Why American aces had lower scores than anybody else (3 Viewers)

[GrauGeist]

A US Navy F6F pilot said that on one of their missions near Japan that they encountered a large number of Japanese trainer aircraft and blew a great many of them away, only to be told that they would not count as victories because they were only trainers. I have never heard of that kind of restriction before and I doubt that other countries used that approach for scoring kills.

That's odd, because an enemy plane is an enemy plane, whether it was a trainer or a bomber.

 

[tyrodtom]

A US Navy F6F pilot said that on one of their missions near Japan that they encountered a large number of Japanese trainer aircraft and blew a great many of them away, only to be told that they would not count as victories because they were only trainers. I have never heard of that kind of restriction before and I doubt that other countries used that approach for scoring kills.

Even the Navy wouldn't have a policy that stupid.
Surely you didn't believe him ?

I had a friend told me about a neighbor of his who flew bombers in WW2, and then he adds at the end, this neighbor " couldn't read, or write"

I asked him why did he even bother to waste my time with a lie like that?

 

[MIflyer]

Surely you didn't believe him ?

Well, he wrote it in book, or else an author who interviewed him did. I am not in a position to say he was wrong.

I recall another book written by a highly experienced USN fighter pilot who said that that used F2A's in training and that the landing gear was a pain to operate. Someone replied that he had read he F2A manual and it was easy to operate. So I should believe someone who merely read the manual rather than actually flown the airplane? Same difference.

Another book I read recently said that the Captain of a carrier said that the SB2C's had to get off the deck in no more than certain number of feet. They lost two planes and pilots trying to do that. So, yes, the USN can be that stupid.

 

[pbehn]

That's odd, because an enemy plane is an enemy plane, whether it was a trainer or a bomber.

An enemy plane with a trainee pilot and instructor should count as two.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Well, he wrote it in book, or else an author who interviewed him did. I am not in a position to say he was wrong.

I recall another book written by a highly experienced USN fighter pilot who said that that used F2A's in training and that the landing gear was a pain to operate. Someone replied that he had read he F2A manual and it was easy to operate. So I should believe someone who merely read the manual rather than actually flown the airplane? Same difference.

There used to be an expert here who staked his reputation to his insightful reading of a manual, so, yeah.

 

[Sabrejet]

Isn't this all a bit tasteless and disrespectful? What may have started as a valid query seems to have descended into a pissing contest on how loss of lives should be painted on the side of a bloody aircraft.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Isn't this all a bit tasteless and disrespectful? What may have started as a valid query seems to have descended into a pissing contest on how loss of lives should be painted on the side of a bloody aircraft.

Counting coup in war is probably as old as warfare itself. It doesn't surprise or offend me that students of the subject should also be trying to determine how these counts were made. Fighter pilots put up flags on the fuselage to signify kills, bomber crews put up markings to show how many missions they or the plane had completed, and ships had kill-boards to show what ordnance dispatched from the ship had dispatched.

It seems reasonable to me that students of military history might want to know the basis for these tallies.

 

[GrauGeist]

Isn't this all a bit tasteless and disrespectful? What may have started as a valid query seems to have descended into a pissing contest on how loss of lives should be painted on the side of a bloody aircraft.

During WWII, U.S. submarines kept a tally on their sails of Axis shipping victories.

Pretty sure that each tally included scores (if not hundreds) of dead, whereas an aircraft victory over an enemy may have seen the airman parachute to safety.

WWII German armor and artillery units had the tradition of painting a "kill" ring on the barrel and each of those victories most likely saw their target's crew killed.

 

[Warspite63]

During WWII, U.S. submarines kept a tally on their sails of Axis shipping victories.

Pretty sure that each tally included scores (if not hundreds) of dead, whereas an aircraft victory over an enemy may have seen the airman parachute to safety.

WWII German armor and artillery units had the tradition of painting a "kill" ring on the barrel and each of those victories most likely saw their target's crew killed.

....and bombers kept tally of missions flown. Which really amounts to the number of times they got to drop tons of explosives on cities (I know, there's a LOT more to it, but the concept applies....)