SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I thought he meant that all those "thousands" of F-86s the U.S. produced. Which is why, whatever the Communist air forces were calling themselves, were able to shoot down so many.
Why American aces had lower scores than anybody else
- Thread starter NTGray
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Thumpalumpacus
Major
He was being sarcastic, as I read it.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I believe those F-86 losses were attributed to combat, IIRC I believe a total of ~130 Sabers were lost to all causes, some were unknown and "might" have been attributed to combat but still no where near what the Soviets claimed.
Jagdflieger
Senior Airman
- 580
- Mar 23, 2022
It was an attempt of mixing sarcasm with a joke. - guess I failed miserably
Regards
Jagdflieger
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Again, welcome to my world.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Humor is like underwear, everyone's pair is a little different.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Gosh, I loves me some Stalin memes.
GregP
Major
About memories, I agree ... to a point. I have spoken with maybe 100 WWII pilots who gave presentations at the Planes of Fame. I absolutely believe their memories of how their planes flew, but distrust their recollections of which airplanes were "best" unless they flew multiple types. A great pilot in a P-40 will likely beat an average one in a P-51. But, their recollections of which side was more numerous, what missions were hairy, and the like are pretty good. One guy recalled the gear speeds, flap speeds, cruise speeds, and the max speed he ever saw in a dive. When I checked the first three later, they were spot on.
Some guys build themselves up and some talk like they are lucky to be alive after aerial combat. The first type are unreliable. The second type seem to have much better memories because they aren't consumed with perpetuating specific lies. It isn't all that difficult to pick out which ones are telling it like it was.
One of them said that his P-51D was great fighter with respect to the Bf 109 but, if the Bf 109 was several thousand feet above him and attacking, then somehow it seemed to get a whole lot better at fighting and his trusty P-51D seemed to get somehow not quite as good.
That reminded me of teaching others to fly radio control airplanes. The airplanes seemed to fly fine up in the air but flew worse and worse as they got closer to the ground. It wasn't the case, but seemed that way to someone who wasn't a seasoned RC pilot. The airplane didn't fly any differently when it got near the ground, but the consequences of poor piloting were much quicker to see when the ground reached up to grab at the airplane ... or, at least, it seemed that way to the neophyte RC pilot.
Last edited:
Jagdflieger
Senior Airman
- 580
- Mar 23, 2022
I agree fully with what you wrote - for the last part, because since I never flew RC planes, I wouldn't know.
I haven't managed to talk to 100WW2 pilots, but just around a dozen ex. Luftwaffe fighter-pilots.
However what I noticed was, that pilots referring to their 'favorite" aircraft depended on being a pilot who just wanted to fly and get home safe and those who swooped in
to get a kill. For the latter the priorities were set towards the armament-mix and its reliability, but foremost the control and characteristics of the engine seemed to be far more
of importance then the maneuver and speed characteristics of the respective aircraft. This became very obvious when they amongst themselves were comparing or exchanging
their experience of the Bf 109 to the Fw 190.
Then again opinions differentiated greatly between those who had engaged bombers and those who had focused their memories more on Allied fighters.
Only in regards to the Fw 190D-9 and variants (which 3-4 of them flew) there was a common consensus - that this aircraft should have replaced the Bf 109 entirely and that it could have been available more earlier (and saved a lot more lives) if not so many resources had gone into e.g. the Me 262 and other jet fighters.
Did you also get that impression? in regards to these "priorities"?
Regards
Jagdflieger
GregP
Major
If you shoot someone down, you SHOULD receive a victory credit. That's why you're up there in a fighter ... to shoot attacking aircraft down. If the enemy pilot survives, it doesn't change the fact that you shot him out of the fight.
Again, what is an aerial victory? To me, it is shooting another aircraft out of the fight in flames or major pieces flying off so it is unflyable going down or at LEAST going down in any case, making the opposing pilot abandon his aircraft (assumes a single-seater) whether or not it lands safely and is recovered, or shooting out his engine(s) so the aircraft loses power and must make an emergency landing. The enemy does not necessarily have to acknowledge a loss for you to have a valid victory claim, and the enemy pilot does not have to die ... he has to be "out of the fight" to be considered a victory. It is a valid a victory if the enemy pilot parachutes to safety.
In WWII air combat victory claims were probably an average of 2 or 3 times greater than actual losses, for all air forces, Axis and Allied. So if Hartmann had a 44% claim accuracy (that is only for about a fifth of his claims; his overall accuracy could be worse) that would pretty much match the overall overclaiming going on. Seen in that light, Hartmann was perhaps not that bad, or at least not worse than many others when it comes to accuracy.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Greg, I agree with you, and here's why: even an ace like Rall cops to being shot down, in his own words, multiple times, tells me that he regarded being forced out of the air as a "kill" even though the pilot (obviously, in his case and so many others) wasn't actually killed.
