Why American aces had lower scores than anybody else (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter NTGray
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
GregP
Major
I have to ask, do we care what gets salvaged.? The fighter pilot shoots someone down and the victim crash lands. The other side salvages 65% of it. Does that change the fact that the fighter pilot shot the victim down?
No.
The other side does not have to declare a loss for a victory to be scored.
drgondog
Major
It didn't change anything - just a reflection of one of the disconnect between LW Quartermaster record of 'loss vs Damaged'.
Jagdflieger
Senior Airman
- 580
- Mar 23, 2022
On Moelders "rumors"/"slander" I have not come across - maybe due to his claims being true (leaving aside damaged aircraft's that might have landed) he was highly liked and respected not just amongst Luftwaffe pilots but in general by the common folks way into after the war. (maybe also due to his stern religious conviction)
Galland on the other hand is highly attached to "rumors"/"slander"of not just using his wing-mans as cannon fodder but claiming (and receiving) lots of other pilots kills - which those
stats do not show. His flying skills were termed to be a less then an average fighter-pilot - and he couldn't even spot/recognize aircraft's that were more then 800m away.
If one day research would show him on Hartmann's level e.g. 44% and even less I wouldn't be the least surprised.
Regards
Jagdflieger
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
From what I have seen, read and researched over the years, a victory occurs when an enemy aircraft (fighter, bomber, transport, observation, etc.) has been eliminated out of the fight.
This can be instant destruction during an attack or it can be damaging the enemy aircraft to the point that the crew is forced to bale or the aircraft descends to earth (controlled or otherwise).
This also includes active aircraft in the process of landing or taking off.
In other words, a victory is awarded for denying an enemy aircraft it's ability to participate.
This can be instant destruction during an attack or it can be damaging the enemy aircraft to the point that the crew is forced to bale or the aircraft descends to earth (controlled or otherwise).
This also includes active aircraft in the process of landing or taking off.
In other words, a victory is awarded for denying an enemy aircraft it's ability to participate.
drgondog
Major
Curious - what sources support the claims of Galland sacrificing wing man and claiming VCs not his own?
This is a common issue frequently forgotten by the people talking about the 'Experten'.
They usually had a horrific attrition rate of wingmen and often took a served on a plate kill or the credit for a wingmans kill.
It was a matter of serious professional pride to USAAF and RAF Aces not to lose a wingman.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
On the page I posted from Nick Hector's research shows Moelders at an 87.2 accuracy
I never heard of Galland using his wing man as cannon fodder, if anything it seems he was highly respected by his peers and allied pilots alike. The same research was done with Galland - 78.4% accuracy and all of his 102 claims were researched, 80 were verified by Nick Hector.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Points well taken - I remember when I first heard about a French researcher make claims about the inaccuracy of Hartman's aerial victory count. "How dare anyone question the victory claims of Eric Hartman" were my first thoughts, especially when these stories broke shortly after Hartman's death. As more documentation became available from the former Soviet Union, it was clearly shown that there was validity in some of these claims. I see this in the same light when research revealed that the original Flying Tigers never fought against Zeros, I had many heated discussions on this as it was pointed out to me even some of the AVG aces were certain they were engaging Zeros. It was later discovered no IJN units were no where near the CBI or AVG during late 1941/ early 1942
Jagdflieger
Senior Airman
- 580
- Mar 23, 2022
That is a common misconception of Galland in Anglo-American circles - Galland knew how to make him being liked. -and especially by his German peers.
It no secret that within ex. Luftwaffe circles the opinion was extremely negative towards him.
Below is an example of how kills where verified by the Luftwaffe - e.g. StFw Klein from JG 52 - you will notice that the "official" confirmation of e.g his 4th Kill from 2.8.1941 was
attributed towards JG 52 on 26.6.1944 (being as such the 573 kill of the squadron) at average his Kills -being not a propaganda hero - are confirmed by the Air-ministry by not less
then 8-12 month after 1940. At the time of his 4th kill he was however with JG 54!!.
Compare this with the Aces (propaganda favorites) Galland had his kills confirmed by the air-ministry within 1-2 weeks and even less. Hartmann and others usually 3 month.
In the beginning of the war 1939 - 1941 confirmation by the air-ministry at average 2-3 month.
From 1942 -1943 confirmation by the Airministry for the normal dudes 8-12 month
From 1944 - 8-12 month or never eve arrived before the wars ending
So you have two distinctive claim groups
1. The pilot himself via the Squadron and wing confirmation (propaganda suitable) Luftwaffen Flotte (Air-fleet command) in charge for distributing awards
2. The Official kill confirmation by the Air-ministry. - which was not involved in awarding EK1, EK II. Knight-crosses etc.
