In the fog and chaos of war just how reliable are fighter pilot kill scores ?

swampyankee said:

Eye witness testimony is unreliable.

Air force intelligence services need accurate aggregate losses of enemy aircraft in a given operational area; they don't need accurate scores for each pilot. When pilots exaggerate, they force intelligence analysts to make statistical corrections. Those require accurate counts someplace, and the only way to do that is have somebody count wrecks and captured and killed enemy pilots and compare that number to pilots' claims.

Click to expand...

Your first two points are of course correct. Trying to correlate the sort of data that the intelligence officers needed from eye witness testimony is a task loaded with potential causes of errors.

The problem with counting wrecks and captured enemy pilots is not always possible and the statistical corrections themselves may compound the errors. This was certainly true of the RAF during the BoB when the huge discrepancy between claims and aircraft downed over Britain was closed by the assumption that many Luftwaffe aircraft had come down in the sea. In fact they had not.

The RAF actively discouraged the sort of treatment given to someone like Marseille in Africa and did promote the idea that a squadron was a team, not about one individual. When some RAF fighter pilots perceived (or thought they did) that an individual's quest to up his score was having an adverse effect on overall performance or, worse, putting them at risk, they would say so. This was the case with some who served with Bader for example. I've never heard of such a thing in the Luftwaffe.

To some extent a factor as mundane as the prevailing weather conditions can have an effect. Luftwaffe claims in North Africa, despite some well known fraud, were actually remarkably accurate. Aircraft did not disappear into cloud and crash sites were clearly visible for many miles. This is not the case over NW Europe or the British Isles. Whether an aircraft had indeed gone into the English Channel or North Sea was much more difficult to ascertain with any certainty.

Cheers

Steve

I must disagree with the contention that individual scores don't mean much.

I was brought up and raised to be competitive. Team sports were fun but individual performance was paramount.

I'd fight for my country either way if required, and I have, but if I couldn't count and keep track of my individual performance, it would not be with anything like the same effort. If my achievements were going to be only lumped into the whole, I'd maybe fight more to just stay alive than to win and excel. It's not just me, it's almost everyone who was brought up to be competitive. It's human nature. That's why they have awards, for INDIVIDUAL achievements. If they didn't keep track of individuals, how would they distribute such awards? A unit citation is great, but nothing like an individual award. The only team award that ever was anything like as important as individual performances was a championship. All others were nice but unimportant to the individual realtive to overall morale ... unless an individual had no awards for individual achievements. Then team awards were very important. These would be the individuals near the bottom of the individual performance ladder.

This is not saying individual performance took precedence over everything ... but it was a major factor in overall confidence and morale.

To me, the individual scores are more important for the personnel and the accurate aggragate scores are more important for military strategy and planning. You can't win with dispirited armed forces and you can't plan with inaccurate information. Well, you CAN, but it doesn't work very well. Both are important to the outcome.

I will take the aerial victory awards as awarded in the conflict, not as revised later by armchair quarterbacks. I view the very high German scores with some doubt, and compare the great German pilots to each other within their own scores, not with the scores of other air forces. For instance, Hartmann, Barkhorn, and Rall were probably the greatest German pilots relative to German pilots. Their scores say nothing to me about how they would fare versus a one-on-one with the top aces of other air arms.

Take the top 10 from any air force and match them against the top 10 from any other air force and you'd have a good fight! There might be some "Las Vegas" odds if people wanted to bet, but the outcome would be in doubt to my way of thinking if they started with equal position, altitude, and circumstance ... unless they had to travel very far. In that case the Bf 109 would be at a serious fuel disadvantage that would have nothing to do with pilot skill or the aircraft performance. That's why the Germans had to make frequent front line airfield moves ... to stay in contact with enough fuel to do something.

If you lifted Erich Hartmann and, say, Richard Bong, and exchanged them with one another, ignoring language and allegance, they'd probably perform about that same as their counterpart. The situation over the Russian Front was very different from the situation over the Southwest Pacific. If they exchanged, it's for sure that Erich hartmann would not be flying 4 - 6 missions per day if due only to the distances involved, and would very certainly not be in a "target rich environment." The skill of the relative opponents would also not be anywhere near the same. Their scores would no doubt be more in line with the area of conflict rather than the political alignment or aircraft used.

