Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Top fighter aces by nationality | ||
Country | Pilot | Score |
Britain | James Johnson | 38 |
United States | Richard Bong | 40 |
Soviet Union | Grigory Rechkalov | 65 |
Finland | Ilmari Juutilainen | 94 |
Japan | Tetsuzō Iwamoto | 94 |
Germany | Erich Hartmann | 352 |
This has beat to death over the years in so many discussions -Any American kid who becomes interested in World War 2 fighter pilots quickly learns that Richard Bong was the American Ace of Aces, with 40 enemy planes to his credit. And that seems like an impressively large number, perched proudly above numbers like 38 (Tom McGuire), 34 (David McCampbell), and 28 (Francis Gabreski). But then our young lad will do some more research, and discover some numbers which look something like this (with some variation in the exact numbers attributed to some of the individuals):
Top fighter aces by nationality
Country
Pilot
ScoreAmerica Richard Bong
40Britain Albert Ball
44Soviet Union Grigory Rechkalov
65Finland Ilmari Juutilainen
94Japan Tetsuzō Iwamoto
94Germany Erich Hartman
352
It turns out that, among all the major nations involved in the war, America's greatest ace had the lowest score of them all. Our lad might then wonder, Why were the American aces' scores so low compared to the rest? Were the German pilots that much better than anyone else?
Further digging, however, will lead to the discovery that pilots from different countries flew under very different conditions. Most notably, German, Japanese, and Soviet pilots were expected to fly until they died or the war ended. American and British pilots only served for a defined tour of duty and then were rotated home. Also, the American system included taking the best of the returning pilots and allowing them the opportunity to become trainers, thus imparted their hard-won wisdom to the new pilots coming up. Finally, some pilots operated in theaters were there were substantially more enemy planes in the air (a situation that is euphemistically described as "target-rich"). This was especially true on the Eastern Front in Europe.
In other words, there is more to those scores than meets the eye. And since there are still many things about flying conditions in those days that I don't know, I'm opening up a conversation about a comparison not just of pilot skill, but of training practices (both in details and in overall philosophy), as well as other topics that relate to how well (or poorly) a nation's pilots were treated. For example, the U.S. invested considerable equipment and manpower—including search aircraft and submarines—in rescuing downed American pilots in the Pacific. (A future President of the United States, George H.W. Bush, was a beneficiary of this program.) Japan had nothing comparable to it.
What else may have both contributed to the success of American (and British) pilots, while at the same time have kept their scores lower than if the system had been more like the German system?
Well, that's embarrassing.Albert Ball was a WWI fighter pilot, not WWII.
The highest scoring British pilot of WWII was probably Johnny Johnson with 34 or 38, depending on what you read.
The highest scoring RAF pilot was probably Marmaduke Pattle, with 50 something kills. But nobody really knows, because he was killed fighting over Greece, and his records were not up to date
I thought it might have been, but when I searched before posting I couldn't find anything recent. Not with the search terms I used, anyway. Besides, I realize that there are some denizens of this board who could teach a graduate level class on almost any topic that comes up here, but there are always the new (or new-ish) people who are still finding out stuff. That would include me; I find that even on topics that I think I know a little bit about, I can count on discovering things I don't know before. That's why it's so much fun being here, and why I thought I would give this topic a whirl.This has been beat to death over the years in so many discussions -
There is also the not very minor issue of Germany invading Poland in Sept 1939 but not declaring war on the USA until Dec 1941.I thought it might have been, but when I searched before posting I couldn't find anything recent. Not with the search terms I used, anyway. Besides, I realize that there are some denizens of this board who could teach a graduate level class on almost any topic that comes up here, but there are always the new (or new-ish) people who are still finding out stuff. That would include me; I find that even on topics that I think I know a little bit about, I can count on discovering things I don't know before. That's why it's so much fun being here, and why I thought I would give this topic a whirl.
To fully understand this, IMO just don't look at an ace's credited victories - look at how many missions it took the individual to achieve their scores. Also consider where they were operating, the old term "target rich environment" comes into play. Lastly consider over-claims which happened on all sides for a number of reasons. There have been some researchers who have tried to validate many Luftwaffe claims, Nick Hector has done a pretty good job of this and has a FB site on this subject. From Nick's site about Erich Hartman:I thought it might have been, but when I searched before posting I couldn't find anything recent. Not with the search terms I used, anyway. Besides, I realize that there are some denizens of this board who could teach a graduate level class on almost any topic that comes up here, but there are always the new (or new-ish) people who are still finding out stuff. That would include me; I find that even on topics that I think I know a little bit about, I can count on discovering things I don't know before. That's why it's so much fun being here, and why I thought I would give this topic a whirl.
Many valid reasons have already been stated.
