Analysis of Aces and their victories.

[Legioneod]

This discussion originally started in the skin forums between myself and @onlyforbrian I've decided to bring it here in order to try and dispel some myths or misunderstandings between German Aces and the Allies Aces.

 

Some people think that the German pilots were supermen because they got extremely high kill counts, but the reality is the Germans were no more skilled than any Allied pilot. The Germans were just forced into situations that enabled them to get these extremely high scores.

 

As we discuss and analyse you'll start to understand that there are numerous factors in play that contribute to pilots getting or not getting victories. Factors like how kills were scored, pilot skill, enemy opposition skill and aircraft differences, rotating pilots home vs staying in combat, etc all of these factors contribute to the ability of a pilot to get victories and are some of the reasons Germans obtained very high scores while in comparison the Allies did not.

 

I'll be adding to this post over time as we discuss the subject and come to certain conclusions, but please try to keep it civilized and on topic. If you cannot participate in an unbiased civilized manner than do not post in this thread.

 

I was going to write out my thoughts on the matter but I'll wait until later to do that, it's nearly 3am and I need to get some sleep.

 

Edited October 27, 2019 by Legioneod

[JtD]

10 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

the reality is the Germans were no more skilled than any Allied pilot.

 

Hm, so a German ace who completed a thousand combat missions is no more skilled than "any" Allied pilot, like say the Soviet farmer boy who was pushed to the front with three hours on the type?

 

That premise isn't really a good start to an unbiased, civilized debate.

[Legioneod]

15 minutes ago, JtD said:

 

Hm, so a German ace who completed a thousand combat missions is no more skilled than "any" Allied pilot, like say the Soviet farmer boy who was pushed to the front with three hours on the type?

 

That premise isn't really a good start to an unbiased, civilized debate.

You misunderstand the point and I probably could have worded it better. The average German pilot is no more capable than the average Allied pilot, obviously there were pilots that were exceptionally skilled and pilots who weren't skilled at all on both sides of the conflict. The point was that German pilots aren't superman that could do things no one else could, there are many contributing factors to German victories and Allied victories alike.

 

Skilled probably wasn't the best word to use but hopefully you'll understand my point.

 

Were the Germans just better pilots than everyone else? Were the Allies poor in comparison? Why did the German pilot get so many kills in comparison to allied pilots? etc. These are some of the questions I hope to answer with this discussion.

 

Lets try not to argue about little things and carry the discussion on. Just because something seems bias doesn't mean it is.

Edited October 27, 2019 by Legioneod

[csThor]

The issue is that there is no "average" that one  could use as baseline. Pre-war training in Germany was very comprehensive and complex, the selection process for aircrew and their eventual roles was very thorough. Compare that to 1944 with fuel shortages and the vicious circle of high losses - shortened training to make them up - even higher losses and you'll spot the difference between "averages" for those groups of pilots.

 

Fact is training prepares a human for the role of being a wartime pilot. The more thorough and comprehensive the training the better the chances for the pilot to accquire what sets apart the aces from the rest: experience. 

[unreasonable]

I expect that skill in this context - like in many others - rises in an S curve.  Part of that will be in training, and more in operations.  There is attrition along the way, in both training and operations, which presumably progressively weeds out  the more marginally skilled candidates, although much of it is dumb luck.

 

If you start with the premise that German pilots did not have better eyesight, faster reflexes, calmer nerves etc : ie they were not ubermensch, then the interesting question is at what level the "skill" curve, amalgamating all relevant factors, levels off, or perhaps even starts to decline as long term stress undermines capabilities. 

 

Clearly many of them ended up flying a multiple of the number of sorties flown by allied pilots. Set against that, many of the top German aces were also very lucky: no doubt someone can find out how many times Hartman and Marseilles got shot down and made it back to fly again. (Lots).   

 

I suspect that if you set up a simulation you would not need radically higher "skill" levels - expressed as chances of surviving a sortie, scoring a kill - in order to generate results something like that of the GAFs. My hunch is that it is mostly just down to the number of sorties flown.   

 

Then there is the relative skill level and relative aircraft performance to take into account. 

[ZachariasX]

1 minute ago, Legioneod said:

The average German pilot is no more capable than the average Allied pilot

In all air forces, "the average" is a problematic term, because, average in what precisely? What you have is a brute force HR test that will kill most of the very many average people you throw at it. The formerly average person, constantly exposed to this task then has two options: either acquire a superior skill in dealing with the task or perish.

 

"Average" pilots you can only have when "Joe Average" is not constantly exposed to lethal danger. By letting him/her just fly in peace, he can become a good flyer and remain "average". IOW, the "average" pilot is an incompetetnt fighter at best. In any air force.

 

By constantly having to fight to the death, you will weed out those that can acquire the skill to be better. This happened to the Russians after being slaughtered in the first year, it also happened to the British during BoB. What happens is you just separate your pilot population, those that master to live through this by being better than the opposition and the dead ones, that are replaced by new ones that have yet to endure this triage.

 

It is of note that this acquiring of skill does not mean that those Experten will indeed rack up a tremendous amount of kills. It just means that they start to survive. There is no selection criteria favoring a pilot that shot 100 planes over the one that shot 15 planes, as long a sboth survive. The higher kill count just reflects the nature of the battle, namely the occasion to pick a good fight and bring home the hide. You can see that with the Russian pilots as well. As soon as they got good (and some got very, very, very good) they did two things: one is live much longer than their new sqadmates and score occasionally. When transferred to Guard Units and being sent where be trouble, then they started to rack up score as well.

 

Air combat is an acquired skill that some people master easier than others. It takes strong nerves as well; it is not a hospitable environment. Given the opportunity to constantly work on your skill after you have proven that you are, as personality, more suitable to this harsh environment does indeed make you FAR more competent when it comes to what you practice, trading blows.

