Who was the best WWII pilot? [Archive] - The Great Planes and warbirds Community

tenmmike

9th November 2003, 21:23

here is the 1943 list for herr hartmann..5 Nov. 1942 IL-2
27 Jan. 1943 MIG-1
9 Feb. 1943 Lagg-3
10 Feb. 1943 Boston
24 Mar. 1943 U-2
27 Mar. 1943 I-16 Rata
15 Apr. 1943 Airacobra
26 Apr. 1943 R-5
28 Apr. 1943 Lagg-3
30 Apr. 1943 Lagg-3
30 Apr. 1943 Lagg-3
7 May 1943 La-5
11 May 1943 Lagg-3
15 May 1943 U-2
16 May 1943 La-5
18 May 1943 Lagg-3
5 July 1943 Airacobra
5 July 1943 Airacobra
5 July 1943 Airacobra
5 July 1943 La-5
7 July 1943 IL-2
7 July 1943 IL-2
7 July 1943 IL-2
7 July 1943 La-5
7 July 1943 La-5
7 July 1943 La-5
7 July 1943 La-5
8 July 1943 La-5
8 July 1943 La-5
8 July 1943 La-5
8 July 1943 La-5
10 July 1943 La-5
11 July 1943 La-5
15 July 1943 La-5
15 July 1943 La-5
16 July 1943 La-5
16 July 1943 La-5
17 July 1943 La-5
31 July 1943 La-5
1 Aug. 1943 La-5
1 Aug. 1943 La-5
1 Aug. 1943 YAK-7
1 Aug. 1943 YAK-7
1 Aug. 1943 YAK-7
3 Aug. 1943 La-5
3 Aug. 1943 YAK-7
3 Aug. 1943 YAK-7
3 Aug. 1943 La-5
4 Aug. 1943 La-5
4 Aug. 1943 La-5
4 Aug. 1943 La-5
4 Aug. 1943 YAK-7
4 Aug. 1943 La-5
5 Aug. 1943 La-5
6 Aug. 1943 YAK-1
7 Aug. 1943 YAK-1
7 Aug. 1943 YAK-1
7 Aug. 1943 Pe-2
7 Aug. 1943 Pe-2
7 Aug. 1943 YAK-1
7 Aug. 1943 La-5
7 Aug. 1943 La-5
8 Aug. 1943 YAK-1
8 Aug. 1943 La-5
9 Aug. 1943 La-5
9 Aug. 1943 YAK-1
9 Aug. 1943 YAK-1
9 Aug. 1943 YAK-1
12 Aug. 1943 La-5
15 Aug. 1943 Pe-2
15 Aug. 1943 La-5
15 Aug. 1943 La-5
17 Aug. 1943 La-5
17 Aug. 1943 Airacobra
17 Aug. 1943 Airacobra
17 Aug. 1943 Airacobra
18 Aug. 1943 La-5
18 Aug. 1943 La-5
18 Aug. 1943 La-5
19 Aug. 1943 La-5
19 Aug. 1943 La-5
19 Aug. 1943 Airacobra
20 Aug. 1943 IL-2
20 Aug. 1943 IL-2
15 Sep. 1943 La-5
18 Sep. 1943 La-5
18 Sep. 1943 La-5
18 Sep. 1943 La-5
18 Sep. 1943 La-5
19 Sep. 1943 La-5
20 Sep. 1943 La-5
20 Sep. 1943 La-5
20 Sep. 1943 Airacobra
20 Sep. 1943 La-5
25 Sep. 1943 La-5
25 Sep. 1943 La-5
25 Sep. 1943 La-5
26 Sep. 1943 La-5
26 Sep. 1943 Airacobra
26 Sep. 1943 Airacobra
27 Sep. 1943 La-5
27 Sep. 1943 La-5
28 Sep. 1943 La-5
29 Sep. 1943 La-5
29 Sep. 1943 Airacobra
30 Sep. 1943 La-5
30 Sep. 1943 Airacobra
30 Sep. 1943 Airacobra
1 Oct. 1943 La-5
1 Oct. 1943 La-5
2 Oct. 1943 La-5
2 Oct. 1943 Pe-2
2 Oct. 1943 Airacobra
2 Oct. 1943 La-5
3 Oct. 1943 La-5
3 Oct. 1943 La-5
4 Oct. 1943 Airacobra
11 Oct. 1943 La-5
12 Oct. 1943 La-5
12 Oct. 1943 La-5
12 Oct. 1943 La-5
12 Oct. 1943 La-5
13 Oct. 1943 La-5
14 Oct. 1943 La-5
14 Oct. 1943 La-5
14 Oct. 1943 La-5
15 Oct. 1943 La-5
15 Oct. 1943 La-5
15 Oct. 1943 La-5
20 Oct. 1943 Airacobra
20 Oct. 1943 Airacobra
20 Oct. 1943 Airacobra
21 Oct. 1943 La-5
24 Oct. 1943 La-5
24 Oct. 1943 La-5
25 Oct. 1943 Pe-2
25 Oct. 1943 La-5
26 Oct. 1943 Airacobra
26 Oct. 1943 Airacobra
29 Oct. 1943 La-5
29 Oct. 1943 Airacobra
7 Dec. 1943 La-7
13 Dec. 1943 La-7

simon

9th November 2003, 23:38

Impressive....

How about a bit more background on your choice and why you think he qualifies?

GregP

10th November 2003, 13:30

Wonderful. Where did you get Hartmann's list for 1943 and can you get his entire kill list?

This is exactky the detail I have been searching for but have not yet found.

So ... keep it coming ...

Ricardo1174

11th November 2003, 01:54

Yes, I'd also wish to get Hartman's kill list as well as other outstanding fighter pilots like Sailor Malan, Theo Weissenberger, Gabreski, Caldwell.....

I have other references of many other pilots (sorties, list of kills, # victories, rate of kill, combat theater, aircraft(s) flown) My main interest is to know if they made "easy picks" or if they really are as great as they look like .

1- Quantity?
2- Quality?
3- Both?

In my opinion, combat theater and aircraft flown are very important and should be considered, because if you are flying an inferior aircraft and you reach "acedom status" against superior machines then you are really making use of your abilities. [^]

tenmmike

11th November 2003, 06:40

greetings the info comes from the very good book "the blond knight of germany" i will not have my book back till this coming weekend .but im a poor typer so im pretty sure im not going to type out 352 lines lol....note the last 2 kills listed are la7 ..this is in somewhat dispute as the la7 did not hit the front lines in tell mid 44..it might be explaned as a later entry as it sometimes took 3-6 months to get confirmation unlike reports to the contrary the germans were more meticulas then the us by a fair margine..or la5fn that he thought looked different and simply made the logical assunption that it was differient therfore the next inline model was a la-7 (possible predeployment intelligence? when i get it back ill answere any thing i cant remember off the top of my head

GregP

13th November 2003, 16:28

Thanks for the source, tenmike!

tenmmike

15th November 2003, 16:35

my eric hartmann book comes back to me today (sat) if ya got any questions like several guys on the first page did , ill do my best to get ya the info

CAPILATUS

16th November 2003, 07:17

Hi, all!
What would be a great way to shoose the best from fighting one by one!
Ok, just dreaming.
I would say to determine a shot down plane among Russian pilots they had to have 3 independent sources to confirmed really got down the planes. It could not be evidence if a plane was down over the front line.

Don't you seems it look strange. So many down planes by German pilots and only few (compare to their result) among American's English and Russian ones.

