were the tuskegee airmen the most skilled pilots in the war?

[freeair10]

I don't know about an inferiority complex, but I have a feeling we'll be seeing a lot of announcements that they were the best squadron in WW2 due to the film coming out. I'm of course not against the film, and am looking forward to seeing it, but movies have a way of giving people false impressions or people only know about what was in the movie, and don't know the bigger picture or other units.

on youtube if you look at the trailer, you see alot of comments that they were the best, and the tuskegee airmen best pilots in the war, and im just trying to see if there any units in the allies or axis that were better then the,

 

[Catch22]

on youtube if you look at the trailer, you see alot of comments that they were the best, and the tuskegee airmen best pilots in the war, and im just trying to see if there any units in the allies or axis that were better then the,

That's exactly what I mean. Were they a great unit? Yes. Were they trail blazers? Yes. Did they have a good combat record? Absolutely. But other units in the USAAF, Navy, RAF and Luftwaffe had better combat records. At this point that's really the only way to determine if they were the best since we don't have the ability to test their "raw skill", so we have to use the numbers available.

 

[pbfoot]

418 Squadron (city of Edmonton) was unit that had better numbers

 

[freeair10]

you have a great point, im sorry if i presented my self to be a snob, im just trying to connect the dots, i guess with the movie coming out, its stuck in alot of people's heads, espespecially casual... im sure there were british and canadian units that were better, and probably american units..

you are right though, since you can't measure raw skill when it comes to flying, you have to go by raw numbers

 

[Rosco P. Coltraine]

on youtube if you look at the trailer, you see alot of comments that they were the best, and the tuskegee airmen best pilots in the war, and im just trying to see if there any units in the allies or axis that were better then the,

Piece of advice;

Don't get your history from movies.

Movies exist to make money, not tell the truth. Documentaries are supposed to tell the truth.

 

[buffnut453]

And raw numbers can be very misleading. To take a totally stupid example, a unit of P-51s which only ever came across Ju-52s would have an amazing number of aces and a fantastic kill-to-loss ratio, whereas a P-51 unit which came up against seasoned pilots in Fw190s at a tactical disadvantage would have far a far worse record "by the numbers". So which unit is better? Puerile example, I know, but numbers are not an effective measure of a units operational effectiveness.

 

[freeair10]

the movie doesn't look that good to be honest, though.... it seems like its cheezy, the dialogue looks mediocre, and the flying scenes look unrealistic

im not sure it will be even better then pearl harbor (that movie blowed)

 

[freeair10]

And raw numbers can be very misleading. To take a totally stupid example, a unit of P-51s which only ever came across Ju-52s would have an amazing number of aces and a fantastic kill-to-loss ratio, whereas a P-51 unit which came up against seasoned pilots in Fw190s at a tactical disadvantage would have far a far worse record "by the numbers". So which unit is better? Puerile example, I know, but numbers are not an effective measure of a units operational effectiveness.

so would you say the tuskegee airmen were the best

 

[buffnut453]

I wouldn't claim any single unit as "the best" and to try to justify one is pointless. Experience shows that operational effectiveness can change very quickly - lose a much-respected CO and a couple of other key personnel and a top-flight unit can rapidly descend into mediocrity, accompanied by low morale. In my experience, the "best unit" is the one you're serving in. And next week, if you get posted to the neighbouring squadron, that becomes the best unit. Fighter pilots have to believe they are better than the rest, otherwise they lose their edge - that comes with the territory or else they risk losing their mojo and believing ever more that they're in a "bad luck" unit.

 

[Rosco P. Coltraine]

When you think about it;

The most skilled unit could've been some Soviet unit wiped out in their out-of-date Polikarpov's at the beginning of Barbarossa.
How could you really ever know?

You could say a unit was more successful based on their operational record.
And there's nothing stand-out in the operational record of the "Tuskagee airmen".

 

[Crimea_River]

What the hell does "best" mean anyway? It's a highly vague and interpretive adjective.

