Why American aces had lower scores than anybody else

[Clayton Magnet]

Of those, 27 were authenticated through Italian and German records

And unfortunately, as per Wiki, most of the German records related to that were destroyed in 1945.
"... Other research dedicated to the history of German bomber units, some of which took part in the air battles against Pattle's unit, have drawn attention to the fact that 97–98 percent of all German primary records belonging to the Luftwaffe have been lost either through Allied bombing or through Hermann Göring's order to destroy all records in the first week of May 1945. This makes any research into German bomber losses difficult..."

 

[NTGray]

For the U.S.A., I show 13,321 pilots who scored at least a shared victory, and 708 who scored at least 5 victories.

And that brings me to a related topic of discussion. How many American fighter pilots flew at least one combat sortie, and out of those, how many never scored a kill?
It's just a wild guess on my part, but I suspect that about 50% of all kills were gained by just the top 5% of pilots. Or something like that. And the percentages might be similar for other nations. Am I anywhere close to being right? Or totally bonkers?

 

[J_P_C]

One of the Il-2 pilots, Leytenat Pavel Evdokimov, saw a "Messer" jump his comrade V. Ermakov, who , firing at close range managed to put a 20-mm burst into the Bf.109, which performed a belly-landing - this was Hartmann's Bf109G-6.

No Il-2 were lost by 232 ShAP that day, although two were damaged.

Once again, Hartmann's "kills" were overclaims (even when in this case both were in good faith).

And he was not downed by flak, but by Shturmovik pilot Pavel Evdokimov.

In combat with Il-2s, his Bf109G was supposedly damaged by debris from his second claim and he was forced to land behind Soviet lines. This is in fact not true.

to be exact - IL2 had no 20mm cannons just 23mm

 

[FLYBOYJ]

to be exact - IL2 had no 20mm cannons just 23mm

I saw that, quoted from the original source.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

No, 100-200 % overclaiming is not exceptional when it come to WWII air combat.

In perspective: a pilot goes on a mission, finds combat, engages, and shoots two enemy fighters with clear hits. The first enemy catches fire and the pilot bails out, there's the first claim. The second fighter starts trailing fuel vapor from a wing and drops out of the fight wildly fast in order to land before the fire starts, and lands safely.

If the attacking pilot claims both, that right there is a 100% overclaim (2 is 100% more than 1). Say instead he bags another fighter on the way home that actually crashes and he lays a third claim. His overclaiming is still 50% (because 3 is 50% more than 2). Or -- if the third fighter he hits escapes with a deliberate spin or other ruse to fool the attacker, who still claims it, we now have a 200% overclaim rate.

So overclaiming at high percentages should not be surprising. It's understandable, under the circumstances, as noted above, regarding the dangers of and instruction against stooging around for confirmations, or the e/a flying into a cloud and getting away unseen, etc.

 

[Zippythehog]

Short answer-USAAF, USN and to an extent RAF-pilots were rotated out of combat to train the nuggets.

The Japanese, Nazi and Soviet mentality was that it was the pilot's job to fight until the hostilities ceased, were injured (then back at it), or were killed.

 

[33k in the air]

In perspective: a pilot goes on a mission, finds combat, engages, and shoots two enemy fighters with clear hits. The first enemy catches fire and the pilot bails out, there's the first claim. The second fighter starts trailing fuel vapor from a wing and drops out of the fight wildly fast in order to land before the fire starts, and lands safely.

If the attacking pilot claims both, that right there is a 100% overclaim (2 is 100% more than 1). Say instead he bags another fighter on the way home that actually crashes and he lays a third claim. His overclaiming is still 50% (because 3 is 50% more than 2). Or -- if the third fighter he hits escapes with a deliberate spin or other ruse to fool the attacker, who still claims it, we now have a 200% overclaim rate.

So overclaiming at high percentages should not be surprising. It's understandable, under the circumstances, as noted above, regarding the dangers of and instruction against stooging around for confirmations, or the e/a flying into a cloud and getting away unseen, etc.

Or it could happen this way: a pilot hits the opposing fighter, which trails smoke and falls away. The pilot could claim a kill. Then, that fighter recovers at lower altitude, and is then spotted by another pilot, who attacks it and sees it crash. That's two different pilots claiming a kill, but it was only one enemy aircraft actually downed.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Or it could happen this way: a pilot hits the opposing fighter, which trails smoke and falls away. The pilot could claim a kill. Then, that fighter recovers at lower altitude, and is then spotted by another pilot, who attacks it and sees it crash. That's two different pilots claiming a kill, but it was only one enemy aircraft actually downed.