Yes, I agree, when the war just started, in Russian teritory there were not dogfights, just "slaughter of the innocents", extirpation of Russian air force. And as far as I know the most destroied planes, including fighters were on the ground.

Another angle. Tactic.
The best Russian ACes were porbidden to take a part in battles where it was gonna be "hot". About tactic. The main task that kept Russian air forces was to cover bombers or any territory with groun forces.

Opposit. German main task was to DO THEIR DIRECT JOB. To find and down any enemy aircraft where it could be. Absolut freedom in their doing superiority. It's another reason why lot of german pilot had more wins then any pilot from United force.

And one more time about determine a down plane. I told about it above. Add just Kozhedub (LA-5/7) got his 63d (Me262) wingman's words were not avidence hi did.

And I will say once again - try "IL-2 Fogotten battles" simulator. It's not a game it's historical data in one. Then many time heard about enough once see only. I'm quite sure you could buy it in your countries, i mean English versions of that. Only this way you can feel it. THIS IS NOT an advertisement.

So,being a patriot I would pick Kozhedub (LA-7) and Pokryshkin (P-39 Aerocobra)
I would pay much if i knew how many they got down indeed. [?]

I would be appreciate for your help if you gave me the links to an information of English and American ACes.

tenmmike

16th November 2003, 07:50

greetings CAPILATUS.. i fly il-2 fb( and il-2 ) since it came out about 2-3- hrs a day . and yes it is fantastic,, especialy when v1.2 will oficaly be released next week or 2 ..i built a pc soley to fly that sim an it and 1l-2 are the only ones still on the pc,, remember though it takes a good hotrod pc to run great and some ppl dont have that, salute oleg.. but their are a few minor probs as you must know but compared to any other they are insignificant.. i dont reconise your name so i guess you dont post on the english forumes much..any way this is off topic pm me if ya want.. oh and being patriotic is not what this is about, if so i would have picked a american pilot ..the thing you must know about the american pilots is that after our guys tour of duty was up he went back to train other pilots and did not stay like the russian/german/ japanese pilots till they were k.i.a....oh on the english forumes of F.B we have many russian speker who jump back and foth between the russian and english forumes ..your english is good.. better than my german lol

i16stealth

8th January 2004, 21:24

What about V. F. Golubev? He flew the I-16 till 1943 and shot down 27 german planes during this time. His score is about 40 kills (individually + in group).

R Leonard

9th January 2004, 06:07

As latecomer to an interesting question, I won’t offer a name, not just yet anyway, and maybe not at all, but there are some things one should consider when deciding who was the “best” fighter pilot.

An analyst by trade, I worry about just counting widgets and drawing conclusions based on the biggest number over a given period of time be it years, months, weeks, or even a single mission. It's easy to get enamored with high scores, but there are many factors to consider beyond a given pilot’s credited victories.

For example, and certainly not an exhaustive list . . .

When was your choice’s greatest period of operations?

Where was your choice’s greatest period of operations?

What were the environmental factors, generally, effecting his operations? Did his service deal with these factors better than did the opposition?

Did your choice’s service provide better service and support on the ground, QED more reliability in aircraft performance, comfortable (comparative to the opposition) quarters, enough food, scheduled downtime, all those immediate, everyday non-flying factors that tend to impact one’s performance?

Did your choice’s service provide some structured duty rotation or did one enter the combat zone and stay until killed, invalided out, captured, or the war ended? Over the long term how did any such policy, or lack thereof, effect personnel performance overall and for your choice’s performance or combat history specifically?

How long was your choice operating under combat conditions?

What aircraft did your choice fly? In which aircraft did he score most of his credits?

Who was the opposition and how are they viewed, generally and historically, as practitioners?

How did your choice’s opponent’s aircraft perform in comparison to his? Fighter versus fighter? Fighter versus any other type?

Were your choice’s credits against other fighters or against other types (s/e or m/e bombers, recon, scouts, seaplanes, torpedo planes, etc.)?

How did it your choice’s credits break down by type?

How many combat sorties, i.e., sorties where he or a member of his element (division, section, what-have-you) made contact with the opposition, did your choice fly?

With how many victories was your choice credited versus the number of combat sorties he flew? (This is a sure measure of effectiveness as opposed to just quantity and can be used to mitigate a lot of the skewing effect of high numbers and/or long term exposure).

Did your choice make any lasting impact on fighter tactics/operations in general, i.e., was he innovative or was he one who just swooped down on the opponent’s tail in the same old way, blazed away and racked up a score? Did he leave a legacy behind or just high numbers?

Was your choice a lone wolf or a team player. Did scoring ever take precedence over the mission? Even once?

If your choice is base on a high number scorer, how do you explain the high numbers? Great personal skill? Long service in a target rich environment? Superior performing aircraft when compared to the opposition? Better training or preparation than the opponent’s pilots? More flying experience overall than the average? Better combat doctrine in his service than the opponents?

Honestly answer these questions, think about his opponents in terms of the same questions, now draw your conclusion.

Bottom line is that I wouldn’t look to someone who was just a high scorer. In fact, personally, I’d shy away from the high scorers. I’d look for a fighter pilot for whom the mission came first, who took care of his wingmen, who’s opponents were at the least his equals in training and experience, who’s fighter aircraft had no significant advantage over his opponent’s fighter aircraft, who had a high credit to combat sortie ratio, who’s credits were mostly against other fighters, who was tactically innovative, eager to share his innovations, and dedicated to training his fellows to not just survive, but to survive with victory.

Just my personal opinion.

Regards,

Rich

tenmmike

9th January 2004, 07:23

quote:Originally posted by R Leonard
If your choice is base on a high number scorer, how do you explain the high numbers? Great personal skill? Long service in a target rich environment? Superior performing aircraft when compared to the opposition? Better

Bottom line is that I wouldn’t look to someone who was just a high scorer. In fact, personally, I’d shy away from the high scorers. I’d look for a fighter pilot for whom the mission came first, who took care of his wingmen, who’s opponents were at the least his equals in training and experience, who’s fighter aircraft had no significant advantage over his opponent’s fighter aircraft, who had a high credit to combat sortie ratio, who’s credits were mostly against other fighters, who was tactically innovative, eager to share his innovations, and dedicated to training his fellows to not just survive, but to survive with victory.

Just my personal opinion.

Regards,

Rich

....that sounds remakably like erich hartmann!!!!...great bravery the tactit of geting within 100m or less to fire ..only lost 1 wingman the whole war and that guy was a bomber pilot transfer at end of war (not killed) from mid 43 on russian planes were better fighters at low altitude in nearly all respects... he was almost always in the position of being out numbered.... as a comander he would not allow a a pilot to lead a formation if he had lost a wingman..etc etc but i just picked him to counter a few things you have mentiond..there are equaly deserving men from all sides who meet your requirments.i think its to hard to even pick 10 guys much less 1.... as just a great fighter pilot i pick ..hans joachim mareseille 158 kills all in the west and by september 42!!..but he was a playboy ..lone wolf ..17 kills(confirmed) in one day against the brits but didnt care a lot for anybody but himself..none the less a fantastic shot ( may be the best ever) and great pilot.....never was shot down..died while bailing out of a newly hotrodded 109 that caught fire on its own accord not in combat..

R Leonard

9th January 2004, 08:06

and his credit to combat sortie ratio was?

tenmmike

9th January 2004, 08:19

which one ? if kill per sorti ratio is what ya want ill take lt.gunther scheel 71 kills in 70 missions.. and Wilhelm Batz destroyed 222 Soviet planes in the space of twelve months.

