Best WWII fighter pilot....?

[P1234567890]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

Don't see anyone on that list that shouldn't be there except for the last entry of Bishop with one kill

Fair enough, but if this is the case, then there are more than a hundred Germans currently not on the list who should be included...

Shouldn't every single German on this list List of World War II air aces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia from Gustav Rödel upwards be a contestant in the poll?

I'm not trying to say that they should actually be put into the poll... That would be silly since it would make the poll outrageously long. But it does show how many outrageously good German pilots there were, and I think that it puts a lot into perspective.

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by P1234567890

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.

I don’t want to discuss your ideas about nationalism here, as I feel it belongs to the “political” forum. But you must remember that people vote for things they know best and usually that are things from their own corner of the world.
And why is it different if Germans vote for a german pilot against Juha voting for a finish one? You already admitted his choice was a good one. Is this because the Germans confirm your own opinion?

Originally Posted by P1234567890

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?

Fine, so you don’t mind me criticizing yours?

Originally Posted by P1234567890

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.

While you seem to have an scientific approach, you really haven’t, as you seem to pick your criteria to be in favor of your own bias towards German pilots and some are still subjective. Your subjectiveness (and this counts for all people here) can be seen by the criteria you pick. And your criteria are flawed to say the least. For instance criteria 1. So based on this you’ll pick the german that shot down 5 I-15’s over a Brit who shot down 3 Bf109’s?
Furthermore several of your criteria are not relevant as they depend on circumstances rather than the quality of the pilot. Number of fronts fought on really isn’t in the pilot’s hands and neither is the variety of planes flown.

Originally Posted by P1234567890

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

To show your flawed logic I will make an example of comparing Hartman vs Sonderman. It’s not to take away any of the greatness of Buby, but just to show the mistake you make. Hartman shot down most planes but it took a while and many combat missions before he started to pile up victims. Sonderman shot down 4 planes in his first (and only) 5 combat missions. This is already better, but also gives Sonderman a ratio of about 1:1, which is better than any German ace discussed here. Further more, Sonderman did this with inferior material against superior numbers (Dutch numbered to Germans 1:10) and superior tactics, also a combination no German pilot can claim. The Germans never had inferior planes and most of the time had a better strength then 1:10. So now I proved that Sonderman was superior to Hartman by carefully choosing my criteria. So what I’m saying is there is no objective way to chose here.

[Juha]

pbfoot
“Would the circumanstances be the same if they were fighting the Germans as opposed the Russians ?2

Short answer is no. Reasons, while some Soviet units were very good, some were poor. IMHO the quality of units varied more in Soviet AF during the WWII than in other major AFs. Generally speaking tactically Soviet formations became good in 43 but at that time they still tended to open fire too far away. But that is only a generalization. There were from 39 onwards Soviet pilots who were good shots and knew the axiom “Get very near before opening fire.” In 1944 they were dangerous opponents; their best units were at that time probably as dangerous as Germans. But before 44 I would say that Germans would have been much more difficult opponents.

P1234567890
” Because Juutilainen wasn't the best pilot of the war by ANY stretch of the imagination…”

Now Juutilainen had clearly better exchange rate than Marseille, who seems to be your choice, 91:0 vs 158: at least 6, four planes lost at Kanal front (against 7 claims) and IIRC he was shot down at least twice in North Africa. We can argue how important the exchange rate was. To Finns, who didn’t have a/c industry to speak of, it was very important indeed. Germany wasn’t ready to sell but a token number of 109s to Finland before the summer 44. Finns had to even in 1943 bought more Morane-Saulnier M.S.406s and Curtiss Hawk 75s from German war booty debots, some of which had probably stand outdoors almost 3 years before the deal, to get even some sort “new” fighters to replace those lost or too wore. And when the fighter recon Flight of Recon Sqn 16 finally got rid from its Gloster Gladiator Mk IIs during the summer 44 its “new” planes were Polikarpov I-153s, so still old biplanes.

Juutilainen got kills in 3 different planes, Fokker D.XXI, Brewster Model 239 and Bf 109G. All rather different types needing very different tactics if one want to be successful. Marseille got all his kills while flying Bf109s.