 

In this sense, no, the "average" American or British pilot is just fodder for an Experte, as he simply lacked the practice trading blows. Also, that average person might not be really suitable to this fighting environment as the Experte who already demonstrated that he is, putting him statistically at a further disadvantage.

 

It might well be that the average Allied pilot is as good as a basic flyer as the Experte, since he can fly by instrument etc. as well. But between him and Experte is a huge difference when it comes to a fight.

 

Clostermann said about this that a reason why he lived is that he had this seventh sense of imminent danger and be careful. Also He said it was obvious to recognize the Experten in a formation, with their nervous way of "flapping their wings" and the only thing you could do is leave them in peace or else. Many didn't though and the outcome was always the same.

 

In the beginning of the war, there was an "average" German pilot. I wouldn't be surprised if the average skill level distribution among pilots was the same as say in the British or the French Airforce. But exposure to danger clearly weeded out the ones who couldn't be better then others fast. The British and the French were at a further disadvantage, as the Germans not only would to kill the ones that didn't learn, they also had to kill an enshrined operational doctrine the make the selected good pilots competitive. The British were lucky having a Channel instead of some rivers giving them time to adapt, unlike the French.

 

 

[unreasonable]

10 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

 

 

In the beginning of the war, there was an "average" German pilot. I wouldn't be surprised if the average skill level distribution among pilots was the same as say in the British or the French Airforce. But exposure to danger clearly weeded out the ones who couldn't be better then others fast. The British and the French were at a further disadvantage, as the Germans not only would to kill the ones that didn't learn, they also had to kill an enshrined operational doctrine the make the selected good pilots competitive. The British were lucky having a Channel instead of some rivers giving them time to adapt, unlike the French.

 

All of this (whole post) might be true but it is also possible that while people got better with practice (up to a point), most of the elimination at each stage was just down to dumb luck. After all, model a population all of whom have identical characteristics and put it through a simulation with a series of on or out gates and you will get a distribution with a few long survivors, whether you increase skill with experience or not.  With learning the distribution will be more stretched out.

 

As humans we like to tell a story of capabilities and agency and dislike impersonal and random outcomes: I have no doubt both are involved in this issue, but the balance between the two has yet to be established AFAIK.

Edited October 27, 2019 by unreasonable

[6./ZG26_Custard]

 

1 hour ago, Legioneod said:

Were the Germans just better pilots than everyone else? Were the Allies poor in comparison? Why did the German pilot get so many kills in comparison to allied pilots? etc. These are some of the questions I hope to answer with this discussion.

In the main the "Ace" Luftwaffe pilots would have had much more experience under their belts when you consider that the top 3 flew 3150 combat missions between them.

Erich Hartmann : 1,425

Gerhard Barkhorn: 1,104

Gunther Rall : 621

 

When it comes to aerial victory averages though, both Rall and Barkhorn scored better than Hartmann, with Rall at number one with an average of  roughly 2.26 missions flown per victory. Hartmann's average is around 4.05. So one could argue that Rall was a better fighter pilot, even though he flew less missions. 

 

Wilhelm Batz  average was 1.88 so he seemed to have been exceptionally skilled or lucky (or both!)

 

The Allied pilots would of had numerically many more aircraft, particularity in the later war with less targets (enemy aircraft) to shoot at and of course with much more pilot rotation.

 

I remember reading somewhere that by late 1944 the Allies were flying up to 15.000+ sorties per day, whilst the Luftwaffe were flying around somewhere around the 600 mark.

 

 

Edited October 27, 2019 by 6./ZG26_Custard

[Legioneod]

The whole point of this thread is to examine why certain pilots got more kills than others. Many Germans say the best pilots they ever fought were RAF pilots yet you will never see a RAF pilot with the same amount of kills as some German pilots. Why is this? Imo it has to do with luck on some part and the fact that Germans had a very target rich environment at the start of the war, especially in the east against inferior russian aircraft and to some extent pilots. The same could be said for the western Allies in late 44-45 except for maybe the target rich part, allies had a hard time finding opposition late in the war.

 

@onlyforbrian Stated that an American pilot who achieved Ace in a day in 45 was unlikely to be able to do the same in 42-43. The idea that the Germans were just better due to the very high number of kills is false and if you actually analyse German kills you'll realize that they were no more capable than the Allies. The Allies would have achieved the same results if in the same situation.

[JtD]

If the Luftwaffe used tactics in 1939 that were copied by all other air forces towards the end of the war, is that something that made German pilots better or not? Because, as it was, superior German tactics played a huge role in their early successes, well into 1942.

[Legioneod]

21 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

 

In the main the "Ace" Luftwaffe pilots would have had much more experience under their belts when you consider that the top 3 flew 3150 combat missions between them.

Erich Hartmann : 1,425

Gerhard Barkhorn: 1,104

Gunther Rall : 621

 

When it comes to aerial victory averages though, both Rall and Barkhorn scored better than Hartmann, with Rall at number one with an average of  roughly 2.26 missions flown per victory. Hartmann's average is around 4.05. So one could argue that Rall was a better fighter pilot, even though he flew less missions. 

 

Wilhelm Batz  average was 1.88 so he seemed to have been exceptionally skilled or lucky (or both!)

 

21 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

 

The Allied pilots would of had numerically many more aircraft, particularity in the later war with less targets (enemy aircraft) to shoot at and of course with much more pilot rotation.

True and I think this is a large contributing factor in allied victory counts. The Western Allies fought against pilots and aircraft on par or better than their own in early to mid war and by the time they achieved any high scores or flight time they were rotated out to help train new pilots. German pilots on the other hand achieved a great many of their kills in the east against aircraft that were inferior and pilots who lacked training (and necessary equipment) for the most part.