R Leonard

9th January 2004, 09:22

First, I'm NOT trying to have, nor will I get into a, flaming contest with you or anyone else. My position is that there's more to the question than just a high score. (period)

I think that inquiring as to Hartmann's credit to combat sortie ratio is a reasonable question. I'm honestly interested. Frankly I don't have much info (never really had the interest) in the European air war personalities or aircraft and even less info or interest in the Eastern Front. So, enlighten me, please.

You offered a Gunther Scheel (sorry, the name means nothing to me) with 71 victories in 70 missions. Kind of begs the obvious question was that 70 missions or 70 combat sorties? Obviously if some of his missions did not result in contact with the enemy, than his ratio would be better, but with the numbers you provided that's 1.01 to 1. The other examble you offered was Wilhelm Batz (again, I've no idea who this gent might be), credited with 222 victories in twelve months. Well, that's 18.5 per month which might seem to be fairly impressive, but how many missions did he fly per month ... or in the 12 months you cited?

See where I'm going here? Not looking for how many were shot down, but how efficient was it done.

You in the post previously described Hartmann as closing to within 100 meter before opening fire. In the absence of any other description, that would lead me to conclude he achieved his victories the same old WWI way of sliding up behind an opponent and blazing away in a nice zero deflection solution. Gee, that must have been tough ... obviously not considering his reported high score. Certainly doesn't say much for his Russian opponents if there's this gent running around the Eastern Front knocking them out of the sky in the easiest possible approach one could make ... and they're just letting it happen. Was there something you didn't tell me? I'm not trying to attack or shatter any icons, but, again, I'm curious ... your description sure sounded like a zero defelction approach to me. That would lead me to conclude he didn't add anything new to fighter tactics. Am I wrong?

You somewhat disparage Mareseille's (him, I have heard of) record, and indeed, from your description, he does not appear to fare very well in my little evaluation method, but I'd ask the same question what was his ratio? I'm not trying to pin you down, here ... anyone with the info can chime in. As I said, Europe, the Eastern and Western Front air wars are not subject on which I've a lot of info nor spent much time on, so I'm interested in your response.

Thanks and regards,

Rich

tenmmike

9th January 2004, 13:43

flaming contest ????? what would poses you to think that ???...you asked questions and i threw my 2 cents in .. so lets move on..................1.on hartmann..a lot of the requirements for leadership and the fact that he flew agains the best the soviets could throw at his unit( one thing us americans tend to do is underestimate russian pilots of the period )(true there were a lot of poor ones but a lot a very good ones as well especaly in the guards units) and hartmann didnt realy start his carrer until the beginning of 1943 and by mid 43 in aircraft that were inferior to the russians ( la5fn and la 7 yak 3)..to not be impressed by a guy going 300 + mph and closing at maybe 100 to 150 ft per sec and holding fire until as close as 40 to 50 meters and somtimes closer is impressive ... his tactics constantly scared the hell out of his wingmen and even experienced pilots who would on ocasion fly with him although that in its self is not a innovative tactic, but he did get closer then just about anybody wanted to if you go and look and many of the highest scorer of all nations many used that method....i also did not pick hartmann as the top guy as i stated i liked as a pilot marseille or rall...just that hartman had many of the requirements that were in previous post suggested ( especaly the wingman issue) as a indicater....also i would like to add the jg-52 (hartmans unit) often fought against the guards units of the VVS... pokryshkin was in the guards unit that frequently opposed jg-52 .. hardly poor pilots in the guards units .. being shot down with out seeing who shoot you down was BY FAR the most common way of "buying it" for all sides at all time periods of the war....now on to some of the things asked about... 352 victories..in 1405 combat missions and 825 actual dog fights. for hartmann. ..on marseille..i think him a fantastic pilot but was not a 'TEAM' player like hartmann or rall was , but a great shot like RALL and could fly so well as to impresse vets with acrobatics displays ......( just like Japanese ace NISHIZAWA could do) here are his stats In 388 combat missions, 482 missions total, he destroyed 158 allied aircraft. All of these on Western Front. and all confirmed by the standard methods after the war..i also stated i think that that putting this down to 1 guy is impossible ..i don't think even 10 or 20 guys is even possible ......finding sortie to victory ratios are possible but are very time consuming. we ( the us ) have a few pilots who have a high kill to mission ratio..oddly enough if you expand on them ( muliply ratio to mission to high german mission levels) i found they worked out very closly to high scoring german pilots..but dont forget .every day in the air gave a continuing incress that you will die from SOMTHING ( see marsseille) having gone on for awhile i would like to welcome you to this forum..you seem sharp and we can never have to many ppl like that ..oh at this time i dont have gunther scheel's breakdown any deeper then i provided. on Willi Batz..he flew 445 combat missions in scoring his 237 victories. 233 victories were achieved over the Eastern front but he did claim four victories, including two four-engined bombers over the Western front. He was wounded three times and was shot down four times............and another thing R Leonard.you said your knowledge is weak on europien theater and more so on the russian front ..does that mean your expertise is the pacific ? if so that would be great as we are to much into the europien theater here i feel and need a expansion although im a russian front guy...i wanna see more pacific theater posting....once again welcome to the forum

tenmmike

9th January 2004, 14:12

i just relised it says best pilot not best fighter pilot...what a bout RUDEL?..... flew stuka most of war 2530 mission. the most of anybody his best friend and tail gunner died as he and rudel escaped the russins while crossing a river after 1490 missions .100,000 rubel bounty on his head...........destroyed..518+ Tanks
700 Trucks
150+ Flak and Artillery positions
9 Fighter/Ground Attack Aircraft
Hundreds of bridges, railway lines, bunkers, etc.
sunk the Battleship October Revolution, Cruiser Marat, and 70 landing craft
Through direct action, he saved tens of thousands of German infantrymen from certain encirclement and annihilation during the long retreat which began in July 43 and lasted until the war's end, almost two years later. in a JU-87!!!!!..........................
Shot down 32 times. almost all by AAA or s.a ground fire
Innumerable aircraft brought back to base that were later written off, due to heavy combat damage.
Wounded on many occasions, including the partial amputation of his right leg in the Spring of 45, after which he continued to fly with a prosthetic limb..

GregP

9th January 2004, 15:34

Hello R_Leonard!

You ask some very good questions.

Unfortunately, they cannot be answered most of the time. The records are pretty sketchy and are not commonly available. I have a list of Aces and their voctory credits, but you can't even get a decent list of what their victims were, much less whether or not their sorties were combat or non-combat. Russianand Japanese records are almost non-existent. German records have been pretty well documented, but are not easily obtainable for your information set.

To be sure, I disagree. The best pilot of WWII could very well be Hans Ulruch Rudel. He was a Ju-87 pilot who flew from the start of the war through the end of the war.

However, unlike you, I say the "best" was the most effective. Erich Hartmann was the most effective fighter pilot ever in the history of the world. Never mind how he did it. He had one victory before 1943 and all the rest after that time. He was a team player of the first magnitude, and never had a wingman killed.

Marseilles was probably the best stick and ruddr pilot and the best shot, but he died before the war ended. Most American pilots rotated out of combat after a certain number of missions. German pilots flew until they died or the war ended. Ditto Russian pilots.

This question will never be answered on the basis of empirical data since the data does not exist.

So, go ahead, state your opinion, It's as valid as anyone else's.

