pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
if you can do it I see no problem
Best WW2 Fighter Pilot Poll Round 2
- Thread starter DerAdlerIstGelandet
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
drgondog
Major
This is one of several opinions you hold that I would have an opposing POV to, and I fully agree mine could be wrong.
How do you model one pilot's will to chase or desire to fight?
How do you blend maturity to seek advantage over a specific opponent, as one of many opportunities present them?
How do you factor luck when one pilot's skill is overcome by a mechanical malfuntion or a 'lucky' hit?
What is the modelling technique to sort out, statistically, how many scores were obtained by being a better shot, with fewer opportunities to achive high ranking? Conversely how many 'great' US or RAF pilots flew 90-95% of their missions without being able to engage the LW?
How many of the victims, proportionately, were poor pilots in terrible aircraft?
How does one weight 'survivability' and contrast that with the dominant mission - i.e. how many great LW pilots were killed or crippled attacking a Group of B-17s head on in one case versus another pilot that killed a great many Stukas or IL-2's?
Simply what statistical process could possibly benchmark a Henry Aaron and Babe Ruth in their high school years, measure the competition, the reflexes, the nutrition - and make a determination that one is better than the other - in a competitive arena that may be more staistically reduceable than air combat in a complex weapon systems (with widely divergent performance characteristics) under changing circiumstances in the fortunes of war.
How would Hartmann have done flying Zeros over Rabaul, or Bar flying P-38s over Germany, or Tuck flying Fw 190A-8s over Berlin, or Marseille in P-40s over Africa or England - or Hartmann flyin P-39s instead of Me 109 over Kursk?
I respect your opinion but uncomfortable with your next step - namely a rational model?
BTW - I voter for Baer for the reasons stated - none of which would hold to a math model. Nor do I have a clue which 'Professional Historian' you might have in mind that would be able to offer a sound approach to this question.
I DO believe one could close on average number of sorties per score, relative use of ammo (maybe), weighting the use of 50 Cal vs 20mm, types of opponents, etc.. but can you imagine comparing Geronimo to a legenday Centurion or Gladiator - with no arena to truly compare fighting/hunting skills?
Respectfully, I can't
Regards,
Bill
P1234567890
Airman
- 75
- Aug 18, 2007
I can program it up; that's the easy part. The hard part would be to get all of the stats. If people here were willing to help me gather stats, then we could make the result arbitrarily good. The more info we find, the better it would be. We could just keep on improving it.
The categories for which we can probably find the best stats are total kills and combat missions flown. From those two we can calculate kills per mission.
Does anyone here have any other suggestions for categories for which there exist good stats? (By the way, it wouldn't be the end of the world if some of them are blank for some of the pilots; we could deal with that).
P1234567890
Airman
- 75
- Aug 18, 2007
You raise legitimate objections, but really we have to crawl before we can fly. If the information isn't there, then there's nothing we can do, regardless of whether or not we're using a fancy mathematical model.
I'm not even sure we can find ammo usage statistics for most pilots. We have some for Marseille and Beurling, but I'm guessing that many units just didn't keep those records.
We probably could find stats for what types of planes people shot down, though. That's the kind of thing people really cared about back then.
All I'm trying to advocate is the use of a more rigorous and disciplined approach to comparing pilots. Ultimately it can only be as good as the data we give it, but you can say that about *any* way of comparing pilots. I thought that this would be an interesting little collaborative project for us all to work on.
The other main thing I'm trying to advocate is comparing as many different relevant pilot attributes and achievements as possible. Instead of just looking at kills or ratio or whatever, I'm saying that we should look at as many relevant stats that we can possibly come up with. How can anyone argue with that?
drgondog
Major
How about eyesight and ability to discriminate an a/c versus a speck on the windshield.
How about the average number of a/c shot down per encounter (not mission).
How about the total numer of encounters with an enemy aircraft and how many times shots were actually fired when enemy aircraft were encountered.
How about the hand to eye coordination and situational awareness?
How about age?
How about ability to shoot w/o computing gunsight?
What percentage of scores were enemy fighters?
How about 'birth rank' (USAF 85 determined that the statistical position was younger brother or second born) for higher percentage of ace rankings
How about leadership and mentoring background the ace received in early combats..
What about number of flight hours and in which type a/c before flying first combat mission?
How about quality and quantity of opposition, and during which part of the war?
Hello P123.....
What is it so difficult for you to understand? What people here are trying to tell you is that it is impossible to factor/measure certain criteria's.