Very few German pilots were as successful in the west as they were in the east, this isn't because they weren't skilled but because they fought against opponents that were decently trained (for the most part) and had very capable aircraft that were on par with their own. Later in the war they also faced overwhelming odds with Allied air superiority.

 

Of the German aces the only ones I can think of that achieved a large level of success in the west are Adolf Galland and Egon Mayer, there are more of course but I haven't gone through the list yet.

21 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

 

I remember reading somewhere that by late 1944 the Allies were flying up to 15.000+ sorties per day, whilst the Luftwaffe were flying around somewhere around the 600 mark.

 

 

I knew the Germans weren't putting much up but never knew it was that low.

[ZachariasX]

35 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

most of the elimination at each stage was just down to dumb luck.

This is certainly a factor but if you start with hundreds of thousands, you just sacrifice a portion of the pilots who otherwhise might have become very proficient. Good pilots were killed by sending them to the continent in Hurricanes armed with bombs in 1942. And in the long run that's the end of a career then, no matter how good you are. Chuck Yeager on the other hand was unlucky when he got shot down as No.4 in one of the first sorties over France. Yet, he was lucky too because he might as well have been shot dead in that occatsion (or killed in France) and holding him back on missions over France until after Overlord upped his survival as well. By that time, The Luftwaffe as a whole was just a shade of what it had been in 1944. Hence, he being talented, had it much easier to survive the first dozens of missions to really make his talent shine.

 

Luck definitely plays a matter, but it works both ways.

 

16 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

The whole point of this thread is to examine why certain pilots got more kills than others.

Simple. It's called opportunity. That s what you need for those folks who not only can stomach their situation, but also develop skills to be successful.

 

Not many air forces would have allowed extracurricular activity like Hartmann perpetuated when he discovered a large, hidden Soviet airfield. After hours, he went scoring there and not telling anyone about his hunting ground. (That's the kind of thing some even lament is happening on the server Combat Box.)

 

You can be as great of a pilot with all the prerequisites to be a great fighter, if you don't have the opportunity to score, you will not. Just look at the numbers, how many sorties flown and how many combat engagements. On any given time of any given day from 1944 onwards, the sky would be littered with Allied aircraft. The Germans had to look up and they saw aircraft. If an Experte flies 500 missions, chances are that in 470 of them he engages in combat. If an American pilot does 125 missions, he's lucky to find combat in 20 of those missions. And then he has to share those 45 German Planes with 350 other Americans. When Rall in a later interview that the Americans were very sporty. They would accept any fight, now wonder why.

 

If the Americans were subject to the same culling, they undoubtedly would have turned out the same way regarding skill distribution. You can see this in Bongs career. Bong was really a dedicated fighter pilot. Had he flown 1000 missions, seeing Japanese pilots in 900 of them, he surely would have achieved a "German" kill score.

 

It's not that people really differ. They differ in how they are employed. They differ in presented opportunity to score. And if you mix one that just came back from 300 combat sorties in a row, he'd be much superior in a fight to a pilot that had seen 10 times combat in 100 missions, this even if they were twins.

 

 

28 minutes ago, JtD said:

If the Luftwaffe used tactics in 1939 that were copied by all other air forces towards the end of the war, is that something that made German pilots better or not? Because, as it was, superior German tactics played a huge role in their early successes, well into 1942.

It most certainly was. French or British pilots were certainly on par with the Germans regarding their piloting abilities. If not better, especially in the case of the French. But wrong doctrine gives you a slow start in any race, putting an otherwise identically proficent at an advantage.

 

In this sense, the British were lucky that they could afford having their old boys netweork flying club shot to dead by 1941 to a degre, when not even much chairbone was left to defend parading over fighting. They were also lucky enough that they could draw on a reservoir of new pilots to fill the ranks again. Those new faces certainly learned what worked and what didn't. And lacked the attitude of the old boys. By 1942, the RAF dramatically changed and by 1944, 2TAF operated almost like the German air force in 1940.

 

The French didn't have the luxury to last out their chairbone that didn't thought it convenient to leave lunch just because they were getting bombed. Made for quick end, regardless how valiant soe individuals fought.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

36 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

an American pilot who achieved Ace in a day in 45 was unlikely to be able to do the same in 42-43. The idea that the Germans were just better due to the very high number of kills is false and if you actually analyse German kills you'll realize that they were no more capable than the Allies.

 

Chuck Yeager (clearly a very skilled pilot) got his "ace in a day" status on 12th October 1944, by claiming two aircraft without firing a shot as they collided with each other, whilst we can argue that they were manoeuvre kills the criteria for victories was eclectic to say the least (on all sides). 

 

36 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

if you actually analyse German kills you'll realize that they were no more capable than the Allies. The Allies would have achieved the same results if in the same situation.

 

I don't think that it is about capabilities, it's about situations as you have stated. If you take the Battle Of Britain, we had a situation where the most experienced pilots in Europe were held to a draw by the RAF. Of course you have to factor in many variables, a large body of water separating the combatants, poor tactics and of course  German eyes turning towards the eastern front. 

 

11 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

When Rall in a later interview that the Americans were very sporty. They would accept any fight, now wonder why.

He was referring to the "British" old boy, Tally-Ho! 

 

[Legioneod]

9 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

This is certainly a factor but if you start with hundreds of thousands, you just sacrifice a portion of the pilots who otherwhise might have become very proficient. Good pilots were killed by sending them to the continent in Hurricanes armed with bombs in 1942. And in the long run that's the end of a career then, no matter how good you are. Chuck Yeager on the other hand was unlucky when he got shot down as No.4 in one of the first sorties over France. Yet, he was lucky too because he might as well have been shot dead in that occatsion (or killed in France) and holding him back on missions over France until after Overlord upped his survival as well. By that time, The Luftwaffe as a whole was just a shade of what it had been in 1944. Hence, he being talented, had it much easier to survive the first dozens of missions to really make his talent shine.

