silence
Senior Airman
I think you're probably right. I recall reading once - maybe in a Caldwell book - that the RAF compared Priller's log to their own records and could substantiate all of his awarded kills.
greatest shot allies and axis
- Thread starter mike siggins
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
GregP
Major
On the German side, I've read some things about Rall's marksmanship, but rarely of outstanding marksmanship by Hartmann or Barkhorn. Seems odd that 2 of the 3 top-scoring fighters aces should not have more written of their shooting abilities to me. Perhaps there were no to few witnesses and the two men might not have tooted their own horns loudly, I can't say.
I CAN say that the Germans had some of the best and most experienced fighter pilots on their siode, and had something like 105 pilots with 100 or more victories. Surely in there lie the best shots. We can talk about Allied aces and their shooting skills are likewise good near the top, but Hartmann, Barkhorn, Rall, Kittel, Nowotny, Batz, Rudorffer, Bar, Graff, etc. demonstratred their prowess by means of large scores.
I have the victories and mission for the top 9 except for Bar, and the best in victories per mission of this group was Nowotny with 0.584, followed by Batz at 0.533. Rall's victories per mission is 0.443 and Hartmann is down at 0.251.
Of course, if you separate missions into action and non-action missions, things change if you use victories per action mission, but getting relaible numbers for all but a very few seems quite difficult. And it seems impossible for many Allied aces, so what is the point in calculating something that would be the best indicator ... but the data are not available for most of the players?
Altogether a tough question! If we had access to data on mission, victories, and rounds expended, I bet the real winner would surprise most of us simply by being someone we had not considered before ... but therein lies the rub; getting the data.
I'd certainly cooperate with anyone trying to get the data for some portion of the tens of thousands oif WWII pilots, but I doubt the data even exist for most of them.
I can say this from personal experience, when you go skeet shooting (think deflection shooting), there are people who are naturals and people who will never get it, yet can be good at shooting a stationary target. I bet pilots are similar. You would need the ability to mentally calculate the required deflection, but also would need the ability to point the aircraft in the desired direction quickly.
Surely the set of these people is small when compared with the many thouisands of pilots in the war.
I really WOULD like to know, but doubt it is possible without tens of years of research by people who KNOW what to look for and where to find it.
I CAN say that the Germans had some of the best and most experienced fighter pilots on their siode, and had something like 105 pilots with 100 or more victories. Surely in there lie the best shots. We can talk about Allied aces and their shooting skills are likewise good near the top, but Hartmann, Barkhorn, Rall, Kittel, Nowotny, Batz, Rudorffer, Bar, Graff, etc. demonstratred their prowess by means of large scores.
I have the victories and mission for the top 9 except for Bar, and the best in victories per mission of this group was Nowotny with 0.584, followed by Batz at 0.533. Rall's victories per mission is 0.443 and Hartmann is down at 0.251.
Of course, if you separate missions into action and non-action missions, things change if you use victories per action mission, but getting relaible numbers for all but a very few seems quite difficult. And it seems impossible for many Allied aces, so what is the point in calculating something that would be the best indicator ... but the data are not available for most of the players?
Altogether a tough question! If we had access to data on mission, victories, and rounds expended, I bet the real winner would surprise most of us simply by being someone we had not considered before ... but therein lies the rub; getting the data.
I'd certainly cooperate with anyone trying to get the data for some portion of the tens of thousands oif WWII pilots, but I doubt the data even exist for most of them.
I can say this from personal experience, when you go skeet shooting (think deflection shooting), there are people who are naturals and people who will never get it, yet can be good at shooting a stationary target. I bet pilots are similar. You would need the ability to mentally calculate the required deflection, but also would need the ability to point the aircraft in the desired direction quickly.
Surely the set of these people is small when compared with the many thouisands of pilots in the war.
I really WOULD like to know, but doubt it is possible without tens of years of research by people who KNOW what to look for and where to find it.
There is no point in re-hashing the claims debate, but to suggest that Marseille's claims (or almost anyone else's) are correct to within 10% is a bit optimistic.
