Best WW2 Fighter Pilot Poll Round 2

[P1234567890]

Originally Posted by buzzard

There were so many variables involved in how these pilots attained their success, that no mathematical model can possibly offer any real insight. Best kill-to-mission ratio? Surely anyone can see that luck is a huge factor in this,

I don't know about this. If you shoot down a bunch of planes during your first two missions, then fine, maybe you're just lucky. But if you *consistently* shoot down enemy planes over literally hundreds of sorties, then there's something other than luck going on. At some point the law of averages kicks in. Surely some of Hartmann's opponents got lucky flying against him as well. Over thousands of missions, luck washes out.

Was Wayne Gretzky just a lucky hockey player?

In any case, I like your time machine idea!

[buzzard]

Originally Posted by P1234567890

Was Wayne Gretzky just a lucky hockey player?

Certainly not. But if he had been killed or crippled in a car accident on his way to join the pros, he would have been just another footnote in the history of professional hockey.

What I'm talking about is the role that contingency plays in the unforgiving world of air combat. Hartmann was certainly lucky, just as Marseille, ultimately, was not.

Lets imagine that Marseille, after the BoB, had been ordered to take part in Barbarossa. Would he have amassed an even larger score against the qualitatively inferior Soviets? Anyone basing their conclusion on his success against the generally superior Allied forces would almost certainly say 'yes'. But how can you really know? While the Soviets were GENERALLY inferior to the Allies, they surely had some very skilled pilots in their ranks. And in an environment unlike the clear skies of N.Africa, he could have been bounced and shot down...just another forgotten casualty of war.

While it is certainly true that achieving a high kill-to-mission ratio was an indication of superior capability, it still demands that there be enemies available to be shot down. Look at all the Americans who flew in the final months of the war. Many rarely, if ever, saw a German AC. In such a situation, no degree of skill will allow the possibility of achieving a high kill/mission ratio. You gotta have some luck!

A comprehensive statistical analysis of the aces would certainly be a useful guide to assessing their relative merits, but the interpretation of which criteria matters most is a subjective judgement. You can sort the truly great from the mere excellent, but to narrow it down to a single 'best'? I don't think so. It's just too damn complex.

D'ya think that part of the problem with my time machine is the perpetual motion machine that powers it? I'm stumped

JL

[Njaco]

We might be able to figure out who was the most skilled aerobatic pilot, or maybe the most accurate deflection shot, but the best FIGHTER Pilot? Not likely...

Which leads us back to one's own personal opinion based upon one's own set of criteria - be it kills, deflection, skill or even nationality. Its not possible to find the one true best ever either mathmatically or otherwise because there is always that unknown quotent - personal feeling.

Its not a question whose answer can be found set in stone.

Now, why was Ivan Kozhedub on the list?

[kool kitty89]

I think at leas one of the Finnish pilots should have made it to the second round (I understand the system), but I'm not going to complain, because I could have voted (I didn't because I don't really know enough on the acheivements of a lot of those pilots) and because, while there should be a degree of sincerity to this, but at the same time you can overkill on that. This is, at least to some degree, for fun.

And even though it's pretty obvious who this is going to boil down to, I like that Johnson made it to atleast round 2, for nothing else, the story of his P-43C coming home with more than a dozen 20mm hits and hundreds of rifle calliber holes.

Same thing with Sakai, he's got some amazing stories tied to him too, particularly with the James "Pug" Southerlan encounter at Guadalcanal. (a RC bullet through his scull brain out the other side and he ended up landing safely and eventually returned to combat blind in one eye, and became a Bhudist after the war)

Though there are amazing stories tied to pretty much all these guys.

[Kruska]

Originally Posted by buzzard

D'ya think that part of the problem with my time machine is the perpetual motion machine that powers it? I'm stumped

JL

Hello 123.......

Let me please forward my gut feeling on the following issue;

This whole mathematical …… was brought up because you mentioned that according to this method it would proof that all top aces would be Germans.
(And I still think you base that equation primarily on kills)

The USAF and the Commonwealth pilot’s hat fraction kills awarded which makes damn good sense to me and also shows that they were team players who placed the act of annihilating an enemy above personal career motivation or Goering’s pathetic hero pattern.