I didn't say that individual scores where meaningless; I said that planners need accurate aggregate numbers. It doesn't matter if pilots consistently, but in good faith report inaccurate results, and using those for morale purposes is certainly valid. One does wonder about the training system and tactical doctrine of an air force where all of a unit's kills are by one or two pilots, though. What happens if that pilot breaks a leg jumping out of some love struck woman's window?

Greg,

Your last paragraph is probably the best way I've seen / read on how to compare apples to oranges across theaters and aircraft. Well spoke / typed.

"If you lifted Erich Hartmann and, say, Richard Bong, and exchanged them with one another, ignoring language and allegance, they'd probably perform about that same as their counterpart. The situation over the Russian Front was very different from the situation over the Southwest Pacific. If they exchanged, it's for sure that Erich hartmann would not be flying 4 - 6 missions per day if due only to the distances involved, and would very certainly not be in a "target rich environment." The skill of the relative opponents would also not be anywhere near the same. Their scores would no doubt be more in line with the area of conflict rather than the political alignment or aircraft used."


From my interaction with fighter squadrons from all over the planet team work is more valued than individual contribution, however both are valued tremendously. The reason for it, in my opine, is the team can accomplish more than the individual (coordinated tactics versus lone wolf). However, that doesn't undercut or minimize in any way the individuals contribution, just puts in perspective. Those Herculean contributors should be made instructor pilots so they can help bring the bar up for the entire squadron. The flip side would be the team suffering (tactics or actual loses) to support the individuals score.

I interpreted Steve's input to mean that if one member was more worried / focused on his personal score than he is on accomplishing the mission and safely bringing everyone home then they got a "talking" to or worse. A fighter pilot bent on his score first is not a team player but a team breakdown waiting to happen at the worst time and to someone elses detriment.

As for the fog of war relative to the accuracy of kill claims it's my opinion that it "depends". And what it depends on is the saturation experience level of the pilot. "Old" guys with lots of experience in a numerically small skirmish (in which they aren't defensive and fighting for their lives) would have the highest accuracy, and a new guy in a massive furball going from offensive to defensive and back due to maneuvering would be the least accurate. It's all a sliding scale.

Cheers,
Biff

Losses by claims are notoriously innaccurate. The best you can do is know your own losses. Unfortunately many of the axis wartime records are destroyed, so by default most post war accounts defer to the claims by their opponents. The post war washups by organizations like the USN in the immediate post war period were little more than a recount of existing records. Having said that, the logic to support that the claims are reliable sources of actual losses, is impeccable, and we eat it up because it confirms our preconceived beliefs anyway.

The ultimate example of overclaiming I can think of is Japanese. During Phil Sea, as the suvivors of the land based air groups from Saipan and Guam were straggling back to their bases after the drubbing they had receved from the US Navy pilots, they gave reports to their commanders of burning and sinking US carriers allover the place. They had never even gotten close, but on the strength of these reports, the next day Ozawa pressed on with his Mobile Fleet, believing the US expeditionary force had already been dealt crippling body blows. the rest, as they say, is history. This was not an isolated case, it happened in every theatre, by every nationality. How are pilots air claims somehow different from these other examples of overclaiming? Mostly that their claims are mostly unverifiable, and therefore unchallengeable. Claims against ships for example are much more verifiable, because we know whether the target sank or not.

Sortie rates and claims are not an accurate account of actual losses. The best that can be deduced from them is that there is a level of activity in the locality

Yep, Greg and me dont see eye to eye on this issue at all. And its better we dont get into the debate at all . people should read the posts, doi their own research and make their own decisions about this issue.

Hi Biff!

I strongly believe in team goals and also in individual recognition for assistance in achieving them. I once worked for a guy who took my work, erased my name from it, and submitted it as his own. Needless to say, I left the company. Whenever I am in the managerial position, I make sure the guys who DO the work get the credit for it. As a result, I had strong teams while in the Test Engineering Manager role.

There was no intent to denigrate teamwork, just to make sure you publically thank the people who helped make the goal possible. Praise in public and criticize in private.

I'm pretty sure you guys who were flying the front line knew who was very good, who was good but not outstanding, who was relaible but average, and who you really didn't want to have to depend on. You only hoped the guy who you really didn't want to depend on turned out to be your crew chief or cockpit teammate. I may be wrong tehre, but a "new guy" usually has to prove himself before being one of the trusted ... at least that was true in the mid 1970's in the USAF.