 

Luck definitely plays a matter, but it works both ways.

 

Simple. It's called opportunity. That s what you need for those folks who not only can stomach their situation, but also develop skills to be successful.

 

Not many air forces would have allowed extracurricular activity like Hartmann perpetuated when he discovered a large, hidden Soviet airfield. After hours, he went scoring there and not telling anyone about his hunting ground. (That's the kind of thing some even lament is happening on the server Combat Box.)

 

You can be as great of a pilot with all the prerequisites to be a great fighter, if you don't have the opportunity to score, you will not. Just look at the numbers, how many sorties flown and how many combat engagements. On any given time of any given day from 1944 onwards, the sky would be littered with Allied aircraft. The Germans had to look up and they saw aircraft. If an Experte flies 500 missions, chances are that in 470 of them he engages in combat. If an American pilot does 125 missions, he's lucky to find combat in 20 of those missions. And then he has to share those 45 German Planes with 350 other Americans. When Rall in a later interview that the Americans were very sporty. They would accept any fight, now wonder why.

 

If the Americans were subject to the same culling, they undoubtedly would have turned out the same way regarding skill distribution. You can see this in Bongs career. Bong was really a dedicated fighter pilot. Had he flown 1000 missions, seeing Japanese pilots in 900 of them, he surely would have achieved a "German" kill score.

 

It's not that people really differ. They differ in how they are employed. They differ in presented opportunity to score. And if you mix one that just came back from 300 combat sorties in a row, he'd be much superior in a fight to a pilot that had seen 10 times combat in 100 missions, this even if they were twins.

 

 

 

Exactly but many people miss this point, Germans had many opportunities whereas many Allied pilots did not. Many people seem to think that victories equals ability but it doesn't in a majority of cases. German most certainly had skill I'm not debating that, but when someone claims an allied pilot couldn't compete with a German pilot just because the German has 100+ kills that's just foolish imo.

[ZachariasX]

Just now, Legioneod said:

but when someone claims an allied pilot couldn't compete with a German pilot just because the German has 100+ kills that's just foolish imo.

He couldn't compete with him for the sole reason that the other guy had lots more practise. There's nothing magical about it.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

34 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Of the German aces the only ones I can think of that achieved a large level of success in the west are Adolf Galland and Egon Mayer, there are more of course but I haven't gone through the list yet.

I think Werner Mölders had 68 victories in the west up until 1941. 

 

Edit: Not sure if any Luftwaffe pilot scored higher in that time period in the west? 

Edited October 27, 2019 by 6./ZG26_Custard

[Legioneod]

18 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

He couldn't compete with him for the sole reason that the other guy had lots more practise. There's nothing magical about it.

It's not that simple. What if the German only shot down lone aircraft or only lone bombers. If an Allied pilot whos shot down 20 fighters vs a German pilot who shot down 5 -10 fighters and 30-40 ground attack aircraft or bombers, whos more capable in an engagement? Is it the German just because he has more kills or is it the Allied pilot who has more fighter vs fighter experience?

 

In a fighter vs fighter engagement the pilot with more experience in actual fighting (against fighters) will undoubtedly have the upper hand even if the opponent has more aerial victories. It doesn't matter how many victories you have, what matters is do you know how to pilot your aircraft well against the enemies own? Kills don't always teach you these skills, many kills were against unsuspecting pilots but this type of kill doesn't teach any meaningful thing to be used in an actual dogfight.

 

Amount of kills aren't the determining factor and don't show everything.

 

12 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

I think Werner Mölders had 68 victories in the west up until 1941. 

 

Edit: Not sure if any Luftwaffe pilot scored higher in that time period in the west? 

Galland was close I think, he achieved around 57 kills in 1940 and had achieved 96 by the end of 41. What's interesting is that Galland achieved a majority of his 104 victories early in the war, this of course was due to him being taken out of operation until 45 but its interesting to see the kills he achieved in such a short amount of time.

I wonder what he would have achieved if he would have flown till the end.

Edited October 27, 2019 by Legioneod

[ZachariasX]

1 minute ago, Legioneod said:

It's not that simple.

It mostly is, as when the sky is speckled with enemy aircraft, you pick the easy prey when you have the choice. Some were hit and run scorers like Hartmann, some were more aerobatic in their way of doing things, yet still they all for the most part decided whether or not to engage and how to engage.

 

Once they were forced to attack the bombers, scoring simply doesn't work anymore. And it didn't. There was maybe one hand full of individuals that were proficient at repeatedly downing a heavy in a single attack, but generally, it was not possible. And the one guy who came up with the head-on attack against the Fortresses was about the only one getting a decent tally for his personal log. Steinhoff absolutely hated dealing with them and he considered that guy almost as mad a Rudel in their way of pressing home attacks.

 

[Legioneod]

7 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

It mostly is, as when the sky is speckled with enemy aircraft, you pick the easy prey when you have the choice. Some were hit and run scorers like Hartmann, some were more aerobatic in their way of doing things, yet still they all for the most part decided whether or not to engage and how to engage.

 

Once they were forced to attack the bombers, scoring simply doesn't work anymore. And it didn't. There was maybe one hand full of individuals that were proficient at repeatedly downing a heavy in a single attack, but generally, it was not possible. And the one guy who came up with the head-on attack against the Fortresses was about the only one getting a decent tally for his personal log. Steinhoff absolutely hated dealing with them and he considered that guy almost as mad a Rudel in their way of pressing home attacks.

 

That has nothing to due with number of kills, just picking easy targets.