If someone said to me that so-and-so was the "best" I'd smile and nod and walk on.

 

[claidemore]

but then again, just because you were a high scoring ace doesn't mean you were a better pilot

i mean you can't say Erich Hartmann was a better pilot then any of the tuskegee guys, just cause he had 352 kills

Sure you can. If you want to say one person is better than another you have to choose a method of measurement. If you choose number of kills, it's no contest, Hartmann was the best, period.

 

[vikingBerserker]

but then again, just because you were a high scoring ace doesn't mean you were a better pilot

i mean you can't say Erich Hartmann was a better pilot then any of the tuskegee guys, just cause he had 352 kills

Why can't you?

 

[freeair10]

for the new tuskegeee arimen

the official plot synopsis regarding their mission of escorting the bombers in daylight. Apparently so dangerous the RAF won't do it.

 

[Rosco P. Coltraine]

Apparently so dangerous the RAF won't do it.

Well then the film is going to be a pile of poop.

Because it's an established historical fact that the RAF units escorted US daylight bombing raids.

And what's more is that the 332nd Fighter Group was based in Italy and mostly performed tactical "close support" missions.

 

[TheMustangRider]

i had a friend, who is black, said the "tuskegee airmen were the best pilots in ww2..." bias, maybe.. but im just trying to find out

I have a feeling where this is coming from. Sometimes people that have not a deep knowledge on a specific subject, military aviation in this case, tend to inflate achievements done by people or groups of people that they are in a way associated with by a big sense of pride.
I remember talking to a Spanish girl some months ago about the Spanish Civil War, and she kept insisting that Franco was not "really" a Fascist dictator and how an entry of Spain into the war during WWII would have tilted the balance overwhelmingly on the Axis side.
What would have happened if Spain would have joined the Axis Powers openly? I really don't know, but we can all agree here that Nazi Germany was indeed the most fearsome Axis opponent in Europe which was something that she did not agree with.
Bottom line with my little story is that we will always hear more opinionated statements that factual evidence, and the latter will only come to light by deep scrutiny.
Will the Tuskegee Airmen will come up on top of every air group of the war based on a statistical analysis? maybe not.
Does that take away their value as one of the greatest units in USAAF history which proved to the world how capable colored fighting men are? not at all.

 

[pinsog]

for the new tuskegeee arimen

the official plot synopsis regarding their mission of escorting the bombers in daylight. Apparently so dangerous the RAF won't do it.

WIthout offending you, may I ask your age please?

 

[Jabberwocky]

This is a case of disproving the maxim, "there are no stupid questions, only stupid people"

The question is fundamentally flawed freeair, unless you quantify what "the most skilled" means. The question is way to open ended and, given the segregated nature of the USAAF at the time, too easy to jump to conclusions about.

There are any number of measures as to how you could measure what the 'most skilled' fighter pilot was:

Most kills
Fastest to XXXX kills
Most number of aces
Best kill-to-loss ratio
Best kill-to-mission ratio
Best loss-to-mission ratio
Best kill-to-engagement ratio
Least losses
Most ground kills
Least bombers lost on escort missions
Lowest abort rate

and any number of variations of the above.

In the ETO, a P-51 unit in early 1944 had many more opportunities to score kills than a Spitfire unit. Does that make the Spitfire unit less skilled? NO. All it means was their tactical situation was entirely different and they faced a far less target rich environment.

Likewise, a Luftwaffe unit facing half trained Soviet pilots in early 1942 with superiority in equipment and doctrine and racking up a favourable kill to loss scores is not necessarily more skilled than another Luftwaffe unit facing Spitfires defending Malta and on the losing side of the exchange rate.

 

[Siegfried]

Objective or empirical analysis don't matter when Hollywood has an agenda.

 

[freeair10]

Objective or empirical analysis don't matter when Hollywood has an agenda.

hollywood is basically saying the tuskegee airmen were the best pilots in the war