greatest shot allies and axis

[silence]

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.

Impressive as hell. However, the name "Marmaduke" just takes a lot away from votability.

 

[Greyman]

... not all of his claims marry up with ... aircraft lost accounts ...

Well, in Pattle's defence the same could be said of almost every ace of WWII.

 

[pattle]

Impressive as hell. However, the name "Marmaduke" just takes a lot away from votability.

True, Marmaduke is the kind of name that old ladies give to cats, but then again remember the song "a man called Sue".

 

[pattle]

Well, in Pattle's defence the same could be said of almost every ace of WWII.

I wouldn't know about how many aces this would apply to, but I certainly believe that the best way of establishing the reliability of claims is to cross reference them with loss accounts, of course this was not possible in wartime.

 

[buffnut453]

Well, in Pattle's defence the same could be said of almost every ace of WWII.

Entirely agree...the key word in all of this is "claims". Fighter pilots who believed they had achieved some form of victory over an enemy aircraft made a claim to have it recognized. If the "claim" met the criteria for a kill then it was identified as such. If not, it was defined either as "probable" or "damaged" depending on the perceived severity of damage. The problem is that the criteria were often vague or subjective and the "evidence" was often far from convincing. Needless to say, reality of enemy aircraft destroyed seldom matched the claims made.

 

[OldSkeptic]

Marseille's was particularly interesting in that most of the combats were with quite small numbers of aircraft. Overall the smaller the combat numbers the more accurate the claims. Plus, most often than not, he went (usually) down to get his kills and the rest of his team mates stayed where they were, providing cover (and an audience). So probably pretty accurate, I'd still pick within 10% for him and quite a few of the others.

Some of the other expertin might have been a bit less accurate if they were involved in a higher proportion of larger 'furballs'. Even they were still subject to the overall 'the larger the number of planes in the combat, the less accurate the claims' rule.

The most accurate were the nightfighters (on all sides). One on one very close combat, often large explosions and/or fire from the targets. Not 100% of course, a plane you hit, went down, even in flames, then got into cloud and got the fire out and got home again. But, on the other side of the argument, some of the 'probables' and 'damaged' didn't make it home either. Probably very close to the actual numbers (allowing for blue on blues of course which was much more of an issue for the allies).

One possible indicator for the accuracy of the expertin, would be how their claim rate held up after they got rid of their 'throat ache'. If it dropped significantly (allowing for the environment of course) after that happened, then you might raise an eyebrow or two.

 

[Greyman]

So probably pretty accurate, I'd still pick within 10% for him and quite a few of the others.

From wiki:

A USAF historian, Major Robert Tate ... reveals that Marseille's kill total comes close to 65–70 percent corroboration, indicating as many as 50 of his claims may not have been actually kills. Tate also compares Marseilles rate of corroboration with the top six P-40 pilots. While only the Canadian James Francis Edwards' records shows a verification of 100 percent other aces like Clive Caldwell (50% to 60% corroboration), Billy Drake (70% to 80% corroboration), John Lloyd Waddy (70% to 80% corroboration) and Andrew Barr (60% to 70% corroboration) are at the same order of magnitude as Marseille's claims. Christopher Shores and Hans Ring also support Tate's conclusions.

 

[stona]

Scheel had a lot of multi-kill days, from 7 in a day on down.

And that should always ring alarm bells, particularly in the case of the Luftwaffe and particularly if they are made as the pilot approaches a landmark total.

Cheers

Steve

 

[silence]

And that should always ring alarm bells, particularly in the case of the Luftwaffe and particularly if they are made as the pilot approaches a landmark total.

Cheers

Steve

LW pilots in the East were also flying as many as five or more missions per day.

 

[stona]

LW pilots in the East were also flying as many as five or more missions per day.

I'm referring to patterns of claiming. Some are rather unusual, particularly close to certain numbers and particularly around those linked unofficially to awards. It is not always a case of dishonesty or fraud, but in some cases the evidence is compelling. Don't ask because I won't name names.

Luftwaffe would be "experten" seldom got an "itchy neck" around 3 or 8 victories (Iron Cross) but some most definitely did around 30 (German Cross in gold), then 45/50 (Knight's Cross) and even 100 (oak leaves to the Knight's Cross). Above that I will leave it to your imaginations

I'd agree that somewhere around 60-70% corroboration is about typical for honest claimers, though there are variations which are almost inevitable and certainly do not indicate any funny business.
I re-iterate that the vast majority on all sides did make honest, if frequently mistaken, claims.