To say that number of kills are the determining factor in pilot ability is incorrect imo.

It's like saying Gabreski, Johnson, and Preddy would lose in a fight against Hartman, Rall, and Barkhorn just because the Germans had more victories, it doesn't work like that and there are more factors at play.

Edited October 27, 2019 by Legioneod

[Eisenfaustus]

41 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

That has nothing to due with number of kills, just picking easy targets.

To say that number of kills are the determining factor in pilot ability is incorrect imo.

It's like saying Gabreski, Johnson, and Preddy would lose in a fight against Hartman, Rall, and Barkhorn just because the Germans had more victories, it doesn't work like that and there are more factors at play.

 

True - the same for sprty competition. I used to fence - and when I lost to fencer A and won against fencer B it would regulary happen that fencer B would beat fancer A nevertheless. And on a bad day I could lose to people I usually won against and vice versa. You cannot predict the outcome of a duel.

 

But experience would defnitly be with those Germans. They went through a tough school - only few pilots could fly so many combat sorties and still perform well. Most would break mentally. That's why the allies introduced that mission count that limits the kills of their top aces and this ist why of - I belive - 18.000 German fighter pilots not even 10% lived to see the end of the war.

 

So those few exceptional individuals are propably among the most cold blooded and competend combat aviators ever seen in the skies. And that is not a question of nationality. Of course Allies could have achieved the same under same circumstances - and they would have paid the same price in blood for driving their fliers beyond braking point I guess.

[unreasonable]

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

This is certainly a factor but if you start with hundreds of thousands, you just sacrifice a portion of the pilots who otherwhise might have become very proficient. Good pilots were killed by sending them to the continent in Hurricanes armed with bombs in 1942. And in the long run that's the end of a career then, no matter how good you are. Chuck Yeager on the other hand was unlucky when he got shot down as No.4 in one of the first sorties over France. Yet, he was lucky too because he might as well have been shot dead in that occatsion (or killed in France) and holding him back on missions over France until after Overlord upped his survival as well. By that time, The Luftwaffe as a whole was just a shade of what it had been in 1944. Hence, he being talented, had it much easier to survive the first dozens of missions to really make his talent shine.

 

 

That is an assertion for which I have yet to see a shred of evidence.

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, Legioneod said:

To say that number of kills are the determining factor in pilot ability is incorrect imo.

I didn't mean to say that. That is certainly not the case, absolutely

 

How I see things working comes down to managing one owns misfortune. In case of fighter pilots, it means survival. You recognize bad odds when you see them, you learn to avoid situations where the outcome is not in your hands anymore. Scoring is only second to that, as it can serve as ulterior way to keep fate as much in your hand as possible: namely promotion. Of course, there's the vanity aspect of it, but then I see it more so consequencial than Darwin at work.

 

Of all the high scorers, they mostly scored against planes that they could take down with one hit. A large formation of heavyies is not something that even e great pilot would pick as a fight because chances of scoring are drastically lower and chances that he can get his just by being there are also high.

 

I don't think it is really meaningful do put aces against each other, as the specific situation of the fight would a decisive parameter as well. But when you ask Clostermann, he openly said the German Experten were way better, just so because of their far greater practise. When he chased down a D9 near Dümmer See in his Tempest, his supposed prey saw he couldn't run from the Temoest, turned back to him and as fast as Clostermann could count to three he had a 20 mm hit in the engine that seized immediately. You can say Clostermann is a great pilot because he repeatedly could belly land a Tempest out of any situation and get away with it in one piece, while many others died on their first try. Also he commented being in his best fighting form at that time, making him if anything just a bit careless. There's this interviwe with him about that on youtube, where he talks about that, in French however.

Spoiler

 

 

So whatever pilots you're putting against each other, my bets are one the one that has more recent practise. Like on the online servers here. After some break simming, if I go online, I'm really, really bad. Only with practise I get to my normal regular bad form again.

 

27 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

That is an assertion for which I have yet to see a shred of evidence.

Not sure if I understand you correctly, are you saying that toward the end of 1944 the sky over the continent is less friendly than in 1943? Or did it remain the same? If one of the situations was more dangerous than the other, it would have no effect on survivability?

 

EDIT: I mean, this is just a made up example for luck working both ways.

Edited October 27, 2019 by ZachariasX

[Bremspropeller]

Mind the gap: I haven't read all your posts before I wrote this - not because of snobbishness, but because of TLDR-itis. I will read them later.

 

Nonetheless, there's what I think about the issue and what I concieve as being lost/ forgotten/ not thought about mostly.

Oh boy, where do I start? here are some thoughts off the bat - not necessarily in the order of importance, but rather in the order I thought of them..

 

1) Ze Germans had a talent-distribution that was just like everybody elses'. That means humans - across nationality or "races" - have generally a very similar talent-distribution that makes them good or bad pilots. That in turn means: Only the the top 10% of the population will make good pilots for several reasons, both cognitive but also physical.

In order to make the quota during war-time, the entry-requirements for the air-forces (including navy, marines, etc.) will have to be lowered to make the quotas. There's only so many people coming of age each year to fill your slots. Keep in mind that other services are actively trying to get those people, too!

 

2) Pilot-training erodes in wartime - no matter which side. You need pilots, now!

Some countries (e.g. the US) had an easier time scaling up, because they had a slower entry into war in the first place (ramping up needs for training and equipment).

The Germans and Japanese were said to have the best pre-war peace-time training. That's probably because they knew what was coming up and thus spent the time preparing for things to come, while other contries had to work with the little funds that were available (the RAF barely survived the interwar years as an independent branch).

Germany and Japan had a head-start in terms of training and - particularily Germany - in terms of tactics. Germany was probably the only country to evolve it's tactics out of the Spanish Civil War.