I say Hartmann, Barkhorn, Rall, Marseilles, Kozehdub, Sakai, Bong, Caldwell, Carl, McCampbell, McGuire .. and many more were all great pilots and at least good shots. Some were great leaders. Some were loners, like Bong and Marseilles.

As a leader, pilot, tactician, and effective pilot, Hartmann has no equal anywhere, before or after. The closest is Gerhard Barkhorn. Galland was right there, too, but did not score higher due to achieving rank so quickly.

Every nation who supplied pilots for WWII had great ones, good ones, average ones, and those who were better off driving a bulldozer. Hartmann's victory list includes the best Soviet types in abubundance. His kills were NOT racked up against mostly inferior competition as some whould have you believe. He scored quckly and with few shots fired since he only shot from close range.

So, state your opinion and make a case for it ... but you better include reasons why you think your choice is better than the all-time best fighter pilot in world history.

tenmmike

9th January 2004, 16:01

hey greg how are you ..its been awhile ..ya left out NISHIZAWA:D

R Leonard

10th January 2004, 00:20

Tenmmike -

My opener on flaming was meant to put a little oil on the waters. I tend to be somewhat abrupt and I know it, despite my best efforts not to be, so I was trying to tell you that I wasn’t trying to beat you up on any of this stuff, nor disparaging your (nor any one else’s) opinions. I certainly did not intend to imply in any way, shape, or form that you were flaming me.

And you’re correct on my orientation, the Pacific, specifically USN carrier aviation, and only as much about Japanese operations or even USN and USMC land based operations as I need to know.

It is difficult for me to wrap my hands around months, yea, verily, years of unrelenting combat exposure such as the German and the Japanese aviators faced.

With the exception of the Guadalcanal campaign , US naval aviators (lumping together USN & USMC) rarely faced a long extended period of combat operation. That’s, of course, not to say that any individual combat action they experienced was any less intense than those in Europe. And in the carrier world, one could go for weeks or even months without any action at all and then suddenly a day or several days of furious action. Towards the end of the war, the combat sortie rate ramped up with the pace of operations around the Philippines in late 1944, the Iwo Jima and especially the Okinawa campaigns of early 1945, and the striking of the Japanese home islands in February, March, July, and August of 1945. The only comparable period was January to June 1942 and was mostly experienced by the pilots of two squadrons from USS Yorktown, VF-42 and VB-5. These two squadrons participated in the early carrier raids, the attack on Lae/Salamaua over the Owen Stanley Mountains, the Tulagi Raid, Battle of the Coral Sea, and the Battle of Midway. While other carriers and their squadrons, and indeed other squadrons from Yorktown, were involved in these actions, the pilots of these two squadrons were the only ones that were there for all of these.

If I were to try to single out the most outstanding US carrier pilot of the war I could not give you just one name, and I'll be the first to admit that my choices are somewhat colored by some minor association with a number of the gents one might nominate. I’d have to nominate the two "Jimmy’s", Lt. Cdr. John S. Thach (7.0) and Lt. Cdr. James H. Flatley, Jr. (6.5). Jimmy Thach gets an early nod for coming up with the beam defense in the summer of 1941 and Jimmy Flatley (who coined the term "Thach Weave" in describing said tactic) for demonstrating the tactic’s efficacy in the operations of his VF-10 and for insuring its inclusion in the late 1943 re-write of the fighter operations section of the Navy’s fleet manual (USF-74) which he, one other pilot, and a yeoman produced (lucky me, I have the rough drafts). These gents were not only accomplished fighter pilots, but big picture practitioners and thinkers who were able to demonstrate and communicate what needed to be done and how to do it. Together they changed the whole way of doing fighter business away from the turn and burn to coordinated team tactics still in use today. It was also their collaboration that led to the USN’s formalization of strike control procedures.

The two of them, together, towards the end of the war in the Pacific, Flatley as Mitscher’s operations officer in Task Force 58 and Thach in the same position for McCain in Task Force 38 came up with the “Big Blue Blanket” strategy for day and night coverage of Japanese airfields to counter the kamikaze threat as well as innovative fleet screening, bogey detection and delousing, and CAP interception methodologies and strategies.

Carrier based aviation, again, lends itself to brief, sharp actions separated by months of non-combat routine. Even the highest scoring US carrier pilots’ scores were lower than the highest scoring Luftwaffe pilots by an order of magnitude or more. The majority of the difference, I believe, can be readily attributed to the relative number of opportunities for aerial combat, primarily from exposure. Thach, as CO of VF-3, achieved his scores in two days of combat, one near the Coral Sea in March 1942 and the second at the Battle of Midway on June 4, 1942. All of his victories were scored while flying the F4F; three of them (on 4 June) were against the vaunted A6M2. A total of 3 combat sorties resulting in 7 victories. Flatley’s scores, also in F4Fs, were at the Battle of the Coral Sea on May 7 & 8, 1942, as XO of VF-42, and in the actions around Guadalcanal in October 25, and November 14, 1942, while CO of VF-10. Something like 5 combat sorties for 6.5 victories. He was also CAG 5 from February through September of 1943 where he pioneered the strike control practices later included in the USF-74 document.

Regards,

Rich

BuzzLightyear

11th January 2004, 02:41

Heinz Bar counted ground kills among his victories.

tenmmike

11th January 2004, 08:23

quote:Originally posted by BuzzLightyear

Heinz Bar counted ground kills among his victories.
...........................can you prove that??? pilots dont get to select how there victories are counted

simon

13th January 2004, 22:32

I'd argue that in the immeadiate terms at least the "Schwarm", later adopted by most other airforces and called the Finger Four by the US was probably more influential than the Thach Weave, and this too used team tactics, predating Thach's tactics by a few years as this was first used by the Condor Legion in Spain! I have also read a source claiming that the AVG used the beam defense tactic first and that Thach was actually emulating their tactics rather than devising them himself, however I am not entirely convinced of this...

In anycase I agree entirely with Tenmmike, the airforce determines how and indeed whether kills are counted, not the pilots. The US did credit ground kills toward the end of the war I believe but this was intended as an incentive for pilots to engage in ground strafing thus destroying Luftwaffe personel and equipment on the ground as well as in the air.

I read a good book about the Battle of Britain which included the criteria for a kill, don't ask me the name please I've forgotten, but for some reason the criteria have stuck in my mind.

Either:
the Pilot or crew for a multi seater had to be seen to bail out,
the aircraft had to be seen to explode,
the aircraft had to be seen to crash,
the aircraft had to be seen to be on fire from nose to tail,
the entire tailplane had to be seen to fall off,
the engine (or all engines for a multi-engine) had to be seen to fall off or out,
or one or both wings or the fuselage had to be seen to break off.

Only if one or more of these applied was an aircraft considered a kill.

R Leonard

14th January 2004, 01:45

In practice, other that the fact both work well with four planes (though the Thach Weave also works just as well with just two - as a North Vietnamese MiG-17 driver found out to his everlasting dismay when he jumped a couple of VA-25 A1-H's from USS Midway on 20 June 1965 ... couple of old prop jobs instead of being easy meat broke into the Thach Weave and gunned him right out of the sky) there is no correlation between the two; although that is a commonly drawn misconception made when someone familiar, especially with the Luftwaffe, thinks in terms of four plane divisions. The primary difference being that the “finger four” is a *formation* and the Thach Weave is a *tactic*. The Thach Weave should also not be confused with the common RAF “Weavers” practice in vogue in the 1940-1942 period (and sometimes, though rarely, employed by the AVG) where the tail-end-charlie “weaved” all alone back and forth above and behind the division ... they lost a lot of weavers that way. The USN had already tested and rejected this practice by May 1941.