Most WW2 pilots were very bad shots indeed. 2,230 pilots flew for the RAF during the BoB, give or take one or two. Of these men only 900 even made a claim. They were not necessarily awarded a kill, part thereof, or a probable/damaged. That leaves well over half of them (1330) who never even claimed to have hit an enemy aircraft throughout the summer and autumn of 1940. Not all these men were ever in combat and the raw figures can be slightly misleading, nonetheless they made uncomfortable reading for the brass hats at Fighter Command who made strenuous efforts to increase the amount of aerial gunnery training subsequent to the battle.
221 of the 1200 or so (you can substitute your own number but mine is in the ball park) Luftwaffe aircraft destroyed were shot down by a mere 17 pilots. Many of them were "old" RAF or foreign pilots with considerable flying experience.
The same applied to all air forces. A small group of experienced pilots, or pilots who survived long enough to gain experience, became very effective killers. The majority never did. The majority rarely hit anything in the air apart from target drones, which don't manoeuvre and which don't shoot back.
That minority of pilots is so small that of all the tens of thousands of men who flew fighters in combat throughout the war we still know most of their names.
Cheers
Steve
Most WW2 pilots were very bad shots indeed. 2,230 pilots flew for the RAF during the BoB, give or take one or two. Of these men only 900 even made a claim. They were not necessarily awarded a kill, part thereof, or a probable/damaged. That leaves well over half of them (1330) who never even claimed to have hit an enemy aircraft throughout the summer and autumn of 1940. Not all these men were ever in combat and the raw figures can be slightly misleading, nonetheless they made uncomfortable reading for the brass hats at Fighter Command who made strenuous efforts to increase the amount of aerial gunnery training subsequent to the battle.
221 of the 1200 or so (you can substitute your own number but mine is in the ball park) Luftwaffe aircraft destroyed were shot down by a mere 17 pilots. Many of them were "old" RAF or foreign pilots with considerable flying experience.
The same applied to all air forces. A small group of experienced pilots, or pilots who survived long enough to gain experience, became very effective killers. The majority never did. The majority rarely hit anything in the air apart from target drones, which don't manoeuvre and which don't shoot back.
That minority of pilots is so small that of all the tens of thousands of men who flew fighters in combat throughout the war we still know most of their names.
Cheers
Steve
Air to Air Gunnery, the sport of kings! Deflection shooting is difficult but not impossible. Trigger time helps tremendously, as does the ability to debrief shots. The guys I flew with who shot skeet seemed to pick it up quickly, and those who got the most trigger time AND had someone who could instruct it would eventually get very good at it.
Modern day fighters with Heads up Displays (HUDs) and color video recorders help tremendously, as well as the display on the HUD has ques to help you in those shots. And, once the target has entered your HUD let off the trigger, as those rounds will fall behind him (don't want to waste bullets).
In my experience I would tend to get closer when I first started, then moved further out as my shots got better, and then back to closer (moved into a VERY experienced squadron whose pilots were better at jinking). I finally got to the point that it didn't matter, when the situation presented itself you would take the shot. Just remember that you aren't dogfighting and shooting, you are dogfighting OR shooting. Shooting at someone if you don't nail them, will sometimes result in much longer or engagements that end neutral. The majority of times you pull the trigger, you also pull back on the throttles (lessens the closure).
Cheers,
Biff
Modern day fighters with Heads up Displays (HUDs) and color video recorders help tremendously, as well as the display on the HUD has ques to help you in those shots. And, once the target has entered your HUD let off the trigger, as those rounds will fall behind him (don't want to waste bullets).
In my experience I would tend to get closer when I first started, then moved further out as my shots got better, and then back to closer (moved into a VERY experienced squadron whose pilots were better at jinking). I finally got to the point that it didn't matter, when the situation presented itself you would take the shot. Just remember that you aren't dogfighting and shooting, you are dogfighting OR shooting. Shooting at someone if you don't nail them, will sometimes result in much longer or engagements that end neutral. The majority of times you pull the trigger, you also pull back on the throttles (lessens the closure).
Cheers,
Biff
The accuracy of air to air gunnery also depended very much on the gun sights used. There is absolutely no comparison between a modern computing gun sight and the reflector sight (or even simple ring sight that was still being used by some fighters) of September 1939.
The arrival of the Mk II Gyro Sight in RAF aircraft in late 1943/early 1944 (the sight was produced in the US by Sperry and used in US aircraft as well) increased accuracy dramatically. The Luftwaffe got the comparable EZ 42, but about a year later.
