Best WWII fighter pilot....?

[marshall]

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

When Adler asked if u wanted ur vote changed from Gabreski to Urbanowicz, u said yes, which means u voted for him.... Nationistic pride is great and all, but be realistic... Voting for something simply for a nations pride is dumb and uneducated, to say the least.... If u dont know enough about the subject, why fu*kin vote???

Same remark as to P1234567890, I voted on him even though I don't think he was the best, if you have a problem with that, I can't help you.

Oh really dumb-ass??? I guess that since my Grandfather was an Ace, and I grew up in the Black Sheep Community with other Aces, including Boyington, I guess I am clueless... Or how about the conversations Ive had with Galland or Yeager or Gabreski or Vejtasa or etc etc... I guess I have no idea on the subject.... U had best keep ur fu&*kin moth shut moron or I will break it off in ur ass.... Dont piss of a Moderator, ever heard of that???

You misunderstood me, P1234567890 pointed it earlier.

Then why should ur opinion in this thread have any bearing??? U are un-educated in this topic, so maybe u should shut ur yap and read what others who DO have the experience on the subject are saying....

I said that I'm not able to, but not becasue of lack of knowledge but because I don't know what criteria I should use.

Then u think wrong.... 9 outta 10 times, the more experienced pilot will take it to the greenie, in a very bad way... Ask the Russian VVS about that, would u.... And always is a strong word however, since there are a few instances where a rookie took out an accomplished Experten, but they are VERY very limited....

And besides the point, over 75% of all shootdowns were not dogfights, but bounces where the victim had no idea he was flying straight into an Aces gunsight....

About the last thing I'll give few examples, Rall shot down 8 times, Batz shot dwon 4 times, Rudorffer shot down 16 times, Bar shot down 18 times. Though I don't know how many of these shot downs were made by enemy fighters. But I guess it wasn't that rare.


And last thing, I don't know why you are trying to offend me. I just posted my opinion, if you don't agree with that opinion just say you don't and why you don't agree with it. Then I can try to answer to your arguments and we can have a discussion.

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by P1234567890

Wow, isn't it funny how people love to vote patriotically... Come on, you can't *seriously* think that Illu Juutilainen was the *best* pilot of the whole war! You're just saying that because you're Finnish!

And why not? This is the first round an Juutilainen was a great pilot, so he belongs in the next one.
And about patriotically votes: I'm sure there are probably many pilots who could be up there, but didn't make a name for themselves because the didn't get the chance. And if their countrymen wouldn't mention them, nobody would never know who they were. I would choose Gerben Sonderman (see my port 50 in this thread) if he were on the list, only to let you know about him.

And remember, you're here to learn, not to try press your believes on others.

[P1234567890]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

No they did not live up to there treaty at all. Did they invade Germany or come to the aid of the Polish?

No...

Sure, but at least they declared war. Apparently they didn't even do that against the Soviets...

[P1234567890]

Originally Posted by Marcel

And why not? This is the first round an Juutilainen was a great pilot, so he belongs in the next one.

Why not? Because Juutilainen wasn't the best pilot of the war by ANY stretch of the imagination, and voting for him the best just because of what it said on his passport is completely uncompelling.

Originally Posted by Marcel

And about patriotically votes: I'm sure there are probably many pilots who could be up there, but didn't make a name for themselves because the didn't get the chance. And if their countrymen wouldn't mention them, nobody would never know who they were.

Then go ahead and say, "Hey, check out so-and-so; he was a great pilot!". That doesn't mean that you have to vote for him as being the BEST pilot ever!

Originally Posted by Marcel

I would choose Gerben Sonderman (see my port 50 in this thread) if he were on the list, only to let you know about him.

I'm all for learning. I encourage you to encourage us to learn about pilots like Sonderman. But it's absurd to suggest that he was the best fighter pilot of the war!

Originally Posted by Marcel

And remember, you're here to learn, not to try press your believes on others.

I am here to learn, but I simultaneously find it to be absurd when people vote for someone who has one tenth as many kills as the top Germans as the best pilot ever, and ESPECIALLY if they do it just because the guy came from their country!

Do you understand that you can tell us about a pilot without automatically claiming that he was the best fighter ace of the war?

On a related note, does anyone else here find it to be absurd that Beurling has more votes than Rall, Barkhorn, and Nowotny ALL PUT TOGETHER?!? Their combined kill total was 834, and Beurling shot down only 31. Does this make any sense?!? (And I'm Canadian!)

Seriously people, it's pretty absurd that Witold Urbanowicz has more votes than any of these three German pilots. Where's the objectivity here?!?