You are mistaking the break away from the more traditional formation of six, or even nine, plane divisions made of three-plane sections dating back to World War I, to a more flexible four planes in two-plane sections as a tactic of itself and not, dare I say, merely, a change in formation practice. The main impetus behind that evolution was the emergence of the monoplane fighter. The old three plane section was based, indeed almost universally used, on visibility/lookout problems encountered with biplanes, you know, overhead wings and all that sort of stuff. It was a tough habit to break. The Japanese, for example, persisted in that sort of formation through 1943. So, one might ask ones self about the emergence of the monoplane fighter and who started using them first in significant numbers and perhaps draw the conclusion that it would be natural that such an organization might turn to the finger four formation as being more flexible and, since it requires two fewer planes in each division, extends a given squadron’s resources ... with the finger four, instead of three divisions of six planes each, a squadron could put up four divisions of four planes each and still have two spares. And maybe, some of that sort of thinking was going on in Spain?

The Thach Wave, on the other hand is, as stated, a tactic. Here you have, commonly, a four plane-two section division cruising along, probably in a finger four type mode (though in USN practice probably each section leader and his wing man are little closer together than the sections to each other). When attacked (note: “when attacked”) by superior numbers the sections separate farther, to use a naval term “abeam,” to where the distance between the sections is marginally greater that the turning radius at military power. It is the duty of each section to provide, to use an army term, an “overwatch” of the other section. When, say, the starboard side section detects an attack setting up on the port side section, the starboard side section initiates the weave with a turn to port as the enemy commits to his run. The port section see this move, realizes somebody’s starting a gunnery run on them and turns toward the starboard section. This accomplishes a couple of things . . . the turning to starboard creates a high deflection shot for the enemy airplane(s) that if they not particularly trained to do (and most air forces in those days tended to prefer the straight up the rear or head on zero deflection shot) you have spoiled their shot ... the next thing that usually happens is that the enemy is watching the port section and if he attempts to reacquire a sight picture (and he probably will) he’s going to turn to starboard as well, still watching his intended victim. Now the enemy pilot has set himself up for a head on encounter with the approaching starboard section. All he can do is hope for the best, because if he tries to break away he’s only opening himself up for a free low deflection shot from the starboard section ... game, set, match.

Now, as far as the AVG is concerned, they did not use the Thach Weave. Their preferred disengagement was the push over dive and dependence on the P-40's superior speed and handling is a dive to remove themselves from unhappy circumstances. The connection with Jimmy Thach is that he was probably one of the few who read Chennault’s report on the A6M2 forwarded to the War Department in the spring of 1941. This report had some distribution and evidently Thach got hold of a copy. Thach had no illusions on where things were going in the Pacific and realized that if the report was true he needed a way to counter an aircraft that was probably going to be superior to his.

This led to his experiments with what he called the “Beam Defense” (note the word “Defense” again, a tactic, not a formation) in the summer of 1941. The tests he conducted with his squadron to test the theory were fairly straight forward. He would take up a four plane division (note the use of four planes ... prior to the USN getting involved in shooting war ... I am admittedly not certain if he came up with four planes by himself or from reading reports on action in Europe ... at any rate, these were experiments conducted using F4F-3s, the USN’s second monoplane carrier fighter) and his Executive Officer Lieut. Edward “Butch” O’Hare would take up an aggressor division of four planes. To simulate the difference in performance Thach’s division was limited to 50% power, O’Hare’s section had no such restriction. Against the Beam Defense, O’Hare reported that he could not execute an attack on a section from behind or from overhead without facing the guns of the other section. Even when he detached his support section to execute a simultaneous attack on Thach’s support section he ended up with his attacking sections facing the guns of Thach’s two sections as they closed on each other. So, here was Thach in the late summer of 1941 working out a tactic that would serve to protect, at least USN aviators, when at a disadvantage, into the mid 1960s.

Take a look at:

http://www.daveswarbirds.com/navalwar/defense.htm

Regards,

Rich

CAPILATUS

29th January 2004, 00:01

Here is good link about the best pilot of allies.
Just found it.

http://www.wio.ru/aces/ivank.htm

CAPILATUS

29th January 2004, 01:04

Lets revise two top pilots Hartman (Germany) and Kozhedub (USSR)

Hartman did 1425 combat missions took a part in 800 fights and down 352 enemy planes. Though for that time he was shot down twice and was forced to drop out with a parachute.

Kozhedub. Did 330 missions, went through 120 fights, scored 62 and never lost!

So. Making a conclusion Harman needed to spend 2,27 fights to down the enemy plane, for Kozhedub it's figure 1,94.

And please note gentlemen, Hartman lost in two fights and even was captured but was lucky to runaway from.

Your thoughts, dear comrades!

Lightning

29th January 2004, 05:13

Greetings Capilatus:

I believe it's too difficult to compare Hartman (1425 sorties) to Kozhedub (330 sorties) relying only on those numbers. This is more than a 4:1 ratio. The sample of 330 that Kozhedub flew is rather small,in this case, to be statistically convincing. A lot could have happened in the course of his flying an additional 1095 sorties.

As an example, some pilots during the war shot down several planes on their very first sortie but were never able to score again during their remaining combat tour. How would their their final rating compare to that on their first day? Numbers alone can be very misleading.

One thing ,however, cannot be disputed: They were both very fine combat pilots.

CAPILATUS

30th January 2004, 07:45

Ha-ha! One more thing. Just interested in some details and that I have found in Russian net 1 hour ago.

There is a book written by Kovalenko A.P. "Heroics with 3 stars". Will try to buy it when go to my wife's parents in Russia by the summer. The author had some personal private interviews with I.Kozhedub and got some really DETAILS unknown before.

Kozhedub told him his real score is 107 (!) including 3 American heavy bombers downed in May 1945.

Also he explaned that A. Pokryshkin in real downed 99 enemy planes as 40 planes through out the war he "gave" to young pilots to support them, to let them belive in their oun force.

And that enother ACe N.D. Gulaev's real figure 68 enemy planes in 69 combats! That's the score!!! Gulaev's official score - 57.

Here the link I'v taken from
http://www.akdi.ru/id/izdania/air/rubrika/history.htm

And from another source I read Kozhedub downed 2 P-51 in May 1945 that identified his La-7 for, may be FW-190, attacked him, but both were down. I don't except the event with two P-51s and three bombers hed place at once - can't find any data yet.
May be heard enything? [?]

What you say, gentlemen? [8)]

Corsarius

30th January 2004, 09:06

Well, for a pilot who knew his aircraft's capabilities well enough to exploit them (and that even goes for the humble I-153), the skies over the SSSR would certainly have been a 'target-rich-environment'. Possibly moreso at some Scwherpunkten than others.

Che_Guevara

15th April 2005, 06:18

The best WWII pilot?

i think this title deserves Josef "Pips" Priller (shoot down 68 Spits´)

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/priller.html

the other pilot is Hans-Joachim Marseille "The Star of Africa"
he shoot down 158 aircrafts,(16 P-40s and 1 Spit´ on ONE day)

http://www.deutsches-afrikakorps.de/html/perso/hjm/ab1.htm

DoBravery

15th April 2005, 08:12

I starting to wonder how many Russian planes Kozhedub shot down.;)

Johnny G

15th April 2005, 20:58

I was wondering how accurate Hartmans kill numbers are. The German Airforce was notorious for wildly exagerating their kill figures.
I know this happened in the Battle of Britain as at one point the Germans estimated that there were only 50 'Spitfires' left to defend Britain based on their kill figures, when in fact the RAF was largely intact with around 700+ fighters at their disposal.
This kind of 'Ace' mentality was looked down upon in the RAF and USAF to encourage squadrons to fight effectively as a team and to avoid having any prima-donnas who were just interested in advancing their own personal glory.