A great point, in line with J Jagdflieger 's points about overlapping claims above.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

Short answer-USAAF, USN and to an extent RAF-pilots were rotated out of combat to train the nuggets

Most of the high scoring RAF pilots were out of the fight by 1942.
Either killed (Pattle, Finucane, etc), captured (Bader, Tuck, etc), or transitioned into a training role (Vale, Lacey, etc.)
Although some of the high scorers occasionally managed to "negotiate" back into operational units

 

[ROK-BIRDMAN]

27kills ace Robert s Johnson sortie 89 times and 352 kills erich hartmann sortie 1404 times.
that's why us aces had lower kills.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Under those conditions, overclaims are a fact of life.

I couldn't agree more.

I also would like to stress the imperfect/incomplete and often outright conflicting nature of WW2 aircraft claim/loss records. No matter the good intentions, or the thoroughness, of official record keepers from the period, they only had limited information to work from. And, they had to work with the recollections of people in a high stress situation.

In the early 2000s I compiled a list of Hawker Typhoon combat losses for the three months after the D-Day landings. I cross referenced RAF records from the UK's National Archive with records from Group histories, Squadron diaries, the Thomas & Shores Typhoon/Tempest book and various lists published online. I think I managed to get about a 75 to 80% agreement on loss causes between the RAF's own records and the others. And that was where the cause was given. There were also plenty of 'failed to return' and 'cause not known/cause unknown' and 'probable XXXX' (fighters/flak/malfunction etc etc).

Human memories and perceptions are fallible. Doubly so for humans in combat. And, there are always uknowns in the mix.

So, I'm very dubious of accepting ANY particular set of kill claims as accurate. Unfortunately, this skepticism is sometimes seen as an affront by people who have a particular affection/affiliation for an country/pilot/aircraft or anything else.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

So, I'm very dubious of accepting ANY particular set of kill claims as accurate. Unfortunately, this skepticism is sometimes seen as an affront by people who have a particular affection/affiliation for an country/pilot/aircraft or anything else.

Yeah, you see those types in all walks of life. I don't trip. I go with what makes the most sense to me and don't think what I say matters enough to give affront to anyone. It shouldn't, that's for sure. I'm one of the less-knowledgeable members here, frankly.

 

[Jagdflieger]

You beat me to the punch on this - From one site - "44 confirmed, with 50 as a possible final total. Of those, 27 were authenticated through Italian and German records."

How a Forgotten South African Became the UK's Top WWII Ace

South African pilot “Pat” Pattle’s star burned brightly over North Africa and Greece during his meteoric combat career. April 20, 1941: one week before

www.historynet.com

A bit of an awkward situation here. Using the same approach as that used to research Hartmann's kills - then from the 44 kills (or 50 possible) only 27 were authenticated by Italian and German records. In that case he would fare just as bad as Hartmann.

Quote: Back at Sidi Barrani, the exultant RAF pilots claimed nine confirmed kills and six probables, for the loss of two Gladiators and one pilot. (Actual Italian losses were four destroyed and four crash-landed.) that incident would be an example for a 100%+ over-claim in regards to kills/ but just a 10% over-claim in regards to downings.

In case someone had decided (I wouldn't know) to attribute the six probables as kills (as the Luftwaffe might have done) it would come down to a 300% over-claim in kills and an over-claim in regards to downing of 90%.

Also one might need to analyze the respective countries terms (language)
In German the term used is: Luftsieg (aerial victory) in which case it doesn't matter if the opposing pilot was killed or managed to land his damaged plane.
Luftsieg simply stands for taking out an enemy plane from a present aerial encounter.

This also explains the situation during the BoB - were the Luftwaffe did not realize as to what extend downed RAF pilots were able to get back into the battle within even the same day
or the next. IIRC it was Moelders who had brought up this issue towards Goering after being 2 month into the BoB.

As for over-claims, I think that this was known to Goering and Hitler, thus increasing the initial aerial victory of IIRC 15 to 25 (during the BoB) and then 50 for the awarding of the Knights-cross on the Western front. Not just due to increasing Luftsieg opportunities due to a prolonged war. Okay just my opinion.


Regards
Jagdflieger

 

[Stig1207]

Where did you get that? I'd say it is exceptional. A 200% overclaim would show up as 33.33% validated accuracy (claimed 66.66% more than he got).

There were NONE in Flyboyj's list with an accuracy that low, and most were above 75% which, in the fog of aerial combat with many planes in the sky, isn't really all that surprising. Additionally, we really do NOT know how the guys who came up with this list decided on accuracy. Was it reasonable?

