Best WW2 Fighter Pilot Poll Round 2

Best Pilot Pt. 2

  • Total voters
    41
  • Poll closed .

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



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

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

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

I still voted for Bar because of his scores, the types of scores, the extreme hostile environment he fought in and he survived. But like many I believe Johnny Johnson, Stanford Tuck, George preddy, JC Myer, Joe Foss, Saburo Sakai, Buerling, etc were great fighter pilots - but how do you measure the intangibles - which is why I only 'do' this kind of poll reluctantly - and never get into a 'fact based' discussion.
 
FLYBOYJ said:
They were well trained and talented but not invincible - Moelders was shot down during the Battle of France. Galland had several close calls during the BoB....
Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As far as I can tell, during the BoB the average LW pilot was on par (or maybe even worse) than the average RAF pilot, but the top LW pilots were *way* better than the top RAF pilots.
 
Better? More experienced perhaps. Way better? - I think not. If they were they would of been able to clear the skies for the bombers despite the limitations they were up against.
 
P1234567890 do you have any proof that Luftwaffe pilots were better?

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

Where is proof that Luftwaffe pilots would 100% win in a one on one fight. I mean if they are better they should right?
 
marshall said:
I think that we should add to this the fact that as Gabreski writes in his book they couldn't always follow after an enemy into dive and score a kill because they had to stay with bombers and protect them.
Click to expand...
That sounds reasonable. However, the reverse argument, that the interceptors had to concentrate on downing bombers, not on killing escorting fighters, and thus left themselves more vulnerable to escorts than they otherwise would have been, also sounds reasonable. In fact that sort of argument is routinely heard in both directions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The top-scoring RAF pilot of the Battle of Britain was Sgt J Frantisek#, 303 Sqn. He had 17 kills, which is certainly good, but it isn't even remotely close to what Galland and Moelders were pulling off.
 
P1234567890 said:
Well, there were only two or three superstar fighter pilots on the German side. That's not enough to change the outcome of the battle.
Click to expand...
Then so much for those way more superior Luftwaffe pilots.

BTW Molders had 30 kills during the BoB, Galland had 23, certainly no over bearing contrast when comparing to the RAF folks who were alledgely on the ropes...
 
"The true test of merit in my profession is success..." ~ General Albert Sidney Johnston, CSA.

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

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

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

JL
 

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

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

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

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

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

Regards
Kruska
 
Kruska,

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

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

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

JL
 
Hello buzzard,

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

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

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

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

I would choose one of the Polish pilots Stanisław Skalski
 

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

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

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

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

Hello drgondog,

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

Regards
Kruska
 
I voted for Baer but I can't help feeling admiration for any pilot (German, Russian or Japanese) who flew against superior forces and still scored well. They say 10 percent of the pilots score 90 percent of the victories. The aces of any nationality are alike in their love of flying, adrenalin, and the hunt.
 
Kinda feel bad for the other 90 percent of Pilots that didn't get kills. But they still did their job, taking out ground targets, strafing, calling out "bogies" to the lead pilots, which might have been killed if there weren't so many eyes in the squadron, attacking enemy planes and shooting at them, even if they don't bring a single one down, and also providing support in shared kills, basically a lot of things. Simply trying, that's what counts. Having a good number of bad pilots in reserve is always better than just a few really good pilots that will get killed eventually most likely. Also troop morale.

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

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

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

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



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

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Second best fighter of World War II
Replies
15
Views
2K
SaparotRob
A
Best British single engined radial aircraft in WW2?
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
Shortround6
S
  • Poll
Best Biplane fighter ww2
Replies
1
Views
4K
wlewisiii
  • Locked
  • Poll
best ww2 bomber
Replies
9
Views
2K
Admiral Beez
A
  • Poll
German multiengine jet bomber best immune to Allied interception
Replies
0
Views
943
Vahe Demirjian
Menu
Log in
Register