Now it was much easier to shoot down Hurricanes while flying Bf 109F than shoot down newer Soviet fighters while flying Model 239, I would say that it was easier to shoot down Hurricanes when flying Bf 109F than when flying Model 239.

etc


Juha

[P1234567890]

Originally Posted by Marcel

I don’t want to discuss your ideas about nationalism here, as I feel it belongs to the “political” forum. But you must remember that people vote for things they know best and usually that are things from their own corner of the world.

Except that the topic of nationalism is relevant here because people like you are promoting pilots from your own country who have less than 10 kills as being the best pilot of the war. It's great that you're teaching us about obscure Dutch pilots, but ultimately there's a reason why he's obscure and why the people on the list above are not.

Originally Posted by Marcel

While you seem to have an scientific approach, you really haven’t, as you seem to pick your criteria to be in favor of your own bias towards German pilots and some are still subjective. Your subjectiveness (and this counts for all people here) can be seen by the criteria you pick.

Not really. We can all get together and decide on any reasonable criteria we want for judging pilot skill. Then we can create some kind of weighted metric on it, and apply it. I claim that this is as objective a measure as we could possibly come up with, and I further claim that for any reasonable metric, the Germans will come out at the top of the list.

Originally Posted by Marcel

And your criteria are flawed to say the least. For instance criteria 1. So based on this you’ll pick the german that shot down 5 I-15’s over a Brit who shot down 3 Bf109’s?

No, my proposed metric takes *everything* into account and in fact 3 109 kills would probably count more than 5 Sturmovik kills.

Originally Posted by Marcel

Furthermore several of your criteria are not relevant as they depend on circumstances rather than the quality of the pilot. Number of fronts fought on really isn’t in the pilot’s hands and neither is the variety of planes flown.

Variety of planes flown in which the pilot scored kills should count for something. It shows versatility. For example, it's impressive that Juutilainen scored kills in three different planes. Is it as important as total kill count? No, but it should count for at least something.

Originally Posted by Marcel

To show your flawed logic I will make an example of comparing Hartman vs Sonderman. It’s not to take away any of the greatness of Buby, but just to show the mistake you make. Hartman shot down most planes but it took a while and many combat missions before he started to pile up victims. Sonderman shot down 4 planes in his first (and only) 5 combat missions. This is already better, but also gives Sonderman a ratio of about 1:1, which is better than any German ace discussed here.

And this would help Sonderman's score using the metric I am suggesting, but ultimately you have to factor in total number of kills, number of missions flown, etc. in which Sonderman is WAY behind. If you ONLY use ratio, then sure, Sonderman does very well. But that's a totally unreasonable way to measure pilot skill. You have to measure all of the relevant criteria involved, which is what I'm suggesting. For example, ratio should obviously be tempered by number of missions flown, and it isn't hard to make the argument that a ratio of 0.58 over 442 missions (Nowotny) is a whole lot more impressive than a ratio of 1.0 over 5 missions. Do you seriously think that Sonderman would have been able to keep up that ratio if he'd flown hundreds of missions?!?

Originally Posted by Marcel

Further more, Sonderman did this with inferior material against superior numbers (Dutch numbered to Germans 1:10) and superior tactics, also a combination no German pilot can claim.

And again that would reflect well in Sonderman's overall rating, but it isn't NEARLY enough to lift him above the top Germans.

Originally Posted by Marcel

The Germans never had inferior planes and most of the time had a better strength then 1:10. So now I proved that Sonderman was superior to Hartman by carefully choosing my criteria. So what I’m saying is there is no objective way to chose here.

That's just it: You had to carefully choose your criteria. I'm saying that we should compare the pilots based on *all* relevant criteria weighted in some reasonable way. Your criteria are unreasonable because you cherry-picked them in order to make Sonderman look good. It's pretty hard to argue that judging pilots based on *all* relevant criteria is unreasonable.

The bottom line is this: Under any set of reasonable criteria which does not ignore any important facts and which is weighted in some reasonable way, the top Germans will always come out on top.

This shows that it's not all subjective.

