Highest Scoring Fighter Ace, Still Living?

[parsifal]

This is a link to the high scorers of Desert air force ( RAAF), with emphasis on 3 squadron (with their later bios included) . some are dead, and to be honest I dont think all were aces, but a lot were....might be of help

3 Squadron RAAF - Pilot Biographies

Good luck Adler

[parsifal]

This may also be of interest

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Thanks for the links and info guys.

[VG-33]

Originally Posted by Juha

Hello Eric
there was also accusation that he bullied his wingman to substantiate bogus claims during his Eastern front service, but of course that is nowadays at least almost impossible to prove or disprove without complete access to Soviet/Russian records. Moreover as rightly decided the french tribunal opposing Closterman and CJ Engenhardt for the number of it's victories: they are a kind of decoration attributed to the pilot from it's tutelar autorithy (RAF and Armée de l'Air for Closterman, Luftwaffe for Rall, Rudoeffer)), only these organisations are allowed to discuss about to take them off from the pilot.

Juha

Hello

There is no reason to mystify russian archives.

The good new is that TsAMO archives are officially open since a couple of weeks. Being in a military zone you were needing a pass, thus not difficult to obtain before. It's finished now with that procedure. Anyway RGAFD archives were always open since 1993 and are still open to anywone.
It's more than enough to establish that the day when Rudorffer claimed 17 Yak only 3 planes of that type were lost on the aera for 41 Luftwaffe claims, 3 other suffering extended damage. See russian forums from 2003-2004 years, exept a new scoop that's a closed file.
The same history with P-40F Lafayette losses in Tunisia and his claims.

In my opinion, the fact that he was caught twice or three times makes not of him an overclaimer much bigger than the other Luftwaffe pilot's. The overclaim rate is far from being constant. From Weissenberger case some dozen of it's claims do not find any confirmation from yhe other side, and some other confirmed from 80 to 90%, by periods.

Erich hate to say it but many of ER's kills are suspect especially his 262 claims

Anyway, i'm against personnal attacks until any claim is not verified (valid, invalid or unstated) from archives of the other side.

Regards

[Juha]

I would like to emphasize that IMHO researchers HAVE the right to question victory claims from which there are not paper evidence on even claimant side, which was the situation in the Closterman case, if I have understood it rightly. A paper claiming something else even if signed by a AVM given for whatever reason doesn’t change that. It might well be that Closterman wasn’t the originator of the claim that he got 33 kills during the war and IIRC his Tempest showed some, was it 16, of the victory markings with darker colours and the rest with lighter one. But at some point he became known as 33 kill ace in popular literature, I remember that myself, and IMHO it is ridiculous to accuse researches, who put thinks right by checking the primary sources, in court.

IMHO it is well known that claim accuracy varied during the pilots’ careers, but from what I know, or from what I think I know, some were more reliable claimers than others, mostly because they had more realistic view of their abilities, better ability to critical analyze, better situational awareness and maybe they were less interesting of personal glory. In other words fighter aces were humans as we all.

On Rudorffer or any other ace, many pilots were poor in a/c recognition; it would be simpler to check other side’s single-engine losses and twin-engine losses.

IMHO vast majority of overclaims were made in good faith, there were only a few cases of deliberate overclaiming. On Rudorffer, there seems to have been some good indications on that in his case but nothing is proven, so only hearsay.

Juha

[VG-33]

Originally Posted by Juha

I would like to emphasize that IMHO researchers HAVE the right to question victory claims from which there are not paper evidence on even claimant side, which was the situation in the Closterman case, if I have understood it rightly..

But at some point he became known as 33 kill ace in popular literature, I remember that myself, and IMHO it is ridiculous to accuse researches, who put thinks right by checking the primary sources, in court.

True, the historians should do their jobs. Closterman had always 23 RAF kills, transformed to 33 by French homologation system based on 1940'th rules.
Of course there was political reasons, but Marcel Albert from Normandy also had collective victories inside his 23 kills.

IMHO it is well known that claim accuracy varied during the pilots’ careers, but from what I know, or from what I think I know, some were more reliable claimers than others, mostly because they had more realistic view of their abilities, better ability to critical analyze, better situational awareness and maybe they were less interesting of personal glory. In other words fighter aces were humans as we all.

On Rudorffer or any other ace, many pilots were poor in a/c recognition; it would be simpler to check other side’s single-engine losses and twin-engine losses.

It's an exageration too far. Why not four-engine losses? I understang that Rudorffer and others took some LaGG-3, P-39 or at least a La-5 for a Yak during this 41 claims on that type, but not a Pe-2 or a Boston, even so!

IMHO vast majority of overclaims were made in good faith, there were only a few cases of deliberate overclaiming. On Rudorffer, there seems to have been some good indications on that in his case but nothing is proven, so only hearsay.

Juha

I said until all his claims and Rall ones will be not verified and valideted or unvalideted by russian archives, nobody can say that he was a bigger overclaimer than the other Luft pilots.