 

3) When Germany invaded her neighbours they had an advantage of better technology (they had been preparing for this, whilst others weren't), tactics and pilot training. Hence, they were relatively quickly stacking up huge numbers of kills and (!) operational experience within the squadrons. Depending on the squadrons, new guys would be paired up with experienced guys, so the experience could be quickly gained by the FNGs. The opposite did happen, too, though. There was no organised way of how to properly prepare fresh pilots out of training for actual combat.

 

4) When Germany invaded her neighbors, there wasn't only an isolated air-war going on. When there's an enemy tank on your runway, it kind of ruins the day.

Other nation's pilot did stack up a lot of kills, too. They didn't have the preparation, technology and organisatorial strength of the Luftwaffe, though. They stood no chance.

Keep in mind that it was the lack of early replacement of those early losses that was laying the foundeation of the Luftwaffe's demise later on. Especially during BoB, that trouble already began to surface.

 

5) What is skill? Skill is a set of techniques, a way of thinking/ approaching or dealing with problems/ etc. By all means it's to a very high percentage a learned behaviour and not necessarily something you're born with (although some people are more inclined to learn some things quicker, while others may take especially long). In order to learn that behaviour, you need time and you need somebody to show you how it's done. Pilot training alone will give you a set of skills, but those are mostly there to keep you from killing yourself with just the airplane. Most combat skills are taught and learned in combat. Some people are naturals, while others will take time to learn these. Some never will.

You will see there's a distribution of aces vs. non-aces or pilots that have never even scored a kill at all (which could be for lack of opportunity, but also for a lack of skill).

Take Gerhard Barkhorn who hadn't shot down anything by the time (read: number of missions) most USAAF fighter-pilots had returned home from their second tour. He eventually became the second-most scoring fighter pilot of all times and a highly regarded, natural leader.

There is a bell-curve in skill-distribution in all squadrons across the globe. Some squadrons are better than others, but that's usually due to external influence or due to a lack of leadership.

 

6) Exposure. As I just mentioned earlier, you can have the most skill in the wild blue yonder and never have it manifested by a kill if there's nobody to shoot down. You can only kill something that's there. Operating in terget-rich environments (pretty much all war for the LW) and during some peak periods for other air forces, pilots can and will stack up kills quickly.

While the LW was generally operationg against statistical odds, that not always translates into lots of kills. Flying over the EF had lots of patrols and Freie Jagd (fighter sweep) missions that never manifested a kill. That's because of the vastness of the area in the relative low numbers of airplanes stretching over that vast areas. Also, the VVS fought a tactical war with relatively small numbers of airplanes actiong in a confined area. Engagements were usually in flight-strength (4v4) rather than whole squadrons or even groups engaging (Western Front).

Thus you'll see that most high-scorers had a HUGE number of missions under their belt to rack up all those kills.

 

7) Bare luck is more important than bare skill: If you fly thousands of missions, there's a high probability of bad luck ruining your day some time. There's lots of exposure to things going awry. Engine-failures, bad weather, being bounced, blue-on-blue (remember Preddy?), etc.

The vast amount of missions scored up by those LW pilots shows that they not only had the skill-set available to kill other aircraft. They also had the skills to stay out of trouble or to avoid unvavourable situations. They also had the benefit of ending the war before their share of luck ran out.

Marseille had his engine quit on him and he struck the tail bailing out.

 

8 )Comparing kills is not a level playing field due to the numerous factors at play that are way beyond the pilot and his skill-set. Another point is the leadership-stile you're operating under. Marseille was a raw diamond, but never lived up to his capabilities when serving under Steinhoff. It took Edu Neumann to realise Marseille's potential and have him operate under his careful mentorship to make the best of this man. His skills were most outstanding (and unconventional) and remain unparalleled to this day.

There were other men similar to Marseille in other air forces, but the military is a bad environment for those people to bloom, as they need air to breathe and room to play within. It takes a commander with willingness to have those kinds of people serve under him.

 

9) Does comparing kills actually act as an indication, given the vast array of influences and dependencies? I think it's the people/ "historians" at fault here who are desireing to break a very complicated subject-matter down via a simple KPI. It's just way more complicated than that.

 

10) Having survived the war in the first place is a feat that has been given way too little credit for.

 

 

[ZachariasX]

14 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

Comparing kills is not a level playing field due to the numerous factors at play that are way beyond the pilot and his skill-set.

+1

That would be a good TL;DR.

 

14 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

Marseille was a raw diamond, but never lived up to his capabilities when serving under Steinhoff. It took Edu Neumann and the absence of girls to realise Marseille's potential

Fixed that for ya. ?

 

15 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

10) Having survived the war in the first place is a feat that has been given way too little credit for.

Amen.

[Cybermat47]

What I’m interested in is the actual numbers, determined by cross-checking records. For example, do Soviet and American records contradict Erich Hartmann’s “confirmed” claims?

[cardboard_killer]

2 hours ago, Legioneod said:

Why is this?

 

Tactics.

[unreasonable]

36 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

Not sure if I understand you correctly, are you saying that toward the end of 1944 the sky over the continent is less friendly than in 1943? Or did it remain the same? If one of the situations was more dangerous than the other, it would have no effect on survivability?

 

EDIT: I mean, this is just a made up example for luck working both ways.

 

Short version: thunderstorm and internet outage ate my essay: I am saying that when you are trying to "explain" different outcomes you can come up with a variety of factors, of which "skill" is only one among many,  but there will always be an unexplained residue AKA "dumb luck". 

 

The question is how much of the difference in outcomes is due to variable we are calling "skill", vs the other variables (relative numbers, plane/weapon quality/tactical doctrine etc or just where you are placed in a formation), or to the unexplained residue of chance.