Let me rephrase that; I don't know since I haven't read their work yet.

There has to be some that are 75% accurate for the overall accuracy to be 33-50%, there will be some that are worse; Hartmann's average might well be much lower than 44%, if all his claims could be validated against Allied losses.

 

[Stig1207]

The claims on that list were verified against reported allied losses from the same day. Remember - that list is just a snapshot and Marseille had a pretty good claim percentage based on the sample examined.

Not sure I understand; this is what I highligthed:

Hans-Joachim Marseille: 135 of 163 - 82.8%

 

[FLYBOYJ]

A bit of an awkward situation here. Using the same approach as that used to research Hartmann's kills - then from the 44 kills (or 50 possible) only 27 were authenticated by Italian and German records. In that case he would fare just as bad as Hartmann.

It's not awkward at all. In the case of Pattle, it would be the same situation. It was known at Pattle wasn't too keen on "keeping score" and it was also mentioned that during this period thigs were pretty chaotic so accurate records weren't kept - same as Hartman.

Quote: Back at Sidi Barrani, the exultant RAF pilots claimed nine confirmed kills and six probables, for the loss of two Gladiators and one pilot. (Actual Italian losses were four destroyed and four crash-landed.) that incident would be an example for a 100%+ over-claim in regards to kills/ but just a 10% over-claim in regards to downings.

"Nine confirmed - 4 destroyed, four crashed" - that adds up the eight. Are these 4 the same? Probables are not confirmed as victories

In case someone had decided (I wouldn't know) to attribute the six probables as kills (as the Luftwaffe might have done) it would come down to a 300% over-claim in kills and an over-claim in regards to downing of 90%.

Again, probables are not counted.

Also one might need to analyze the respective countries terms (language)
In German the term used is: Luftsieg (aerial victory) in which case it doesn't matter if the opposing pilot was killed or managed to land his damaged plane.
Luftsieg simply stands for taking out an enemy plane from a present aerial encounter.

And that discussion was mentioned earlier - I agree, for an aerial victory to be counted the opposing aircraft is taken out of the fight regardless if the pilot is killed or not

This also explains the situation during the BoB - were the Luftwaffe did not realize as to what extend downed RAF pilots were able to get back into the battle within even the same day
or the next. IIRC it was Moelders who had brought up this issue towards Goering after being 2 month into the BoB.

As for over-claims, I think that this was known to Goering and Hitler, thus increasing the initial aerial victory of IIRC 15 to 25 (during the BoB) and then 50 for the awarding of the Knights-cross on the Western front. Not just due to increasing Luftsieg opportunities due to a prolonged war. Okay just my opinion.


Regards
Jagdflieger

OK - some points - on that list I posted earlier, look at the research done on Moelder's and Galland's scores - pretty high!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Not sure I understand; this is what I highligthed:

"I am not familiar with how the claims in that list were verified" Your words - and again, the folks who did this research bounced the claims against British records. I can direct you to the individuals who did this research

 

[drgondog]

Based on my own research into claim vs credit in ETO, there were two types of claims which resulted in overclaim credits. Fw 190 pushing throttle and entering a flat spin into an overcast - leading to 'smoking and out of control' claim, and b.) forcing a crash landing. The Germans declared 60% damage as salvage, but lesser degrees of damage were deemed 'damaged', not 'destroyed'. Later, the examples of smoking and spinning out of control aircraft were assigned 'probable' unless seen to crash and burn.

 

[SaparotRob]

Weren't A6Ms "shot down" for a similar reason? When the Zero was jumped and its pilot throttled up, the Zero would smoke as it maneuvered away. The Zero would be claimed.

 

[drgondog]

The AAF ETO definition for destruction - which was later the USAF standard - specified that conditions which must be met are either a.) major airframe separation such as empennage or wing, b. Airframe seen to blow up, c.) Pilot departed from the aircraft and /or d.) Seen to crash. The 'vehicle' destroyed must be a.) powered (no ballons or gliders), b.) Piloted (no V-1s), Military (civilian transport didn't count, but military transport was fair game). 'Out of control' was initially accepted with witness, but later reduced to Probable

The rigor between US units varied considerably. In the ETO either eyewitness or combat film was required. In SWP and USN/USMC an officer's word of honor in the case of otherwise unobserved destruction was credited. In the 9th AF such VCs were assigned 'unconfirmed destroyed' and not counted in official totals. Exception to ETO rule were returning POW claims. Neither 5th, 7th, 10th, 12th, 13th or 14th AF had officially designated Victory Credit Boards centrally reviewing individual pilot and squadron claims. The Claims were cited in individual Reports.