Cheers

Steve

 

[silence]

oh, okay, I see what you're saying. Nothing I'd dispute. I've never looked into patterns of claiming myself: I just go by the assumption that they're happy to get back to base in (relatively) one piece unless I learn otherwise.

That was one thing kind of amazing about Richtoven, that he would land by his kills as frequently as possible and claim a "trophy" from his kills. But, then, in a biplane usually over your own lines you can do that; not so much in a 109 over the Channel!

 

[pbehn]

Reading "A most dangerous enemy" many of the WWII aces shared two qualities, firstly extremely good eye sight and secondly being good shots with a shot gun or rifle. Maybe if BoB spitfire pilots were given a shooting butt, shot gun and unlimited cartridges the may have done better, or maybe deflection shooting is something you either can or cant do. I had a great uncle Marmaduke, it was a common name a few generations ago.

 

[pattle]

Reading "A most dangerous enemy" many of the WWII aces shared two qualities, firstly extremely good eye sight and secondly being good shots with a shot gun or rifle. Maybe if BoB spitfire pilots were given a shooting butt, shot gun and unlimited cartridges the may have done better, or maybe deflection shooting is something you either can or cant do. I had a great uncle Marmaduke, it was a common name a few generations ago.

I know that RAF air gunners did train with clay pigeons and I believe that fighter pilots did also, I don't think this practice began until after 1940 though.

 

[drgondog]

AAF (8th and 9th AF) pilots in ETO regularly shot Skeet on the base.

 

[Glider]

Tuck considered Galland to be a better shot than himself and recalled a time post war when they both went shooting. RST fancied his chances and they had a decent bet on who was the best with RST going first. He soon realized that Galland was matching him, hit for hit, miss for miss until Galland stepped up a gear and RST paid up.

 

[swampyankee]

I remember reading that, typically, 85% of the men involved in ground combat never fired a shot. The 15% who were shooting varied, that is somebody who shot in battle on Tuesday may not pull the trigger in substantially the same circumstances on Thursday. This was pretty much universally true with all nations' ground forces.

Rounds/kill is also a lousy criterion to use for comparison. It's pretty obvious that the RAF's 0.303 in is going to need, on average, a lot more rounds to knock down an aircraft than the Luftwaffe with 20 mm or 30 mm cannon.

I do have to agree, overall, with the conclusion that the Luftwaffe pilots are likely to have the best shooting skills, if only because they tended to engage more often.

 

[Juha]

I have read from a book that Rall and Marseille were regarded as the best deflection shooters in the LW, probably meaning that they were the best of the most famous LW aces. But were they the best? At lest before the summer 1940 the shooting training in the RAF and in the LW were not in top class according to the pilots' memoirs I have read. In the USN and in the Finnish AF pilots were trained in deflection shooting already before the war, I don't know the training in the French, Polish and Czechoslovakian AFs, most Soviet pilots seemed to have been poor shots up to winter 43/44. And good training paid dividences during the Winter War. Sarvanto shot down 6 DB-3s, shot down not only claimed, during one sortie on 6 Jan 40 while flying a Fokker D XXI armed with 4 7.7mm lmg with 500rpg. And DB-3 was a well protected bomber with self-sealing fuel tanks with inertia-gas anti-flash system and 8mm back armour for the pilot.

Juha

 

[stona]

The RAF's gunnery training for it's fighter pilots was totally inadequate in 1939/40. This was made clear in Air Chief Marshall Ludlow Hewitt's report of his visit to various OTUs in his capacity as Inspector General dated 14th May 1940 (AIR 33/10). Many factors were reported, lack of actual live firing, shortage of target tugs, lack of ranges and more.

In 'Notes on the Conference Held at Headquarters, Fighter Command, to Discuss Raising the Standard of Training at Fighter Command OTUs' on 5th December 1941 (AIR 16/636) Air Marshall Sholto Douglas is recorded as saying that he was "very concerned about the standard of air gunnery in Squadrons and anxious that more gunnery training should be given to pilots before they joined their Squadrons." He stated that it was "imperative" that standards be improved and noted that pilots at OTUs only fired their guns two or three times a week. Also noted was a serious shortage of target tugs that "would exist in the near future."

Exactly the same problems were being reported in December 1941 as in May 1940 and neither Dowding, nor Sholto Douglas had managed to improve the situation in nearly 18 months.

Cheers

Steve

 

[pattle]

The De Wilde incendiary round was also a help to RAF pilots during the Battle of Britain as it made it easier for them to see their bullets striking the enemy aircraft.

 

[stona]

The De Wilde incendiary round was also a help to RAF pilots during the Battle of Britain as it made it easier for them to see their bullets striking the enemy aircraft.

If they could actually hit the target

Cheers

Steve