German pilots were only awarded a Kill as one, kills could not be fractured, the participations were measured within ones personal file but did not contribute much to “heroism” or “promotion” as an individual kill would have done.

Now my gut feeling tells me that a German pilot with, let’s say 105 kills did not achieve these single handed by himself (especially whilst attacking a bomber formation or during the BoB)) chances that the pilot or pilots who really crippled an escort fighter or bomber was/were killed during this action himself or were not even aware about this but another pilot was documented / witnessed as having put out the lights of the respective enemy a/c and as such was awarded the whole thing or a kill. (Can you imagine the total confusion up there during such a mission?) who had the time and ability like a mathematical equation to follow up on his “result” and a witness next to him?

According to my uncle, dozens of young pilots started to open fire at distances of more than a 1000m in order to break of the attack before reaching the defensive bomber fire and then immediately diving away towards home. Who knows what they hit if at all and what some witness really saw.

I also know from my uncle that reported and witnessed kills were awarded partially as calculated
advantage to certain pilots who were most suitable and could enable the Staffel/Geschwader to produce a “Hero” which in reverse contributed to the overall “Goering likes/favors me/my squadron”.

(1st JG to achieve 200, 500, 1000, 1500 …… kills and within 2,3,4 …. Pilots with more than 50,70,90 …. kills) = great headlines and a good lick at Goering’s boots.

I am not saying this in disrespect to any pilot’s true achievements.

Therefore "my" gut feeling tells me forget about the kills as a major judgment in regards to a pilots overall performance. During the BoB the kills awarded to the respective German fighter pilots was (if I remember correctly) 2.5 times of what the RAF recorded in there loss statistics.

So if you still want to evaluate math…. the performance, please document to me first the weight that you would allocate to kills.

Regards
Kruska

[P1234567890]

Originally Posted by Kruska

This whole mathematical …… was brought up because you mentioned that according to this method it would proof that all top aces would be Germans.
(And I still think you base that equation primarily on kills)

I've *explicitly* stated that it's not based on kills, and also explained *exactly* how it's not based on kills. It's based on as many things as possible. That's the whole point.

But just for the sake of argument, let's say we rate pilots on number of combat missions flown. After all, staying alive to fly a thousand missions is a pretty good indicator of pilot skill. If we rank everyone by combat missions, probably the top hundred pilots of the war are Germans.

If we rank by ratio, then the top pilots are Germans. If we rank by total kills, then the top pilots are Germans.

The only way anyone could compete with them is if there are some categories in which the Germans do *very* poorly, and some allied pilot does *very* well, and I just don't think there's any reasonable category in which the German pilots sucked.

In order to find categories in which the Germans do poorly and the allies do well, you'd pretty much have to start looking at English ability and stuff like that.

Originally Posted by Kruska

The USAF and the Commonwealth pilot’s hat fraction kills awarded which makes damn good sense to me and also shows that they were team players who placed the act of annihilating an enemy above personal career motivation or Goering’s pathetic hero pattern.

I doubt this matters very much. You don't think Hartmann ever damaged a plane which one of his wingmen finished off? Besides, even if you assume that all of his kills were teamwork kills and divide his total score in half, he's still got more than twice as many kills as the best non-German pilot.

Another interesting point is the Battle of Britain. How come there were a bunch of Germans who had literally dozens of kills during the Battle of Britain, and there weren't any British pilots who even came close? And it's not like the Spitfires and Hurricanes that they were flying against were totally inferior machines or that the British pilots were hacks. I assert that the top German pilots were just really well-trained and really talented. Just look at Galland and Moelders during the battle; they didn't have any equals on the opposite side.

[P1234567890]

Originally Posted by Kruska

So if you still want to evaluate math…. the performance, please document to me first the weight that you would allocate to kills.

I've explained this. You assign all possible weights to kills, and you do the same with every other category.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by P1234567890

I assert that the top German pilots were just really well-trained and really talented. Just look at Galland and Moelders during the battle; they didn't have any equals on the opposite side.

They were well trained and talented but not invincible - Moelders was shot down during the Battle of France. Galland had several close calls during the BoB....

[Hunter368]

I will also add that there were some Allied pilots that scored as high or higher then the top German aces on a kill/mission bais.