How do you factor 6 bad US Killer boy's hunting down a crippled LW a/c with engine failure, or a LW Experten-pilot who sneaks up behind a Gladiator flown by a drunken Irishman (I am not biased against Irish) Alcohol abuse was a very big issue amongst the LW especially as the war dragged on, and from where would you retrieve all this information?
All you seem to take as an endless main criteria is number of Kills. It is however not about the number of kills but an overall evaluation with a lot of unanswered questions and therefore it is based on GUTFEELING, since no one possesses the necessary data to do a proofed mathematical equation out of this.(at least not me)
Regards
Kruska
What is it so difficult for you to understand? What people here are trying to tell you is that it is impossible to factor/measure certain criteria's.
How do you factor 6 bad US Killer boy's hunting down a crippled LW a/c with engine failure, or a LW Experten-pilot who sneaks up behind a Gladiator flown by a drunken Irishman (I am not biased against Irish) Alcohol abuse was a very big issue amongst the LW especially as the war dragged on, and from where would you retrieve all this information?
All you seem to take as an endless main criteria is number of Kills. It is however not about the number of kills but an overall evaluation with a lot of unanswered questions and therefore it is based on GUTFEELING, since no one possesses the necessary data to do a proofed mathematical equation out of this.(at least not me)
Regards
Kruska
drgondog
Major
Kruska - Thx for saying in one sentence what I wasted many paragraphs trying to convey -
Tip of the hat
Bill
The most profound statement I ever heard by any fighter pilot on key attributes to be 'successful' was
"Well, you can't want to live forever" - Col Billy Hovde (USAF-ret'd) 1967 0r 68 Fighter Aces Reunion - the last to answer a reporter's question on this subject.
P1234567890
Airman
- 75
- Aug 18, 2007
I think that for some of these stats we have a chance of finding accurate records, and for others we don't.
We could settle this vexing conundrum if only I could get my damn' time machine workin' right... we could go back and abduct all those pilots and put on a rigidly controlled tournament. And we could charge admission!
Alas, even that wouldn't prove much. We might be able to figure out who was the most skilled aerobatic pilot, or maybe the most accurate deflection shot, but the best FIGHTER Pilot? Not likely...
There were so many variables involved in how these pilots attained their success, that no mathematical model can possibly offer any real insight. Best kill-to-mission ratio? Surely anyone can see that luck is a huge factor in this, and many other events that determine who well a pilot does. And how would you factor in elements such lethal cunning? Aeriel combat is not a game. The only rule is to defeat the enemy in such a way as to allow you to live another day. Do we give extra points for cheating?
Statistical methods of analysis require subjective value judgements as to which elements are granted priority over others. And how do you quantify the essential element of luck? Deciding who among fighter pilots is the 'best' is inherently unquantifiable. Unless you stick to the one statistic that matters above all others in the arena of air combat...Victories.
JL
Alas, even that wouldn't prove much. We might be able to figure out who was the most skilled aerobatic pilot, or maybe the most accurate deflection shot, but the best FIGHTER Pilot? Not likely...
There were so many variables involved in how these pilots attained their success, that no mathematical model can possibly offer any real insight. Best kill-to-mission ratio? Surely anyone can see that luck is a huge factor in this, and many other events that determine who well a pilot does. And how would you factor in elements such lethal cunning? Aeriel combat is not a game. The only rule is to defeat the enemy in such a way as to allow you to live another day. Do we give extra points for cheating?
Statistical methods of analysis require subjective value judgements as to which elements are granted priority over others. And how do you quantify the essential element of luck? Deciding who among fighter pilots is the 'best' is inherently unquantifiable. Unless you stick to the one statistic that matters above all others in the arena of air combat...Victories.
JL
P1234567890
Airman
- 75
- Aug 18, 2007
If it's impossible when using a mathematical model, then it's also impossible when using your gut or any other model. The advantage of my proposal is that it factors in a lot of things which someone's gut instincts won't.
I'm not saying you can. I'm not saying that my model is perfect, but just that it's more comprehensive and rigorous than anything else.
I'm quite explicitly NOT doing this. I'm specifically saying that we SHOULDN'T just look at the number of kills, but rather that we should factor in all of the relevant criteria for which we can possibly compile statistics.
The fact that you seem to think I'm only interested in kills suggests that you don't understand my proposed model.
You're not disagreeing with me! This is *exactly* what I am saying. Of course, this is limited by the stats which we can find. I am not saying that my model is perfect. I'm saying it's probably the best we can do in the situation we have where we don't have perfect information.
