The Greatest Fighter Pilot of WWII... Finalized....

[lesofprimus]

2. USAAF pilots were just as good and thier equipment as good as the Luftwaffe in 39-41

Thats a freakin huge joke right??? What American fighter aircraft in 1940 could effectivly combat the Bf-109???

1. If USAAF pilots had been allowed to fly as many missions as Luftwaffe pilots thier scores could have been theoretically as high as the highest Luftwaffe pilots.

Nope, not even theoretically... The Luftwaffe was not producing as many aircraft per month as the Americans and Russians were producing in a week.... Its a simple math equation...

[Erich]

think of mulit fronts in the war that the Luftw was fighting, the US on the other hand was not.

Walter Loos...........discount probably about half of his kills. Bauers are also speculative in some fashion as well

[Jabberwocky]

Originally Posted by CurzonDax

2. USAAF pilots were just as good and thier equipment as good as the Luftwaffe in 39-41 when the Luftwaffe was still fighting a wholly offensive campaign. By 1943 the USAAF was on the attack role while the Luftwaffe was on the defensive.

:{)

I've got to disagree on this point here.

Firstly, USAAF pilots didn't have anywhere near the combat expertise and hardening that the LuftWaffe pilots did. Early experiance in the Spainish Civil War and the battles of Poland, Norway, France and Britain turned the LuftWaffe into the most battle-hardened fighting force in the world, with the Finnish and Japanese a short second.

If you put two pilots with the same training in the same plane and one of them has much more combat experiance, who are you going to think has a better chance of surviving a fight?

Secondly USAAF single seaters weren't as good as their German counterparts, at least until the deployment of the P-38F in Nth Africa in late 1942. Faced with a 109/190 combination, the P-40 and P-39 that made up the bulk of USAAF fighter strength until mid 1943 look a little sickly.

However, USAAF bombers were superior to their LuftWaffe adversaries. The LuftWaffe had nothing to match the B-17 and B-24. USAAF medium bombers such as the A-20, B-24 and B-26 aquitted themselves admirably in early service.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I have to disagree also. While I think the USAAF Pilots by 1943 were just as good as most Luftwaffe pilots. They recieved excellent training and had good equipment as well. I do not see really anyone catching up with the high aces that did occur from the Luftwaffe, for reasons stated by the others here.

[Rudi]

I dont think that it had something to do with the "experience" of the spanish civil war, poland, aso.... (think about the experience of the other Nations, which were gathered in the wars before WWII http://users.accesscomm.ca/magnusfamily/between.htm )
-there were enough Legion condor-returners who were not that "good" and successful like well trained newcomers. Tactics were developed and gathering experience with the equipment, headquarters, supply aso... Germany didnt fought against themselves in Spain- their opponents had at least the same chance to enlarge their experience!

If a pilot has to fight till the war´s end he flies in another style like a pilot knowing be send home after a while. So did the Germans, Italians, Russians... the others had not to return to combat after an injury, holiday, instruction duties...

All in all its the man´s fighting/surviving will -not always the experience. So THE greatest Pilot can be out of each country, it doesnt count the experience that much, nor the amount ou kills... (i dont mean with "experience" how well trained a pilot is and how many how good he handles the machine- in this context the pilot xy has to be average on the controlls of an aircraft)

Bong was already in f-school an artist while flying, just like Hartmann, Meimberg, Marseille, Lacey... but they had it.

Pingel, Schöpfel, Johnson (RAF) aso, were excellent, but no real killers...

Oh, man, i lost the point with whom i started. so ill stop here.

[CurzonDax]

Alrighty, EVERYONE obvoiously read my post wrong. What I was saying was that by the time the USAAF was in force over Europe, late 43-45, thier equipment and Training was just as good as the Luftwaffe was in 39-41.

But going back to missions vs. victories. The Average US ace had about 20-25 victories before they were yanked from frontline service. Bong for example was the exeption not the rule. But I think Rudi and I we are saying the same thing, experience is not the norm. Look how many Luftwaffe aces with 50+ kills DID NOT fight in Spain. Many of the US aces were already gifted pilots and some were already fighting before Pearl. Look at the AVG boys, was it Gabreski that fought in Spain?, the Eagle Squadron.

So experience in actual combat can not be a meter. Look at Bong, Yeager, Mahurin, McGuire, Blackburn, Foss and so on and so forth. None of these men had any combat experience and many of these men had 20+ kills and in some cases, for example, Foss and Blackburn, in Wildcats fighting Zeros/Zekes and 109s (Blackburn baptism of fire was TORCH) became aces or started on the path, fighting with inferior equipment against much better equiped and just as skilled adversaries.

Sooooo, I will concede the point that USAAF aces would have been hard pressed to get to the 100+ level even without getting yanked at the end of thier tours, but it is very concievable that many if they would have been left in could have had 50, 60, or even 70+. Guys like Bong, McGuire could have had up to 100 by the wars end if Bong had not been yanked or McGuire Killed.

:{)

[FLYBOYJ]

Remeber, the 5th AF guys in the pacific might of had more - I once read that Bong and Mcguire might had close to 50 kills, but many went unconfirmed....

[CurzonDax]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Remeber, the 5th AF guys in the pacific might of had more - I once read that Bong and Mcguire might had close to 50 kills, but many went unconfirmed....