Cheers
Steve
silence
Senior Airman
If you want to talk kill rate, then Der Mann is Günther Scheel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - 71 confirmed kills in only 70 missions.
GregP
Major
Scheel's kill rate is tremendous. How many of the missions were action missions? Maybe it is even better. Unfortunately, until and unless we can get data for the other WWII pilots, we can admire his accuracy, but can't really make any other claims as to his being "the best" or not.
Just as a point, I made no mention at all about claims and did not mean to open up that can of worms again. I was talking about the rare case where the ability to both mentally compute lead, and the ability to point the plane in the direction required at the right time are present, now combined with a good and well-aimed gunsight. I think we could pick a best for both the Allied and Axis side, for any particular theater of operations on either side, and can even pick a best for any particular unit or country.
Now all we need are the data! Been looking for a LONG TIME and am still looking. There isn't even a comprehensive list of Axis claims, much less an accurate list of confirmed victories with missions, action misssions, and rounds expended combined with claimed or confirmed kills on each mission. But we can keep pecking away at it. At least, I will.
I don't know about the best aerial gunner but, as a best combat pilot, you'd be hard-pressed to beat the top 5 to 10, all of whom flew for the Luftwaffe. Rotating home atfer 40 or 50 missions is way different than flying until the war is over or you die. I have enormous respect for anyone who can fly and survive 1,000+ combat missions and come away with hundreds of victories in a profession noted for the short-but-fierce lives of combat pilots.
I'd say Hartmann, Barkhorn, Rall, Kittel, and Nowotny are at the top of the combat pilot heap, regardless of their aerial gunnery prowess. I can think of no better way to rate combat pilot other than their accompishments in combat. The top three also survived the war while the next two did not, which earns the survivors additional points as a combat pilot since they could very well fly and fight again if required. Interestingly, only two of the top ten aces were killed during the war.
So, to me, the top three combat pilots of all time are the top three Luftwaffe Aces of WWII. They scored the most (combined for a total of 928 claims among them) and also survived the combat. That makes them the biggest contributors to their country's war efforts ever among combat pilots.
Naturally, someone will have another opinion. War is the untimate "team sport," but these guys were the superstars of combat pilots.
Just as a point, I made no mention at all about claims and did not mean to open up that can of worms again. I was talking about the rare case where the ability to both mentally compute lead, and the ability to point the plane in the direction required at the right time are present, now combined with a good and well-aimed gunsight. I think we could pick a best for both the Allied and Axis side, for any particular theater of operations on either side, and can even pick a best for any particular unit or country.
Now all we need are the data! Been looking for a LONG TIME and am still looking. There isn't even a comprehensive list of Axis claims, much less an accurate list of confirmed victories with missions, action misssions, and rounds expended combined with claimed or confirmed kills on each mission. But we can keep pecking away at it. At least, I will.
I don't know about the best aerial gunner but, as a best combat pilot, you'd be hard-pressed to beat the top 5 to 10, all of whom flew for the Luftwaffe. Rotating home atfer 40 or 50 missions is way different than flying until the war is over or you die. I have enormous respect for anyone who can fly and survive 1,000+ combat missions and come away with hundreds of victories in a profession noted for the short-but-fierce lives of combat pilots.
I'd say Hartmann, Barkhorn, Rall, Kittel, and Nowotny are at the top of the combat pilot heap, regardless of their aerial gunnery prowess. I can think of no better way to rate combat pilot other than their accompishments in combat. The top three also survived the war while the next two did not, which earns the survivors additional points as a combat pilot since they could very well fly and fight again if required. Interestingly, only two of the top ten aces were killed during the war.
So, to me, the top three combat pilots of all time are the top three Luftwaffe Aces of WWII. They scored the most (combined for a total of 928 claims among them) and also survived the combat. That makes them the biggest contributors to their country's war efforts ever among combat pilots.
Naturally, someone will have another opinion. War is the untimate "team sport," but these guys were the superstars of combat pilots.
Last edited:
Steve,
I agree completely on gun sights for turning fights! Deflection shots are done almost without the benifit of the gunsight. What is needed (and I don't know what the displays looked like in the various WW2 gunsights) is a reference point of where you bullets are going at 1g. The Eagle uses a simple cross (plus sign). In the Eagle in particular it's higher than the horizon which is due to the gun being canted up 2.5 degrees (means you need to pull less lead in a turning gun shot). Put your nose in front of his, squeeze the trigger (push down on the button) and the further away he is the further from your HUD / gunsight you let off the trigger.