 

People routinely over-estimate the effect of individual skill and effort - understandably or life would not be worth living - but in principle we ought to be able to account for the other variables. So far, AFAIK, no-one has bothered: perhaps it is not possible given the data. So instead we make up stories about skill to "explain" the results, as this is the most satisfying psychologically.   

[Bremspropeller]

22 minutes ago, [Pb]Cybermat47 said:

What I’m interested in is the actual numbers, determined by cross-checking records. For example, do Soviet and American records contradict Erich Hartmann’s “confirmed” claims?

 

The soviet records do indicate discrepancies with Hartmann's claims, yes.

 

But there comes another issue with the obsession for kill-numbers right away:

Historians (on some boards at least) put entirely too much weight onto kill-claims and whether those match up or not. Pilots didn't go up to give future historians a raison d'être, but they were fighting for their lives. At the end of the day, kill-claims were just that: Claims.

They were made under confirmation-bias, lust for medals, desire for promotion and recognition.

 

War will bring out the worst in people. That includes willingly or unwillingly inflating kill-claims.

 

One interesting example seems to be Rudorffer, who claimed 220'ish kills on pretty much all fronts and who scored kills in the 109, 190 and 262. He's known for claiming some phantastic multiples. Most of those happenend with two or three different wingmen. Always. Go figure.

Interestingly, Rudorffer said that he only survived the war because he was taken off the WF and transferred to the east, as he had reached a nervous breaking-point after returning from Africa. Some of his quotes in Mombeek's work on JG 2 are actually interesting. He also said there was tremendous pressure to "score" in Tunisia - not only from the ranks above, but also within the squadrons - and hence the time wasn't particularily nice.

I'd still distance myself from self-proclaimed "historians", calling Rudorffer a "liar". That man had (IIRC) over 1000 missions under his belt and had bailed out of aircraft often enough to merit a paratrooper's badge. I guess some "historians" get carried away a bit with the presumed importance of kills.

 

 

Edited October 27, 2019 by Bremspropeller

[Eisenfaustus]

12 minutes ago, [Pb]Cybermat47 said:

What I’m interested in is the actual numbers, determined by cross-checking records. For example, do Soviet and American records contradict Erich Hartmann’s “confirmed” claims?

I once read about one Russian historian who argued that Hartmanns actual kill count would be around 80ish. But if I remember his work didn't stand up to cross checking and consensus seems to be that the vast majority of German claims have been made in good faith. 

 

Overclaiming was a serious problem in all WWII air forces though. And seemingly without bad intent - more misinterpretations of what was witnessed in the heat of combat. 

 

How much overclaiming was done by individual pilots is hard to tell. 

[Sgt_Joch]

Interesting thread. The USAF actually studied this after the war to find out what made an Ace. Here is one book which actually looked into it as well:

 

https://www.amazon.ca/Officers-Flight-Suits-American-Fighter/dp/0814781101/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1572179334&sr=1-7

 

In a nutshell, no, Aces are not "average pilots".

 

Average pilots may be excellent pilots, but they are normal human beings who just want to get through the war in one piece and get back to a normal peacetime life. So they don't take unnecessary risks and don't push their luck and often miss opportunities to shoot down other ACs.

 

Normal civilized human beings are also not natural killers, even in war time. One thing the USAF found in Korea and Vietnam is there were many pilots who got one kill and never got another. There are of course many personal reasons for this, but one common theme is that the experience of killing another human was unsavoury enough that they avoided other opportunities for a kill. This book goes into this as well:

 

https://www.amazon.com/Fast-Movers-John-Darrell-Sherwood/dp/0312979622/ref=tmm_mmp_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

 

 

Aces are aggressive, have a thirst for the kill, will take risks and as a consequence will put themselves in position where they can rack up multiple kills. Some did have excellent eyesight and/or excellent piloting skills, bit it is more the attitude and the thirst for the kill that differenciates an Ace from an average pilot.

 

That is not to say that Aces are sociopaths since many had perfectly normal lives in peacetime, but the skill set to be an Ace pilot in wartime do not necessarily translate to peacetime success.

 

Edited October 27, 2019 by Sgt_Joch

[Cybermat47]

21 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

War will bring out the worst in people. That includes willingly or unwillingly inflating kill-claims.

 

19 minutes ago, Eisenfaustus said:

Overclaiming was a serious problem in all WWII air forces though. And seemingly without bad intent - more misinterpretations of what was witnessed in the heat of combat. 

Oh, definitely. It’d be hard to tell what’s going on when you’re twisting and turning around at 400km/h with a load of mostly identical aircraft that are shooting at you while you and your wingmen shoot at them. 

 

26 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

But there comes another issue with the obsession for kill-numbers right away:

Historians (on some boards at least) put entirely too much weight onto kill-claims and whether those match up or not. Pilots didn't go up to give future historians a raison d'être, but they were fighting for their lives.

Certainly. At the end of the day, the success of the fighters is measured by the successful bombing, attack, and transport missions that can be conducted without enemy interference, and the prevention of enemy bombing, attack, and transport missions, rather than by the amount of aircraft shot down by an individual.

 

A perfect example of that is the Luftwaffe. While Luftwaffe aces were the most successful in terms of aircraft destroyed, it was the Allied fighter pilots who achieved the most important success - allowing the rest of the airforce to carry out their missions.

 

Allied pilots in the late war didn’t have low scores because they were ineffective, they had low scores because they were amazingly successful, and there was barely anything left that needed to be shot down.