P1234567890
Airman
- 75
- Aug 18, 2007
I don't know about this. If you shoot down a bunch of planes during your first two missions, then fine, maybe you're just lucky. But if you *consistently* shoot down enemy planes over literally hundreds of sorties, then there's something other than luck going on. At some point the law of averages kicks in. Surely some of Hartmann's opponents got lucky flying against him as well. Over thousands of missions, luck washes out.
Was Wayne Gretzky just a lucky hockey player?
In any case, I like your time machine idea!
Certainly not. But if he had been killed or crippled in a car accident on his way to join the pros, he would have been just another footnote in the history of professional hockey.
What I'm talking about is the role that contingency plays in the unforgiving world of air combat. Hartmann was certainly lucky, just as Marseille, ultimately, was not.
Lets imagine that Marseille, after the BoB, had been ordered to take part in Barbarossa. Would he have amassed an even larger score against the qualitatively inferior Soviets? Anyone basing their conclusion on his success against the generally superior Allied forces would almost certainly say 'yes'. But how can you really know? While the Soviets were GENERALLY inferior to the Allies, they surely had some very skilled pilots in their ranks. And in an environment unlike the clear skies of N.Africa, he could have been bounced and shot down...just another forgotten casualty of war.
While it is certainly true that achieving a high kill-to-mission ratio was an indication of superior capability, it still demands that there be enemies available to be shot down. Look at all the Americans who flew in the final months of the war. Many rarely, if ever, saw a German AC. In such a situation, no degree of skill will allow the possibility of achieving a high kill/mission ratio. You gotta have some luck!
A comprehensive statistical analysis of the aces would certainly be a useful guide to assessing their relative merits, but the interpretation of which criteria matters most is a subjective judgement. You can sort the truly great from the mere excellent, but to narrow it down to a single 'best'? I don't think so. It's just too damn complex.
D'ya think that part of the problem with my time machine is the perpetual motion machine that powers it? I'm stumped
JL
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
Which leads us back to one's own personal opinion based upon one's own set of criteria - be it kills, deflection, skill or even nationality. Its not possible to find the one true best ever either mathmatically or otherwise because there is always that unknown quotent - personal feeling.
Its not a question whose answer can be found set in stone.
Now, why was Ivan Kozhedub on the list?
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
I think at leas one of the Finnish pilots should have made it to the second round (I understand the system), but I'm not going to complain, because I could have voted (I didn't because I don't really know enough on the acheivements of a lot of those pilots) and because, while there should be a degree of sincerity to this, but at the same time you can overkill on that. This is, at least to some degree, for fun.
And even though it's pretty obvious who this is going to boil down to, I like that Johnson made it to atleast round 2, for nothing else, the story of his P-43C coming home with more than a dozen 20mm hits and hundreds of rifle calliber holes.
Same thing with Sakai, he's got some amazing stories tied to him too, particularly with the James "Pug" Southerlan encounter at Guadalcanal. (a RC bullet through his scull brain out the other side and he ended up landing safely and eventually returned to combat blind in one eye, and became a Bhudist after the war)
Though there are amazing stories tied to pretty much all these guys.
And even though it's pretty obvious who this is going to boil down to, I like that Johnson made it to atleast round 2, for nothing else, the story of his P-43C coming home with more than a dozen 20mm hits and hundreds of rifle calliber holes.
Same thing with Sakai, he's got some amazing stories tied to him too, particularly with the James "Pug" Southerlan encounter at Guadalcanal. (a RC bullet through his scull brain out the other side and he ended up landing safely and eventually returned to combat blind in one eye, and became a Bhudist after the war)
Though there are amazing stories tied to pretty much all these guys.
D'ya think that part of the problem with my time machine is the perpetual motion machine that powers it? I'm stumped
JL
Hello 123.......
Let me please forward my gut feeling on the following issue;
This whole mathematical …… was brought up because you mentioned that according to this method it would proof that all top aces would be Germans.
(And I still think you base that equation primarily on kills)
The USAF and the Commonwealth pilot's hat fraction kills awarded which makes damn good sense to me and also shows that they were team players who placed the act of annihilating an enemy above personal career motivation or Goering's pathetic hero pattern.
German pilots were only awarded a Kill as one, kills could not be fractured, the participations were measured within ones personal file but did not contribute much to "heroism" or "promotion" as an individual kill would have done.
Now my gut feeling tells me that a German pilot with, let's say 105 kills did not achieve these single handed by himself (especially whilst attacking a bomber formation or during the BoB)) chances that the pilot or pilots who really crippled an escort fighter or bomber was/were killed during this action himself or were not even aware about this but another pilot was documented / witnessed as having put out the lights of the respective enemy a/c and as such was awarded the whole thing or a kill. (Can you imagine the total confusion up there during such a mission?) who had the time and ability like a mathematical equation to follow up on his "result" and a witness next to him?