Mostly it comes down to aircraft/pilot numbers, The Allied/Axis ratio in regards to fighter-aircraft was around 4 : 1 in the Mediterranean theater right down to 7:1 and more n the European theater from 1944 onward. Even if both parties pilots and aircraft's would be evenly matched - 4 Allied pilots would have to share into a single kill in the Med and 7 Allied would have to share into a single kill in the European theater. So pretty hard for an Allied pilot to achieve higher scores. Unless they would have had an attribution kill system such as
the Luftwaffe was using.
If you look at the overall kill stats - I am pretty sure that the Allies from 1943 onward had achived a far higher number in total kills then the Luftwaffe.
In order to please the Luftwaffe leadership and the Nazi propaganda machine (generating Aces) e.g. during the beginning of the Bob - there was a huge run and squabble amongst certain Luftwaffe pilots to be on the flight-board, being decided upon by the respective Wing and squadron leaders. Then add some "kill score errors" to these Halsschmerzen "sore throat" pilots ( knights-cross aspirants) and there you have your Ace or Aces.
Those Luftwaffe pilots not being on the flight-board were maybe happy about having survived another day - but at the same time did not get the necessary or improved skill-set under the watchful eyes and guidance of experienced Luftwaffe pilots. An issue for which the Luftwaffe later-on payed dearly.
Regards
Jagdflieger
I had stated - e.g. 4 Allies aircrafts to 1 luftwaffe aircraft. I had also stated that under the pretext of both parties haveing the same good aircraft and pilots. Which however wasn't the real case at all. So if e.g. 1 low trained Luftwaffe pilot is aware that 4 allied aircraft's are on approach, then naturally he would try to make a run for it as well - reducing the chances for an Allied pilot to score a kill even further. So where is the disagreement?I have to disagree here with Jagdflieger, at least on one point. The Luftwaffe had far fewer aircraft flying from 1943 onward than the Allies did, and the Allies didn't shoot down all the German aircraft they encountered. So, they'd naturally almost HAVE to have shot down fewer aircraft than the Germans, who were operating in the famous "target-rich environment" almost everywhere they flew did.
Fully agreeI can't comment personadly on Hartmann's supposed overclaiming, but I am VERY impressed with the fact that he never lost a wingman. That he could fly the combat he flew (1.404 missions, 850 combat missions, 352 victories awarded, meaning 2.41 combat missions per victory (189 LaGG [not La-5s], 81 P-39, 25 Yak-9. etc., I have the list) without losing a wingman speaks volumes for his sense of when to attack and when not to, and his sense of situational awareness.
I posted a thead about the scores of Hartmann. Comparing soviet files agains claims. Not in his favour to say the least.I had stated - e.g. 4 Allies aircrafts to 1 luftwaffe aircraft. I had also stated that under the pretext of both parties haveing the same good aircraft and pilots. Which however wasn't the real case at all. So if e.g. 1 low trained Luftwaffe pilot is aware that 4 allied aircraft's are on approach, then naturally he would try to make a run for it as well - reducing the chances for an Allied pilot to score a kill even further. So where is the disagreement?
Fully agree
Regards
Jagdflieger
Greg - I suggest some NEW research as some of Hartman's feats have been debunked. As mentioned, a very detailed analysis has been done by Nick Hector to a segment of his claims and was found to be 44% overclaimed, and as mentioned, only 307 of his supposed claims had even been 'officially' filed before the end of the war. The fact that he never lost a wing man or was shot down by another fighter is suspect based on Soviet records released in 1991. At first I had a hard time believing this but the more I looked into this and the number of people coming up with the same conclusions, I have to believe their research. This was from the FB site I posted, D. Case is the author and I know he got most of his data from Nick. Sorry for the length of this article, but it does show the detail of research that went into it. I welcome comments, bold points are from me...I can't comment personally on Hartmann's supposed overclaiming, but I am VERY impressed with the fact that he never lost a wingman. That he could fly the combat he flew (1.404 missions, 850 combat missions, 352 victories awarded, meaning 2.41 combat missions per victory (189 LaGG [not La-5s], 81 P-39, 25 Yak-9. etc., I have the list) without losing a wingman speaks volumes for his sense of when to attack and when not to, and his sense of situational awareness.
I posted a thead about the scores of Hartmann. Comparing soviet files agains claims. Not in his favour to say the least.
Sorry Greg - although we know "Papa Joe" was pretty brutal, many of the records released in 1991 CLEARLY show Soviet losses and do validate SOME of Hartman's claims.That's true. But, then again, how reliable are Soviet records from Stalin's time? They told Papa Joe Stalin what he wanted to hear or sometimes died for telling the truth. He was a big proponent of "shooting the messenger" as well as everyone else he could think of.