So I think the "kill" verbiage is about killing the airplane, not the pilot. That's how all sides claimed them, after all. No one went looking up obituaries or anything. And of course a lot of planes were shot out of a fight but still recovered to be repaired and fight again. I think this is the primary cause of the overclaims we always talk about. In a swirling slashing action it's pretty dumb to hang around to confirm every.single.thing, 'cause they had bigger fish to fry, and by the way, your ass might get shot off stooging around. Someone like Hartmann, a slash-and-burner, certainly won't be chasing them into the ground.
Fighter pilots in that day, without onboard radar, had to go only with what they saw, and of course there will be a discrepancy between that and the loss-returns for any air force on a given day. I chalk that shit up to fog-of-war rather than dishonesty for the most part.
Rall admits he got shot down five times. I bet his definition of "shot down" is a lot more informed than mine or anyone else's here, even as he lived to tell about those moments; and those shoot-downs were recorded as "kills" on someone's squadron board.
Under those conditions, overclaims are a fact of life.
Last edited:
Jagdflieger
Senior Airman
- 580
- Mar 23, 2022
Have you seen overall stats for certain periods that would confirm a discrepancy of 100-200%? I guess you meant to say 20-30%?
Even an over-claim exceeding 50% would be difficult for me to follow due to the system implemented by the Luftwaffe in regards to affirming kills.
That this system became questionable or impractical from the end of 1944 onward, would be another issue.
In the case of Erich Hartmann and his book, there is a (kill) documentation that is well covered until December 1943 (totaling 150 kills in 391 missions) - then he himself said that
he has no records available from that time onward. Further kill claims had been added by the authors researching the files of III./JG 52 and letters to his to be and wife. It is correct however that Hartmann never disputed himself the overall claim with 352 kills in the book.
What I find strange about these "sudden" Soviet documents is that during Hartmann's POW imprisonment time (11 years) and countless attempts by the NKDW to paint him as a war-criminal, and in general the NKDW policy of destabilizing/discrediting popular known German's and their fame, not a single attempt was made towards Hartmann (at least not in the book or in public in West-Germany) to uncover him as a fraud. Also not during his Bundeswehr Luftwaffe times. What better propaganda could the Soviets get then to discriminate him and others based on records reviewing his or others claims? Surely the NKWD had access to these stats. But a proofen deviation of e.g. 20% wouldn't make this matter a worthy sensation.
Regards
Jagdflieger
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
In the list I posted, a segment of the ace's claims were analyzed and compared against allied records so you're only looking at a snapshot. If you look at some of the other aces, they faired way better while flying in the east. The research shown shows Gunter Rall at 86% accuracy, Steinhoff's was found to be 91% so Hartman's ratio was rather poor when compared to at least 2 of his contemporaries.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The claims shown in Hartman's book (written many years ago) as well as records from III./JG 52 were never compared to Soviet losses until those records became available when the Soviet Union fell, that's where these "sudden" Soviet documents came from. As mentioned earlier, the losses shown in these records had no indication on who brought down the listed aircraft. The people who researched Hartman (as well as other aces) were just as surprised to see this disparity as they were to see the accuracy of other aces researched. If the 44% inaccuracy was applied to all of Hartman's claims, it would show he had 197.2 kills. At 20% as you mention, it would put him at 281. Bottom line, it's clear that Hartman overclaimed substantially, Now we can discuss the reasons behind this but considering what Hartman went through during and after the war, I don't believe there was any malicious intent.
- Thread starter
- #79
Kills would be a product of:
1-pilot ability (including group training and tactics)
2-number of enemy planes faced in a typical sortie
3-total number of combat sorties flown (where the enemy was engaged and shots were exchanged).
Looking only at 2 and 3, how did American and British "opportunities" compare to German, Japanese, and Finnish opportunities? Is that information easily accessible in detail? In general? How many total sorties, and sorties that included combat, did Hartmann fly? How many for Bong?
1-pilot ability (including group training and tactics)
2-number of enemy planes faced in a typical sortie
3-total number of combat sorties flown (where the enemy was engaged and shots were exchanged).
Looking only at 2 and 3, how did American and British "opportunities" compare to German, Japanese, and Finnish opportunities? Is that information easily accessible in detail? In general? How many total sorties, and sorties that included combat, did Hartmann fly? How many for Bong?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Lot's to consider - first when comparing, consider where a certain country is fighting. For the US - Pacific? ETO? MTO? CBI? For the Luftwaffe - east? west? Africa? Some environments were "combat rich," others had rare fighter to fighter contact. A former neighbor Col. Mike Alba had 2 aerial kills, one on the ground and one damaged while flying over Europe, and he told me during his tour he only seen an enemy aircraft in the air about 4 or 5 times, yet other 8th AF units had air to air encounters almost daily (Bill M. could probably comment on this with his father's experiences). This "being at the right place at the right time."
Hartman flew just over 1400 missions. Bong 200 missions.