I'd like to take this opportunity to remind everyone of the kill table on this page:

List of World War II air aces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by P1234567890

Why not? Because Juutilainen wasn't the best pilot of the war by ANY stretch of the imagination, and voting for him the best just because of what it said on his passport is completely uncompelling.

Your opinion

Originally Posted by P1234567890

]
Then go ahead and say, "Hey, check out so-and-so; he was a great pilot!". That doesn't mean that you have to vote for him as being the BEST pilot ever!

Originally Posted by P1234567890

I'm all for learning. I encourage you to encourage us to learn about pilots like Sonderman. But it's absurd to suggest that he was the best fighter pilot of the war!

How on earth would you know? Maybe he was better than any of them, but he didn't fly in the war for more then 4 days, so hadn't a chance to prove himself. I'm not saying he was, but I'm only showing you that there can be different ways of looking at "best".

Originally Posted by P1234567890

I am here to learn, but I simultaneously find it to be absurd when people vote for someone who has one tenth as many kills as the top Germans as the best pilot ever, and ESPECIALLY if they do it just because the guy came from their country!

If you think most kills means best then that is your opinion. Let others have their own. People tend to pick their heroes from their own country, I don't think you should judge that here. If you have a problem with that, just keep it for yourself. If you can prove someone was a bad pilot, please do that with facts.

Originally Posted by P1234567890

Do you understand that you can tell us about a pilot without automatically claiming that he was the best fighter ace of the war?

I think I did in post 50, so yes. But remember, "best" is subjective at best, please let other people have their own opinion.

[JoeB]

Originally Posted by P1234567890

and courage?

Here's a little story about Marseille: (From Hans Joachim Marseille)

Perhaps they mean June 3, 1942 when Marseille claimed 6 Kittyhawks (per some sources, though 7 in OKL claims list)? He made no claims on the 6th. On the 3rd his claims and those of JG53 occurred at about the same time. A total of 9-10 Kittyhawks were claimed; 5 Sdn SAAF lost 4 Kittyhawks plus another 'force landed' back at base, an unknown RAF unit lost 2 Hurricanes apparently at around the same time; the South Africans downed at least 3 Ju-87's the Bf109's were escorting; per "Fighters Over the Desert" by Shores and Ring p. 120. The maximum claim accuracy of 70% (counting the force landing and assuming the Hurricanes were really lost in the same incident) is excellent, the minimum of 40% (counting only 4 Kittyhawks and assuming the Hurricane losses might have been to other causes) is still probably no worse than the WWII average.

On a related thread 'Hartmann's claims', two other examples of Marseille's claiming accuracy were given: Sept 1 when he claimed 17, the Germans claimed a total of 26 or 27 (varies by source), a total of 20 Allied fighters were lost, again excellent apparently ~75% claim accuracy. And, another example where it wasn't as good, Sept 15 '42 Marseille again claimed 7 Kittyhawks of 20 total Kittyhawk and 1 Spit claimed by the Germans at around 1800; but in that case only 6 Kittyhawks total were lost around that time, one attributed to AA by the Allies, plus 2 Spits time unknown, max rate ~40%, min ~25%, depending whether you accept the AA attribution and include the Spits or not.

Rudorffer flew in West too; some of his claims in Tunisia don't check out well. For example February 9th, 1943, he was credited 8 victories (6 P-40 and 2 P-38's); his unit II./JG 2, was awarded a total of 15 victories that day, 12 P-40's and 3 P-38's. The P-40's were F's of the French GC II/5, who lost 3. The P-38's were of the 94th FS, who suffered no losses; per "Focke Wulf 190 in North Africa" by Arthy and Jessen. Prorated accuracy of his claim, <20%.

It's would be a big job to do such analysis broadly, and involves uncertainties and ranges of numbers as given above, but still worthwhile IMO, even to see a few examples, as *one* input into 'who was best'. Although IMO that's a quite unanswerable question, because depends on lots of stuff besides how many planes were 'really' downed, like how hard was the overall situation for the ace's side.

On East v West front though, the German fighters probably had at least as high an overall kill ratio v the Desert Air Force in Marseille's time as the they did v the VVS in Hartmann's time, which was mainly after the 'happy times' on the Eastern Front of '41-42, he didn't start until late '42. I say that based again on "Fighters Over..." summaries of day by day combats, the Bf109's were posting a quite high real fighter-fighter kill ratio v the Hurricane/P-40/Spit opposition in that period; as say compared to total reported Soviet and German fighter air combat (and 'failed to return' in Soviet case) losses in 1944, which was still, perhaps surprisingly, in the Luftwaffe's favor but not by as high a ratio as v the Desert AF mid 1942. But as noted on that thread, a highly reliable analysis of Hartmann's claims v Soviet losses in particular incidents is yet to surface AFAIK, analyses that have been published are controversial.