[P1234567890]

Originally Posted by Juha

P1234567890
” Because Juutilainen wasn't the best pilot of the war by ANY stretch of the imagination…”

Now Juutilainen had clearly better exchange rate than Marseille, who seems to be your choice, 91:0 vs 158: at least 6, four planes lost at Kanal front (against 7 claims) and IIRC he was shot down at least twice in North Africa. We can argue how important the exchange rate was. To Finns, who didn’t have a/c industry to speak of, it was very important indeed. Germany wasn’t ready to sell but a token number of 109s to Finland before the summer 44. Finns had to even in 1943 bought more Morane-Saulnier M.S.406s and Curtiss Hawk 75s from German war booty debots, some of which had probably stand outdoors almost 3 years before the deal, to get even some sort “new” fighters to replace those lost or too wore. And when the fighter recon Flight of Recon Sqn 16 finally got rid from its Gloster Gladiator Mk IIs during the summer 44 its “new” planes were Polikarpov I-153s, so still old biplanes.

Juutilainen got kills in 3 different planes, Fokker D.XXI, Brewster Model 239 and Bf 109G. All rather different types needing very different tactics if one want to be successful. Marseille got all his kills while flying Bf109s.

Now it was much easier to shoot down Hurricanes while flying Bf 109F than shoot down newer Soviet fighters while flying Model 239, I would say that it was easier to shoot down Hurricanes when flying Bf 109F than when flying Model 239.

You make some compelling arguments, and I concede that when I said that Juutilainen wasn't the best pilot of the war by any stretch of the imagination, I was being too harsh. I agree that he does very well in a lot of important categories.

Nevertheless, I argue that if you factor in all of the important criteria, Juutilainen still isn't up there with the top Germans. He probably was the best non-German ace of the war, though.

Maybe that would be a good way of doing things: Have one poll for who was the best German pilot, and have another one for the best non-German pilot.

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

Having pride in where you come from may be how things start, but they get out of control *very* quickly when it comes to nationalism.

If you want to have pride, then let it be pride in yourself.

I don't think being proud of your country is bad, while being proud of yourself is the only good kind of pride. If you never admire what your country does right, or what your countrymen do right, you won't ever be very liked by your countrymen.

That's just a fact.

And Hitler wasn't just proud of his country when he started WWII, he himself wanted to be dictator of the world and rule. And in the end what Hitler did to his country, making stupid decisions and not listening to good advice, was just plain stubborness in the face of defeat.

[Marcel]

Not enough time too give a long response:

Originally Posted by P1234567890

Except that the topic of nationalism is relevant here because people like you are promoting pilots from your own country who have less than 10 kills as being the best pilot of the war.

I'm not, I'm just using Sonderman to get my point through.

Originally Posted by P1234567890

It's great that you're teaching us about obscure Dutch pilots, but ultimately there's a reason why he's obscure and why the people on the list above are not.

Yes, the reason was that his air force surrendered after 5 days, nothing to do with himself.
I am teaching you about these men to give them the credit they deserve. The only reason that I must be a dutchman to give credit to a Dutchman is that these guys are unknown to the rest of the world.

Originally Posted by P1234567890

Not really. We can all get together and decide on any reasonable criteria we want for judging pilot skill. Then we can create some kind of weighted metric on it, and apply it.

Okay what about this: Being able to take off under fire, being out gunned, out numbered(vastly), against a tactically and technically superior and experienced opponent. Having no speed or altitude advantage whatsoever. And still being able to shoot down 3 opponents without being shot himself. That must count for something. It proves that he was one hell of a pilot. The best? I don't know, but neither do you.

Originally Posted by P1234567890

I claim that this is as objective a measure as we could possibly come up with, and I further claim that for any reasonable metric, the Germans will come out at the top of the list.

And I claim that you'll never be able to have an unbiased opinion. You put out these "metric" out of your own hypothesis that the German pilots were the best. But you do not see that yourself. You proved that by your first reaction on Juha's choice. "No way that anyone could have been as good as the Germans." The reason that you had to reconsider after tremendous facts from Juha enhances my view about you. You reacted out of your own bias without considering even the facts. And I don't think you were wrong in doing that. I only think it was wrong that you condemn people because of having a biased opinion, while your own opinion was as biased as theirs abnd preaching against them

Originally Posted by P1234567890

Variety of planes flown in which the pilot scored kills should count for something. It shows versatility. For example, it's impressive that Juutilainen scored kills in three different planes. Is it as important as total kill count? No, but it should count for at least something.

