Best WWII fighter pilot....?

[Marcel]

Enhanced my answers above.

 

[P1234567890]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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

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??

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]

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]

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?

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]

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

 

[P1234567890]

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]

"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]

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]

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.

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"

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 unknown 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]

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

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

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

 

[Lucky13]

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

 

[Glider]

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]

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]

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...