Best WW2 Fighter Pilot Poll Round 2

[buzzard]

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

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

JL

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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

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

 

[Njaco]

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

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

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

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

 

[kool kitty89]

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


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

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

 

[kool kitty89]

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

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

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

 

[P1234567890]

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

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

 

[P1234567890]

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

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

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

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

 

[pbfoot]

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

 

[buzzard]

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

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

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

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

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

JL

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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

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

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

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

No because you can not prove it otherwise...

 

[Marcel]

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

Oh, not that discussion again...

 

[Kruska]

Hello P1234567890

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards
Kruska

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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

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

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

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

 

[P1234567890]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[P1234567890]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Njaco]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[pbfoot]

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

 

[P1234567890]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[P1234567890]

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

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

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

 

[P1234567890]

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

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

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

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

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

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