No it shows he had the time to fly different planes and his airforce was in the war long enough.

Originally Posted by P1234567890

And this would help Sonderman's score using the metric I am suggesting, but ultimately you have to factor in total number of kills, number of missions flown, etc. in which Sonderman is WAY behind. If you ONLY use ratio, then sure, Sonderman does very well. But that's a totally unreasonable way to measure pilot skill. You have to measure all of the relevant criteria involved, which is what I'm suggesting. For example, ratio should obviously be tempered by number of missions flown, and it isn't hard to make the argument that a ratio of 0.58 over 442 missions (Nowotny) is a whole lot more impressive than a ratio of 1.0 over 5 missions. Do you seriously think that Sonderman would have been able to keep up that ratio if he'd flown hundreds of missions?!?

Yes on the last question, he had it undoubtedly in him, but nothing to prove as he didn't fly more.. And consider the circumstances in which he got his kills. No altitude advantage, totally surprised by superior numbers of enemies, no speed, nothing of that kind. Can you say that about the Germans? As I said, you must be one hell of a pilot to be able to do that.

Originally Posted by P1234567890

And again that would reflect well in Sonderman's overall rating, but it isn't NEARLY enough to lift him above the top Germans.

According to your standards. I think there were many pilots that could be considered the best, not only the list above. These are unknown, unsung men, never made a name for themselves because of circumstances, independent of themselves. Using clinical statistics like you do doesn't do justice to them. I'm only using Sonderman as an example, but there are many more from every nationality.

Originally Posted by P1234567890

Your criteria are unreasonable because you cherry-picked them in order to make Sonderman look good.

Now you get the hang of it, exactly my point.

Originally Posted by P1234567890

The bottom line is this: Under any set of reasonable criteria which does not ignore any important facts and which is weighted in some reasonable way, the top Germans will always come out on top.

This shows that it's not all subjective.

Yes it is, you choose yourself which is important and judge by that, that's subjective.

[telsono]

I would place "Pat" Pattle as my top pick. Unlike many of the pilots listed he had to fight primarily in aircraft that were inferior to his opponents, if not obsolete. His victory total is listed at between 40 and 50 with some saying as high as 60 victoriers. Although from South Africa he was a regular RAF pilot and rose to the rank of squadron commander during the thick of the Greek campaign where his leadership qualities were adamant. His aerial markmanship was reknown in the service. You can read more with this link.

Commonwealth biplane fighter aces - Marmaduke Thomas St John ‘Pat’ Pattle

As for US Marine pilots I would place the top Marine Wildcat pilot, Major John L. Smith on the list. 16 of his 19 victories were in Wildcats over Guadalcanal where he commanded the first fighter squadron there, VMF 223. He developed and trained his pilots in the tactics that were highly effective against the Japanese earning him both the Congressional Medal of Honor and the Navy Cross. As a gruff by the book Marine officer he wasn't as glamorous as hi XO Marion Carl. IMHO Boyington only showed true leadership when he was a POW and sober.

John Lucian Smith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mike T.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by P1234567890

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.

Are you 100% sure he only voted because of nationalistic reasons. He stated the reaons why.

You could have countered as to why you disagree but to tell him he is wrong because he did not vote for a German.

Also nationalistic things are not necessarily bad. I am proud to be an American, is that a bad thing.

Originally Posted by P1234567890

Are you kidding?!? Yes, nationalism is VERY bad! Neither world war would have been possible without nationalism! Thinking that your own group of people is superior to another group of people NEVER ends well!

That is bull! There is nothing wrong with being proud of where you come from and being proud of where you come from does not mean you think that you own ethnic group or country is superior to anyone.

I am an American/German. I am proud of being American and German.

Anyone else here proud of where they come from? I sure as hell hope so!