Yes there is also this, how many USAAF/USN/USMC kills went unconfirmed. SO it makes me wonder, while I don't doubt that Luftwaffe pilots shot down A LOT of planes, were some of these scores inflated? Just asking.

:{)

[Erich]

we will never actually know about Luftwaffe claims vs kills, I noted many times on the forums that there was no action to confimr via the luftw hierarchy in November 44 till wars end so many records are lost or are subjective to a very big (?). unconfirmed oh yes I believe many for the day fighter force and even the night fighter force as well.

just as Rudel tank kills are infalted in my eyes so are several noted Luftwaffe aces that come to mind, Dahl, Loos, Rudoffer, Welter, etc ......... suppose the same could be said of several RAF and US pilot too, Frenchman Closterman is another

[lesofprimus]

After all the reading I've done over the last 30 years or so, and all the combat reports and stats I've seen, there is hardly a day or mission where the Allied reported losses match the German claims, and vice versa....

There are a few rare instances where the information is verified on both sides, but this was the exception to the rule...

In other words, EVERYONE inflated kill totals, and some even downgraded their losses...

[CurzonDax]

Some archelogical and first hand reports have downgraded Allied scores in the last decade. If one looks at recent books on the air war in the Pacific Boyington is no longer the top USMC ace, Foss is or Lamphier is now pretty much accepted not to be the pilot who killed Yamamoto. (In fact this historical reversal made him a very bitter man). Even in WWI, which this event was on one of the first episodes of Battlefield Detectives, the exhumed Richtofen's body and using very CSI/Grissom type stuff they were able to prove that Snoopy... I mean Brown did not kill the Red Baron but the Austrailian AA crew.

Still it can be argued that USAAF/USN/USMC claims were probably more accurate than others because of the use of gun camaras. Not saying that this was 100% accurate but it helped. I know the japanese did not have them and I know it existed in the Luftwaffe, but was it standard equipment?

:{)

[Rudi]

i saw these guncamera films. they say mostly nothing. Sorry.
Very often a victim was shot down by more than one pilot, not nowing, that he had to share his kill in his account...

So was the deal with the German kills in hot spots: especially in RLV (Reichsluftverteidigung) they were mostly not able to watch their victim´s crash because of altitude, subsequent fight, wild melee of aircraft in the air.

In Sturmangriff of Sturmgruppe, for example you cannot say exactly if the bomber you shot at went really down, or tried first to seperate from other burning aircraft, or get back the control of the aircraft after the attack... in this time another attacker could shoot at the same Viermot... so there are double claims... not very much, but almost always some (I think 10-30 % but i did not red these number in books, just my own conclusion...). The same problem with the attack from ahead into the B-17/24 formation: wen the whole Gruppe rushes trough the fromation, who could after say exactly that his victim was enough hit to fall... mostly the newcomers made some no-real-claim. Fighting and shooting in smaller numbers, or not in fromtion (at least Rotte) was much easier to count the kills especially when one is on the winner-side. But not always. Non-experience was propably the main factor why in the BOB on both sides were made so many false claims... they just did not knew wehn an aircraft got enough damadge...

I red that in the average the Luftwaffe-claims had no more than 10% false claims...
The RAF always overclaimed in the first half of the war... in the last six months it seems to me that they were very accurate in claims, especially in the very last months they underclaimed.

Those whom i believe most in claims are

Luftwaffe
UdssR
USAF
RAF
..
Italy
Japan
...


FAF and Romanian AF and some more i dont have enough information to make a decission, but i think they were almost as accurate as those first four mentioned

But i also think the more experienced a pilot is and the more he fought and shot against the enemy, the more accurate are the claims... but not always (Dahl)

[Erich]

you better do some more reading on SturmFw angriff Rudi, it is very plausible for individual pilots to take down a specific bomber, it is recorded in their flubuchs and Geschwader histories besides the gun-cams.

sorry I just do not agree with your statements, Sturmfw's were to pick only one bomber per push through a pulk of bombers before setting up again for another attack hopefully by staffel strength. I've got too many vet interviews to say otherwise besides my friendship with several that are still alive

[Rudi]

ahh, and missions do not always say about the skill, friend!

Many many allied fighters had flown hundrets of missions, too.

Ok, then enemy contact- wehn e.c. was made, there was a difference between skill and the ability to shoot at the enemy. Many very good pilots had to made their job behind the leader, propably never to get in a good shooting position. You have to be made a higher rank to be leader of a Rotte or Schwarm aso like in RLV, or you have to get some hundrets of sorties and fights to get the leadership... In RLV in the attack from ahead each pilot had his position in formation and had to shoot at the part of the Viermot he got: the wing, between the motors, between two aircraft´s wingtips, like in I/JG11... But in other units they same in in lines, so everybody had theoretically a chance, like in IV/JG 3 untill they were made Stumgruppe... then, in RLV in summer 44 each man was needed, so everybody sperated with the "Pauke Pauke" and attacked be himself... more kills were made, but more chaos...

But in average, one had to serve a long time, to get the chance to be the boss... so was with other nations, too. But not all.

If one is the leader, the possibility to make a kill was higher, so not always the talented dudes got their chance... some exceptions, but no time to tell.
good night.

[102first_hussars]

You forgot to put Buzz Beurling up there, he is at least one of the greatest.