In a fight that's going down in the pure vertical (imagine two fighters doing a series of split Ss with one offensive enough to employ the gun), gun shots / deflection shots tended to be just a trigger squeeze (on then off). When attacking a large a/c (B-52, B-1, P-3, C-130) I would get in their 10 or 2 o'clock, roll in, stabilize, and then give them a longer burst (just be wary of the tail gun in Russian type a/c). Radar lock not require but if you had one it was used to back up the Mk 1 Eyeball on range.
Cheers,
Biff
The gyro gun sights of WW2 were good for about 20 degrees angle off. The German sight was tested against the British sight (a Sperry captured from a P-47) and estimated to be significantly more accurate....by the Germans
Before the gyro gun sights both the range and particularly angle off had to be estimated by the pilot. Some were really very good at this, most were not. In 1942 the RAF did some research to discover that the "average" pilot underestimated angle off by 50%. He also underestimated the range by 100% (i.e. they were twice as far away as they thought they were). Unsurprisingly this "average" pilot wasn't going to hit much. If this was the average it beggars belief how bad the really bad ones must have been.
In 1940 the early gun camera footage showed pilots opening fire (with rifle calibre machine guns) at 1,500 yards! That's six times the range for which their weapons were set up! The overs probably scared some livestock and knocked a few roof slates off, but that was about it.
Cheers
Steve
I'm really surprised they didn't put a "inverted staple" on the glare shield for reference. When the wingspan was the size of the staple you were in range. In the German camp, putting two in for face attacks on bombers would have worked as well (small one for trigger down, large for off trigger pull up now).
Cheers,
Biff
Cheers,
Biff
Here is a bit of the story about the Germans testing the Allied gunsight, from Wiki...
The EZ 42 was compared with the Allied G.G.S. captured from in a P-47 Thunderbolt in September 1944 in Germany. Both sights were tested in the same Fw 190, and by the same pilot. The conclusion was critical of the moving graticule of the G.G.S., which could be obscured by the target. Compared to the EZ 42, the Allied sight's prediction angle was found on average to be 20% less accurate, and vary by 1% per degree. Tracking accuracy with the G.G.S. measured as the mean error of the best 50% of pictures was 20% worse than with the EZ 42.[7]
The only thing I'm curious about was how they figured out it's off by 1% per degree...
Cheers,
Biff
The EZ 42 was compared with the Allied G.G.S. captured from in a P-47 Thunderbolt in September 1944 in Germany. Both sights were tested in the same Fw 190, and by the same pilot. The conclusion was critical of the moving graticule of the G.G.S., which could be obscured by the target. Compared to the EZ 42, the Allied sight's prediction angle was found on average to be 20% less accurate, and vary by 1% per degree. Tracking accuracy with the G.G.S. measured as the mean error of the best 50% of pictures was 20% worse than with the EZ 42.[7]
The only thing I'm curious about was how they figured out it's off by 1% per degree...
Cheers,
Biff
Just as an aside, in a dogfight in his Spitfire against 264 Sqn S/L Philip Hunter in his Defiant, RST never managed to get his aircraft in a position to fire. After ten minutes of whirling around each other, the Defiant gunner expended all his cine camera footage, whilst Tuck never caught Hunter in his sights. In the trial, Tuck was advised to attack the Defiant in conditions of his choosing. This is not meant as a slight on Tuck, but illustrates more so the resolve and skill of Hunter as a pilot to be able to outmanoeuvre a skilled Spitfire pilot in a heavier and slower airframe.
Agree on RST's shooting ability however, and that he was the perfect gentleman - he and Galland remained lifelong friends after the war...
bobbysocks
Chief Master Sergeant
on the k14 the gunsite gave you the range of the EA. you dialed down the circle until the wing tips touched....then it was supposed to compute your aim. there were several different settings...one for the most common ac....109s...190s...etc. most everyone i have read liked it....except for when the bulb burned out during battle.
to practice deflection shooting a lot of us pilots would shoot skeet....many bases kept clay pigeons and shotguns just for that purpose.
to practice deflection shooting a lot of us pilots would shoot skeet....many bases kept clay pigeons and shotguns just for that purpose.