According to my uncle, dozens of young pilots started to open fire at distances of more than a 1000m in order to break of the attack before reaching the defensive bomber fire and then immediately diving away towards home. Who knows what they hit if at all and what some witness really saw.
I also know from my uncle that reported and witnessed kills were awarded partially as calculated
advantage to certain pilots who were most suitable and could enable the Staffel/Geschwader to produce a "Hero" which in reverse contributed to the overall "Goering likes/favors me/my squadron".
(1st JG to achieve 200, 500, 1000, 1500 …… kills and within 2,3,4 …. Pilots with more than 50,70,90 …. kills) = great headlines and a good lick at Goering's boots.
I am not saying this in disrespect to any pilot's true achievements.
Therefore "my" gut feeling tells me forget about the kills as a major judgment in regards to a pilots overall performance. During the BoB the kills awarded to the respective German fighter pilots was (if I remember correctly) 2.5 times of what the RAF recorded in there loss statistics.
So if you still want to evaluate math…. the performance, please document to me first the weight that you would allocate to kills.
Regards
Kruska
P1234567890
Airman
- 75
- Aug 18, 2007
I've *explicitly* stated that it's not based on kills, and also explained *exactly* how it's not based on kills. It's based on as many things as possible. That's the whole point.
But just for the sake of argument, let's say we rate pilots on number of combat missions flown. After all, staying alive to fly a thousand missions is a pretty good indicator of pilot skill. If we rank everyone by combat missions, probably the top hundred pilots of the war are Germans.
If we rank by ratio, then the top pilots are Germans. If we rank by total kills, then the top pilots are Germans.
The only way anyone could compete with them is if there are some categories in which the Germans do *very* poorly, and some allied pilot does *very* well, and I just don't think there's any reasonable category in which the German pilots sucked.
In order to find categories in which the Germans do poorly and the allies do well, you'd pretty much have to start looking at English ability and stuff like that.
I doubt this matters very much. You don't think Hartmann ever damaged a plane which one of his wingmen finished off? Besides, even if you assume that all of his kills were teamwork kills and divide his total score in half, he's still got more than twice as many kills as the best non-German pilot.
Another interesting point is the Battle of Britain. How come there were a bunch of Germans who had literally dozens of kills during the Battle of Britain, and there weren't any British pilots who even came close? And it's not like the Spitfires and Hurricanes that they were flying against were totally inferior machines or that the British pilots were hacks. I assert that the top German pilots were just really well-trained and really talented. Just look at Galland and Moelders during the battle; they didn't have any equals on the opposite side.
P1234567890
Airman
- 75
- Aug 18, 2007
I've explained this. You assign all possible weights to kills, and you do the same with every other category.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
They were well trained and talented but not invincible - Moelders was shot down during the Battle of France. Galland had several close calls during the BoB....
I will also add that there were some Allied pilots that scored as high or higher then the top German aces on a kill/mission bais.
Did top Allied pilots score as many kills as top German ones? no
Is there reasons why they did not score as many kills that had nothing to do with skill? yes
Could of top Allied pilots scored as many kills as German aces if they were placed in the same situation? No reason to think they could not of.
Summary:
LW aces were not super human flying machines, they were no better then Allied ones. LW aces were just placed in a target rich zone and served entire war fighting.......Allied pilots were not given that chance. LW pilots did start the war using better tactics and had some experience over Allied pilots......but that evened out soon enough. LW and Allied pilots were equal.
(let me just say when I mean "Allied pilots" I do not mean Russian, thats not to say there were not some very good Russian pilots also)
Did top Allied pilots score as many kills as top German ones? no
Is there reasons why they did not score as many kills that had nothing to do with skill? yes
Could of top Allied pilots scored as many kills as German aces if they were placed in the same situation? No reason to think they could not of.
Summary:
LW aces were not super human flying machines, they were no better then Allied ones. LW aces were just placed in a target rich zone and served entire war fighting.......Allied pilots were not given that chance. LW pilots did start the war using better tactics and had some experience over Allied pilots......but that evened out soon enough. LW and Allied pilots were equal.
(let me just say when I mean "Allied pilots" I do not mean Russian, thats not to say there were not some very good Russian pilots also)
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Yep - I believe in one of Toliver's books he pointed out that Gabreski and Preddy had the same rate of claims as some of the Luftwaffe top aces and had they flown +1400 missions (like many German aced did) they too "would of" had kills into the triple digits.
