P
Instances of pilots omitting tracer ammunition?
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
Greyman
G
Menu
Log in
Register