Kutscha

15th April 2005, 21:27

quote:Originally posted by Johnny G

I was wondering how accurate Hartmans kill numbers are. The German Airforce was notorious for wildly exagerating their kill figures.
I know this happened in the Battle of Britain as at one point the Germans estimated that there were only 50 'Spitfires' left to defend Britain based on their kill figures, when in fact the RAF was largely intact with around 700+ fighters at their disposal.
This kind of 'Ace' mentality was looked down upon in the RAF and USAF to encourage squadrons to fight effectively as a team and to avoid having any prima-donnas who were just interested in advancing their own personal glory.

Johnny, there is a difference between 'claimed' and 'confirmed'.

Luftwaffe Claims Confirmation Proceedure

As noted on the Luftwaffe Scoring and Awards System page, "victory claims" and "points" were two seperate issues. Whenever an Abschuss (Destruction) of an enemy aircraft was claimed a strict proceedure was followed before the claim was allowed.

Following the policy of "one pilot-one kill", the investigating authorities would determine if the claiming pilot was solely responsible for the destruction of the enemy plane. Every Abschuss had to be observed by a witness: either a ground observer or the encounter, the pilot's wingman, or a Staffelmate. Witnesses were necessary unless the victor's aircraft had been fitted with a gun-camera and the destruction of the plane or the vanquished pilot's bailout had been recorded on film, if the wreckage of the downed pilot or other crew crew member had been captured by German forces. In effect: No witness or tangible evidence - no victory.

Every Abschuss had to be confirmed by the Oberbefehlshaber der Luftwaffe or Commander in Chief of the Air Force. Jagdwaffe pilots were at all times required to note their geographical position as well as the type and number of the aircraft in enemy formations engaged. Naturally, the victor was required to log the exact time of a kill, while he maneuvered for a tactical advantage over the remaining enemy aircraft! In addition, he had to observe other actions in the air in order to be able to witness victories by his Staffelmates. Upon landing, the claimant prepared his Abschuss report for review by the immediate supervisory officer, who either endorsed or rejected the claim. If endorsed, the pilot's report to the Geschwaderstab, or Wing Staff, which, in turn, filed its report and sent both to the Reichsluftfahrtministerium (RLM), or Air Ministry. After checking all the papers that were submitted, the official confirmation was prepared and sent to the unit. This very long bureaucratic proceedure sometimes took as long as a year! During 1944, another authority was created: the Abschusskommission, which received all reports on crashed aircraft remains found by search units. This commission checked conflicting claims between antiaircraft batteries and fighter pilots, and awarded credit for the victory to one claimant or the other. This system ensured that no more credits would be awarded than wrecks found.

The German system of confirming aerial victories was very effective in keeping human errors and weknesses within limits. Despite this, the Oberkommando der Luftwaffe, or Luftwaffe High Command, considered the large victory totals during the early days of the Russian campaign as incredulous. On many occasions, they accused the Jagdgeschwader Kommodores of exaggerating the victory scores. In effect Goering was calling the frontline pilots liars. This was one of the grievances that brought about the Mutiny of the Fighters, or the Kommodores' Revolt Conference, in Berlin during January, 1945.

When a German fighter pilot scored a victory, he would call "Horrido" on the radio. This distinctive announcement of victory alerted his fellow pilots to watch for a crash or a flamer, as well as notify ground stations, which helped to confirm many victories.

http://members.aol.com/dheitm8612/claims.htm

Johnny G

15th April 2005, 22:20

quote:Originally posted by Kutscha

[quote]
Johnny, there is a difference between 'claimed' and 'confirmed'.

Luftwaffe Claims Confirmation Proceedure

As noted on the Luftwaffe Scoring and Awards System page, "victory claims" and "points" were two seperate issues. Whenever an Abschuss (Destruction) of an enemy aircraft was claimed a strict proceedure was followed before the claim was allowed.

Following the policy of "one pilot-one kill", the investigating authorities would determine if the claiming pilot was solely responsible for the destruction of the enemy plane. Every Abschuss had to be observed by a witness: either a ground observer or the encounter, the pilot's wingman, or a Staffelmate. Witnesses were necessary unless the victor's aircraft had been fitted with a gun-camera and the destruction of the plane or the vanquished pilot's bailout had been recorded on film, if the wreckage of the downed pilot or other crew crew member had been captured by German forces. In effect: No witness or tangible evidence - no victory.

Every Abschuss had to be confirmed by the Oberbefehlshaber der Luftwaffe or Commander in Chief of the Air Force. Jagdwaffe pilots were at all times required to note their geographical position as well as the type and number of the aircraft in enemy formations engaged. Naturally, the victor was required to log the exact time of a kill, while he maneuvered for a tactical advantage over the remaining enemy aircraft! In addition, he had to observe other actions in the air in order to be able to witness victories by his Staffelmates. Upon landing, the claimant prepared his Abschuss report for review by the immediate supervisory officer, who either endorsed or rejected the claim. If endorsed, the pilot's report to the Geschwaderstab, or Wing Staff, which, in turn, filed its report and sent both to the Reichsluftfahrtministerium (RLM), or Air Ministry. After checking all the papers that were submitted, the official confirmation was prepared and sent to the unit. This very long bureaucratic proceedure sometimes took as long as a year! During 1944, another authority was created: the Abschusskommission, which received all reports on crashed aircraft remains found by search units. This commission checked conflicting claims between antiaircraft batteries and fighter pilots, and awarded credit for the victory to one claimant or the other. This system ensured that no more credits would be awarded than wrecks found.

The German system of confirming aerial victories was very effective in keeping human errors and weknesses within limits. Despite this, the Oberkommando der Luftwaffe, or Luftwaffe High Command, considered the large victory totals during the early days of the Russian campaign as incredulous. On many occasions, they accused the Jagdgeschwader Kommodores of exaggerating the victory scores. In effect Goering was calling the frontline pilots liars. This was one of the grievances that brought about the Mutiny of the Fighters, or the Kommodores' Revolt Conference, in Berlin during January, 1945.

When a German fighter pilot scored a victory, he would call "Horrido" on the radio. This distinctive announcement of victory alerted his fellow pilots to watch for a crash or a flamer, as well as notify ground stations, which helped to confirm many victories.

http://members.aol.com/dheitm8612/claims.htm

Thats all very well, every airforce had a system to verify kills (and I know the difference between claimed and confirmed thanks).
The blurb you've just posted doesn't explain the grossly over exagrated claims made by the Luftwaffe. All pilots can make errors with their claims during the heat of battle, it just tended to happen more with the Luftwaffe. Could this be because some pilots wanted another gong to increase their standing in an airforce that reveared the 'experten' or individual, not the team as a whole? It's just an idea.

Che_Guevara

15th April 2005, 22:32

quote:The blurb you've just posted doesn't explain the grossly over exagrated claims made by the Luftwaffe.

can you give me some examples for this assumption, please ?^^

Johnny G

15th April 2005, 22:33

quote:Originally posted by Che_Guevara

quote:The blurb you've just posted doesn't explain the grossly over exagrated claims made by the Luftwaffe.

can you give me examples for this assumption ?