Most countries' reflector gunsights had ways of judging range, especially the British sights (built-in range/wingspan dials). But, as we can all guess, scared 19-year olds with single-digit hours on fighters and zero combat experience can't always be expected to behave like in the movies.
silence
Senior Airman
I think I'd throw Batz in there too. Aces of the Luftwaffe - Wilhelm Batz
Not sure what you meant by Scheel's action missions but he arrived at JG 54 in the Spring of '43, had 10 kills on April 10, and went down on July 16, so he wasn't around very long but talk about a shooting star.
GregP
Major
An action mission is one in which the pilot engaged an enemy aircraft or attacked a ground target or a ship. If he didn't engage an enemy aircaft or attack a ground target or a ship, then he didn't engage in combat and merely flew around with no result, though on an assigned mission.
When you shoot down another plane, it is on an action mission. If you never saw anyone else, thenh you flew, but didn't DO anything. The pilot didn't get to choose. It was chance and the enemy plus your flight path that might or might not coincide.
So if Batz flew 70 mission and shot down 71 planes, but only engaged the enemy on 40 of them, then he got 71 victorires in 40 missions, whcih is VERY good and the kill rate is much higher. If he engaged in 60 missions, it would be lower.
Nothing says he did EITHER, I don't know. But that is the way the math works.
When you shoot down another plane, it is on an action mission. If you never saw anyone else, thenh you flew, but didn't DO anything. The pilot didn't get to choose. It was chance and the enemy plus your flight path that might or might not coincide.
So if Batz flew 70 mission and shot down 71 planes, but only engaged the enemy on 40 of them, then he got 71 victorires in 40 missions, whcih is VERY good and the kill rate is much higher. If he engaged in 60 missions, it would be lower.
Nothing says he did EITHER, I don't know. But that is the way the math works.
Last edited:
Clive Caldwell, who was mentioned previously in passing, was apparently a great shot and developed a method of helping others that was taken back to Australia and used in training.
By mid-1941, Caldwell had flown about 40 operational sorties, but had only one confirmed kill - a Bf 109. He was perplexed by the fact that he had trouble scoring hits on enemy aircraft. Whilst returning to base one day, he noted his squadron's aircraft casting shadows on the desert below. He fired a burst of his guns and noted the fall of shot relative to his shadow. He realised this method allowed for the assessment of required deflection to hit moving targets. Further experimentation lead him to acquire the knowledge to assess deflection needed for a range of speeds. Within a couple of weeks he had attained four further kills and a half share. Caldwell's method of "shadow shooting" became a standard method of gunnery practice in the Middle East.
By mid-1941, Caldwell had flown about 40 operational sorties, but had only one confirmed kill - a Bf 109. He was perplexed by the fact that he had trouble scoring hits on enemy aircraft. Whilst returning to base one day, he noted his squadron's aircraft casting shadows on the desert below. He fired a burst of his guns and noted the fall of shot relative to his shadow. He realised this method allowed for the assessment of required deflection to hit moving targets. Further experimentation lead him to acquire the knowledge to assess deflection needed for a range of speeds. Within a couple of weeks he had attained four further kills and a half share. Caldwell's method of "shadow shooting" became a standard method of gunnery practice in the Middle East.
GregP
Major
Pretty neat! Shooting shadows and not targets. Saving money AND learning the craft. Ingenious.
How about Marmaduke "Pat" Pattle, Pattle mostly flew the Gloster Gladiator against the Italians in North Africa and Greece and was known to be both an excellent tactician and marksman. The Gladiator was a relatively lightly armed fighter with four rifle calibre brownings, Pattle learnt that in order to destroy an Italian bomber such as a SM79 or Cant 1007 you needed to concentrate your fire at certain areas such as the fuel tanks on the inside of the wings. Some say that Pattle (a South African) was the RAF's leading fighter ace of World War Two although personally I doubt this as not all of his claims marry up with Italian aircraft lost accounts, having said that Pattle achieved outstanding results whilst flying an old fashioned biplane from primitive airstrips in a chapter of the war that has now largely been forgotten.
silence
Senior Airman
Scheel had a lot of multi-kill days, from 7 in a day on down.