I'd be floored if it is different today.

Greg,

All guys (new or otherwise) have to prove themselves. New guys have to show increases in airmanship, as well as tactical skills for the amount of flying time they have. Older guys have to mentor the newer guys, and continue to stretch themselves so that they remain credible and capable.

Fighter squadrons are, in my experience, totally unique in the competition / teamwork area. No place on earth does the team want the individual to succeed, and at the same time compete within the group. The differientiation is when an older guy flys with a younger guy he works the new guy out to his highest level and maybe beyond it. Then in the debrief teaches him how to do it better. No holding back and no secrets.

When two older guys go out, they try their best to win. However, when it comes time to debrief the winners "moves" are determined and one will teach the other how to do it better. Again, no holding back and no secrets. The motivation is to bring the bar up for the entire squadron. The chain is only as strong as it's weakest link.

I have flown with a guy who was so super competitive that he did keep secrets. I'm persistant if anything and eventually squeezed out of him what he was doing that I wasn't and how he gained the upper hand. This has only happened with one guy in my entire Eagle time.

Cheers,
Biff

Yes, there are some people who don't want to help others under them or peers, but only to further their own skills, to make themselves indispensible. These are the guys it's hard to promote becuase they don't pass on what is needed to the next guy down the line.

Anyway, it wouldn't be the same without individual performance measures along with the team measures. I think it might collpase into unintended competition, without individual recognition, that would be counter-productive. But that's just what I think. Maybe it would work as well.

BiffF15 said:

I interpreted Steve's input to mean that if one member was more worried / focused on his personal score than he is on accomplishing the mission and safely bringing everyone home then they got a "talking" to or worse. A fighter pilot bent on his score first is not a team player but a team breakdown waiting to happen at the worst time and to someone elses detriment.Biff

Click to expand...

Unfortunately the culprits were usually senior and well known, even famous (the very thing Fighter Command was attempting to avoid) and the effect of their perceived antics was more insidious. It definitely lowered morale. In the case of Bader several men who served under him in Europe moaned about him later when posted to Africa. Bader was by this time safely out of the way as a PoW. Complaining about a senior officer in the war time RAF (or any other service at any time) can be a dangerous thing to do, particularly when that officer had the ear of the AOC-in-C Fighter Command and was a personal friend of the AOC 11 Group, both of which gave him access to men like Portal who was Chief of the Air Staff. Would you have taken Bader on? Most had the sense to wind their necks in and only break cover when it was safe to do so.

One described the atmosphere in Bader's wing as 'near mutinous' during the summer of 1941. This must have degraded the efficiency of those squadrons.

In the Luftwaffe system a wingman was of course expected to cover his leader but both he, the 'schwarm' and even the entire 'staffel', were expected to support the efforts of an expert to increase his score.

Cheers

Steve

Hi Steve,

It should be obvious, but individual recognition cannot make up for someone who is a braggart or a self-serving cad who promotes himself at the expense of others. These types are not confined to men, I have seen it in women as well. Just goes to show you that a jerk has no sex and no nationality.

I was never intending to say individual recognition was always used correctly ... only that it was important to morale and self-confidence for the general population of people in the armed services. There will always be those who manage to take advantage of a situation for their own gain. These people seem to be around no matter what occupation , religion, country, etc. you are sepaking about.

Since I don't know personally, I am not saying Bader was among these people, but his reputation, at least as described in several places, surely seems to put him at least on the edge of the group.Fortunately not all of the higher-scoring aces were of the same bent. Many were pretty decent guys.

Tommy McGuire comes to mind. I have heard it said he was a self-promoting glamor hound and, at the same time, the guys who flew as his wingmen say he was a very good, fair, and even-handed leader who spent time and even personal opportunities training his people to the possible detriment of his own score. It's tough to reconcile one view with the other one, particularly from the 100,000 foot vantage point of not having known him and having to rely solely on written accounts that are at odds with one another. Who is telling the truth? Maybe neither? As time goes on it will only get harder to dig out the real story, assuming anhone is actually interested.