Regards
Jagdflieger
Attachments
Last edited:
Thumpalumpacus
Major
The inability to admit error is our most certain obstacle to learning. Sometimes it hurts to have our favorite myths, legends, and half-truths taken apart.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
So what this said, I guess this coincides with this statement from my post (9):
"German archives are themselves contradictory. Indeed only 289 of Hartmann's 'victories' were in fact 'officially confirmed' before the German claims system broke down in early 1945. Secondly, only 307 of his supposed claims had even been 'officially' filed before the end of the war."
GregP
Major
Does anyone know if Manfred Von Richthoffen ever had his 80 kills investigated? Not saying anything was amiss, just wondering.
I still acknowledge the usual kills found from WWII as the correct numbers, and will wait and see what surfaces before trending downward myself. But, then again, I still have Boyington with 28, too. Even the the people who have him at 22 will usually acknowledge he had 28, but only 22 in U.S. service. They forget that the AVG was paid for, flown by, and operationally funded by the U.S.A., so I consider the AVG to be U.S. service. Let's just say that the AVG wasn't really wanting to pay out more than they had to. Boyington left the AVG due to disputes over victories, not for any other reason. They offered $500 per victory, but really didn't like to pay, and $500 in WWII was a lot of money. So, of his 6 victories they would not agree with 4, which amounted to $31,524 in today's money (or $27,583 is you say 3.5 victories), and that is not a trivial dispute. If you take his total and subtract 6 (AVG claims), you get 22. I say an AVG victory is a U.S. victory for a U.S. pilot.
The AVG wasn't loved by all who participated, and nobody really knows today, at least nobody who is offering any proof. To make it worse, the USAAF was tracking ground victories for some during the war, even as they were saying his victories weren't all air-to-air.
In the US Naval Aviation WWII Combat Statistics World War II, they say and enemy aircraft destroyed in combat consist of:
"Subsequent to early 1944 this was the standard Army-Navy definition that the plane must be seen to crash, disintegrate in the air, be enveloped in flames, descend on friendly territory, or that its pilot and entire crew be seen to bail out. Prior to this time the definitions varied between commands, but the definitions used in the principal naval theater (SoPac) were at least equally stringent.
The degree to which squadron intelligence officers and commanders succeeded in eliminating duplicating and optimistic pilot claims is not known, but it is believed the amount of overstatement is relatively low. Since 93% of all enemy aircraft claimed destroyed by Naval aircraft were claimed by single-seat fighters and the bulk of the remainder were claimed by two place dive bombers and by lone search planes, the tremendous duplication of gunner's claims experienced by air forces operating large formations of heavy bombers with multiple gun positions is largely eliminated. Duplication of claims between fighter planes can be more easily controlled by careful interrogation.
Over-optimism has always been difficult to control. During the early part of the war, before standard definitions were in force, before full-time trained Air Intelligence Officers were available to apply them, and before the need for conservative operational intelligence was fully appreciated, action reports may often have overstated enemy losses. Evidence from the Japanese has tended to indicate that in SOSB of the early actions, and even as late as the Rabaul raids of early 1944, there was such overstatement.
It must be remembered, however, that the bulk of Naval aerial engagements in the Pacific did not involve the mass combat of Europe. Even the large-size engagements seldom involved more than 30 of our planes against 30 of the enemy's at any one time within visible range of any one point. By far the greatest number of engagements involved only 1 to 8 of our planes, or the same number of the enemy's. Thus in the main the claims under this heading, off set as they are by the exclusion of planes classified as "probably destroyed", are believed to be near the truth, with only local exception, and to be as conservative as those of any major air force."
I still acknowledge the usual kills found from WWII as the correct numbers, and will wait and see what surfaces before trending downward myself. But, then again, I still have Boyington with 28, too. Even the the people who have him at 22 will usually acknowledge he had 28, but only 22 in U.S. service. They forget that the AVG was paid for, flown by, and operationally funded by the U.S.A., so I consider the AVG to be U.S. service. Let's just say that the AVG wasn't really wanting to pay out more than they had to. Boyington left the AVG due to disputes over victories, not for any other reason. They offered $500 per victory, but really didn't like to pay, and $500 in WWII was a lot of money. So, of his 6 victories they would not agree with 4, which amounted to $31,524 in today's money (or $27,583 is you say 3.5 victories), and that is not a trivial dispute. If you take his total and subtract 6 (AVG claims), you get 22. I say an AVG victory is a U.S. victory for a U.S. pilot.
The AVG wasn't loved by all who participated, and nobody really knows today, at least nobody who is offering any proof. To make it worse, the USAAF was tracking ground victories for some during the war, even as they were saying his victories weren't all air-to-air.