Yep, examples are on the way.
In the mean time, this was an interesting article on German claims.
http://www.1jma.dk/articles/1jmaarticlesww2luftwaffe.htm

Kutscha

15th April 2005, 22:50

quote:Originally posted by Johnny G

Thats all very well, every airforce had a system to verify kills (and I know the difference between claimed and confirmed thanks).
The blurb you've just posted doesn't explain the grossly over exagrated claims made by the Luftwaffe. All pilots can make errors with their claims during the heat of battle, it just tended to happen more with the Luftwaffe. Could this be because some pilots wanted another gong to increase their standing in an airforce that reveared the 'experten' or individual, not the team as a whole? It's just an idea.

just 2 examples of USAAF over claiming:

on 10 October 1943 8th AF bombers and fighters claimed a total of 202 Luftwaffe fighters.

in reality the Luftwaffe lost a total of 27 a/c

Over claim by 748%

on 14 October 1943 for Schweinfurt mission the 8th AF bombers and fighters claimed a total of 200 Luftwaffe fighters.

in reality the Luftwaffe lost a total of 38 a/c

Over claim by 526%

And since you mentioned BoB.

British claims:

Aug 8 to Aug 23 > 755 for which the German Quartermaster lists 403
Over claim by 187%

Aug 24 to Sept 6 > 643 for which the German Quartermaster lists 378
Over claim by 170%

Sept 7 to Sept 303 > 846 for which the German Quartermaster lists 435
Over claim by 194%

from "Fighter" L Deighton

Ricky

15th April 2005, 23:36

And German claims from the same air battles?

R Leonard

16th April 2005, 01:36

quote:just 2 examples of USAAF over claiming:

on 10 October 1943 8th AF bombers and fighters claimed a total of 202 Luftwaffe fighters.

in reality the Luftwaffe lost a total of 27 a/c

Over claim by 748%

on 14 October 1943 for Schweinfurt mission the 8th AF bombers and fighters claimed a total of 200 Luftwaffe fighters.

in reality the Luftwaffe lost a total of 38 a/c

Over claim by 526%

Being a Pacific Theater type, myself, I'd wonder how many of the USAAF claims for the missions mentioned came from fighters and how many came from gunners on bombers. To lump them together is kind of apples and oranges, especially when trying to make an overclaiming point in a primarily fighter related thread. Do you have a breakdown?

Thanks,

Rich

R Leonard

19th April 2005, 10:39

Oh, never mind, I found out for myself . . .

quote:on 10 October 1943 8th AF bombers and fighters claimed a total of 202 Luftwaffe fighters.

From USAAF Chronology for 10 October 1943:
"STRATEGIC OPERATIONS (Eighth Air Force): VIII Bomber Command Mission 114. 236 of 274 B-17's hit the railroads and waterways in and around Munster, Germany at 1503-1518 hours plus targets of opportunity at Coesfeld, Germany and Enschede Airfield in the Netherlands; they claim 183-21-51 Luftwaffe aircraft; 30 B-17's are lost, 3 damaged beyond repair and 102 damaged; casualties are 2 KIA, 18 WIA and 306 MIA. 39 B-24's fly a diversion without loss or casualties. The B-17's are escorted by 216 P-47's; they claim 19-0-0 Luftwaffe aircraft; 1 P-47 is lost, 2 damaged beyond repair and 1 damaged; casualties are 1 MIA."

So, it would seem that 183 of the claims were from bombers and only 19 from fighters. So, if we're discussing over-claiming by fighter pilots, care to explain the relevance of the bomber gunner claims? Goodness, are you last one to discover that as far as bomber gunners were concerned that if they shot at it then they shot it down. Almost as bad as the Japanese :D And, gee, only 19 claims from the P-47s . . . if the Germans lost 27 for the day, you don't suppose . . . ???

Do have the German claims for the same action? How do they compare with the AAF losses?

And lets see . . .

quote:on 14 October 1943 for Schweinfurt mission the 8th AF bombers and fighters claimed a total of 200 Luftwaffe fighters.

for 14 October 1943, from the same source:

" STRATEGIC OPERATIONS (Eighth Air Force): VIII Bomber Command Mission 115: 229 of 291 B-17's hit the city area and ball bearing plants at Schweinfurt, Germany in 2 group; the first group bombs at 1439-1445 hours, the second group at 1451-1457 hours; they claim 186-27-89 Luftwaffe aircraft; 60 B-17's are lost, 7 damaged beyond repair and 138 damaged; casualties are 5 KIA, 40 WIA and 594 MIA. The attack, which causes great damage and interference with production, results in German reorganization of the bearing industry. Fierce opposition of great numbers of fighters, many of them firing rockets, accounts for the 60 US aircraft shot down. As a result of these heavy losses, daylight bombing against strategic targets deep in Germany is discontinued for a short period."

Well, I don't know where your 200 claims come from. The USAAF apparently only counted 186 which they awarded to the bomber gunners . . . bomber gunners, not fighters. Ever wonder what happens when 25 gunners on 10 different bombers all let loose on a fighter diving through their formation? At least 5 of them will claim shooting it down and each one probably has a witness.

Note the USAAF losses, do you have the German claims for the day?

Rich

Ricky

19th April 2005, 17:57

Hi Rich,

just one little question...

when you quote:
" they claim 183-21-51 Luftwaffe aircraft"
what do the figures mean?
I guessed:
shot down - possibles - damaged
But am not sure...

R Leonard

19th April 2005, 21:56

quote:I guessed:
shot down - possibles - damaged

Yes, you are correct; that is the formula. In USN service, for example, it's Credit-Probable-Damaged. Other's terminology may vary, but it all means pretty much the same thing.

Rich

Johnny G

19th April 2005, 22:58

quote:Originally posted by Ricardo1174

In your opinion, who was the greatest WWII fighter pilot. Please, trying to be as objective as possible.

ME!
(BTW Heinz Bar was never as good as Heinz Baked Beans and who can forget Mars Bar?)

Kutscha

20th April 2005, 15:38

quote:Originally posted by Ricky

And German claims from the same air battles?

You can go through the list 'Reich & Western Front 1943. Vol IV' at http://jg26.vze.com/

R Leonard

21st April 2005, 01:06

Kutscha -

Thanks for the link to Luftwaffe claims.

Certainly you looked through the lists, right? If you did, apparently you don’t care to share the bad news. Or are you simply not interested in evidence of Luftwaffe over-claiming, only in evidence of same by the USAAF or RAF?

Just a fast and dirty look at Luftwaffe claims for 10 October 1943, and presuming that “Duplicated Claims” means exactly that, and it would appear that there were 55 B-17s claimed versus 30 actually lost and 2 P-47s vs 1 actually lost. USAAF losses cited in the USAAF Chronology do not distinguish between AAA losses and losses to enemy fighters. The USAAF Statistical Digest, Table 159, however shows ETO Heavy Bomber losses for the month of October to total 186, 139 to enemy fighters, 38 to AAA, and 9 to other causes. This works out to roughly 20% of losses resulting from AAA. Looking at all of 1943, that pattern seems to be statistically valid with AAA losses as a percentage of monthly losses ranging from 0% in January, February and March to a high of 38% in December. For all of 1943, AAA losses, as a percentage of total losses, works out to 22%. Would it be safe, then, to presume that at least 20% of the 10 October losses were to AAA? That would be 6, leaving 24 losses to fighters. I’m more comfortable with 20% as opposed to the ETO wartime total of 44% losses attributed to AAA.