Did top Allied pilots score as many kills as top German ones? no

Is there reasons why they did not score as many kills that had nothing to do with skill? yes

Could of top Allied pilots scored as many kills as German aces if they were placed in the same situation? No reason to think they could not of.

Summary:

LW aces were not super human flying machines, they were no better then Allied ones. LW aces were just placed in a target rich zone and served entire war fighting.......Allied pilots were not given that chance. LW pilots did start the war using better tactics and had some experience over Allied pilots......but that evened out soon enough. LW and Allied pilots were equal.

(let me just say when I mean "Allied pilots" I do not mean Russian, thats not to say there were not some very good Russian pilots also)

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Hunter368

I will also add that there were some Allied pilots that scored as high or higher then the top German aces on a kill/mission bais.

Yep - I believe in one of Toliver's books he pointed out that Gabreski and Preddy had the same rate of claims as some of the Luftwaffe top aces and had they flown +1400 missions (like many German aced did) they too "would of" had kills into the triple digits.

[marshall]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Yep - I believe in one of Toliver's books he pointed out that Gabreski and Preddy had the same rate of claims as some of the Luftwaffe top aces and had they flown +1400 missions (like many German aced did) they too "would of" had kills into the triple digits.

I think that we should add to this the fact that as Gabreski writes in his book they couldn't always follow after an enemy into dive and score a kill because they had to stay with bombers and protect them. In case of pilots flying as bomber escort a victory doesn't equals a kill. But is it less important?

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by marshall

I think that we should add to this the fact that as Gabreski writes in his book they couldn't always follow after an enemy into dive and score a kill because they had to stay with bombers and protect them. In case of pilots flying as bomber escort a victory doesn't equals a kill. But is it less important?

The other factor for Allied pilots is the very few times encounters occurred and the ratios of destroyed aircraft per encounter is important. My father had four encounters with Me 109s and shot down 6-1-1 plus a Stuka for his 7th.

As Marshall said - more opprtunities to bounce were available but escort responsibilities were Prime Directive - all of his 109 scores were taking out high escorts for either Fw 190s or Me 410s while other squadron members took out the bomber killers.

I still voted for Bar because of his scores, the types of scores, the extreme hostile environment he fought in and he survived. But like many I believe Johnny Johnson, Stanford Tuck, George preddy, JC Myer, Joe Foss, Saburo Sakai, Buerling, etc were great fighter pilots - but how do you measure the intangibles - which is why I only 'do' this kind of poll reluctantly - and never get into a 'fact based' discussion.

[P1234567890]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

They were well trained and talented but not invincible - Moelders was shot down during the Battle of France. Galland had several close calls during the BoB....

Of course. Anyone who flies long enough gets shot down. Marseille was shot down. Rudel was shot down plenty of times. By the way, these are two more great categories: ratio of planes lost vs. planes shot down and ratio of planes lost vs. number of combat missions flown.

But I think the Battle of Britain was interesting for a few reasons:

1. The allied pilots were fighting on home turf. If a German bails out over England, the war is over for him. If an allied pilot bails out, he lives to fight another day. The Germans only got one mistake.

2. The allies had extra targets to shoot at. Whereas the Germans had to fight fighter-to-fighter, the allies had lots of juicy Stukas to take out. Despite this, the top German scorers like Galland and Moelders had way more kills.

3. (Related to 2) The allies outscored the Germans in the Battle of Britain by something like 2 kills to 1. Again, despite this the top German pilots had way more kills.

Also, do we actually have any facts about how many combat missions the top Germans flew during the Battle of Britain vs. how many missions the top allied pilots flew?

Everyone talks about how sleep deprived the RAF pilots were during the BoB, and how 'never has so much been owed by so many to so few', so it sounds to me like they were flying plenty of missions.

As far as I can tell, during the BoB the average LW pilot was on par (or maybe even worse) than the average RAF pilot, but the top LW pilots were *way* better than the top RAF pilots.

[FLYBOYJ]

Better? More experienced perhaps. Way better? - I think not. If they were they would of been able to clear the skies for the bombers despite the limitations they were up against.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

P1234567890 do you have any proof that Luftwaffe pilots were better?

Where is proof that Luftwaffe pilot had 100% better training?

Where is proof that Luftwaffe pilots would 100% win in a one on one fight. I mean if they are better they should right?