In the US Naval Aviation WWII Combat Statistics World War II, they say and enemy aircraft destroyed in combat consist of:
"Subsequent to early 1944 this was the standard Army-Navy definition that the plane must be seen to crash, disintegrate in the air, be enveloped in flames, descend on friendly territory, or that its pilot and entire crew be seen to bail out. Prior to this time the definitions varied between commands, but the definitions used in the principal naval theater (SoPac) were at least equally stringent.
The degree to which squadron intelligence officers and commanders succeeded in eliminating duplicating and optimistic pilot claims is not known, but it is believed the amount of overstatement is relatively low. Since 93% of all enemy aircraft claimed destroyed by Naval aircraft were claimed by single-seat fighters and the bulk of the remainder were claimed by two place dive bombers and by lone search planes, the tremendous duplication of gunner's claims experienced by air forces operating large formations of heavy bombers with multiple gun positions is largely eliminated. Duplication of claims between fighter planes can be more easily controlled by careful interrogation.
Over-optimism has always been difficult to control. During the early part of the war, before standard definitions were in force, before full-time trained Air Intelligence Officers were available to apply them, and before the need for conservative operational intelligence was fully appreciated, action reports may often have overstated enemy losses. Evidence from the Japanese has tended to indicate that in SOSB of the early actions, and even as late as the Rabaul raids of early 1944, there was such overstatement.
It must be remembered, however, that the bulk of Naval aerial engagements in the Pacific did not involve the mass combat of Europe. Even the large-size engagements seldom involved more than 30 of our planes against 30 of the enemy's at any one time within visible range of any one point. By far the greatest number of engagements involved only 1 to 8 of our planes, or the same number of the enemy's. Thus in the main the claims under this heading, off set as they are by the exclusion of planes classified as "probably destroyed", are believed to be near the truth, with only local exception, and to be as conservative as those of any major air force."
don4331
Senior Airman
Trio of questions:
1. If Soviets were attempting to discredit Hartmann's number, wouldn't putting some records of planes destroyed into the grey circular folder be the way to do it? You, of course, can't delete all, because there are too many witness (many of whom you can't reach) that would confirm he was an ace. And deleting all makes it look like a cover up job. But deleting 50% would still be reasonable and discredit Hartmann??
2. Did we do the correct thing in pulling our aces? Or should we have asked them to perform 2nd and 3rd tours? I know there are several pilots who talked themselves into 2nd tours and did far better on that tour as they "knew what they were doing"
3. Were the Allied pilots "doing the right thing for the war effort"? Marseille racked up a huge number of victories over Allied fighters, but had basically no impact on the battle. Would he have had more impact if he was shooting down the bombers/destroying the supply lines which Allied pilots were, would it have had more effect on victory although at the cost of personal glory?
1. If Soviets were attempting to discredit Hartmann's number, wouldn't putting some records of planes destroyed into the grey circular folder be the way to do it? You, of course, can't delete all, because there are too many witness (many of whom you can't reach) that would confirm he was an ace. And deleting all makes it look like a cover up job. But deleting 50% would still be reasonable and discredit Hartmann??
2. Did we do the correct thing in pulling our aces? Or should we have asked them to perform 2nd and 3rd tours? I know there are several pilots who talked themselves into 2nd tours and did far better on that tour as they "knew what they were doing"
3. Were the Allied pilots "doing the right thing for the war effort"? Marseille racked up a huge number of victories over Allied fighters, but had basically no impact on the battle. Would he have had more impact if he was shooting down the bombers/destroying the supply lines which Allied pilots were, would it have had more effect on victory although at the cost of personal glory?
Thumpalumpacus
Major
I think we did, simply because we had numbers on our side. When you can call up thousands of potential pilots and train them in North American safe air -- as both the US and Britain did -- pulling veterans back to train after a tour of duty enables the passing of battle-wisdom down.
Now, had we been short of pilots or fuel, then maybe -- maybe -- keeping vets on the front lines makes sense. But it also ensures that the lessons the ace has learnt will die with him, which will likely be the end result if you fly them without rotation.
Had the Germans had more bomber assets in the theater, Marseille's efforts might have been more useful, in that every fighter knocked down is a fighter that cannot be flown against the bombers. Had Marseille focused on bombers, would he have shot down even more? Or would he been killed earlier by dint of falling victim to escorting fighters while running down a bomber?
Once the 8th AF fighters were cut loose from tight escort and allowed to free-hunt, LW fighters became a non-issue in six or eight weeks, mostly.