Different characters inspire different reactions in their comrades. Marseille was obviously a tremendously gifted fighter pilot who inspired admiration and affection bordering on devotion in many who served with him. A leader like Malan, Johnson, Hartmann or Galland he probably was not, we'll never know as he never had the chance to show us. These men certainly inspired respect and admiration but rarely affection.
Bader did inspire respect for some of his outstanding qualities, his determination and undoubted personal courage, his knack of getting things done, and of course his ability as a pilot, but few liked him or admired him. He called a spade a spade, not a shovel and I doubt that he cared what was thought of him! More seriously, many of his contemporaries thought that his tactical thinking was not merely flawed but dangerously wrong.
Cheers
Steve

Now I'll have to go read up on Sir Douglas Bader. I am aware of him as an ace, but not as a person, at least as far as his beliefs and personality go.

Perhaps the writings will illuminate this area more than the forum ... I don't know anybody who knew him in real life, so it's coming down to the written word, and that is in the hands of the writers, not necessarily the peope being written about.

Bader has a sports centre named after him at my (and his) old school. Making any negative comment about him there was heresy. In later years I discovered that the reality, as for most 'legends', was very different from that legend.
Guy Gibson and Adrian Warburton are also old boys and there is a long standing connection to the RAF, one my own brother followed

Criticism of war time comrades is usually very guarded, even post war it was just not the done thing, particularly for this generation of Britons and their Commonwealth comrades. This is particularly true of the Battle of Britain and the carefully constructed myth established for this period.
It is sometimes possible to read between the lines. Often there is much to learn from what is not said rather than what is said. It's a peculiarly 'English' way of imparting implied rather than open criticism.

Cheers

Steve

As an American, I find it very hard to interpret what is not said because it amounts to speculation. There is nothing wrong with speculation, unless you treat it as fact. In that case, then you may often be wrong unless your speculation is in the correct direction. Since there is nothing to point it there, it may often not be the case. I appreciate the English (or British if that is more proper) point of view, but prefer more circumspect accounts if available.

Bader may have been a jerk (don't know), but if he was a competent and effective jerk, then maybe he wasn't so far off center. It could be a case of being very straightforward, which I prefer to rumors.

None of this is aimed at anyone ... I'll try reading up on Sir Doug before making an idiot out of myself in here. I know about his artificial legs and that they dropped some new ones over the camp when he was a POW. I'm pretty sure the Brirish populace in here know more about it than I do, other than his score in air combat which is a public record.

Until and unless I know differently, I'll assume he was a good leader and good pilot for a sawed-off bloke. I've admired his tenacity since I was a WWII aviation fan ... and that would be from around 1960 or so.

I don't think Bader was a jerk! He did inspire very different reactions in those who knew him. He had a supreme self confidence which can always be perceived by some as arrogant. My point is that many contemporaries would use the former phrase to mean the second. Understatement is something that comes naturally to the British, particularly earlier generations. That combined with a genuine determination to get things done at just about any cost easily led to him being disliked by many whom he trampled on.
As to his leadership qualities, again there is little middle ground. Disgruntled pilots who moaned about him (when he was safely out of the way) or described a near mutinous atmosphere in his Wing clearly didn't rate him, some others did. As I said before, many found his tactical appreciation to be old fashioned at the very least.
Personally I find him a remarkable and fascinating man. He was brave almost beyond belief and determined and ruthless with it. These qualities are valuable in a warrior. His self confidence or arrogance meant he was always confident in his own opinions and had little time for others, a less endearing quality, not least because he was often wrong. It was this quality which seems to have stoked the resentment and dislike of many. He was flawed as are we all.
As a junior officer (Squadron Leader) he sat in conferences with the high and mighty at the Air Ministry and far more senior officers from Fighter Command, so he certainly knew how to play the political game. He had an influence far beyond his junior rank and remit.
I wouldn't have wanted to serve under him because I think he was more likely to get me killed than some of his contemporaries.
Post war he became a relentless self publicist and guardian of his own public image. I would argue that by the 1970s he was the best known and most recognisable RAF 'hero', better known the Johnson, Lacey, Malan, Cunningham, Unwin, Carey or any of the others, many of whom had fought longer and more successful wars than him. For that too I suppose he deserves some credit! The only other airman who I can think came close to him in this respect was Adolph Galland. They were both men who ensured that their version of history would be recorded. They both cultivated their own myths.
Cheers
Steve

Pretty well said there, Steve. When was mentioning some qualities above, Galland was on my mind, too!

I'll just say he wasn't a shrinking violet when it came to offering his opinion.