And for 14 October 1943 it would appear that there were 155 claims for B-17s versus actual losses of 60. Again, there is no distinction between AAA losses and losses to enemy fighters. There are also 3 claims of P-47s for the day, but I have no information on US reported P-47 losses. At least 2 of the P-47s claimed appear to be over Holland, so my guess is that they may not have been associated with the Schweinfurt raid. Applying the 20% AAA loss yardstick, 12 of the 60 B-17s were probably lost to AAA fire and the remaining 48 to fighter action.

I’m sure someone will be able to chime in with the actual AAA losses. I’d be happy to see them and more than willing to accept a revision to my numbers since the AAA losses I’m using are merely a statistical guesstimate.

But, using that guesstimate, it looks to me that for the 10th, approximately 24 B-17s were lost to fighter action versus the 55 claimed (2.3 to 1) and for the 14th, approximately 48 B-17s were lost to fighter action versus 155 claimed (3.2 to 1).

Your results, of course, may vary.

Rich

Kutscha

22nd April 2005, 10:33

Well Rich, someone is not telling the truth.

Now consider most of the German 'claims' have position given and could be very easily checked to confirmed the 'kill'. At that point in the war, the Germans were very meticulous in confirming a claim as a kill.

'Following the policy of "one pilot-one kill", the investigating authorities would determine if the claiming pilot was solely responsible for the destruction of the enemy plane. Every Abschuss had to be observed by a witness: either a ground observer or the encounter, the pilot's wingman, or a Staffelmate. Witnesses were necessary unless the victor's aircraft had been fitted with a gun-camera and the destruction of the plane or the vanquished pilot's bailout had been recorded on film, if the wreckage of the downed pilot or other crew crew member had been captured by German forces. In effect: No witness or tangible evidence - no victory.'

BTW, I got those numbers off another board being posted by an Erich. I see a name R Leonard also on that board, so if you are he, ask this Erich where he got his numbers from.

R Leonard

22nd April 2005, 10:46

Are you accusing someone of lying? I'd be damned sure of myself before I did that.

Kutscha

22nd April 2005, 11:22

quote:Originally posted by R Leonard

Are you accusing someone of lying? I'd be damned sure of myself before I did that.
Did I hurt your Amercan ego? [:0] Be it the Germans or the Americans, someone is fudging numbers.

R Leonard

22nd April 2005, 12:08

My, that was a nasty little eruption. Sorry to disappoint you, but my poor little American ego takes quite a bit more than that to get bruised. But if you want to continue down that road, you’ll be walking by yourself as I’ve, frankly, got better things to do than getting into a pissing contest with you.

My point would be that the folks boring holes in the sky saw what they expected to see and the guys on the ground with the clipboards saw what came back versus what went out. Not being certain as to your background in such things, I would hope that you would have some basic understanding about the importance of correctly reporting one’s losses and how positively anal military organizations are on reporting results. So, the Luftwaffe reported losses are probably correct and the USAAF reported losses are probably correct and anything else was what people on both sides wanted to see. Now, if you have a problem with that, I’m afraid there’s not a whole lot I can do for you and it’s your problem, not mine. See ya around.

simon

22nd April 2005, 15:13

This is starting to go horribly off topic, can I remind everyone please that this thread is "Who was the best WWII pilot".

A little while back I posted a set of Forum guidelines:

http://www.tgplanes.com/Public/snitz/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=502

Nothing set in stone, just a batch of recommendations really to try and keep the site friendly, I particularly draw your attention to: "3) Keep it Civil. Not everyone is going to agree all the time."

So from now on, no more emotional outbursts, no more personal attacks aimed at individuals, if you cannot agree simply agree to disagree and leave it at that.

If personal comments cannot be left out of posts do not be surprised if your posts end up getting editted or deleted.

Try to keep your posts objective!

If any member does post a personal comment aimed at another member I would ask at this point that you e-mail either myself or Taglia rather than respond to it yourself. I do not want otherwise interesting and informative threads to devolve into bitchy slanging matches.

I do not want to go down the route of editting/deleting posts or suspending/banning members but if things do not stay friendly I will if I have to.

Final warning. Next time I have to intervene I [u]wil</u>l edit or remove the offending posts.

Che_Guevara

23rd April 2005, 03:35

hmm, maybe this is a silly post

however i´ve read that;

the USAAF lost nearly 69.ooo men( over europe),

the British Bombercommand lost 55.000 men( over europe).

so my question is, did anybody know how many aircrafts get lost in action in europe. i know tony woods site http://www.lesbutler.ip3.co.uk/tony/tonywood.htm

but it will be a "sysifus-searching" to pick the types i´m looking for
from this ultimative long lists...yeah u right i´m a lazy bone
[B)] :)

so i don´t wanna know the losts on every day,which type e.t.c

I´m only interessting in the result of additing all losts.
the types i´m looking for are;
B-24 ,B-17 ,P-38 ,P-51 ,Avro Lancester ,Halifax.

IT`S ONLY AN EXAMPLE
9987 B-17s(all types, from 1942 to 1945),

such numbers

JoeB

23rd April 2005, 04:44

quote:Originally posted by Kutscha

quote:Originally posted by R Leonard

Are you accusing someone of lying? I'd be damned sure of myself before I did that.
Did I hurt your Amercan ego? [:0] Be it the Germans or the Americans, someone is fudging numbers.

Besides the personal aspect, bringin in nationality tends to indicate *you* are not being objective.

When claims and losses disagree, and the losses are those recorded in then-secret records (not for example press releases to the home front about losses) which are reasonably complete, then the losses are generally correct and the claims excessive by whatever degree they exceed them. It's as a rule silly to imply that loss records are fudged just because claims of the other side exceed them. It's much harder for secret loss records to understate losses than go easy on claims in awarding victories.

As to German claiming in WWII, it was often relatively quite accurate in the first half of the war, still depending on situation. For example some German nightfighter claims, one-on-one slow motion combat, were almost 100% accurate. Fighter fur ball claims could never be that accurate no matter what the supposed procedure to eliminate duplications. But late in the war German claiming really went into the toilet, became quite exaggerated. 1943 was a transitional time.

On US claiming as R Leonard pointed out, lumping bomber and fighter claims together as indicative of "US" claiming is apples and oranges. Bomber claims were almost always much less accurate (in all AF's, the US just had a lot of bombers in daylight combat).

To take an example of another war, counting incident by incident in both side's accounts I estimated US B-29's in Korea probably shot down 3 MiG-15's (maybe 4). They were credited with 27 (and only 1 of the real shootdowns is included in the 27). MiG losses to US fighers OTOH were north of 70% of US confirmed destroyed credits, either for the war or counting certain specific easy to fully two-side document subperiods. Again % of confirmed destroyed, not counting "probable", though of course in reality some individual "probables" were kills and less than 70% of individual "confirmed" were actually kills.

For late WWII 8th/15th AF claiming appears to have been in this same ballpark, for both fighters and bombers. Bomber claiming was perhaps a bit better in late WWII than Korea, fighter claiming a bit worse. I think the intelligence rules of thumb were that losses being inflicted were 25% of the credits given to bombers plus 75% of those given to fighters, probably still a little optimistic. But you chose the highest overclaim examples, there's lots of variance in overclaiming from high to low.

Joe