How long would Marseille have survived flying defensive missions is the real question, and who knows the answer to that?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I do know he had a habit of traveling to the crash site of his victim and cutting the serial number of the aircraft he destroyed from the fabric. I doubt he did this for all 80 of his kills. I never heard of anyone contesting his numbers
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I don't think the Soviets ever tried to discredit Hartman's numbers, whether they were 352, 200 or 70. When he was put on trial for war crimes, he was convicted of destroying 345 Soviet aircraft (among other things), so they recognized at least some of his claims. As mentioned several times, when records were made available after the fall of the Soviet Union, a comparison was made between Hartman's claims and Soviet losses - those recorded losses "did not have any enemy pilot's name on them."
I believe we did - their return was good for morale, war bonds and training of other pilots.
I don't know what you mean by "doing the right thing for the war effort". Of course they did! It's a matter of what their mission was and if they were able to carry it out. By shooting down the enemy , an impact was being made! I suggest you look in to JG 27 and what their mission was in North Africa!!!
Jagdgeschwader 27 - Wikipedia
If you explore Marseille's war record, he was posted to North Africa in early 1941, he was killed in September 1942, the 8th AF staged it first raid in France a month earlier. You have a great misunderstanding of the role of the fighter pilot during WW2 - personal glory?!? Performing the mission and STAYING ALIVE took precedence over personal glory which I think was the last thing on their minds!!!
A couple of points - Being on the defensive favors a higher score. The other guy has to come to you, and if he encounters defensive fighters, has to try to get past them. This also ties into the sortie rate - If you're offensive, you're flying from, say, East Anglia in England past Berlin, to, say Prague. 4-5 hours if it's fairly close to the coast, upwards of 8 hours for a long mission. If you're the defender, you're sitting alert until the sector control launches you, you form up, and GCI points you at the incoming formations. You engage, disengage, recover and the ground crew turns you around. SO, an hour, maybe an hour and a half.
And you're ready for the next round.
GregP
Major
The way the Soviet air force operated in WWII was extreme close-range ground support. It would not surprise me in the least if some Soviet airfields were overrun between when planes took off and when they landed. I think they would not deliberately try to sabotage Hartmann specifically, but it would not surprise me at all if many losses were simply not recorded as the Germans rapidly advanced. Say the Soviets sent maybe 8 attack planes to hits the Germans and, when they returned, the airfield was under attack. How would the Soviets know which ones crashed due to running out of fuel and which ones were shot down by attacking Luftwaffe aircraft?
These were the Russian Steppes, and were frozen in winter and a quagmire in summer. If the war hadn't happened, maybe nobody would see them for decades or longer on purpose. Also, if they moved an airfield, there is nothing saying the new airfields were ready when the aircraft got there, so they'd have no choice but to bail out or try to set down on the steppes when fuel became the limiting factor.
I think the Russian record keepers tried to do a decent job while trying not to get killed for reporting the truth, but I don't really know. I'm just distrustful of the truth coming out of the WWII soviet Union instead of whatever the party line was. Perhaps that is simply not true and I'm suspicious for no reason, but their claims in the Korean War were ludicrously off from what we lost, and that was only a few years later.
Maybe reports of their own losses were better than their claims (most nation were this way), and I'm all wet thinking they were reporting losses with some attention to personal survival. Could be ...
These were the Russian Steppes, and were frozen in winter and a quagmire in summer. If the war hadn't happened, maybe nobody would see them for decades or longer on purpose. Also, if they moved an airfield, there is nothing saying the new airfields were ready when the aircraft got there, so they'd have no choice but to bail out or try to set down on the steppes when fuel became the limiting factor.
I think the Russian record keepers tried to do a decent job while trying not to get killed for reporting the truth, but I don't really know. I'm just distrustful of the truth coming out of the WWII soviet Union instead of whatever the party line was. Perhaps that is simply not true and I'm suspicious for no reason, but their claims in the Korean War were ludicrously off from what we lost, and that was only a few years later.
Maybe reports of their own losses were better than their claims (most nation were this way), and I'm all wet thinking they were reporting losses with some attention to personal survival. Could be ...
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Good points but I think you had a matter of eye witnesses and in some cases surviving pilots.
Lots of assumptions there Greg but it probably did happen
I think you'll find the Soviets did keep good records according to those who gained access to those records after the collapse of the Soviet Union, that's what sparked much interest in comparing aerial combat claims on both sides. In the case of Hartman, researchers found a segment of his claims to be pretty inaccurate but yet other Luftwaffe aces who flew on the eastern front faired much better. I think we've covered the many reasons for this, but the facts still remain, even if they were discovered 60 or 70 years later...
Now as far as post war claims (Korea). An entirely different story - not only did you have a clash of ideologies, but those Soviet pilots covertly flying in Korea had pressures and incentives to overclaim - they were monetarily rewarded for their achievements but had the potential of "vanishing" if they were less than successful
For WW2 it was looking that way