Joe

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by P1234567890

Wow, isn't it funny how people love to vote patriotically... Come on, you can't *seriously* think that Illu Juutilainen was the *best* pilot of the whole war! You're just saying that because you're Finnish!

I want someone from Bulgaria to weigh in on this debate and argue that Stoyan Stoyanov was the best pilot of the war.

Hey chill out allright!

He gave the reasons he voted for that person and he has every right to do so. Just like you are entitled to your opinion, he is entitled to his. So back off!

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by P1234567890

Why not? Because Juutilainen wasn't the best pilot of the war by ANY stretch of the imagination, and voting for him the best just because of what it said on his passport is completely uncompelling.



Then go ahead and say, "Hey, check out so-and-so; he was a great pilot!". That doesn't mean that you have to vote for him as being the BEST pilot ever!



I'm all for learning. I encourage you to encourage us to learn about pilots like Sonderman. But it's absurd to suggest that he was the best fighter pilot of the war!



I am here to learn, but I simultaneously find it to be absurd when people vote for someone who has one tenth as many kills as the top Germans as the best pilot ever, and ESPECIALLY if they do it just because the guy came from their country!

Do you understand that you can tell us about a pilot without automatically claiming that he was the best fighter ace of the war?

On a related note, does anyone else here find it to be absurd that Beurling has more votes than Rall, Barkhorn, and Nowotny ALL PUT TOGETHER?!? Their combined kill total was 834, and Beurling shot down only 31. Does this make any sense?!? (And I'm Canadian!)

Seriously people, it's pretty absurd that Witold Urbanowicz has more votes than any of these three German pilots. Where's the objectivity here?!?

I'd like to take this opportunity to remind everyone of the kill table on this page:

List of World War II air aces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All of that is nothing more than your opinioin, and opinions are like assholes, everyone has one!

[Lucky13]

And some are bigger than others, right Adler...?

Haven't been able to decide yet, it's a difficult one....

[P1234567890]

Originally Posted by Marcel

Your opinion

Not really; there are only so many 'reasonable' criteria on which a pilot can be judged, and we've already seen many of them in this thread:

1. Total number of kills,
2. Kills / combat mission ratio,
3. Marksmanship,
4. Piloting ability,
5. Variety of planes flown,
6. Number of fronts fought on,
7. Number of times shot down vs. kills,
8. Quality of opponents and enemy equipment,
etc.

Judging pilot skill inevitably boils down to some kind of weighted combination of these measures. My claim is that for *any* 'reasonable' weighted combination of these 'reasonable' measures, the top pilots will be German.

That's not particularly subjective.

Originally Posted by Marcel

How on earth would you know? Maybe he was better than any of them, but he didn't fly in the war for more then 4 days, so hadn't a chance to prove himself. I'm not saying he was, but I'm only showing you that there can be different ways of looking at "best".

Not really. You can't base your definition of 'best' on complete hypotheticals. Well, you can, but it isn't very reasonable.

Originally Posted by Marcel

If you think most kills means best then that is your opinion.

I don't. My definition of best includes some kind of weighted metric of the qualities I listed above. If I thought that most kills meant best, then I would have voted for Hartmann, but I didn't. I voted for Marseille.

Originally Posted by Marcel

Let others have their own. People tend to pick their heroes from their own country, I don't think you should judge that here. If you have a problem with that, just keep it for yourself.

Why? I believe that World War II taught the world exactly how bat nationalism is. This is a discussion forum pertaining to World War II. If people here are being nationalistic, then I argue that it's fair game to criticize them for it, especially if they are saying things which are unsound.

Originally Posted by Marcel

I think I did in post 50, so yes. But remember, "best" is subjective at best, please let other people have their own opinion.

I'm all for people having their own opinions, but if their opinions are nationalistic, then I think that it's ok to criticize their reasoning. Why not?

[P1234567890]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Hey chill out allright!

He gave the reasons he voted for that person and he has every right to do so. Just like you are entitled to your opinion, he is entitled to his. So back off!

I'm new here, so I'm not familiar with the culture. I saw some other posts in this thread which made it seem like it's ok to debate.

I'm not trying to insult anyone, but I do think it's ok to criticize people for voting nationalistically. If World War II taught us anything, it's that nationalism is bad. If it is not ok for me to do this, then just say so and I'll stop doing it. No problem.