[Bremspropeller]

21 minutes ago, Sgt_Joch said:

Normal civilized human beings are also not natural killers, even in war time. One thing the USAF found in Korea and Vietnam is there were many pilots who got one kill and never got another. There are of course many personal reasons for this, but one common theme is that the experience of killing another human was unsavoury enough that they avoided other opportunities for a kill. This book goes into this as well:

 

https://www.amazon.com/Fast-Movers-John-Darrell-Sherwood/dp/0312979622/ref=tmm_mmp_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

 

 

Aces are aggressive, have a thirst for the kill, will take risks and as a consequence will put themselves in position where they can rack up multiple kills. Some did have excellent eyesight and/or excellent piloting skills, bit it is more the attitude and the thirst for the kill that differenciates an Ace from an average pilot.

 

That is not to say that Aces are sociopaths since many had perfectly normal lives in peacetime, but the skill set to be an Ace pilot in wartime do not necessarily translate to peacetime success.

 

There's a section in Julius Meimberg's "Feindberührung" where he shoots down a french fighter and unwillingly kills the french pilot whilst he was trying to bail out. He goes into some depth on how he just - out of reflex - had pulled the trigger one more time and how the french pilot collapsed under his MG fire and writes about the impacts this experience had on him. He - Julius Meimberg, a devout Catholic from Münster - had just killed another human being! He was shocked and upon asked what the matter was, he told his squadron-commander, Hans "Assi" Hahn, who tried to brush it off, but who obviously recognized that Meimberg couldn't just brush it off like that.

Note that Assi Hahn loved animals and occasionally had his own "travelling zoo" within the squadron - he in turn was particularily shocked, when they inspected a horsedrawn supply-column they had just strafed an hour or two before. The bodies of the soldiers had menwhile been removed from the scene, but there were dead, horrifically wounded (MG FF HE shells) horses all over the place. Assi vowed he'd never follow an order to attack animals from that day on.

 

You'll find that fighter pilots are pretty good at seperating the airplane they just shot down from the pilot sitting within. There are numerous accounts of pilots being surprised, or even shocked, when noting the canopy flying off and somebody bailing out. They hadn't thought about it as shooting on another person, but thought they'd be just shooting down an airplane.

 

Edited October 27, 2019 by Bremspropeller

[PikAss]

[unreasonable]

2 hours ago, Sgt_Joch said:

 

 

That is not to say that Aces are sociopaths since many had perfectly normal lives in peacetime, but the skill set to be an Ace pilot in wartime do not necessarily translate to peacetime success.

 

 

Thanks for links.  But these are still just a collection of anecdotes to tell a story: which I find plausible enough, but then like everyone else I like a good story.  I half remember an interview with a WW2 RAF fighter pilot who said that he soon realized that there were only two genuine killers in his squadron, that he was not one of them, that the rest of them were there "to make up the numbers" and cover and spot for the "killers": and that he was quite OK with all of that, recognizing the necessity of the job but glad that he did not have to do the actual killing part himself. Cannot remember where, sadly, but it very much backs up what you are saying.

 

BTW many sociopaths have perfectly normal lives in peacetime... at least they seem to... no need to have actual empathy if you can fake it, or so I am told. The top aces might well have been actual sociopaths, or just a bit autistic.  I always thought MvR's collection of pieces of his downed victim's aeroplanes was displacement activity: what he really wanted was his victim's heads mounted as trophies in his mess along with stag and boar. (That is an idea for a new FC movie if I ever get back into movie making mode.  )

 

But again: I would love to see a proper statistical study on this topic: what we have are stories that more or less satisfy a preconceived agenda. (Can one have an un-preconceived agenda?)

    

 

 

Edited October 27, 2019 by unreasonable
Reduction in intoxication.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S! 

 

I find the Black Cross / Red Star book series very informative in this area. Archives from many sources used along with squadron logs, pilot interviews etc. form a good picture of aerial combat in the East. Digs into the claims, losses etc in a detailed manner, regardless of side. 

 

When on top of this you read memoirs, historical researches, interviews etc. It is quite easy to see that pilot quality varied a lot regardless the side. Tactics, culture, training had an impact too. This reflects on how the memoirs are written for example. Interesting stuff, without belittling anyone or raising to a pedestal. 

[Feathered_IV]

The cult of the ace fighter pilot was particularly strong in Germany and probably lead many pilots to gratuitously overclaim, either consciously or subconsciously.

Also, when you swear an oath of allegiance to Adolf Hitler and embark on 'race-war of annihilation' - fudging a few numbers probably isn't a real biggie for you. 

[Cybermat47]

On 10/28/2019 at 12:31 AM, unreasonable said:

BTW many sociopaths have perfectly normal lives in peacetime... at least they seem to... no need to have actual empathy if you can fake it, or so I am told. The top aces might well have been actual sociopaths, or just a bit autistic. 

As someone with Asperger’s syndrome, I feel like Helmut Wick might have been autistic. Apparently, while training, he struggled in subjects that held little interest for him, while excelling in those that did interest him, which I found very relatable.

 

And you’re absolutely right, sociopaths can blend into society perfectly. Just look at Dennis Rader, a beloved husband and father, Boy Scout leader, and church council president. It wasn’t until “BTK”, as he called himself, was 59 years old that he was arrested for the murders of 10 people. In court, he described his arousal at the suffering of his victims in the same way normal people describe the weather.

[Gambit21]

30 minutes ago, [Pb]Cybermat47 said:

As someone with Asperger’s syndrome, I feel like Helmut Wick might have been autistic. Apparently, while training, he struggled in subjects that held little interest for him, while excelling in those that did interest him, which I found very relatable.

 

 

 I'm guessing not someone who would enjoy the following...

 

So on our trip to Israel last year, our guide was a Lieutenant Colonel in the Israeli army...which made for an fascinating 2 weeks, to understate matters.

Anyway, the Israeli uses everyone, including Aspergers folks. So they sit them in a room and their job (the one's who are suitable and can do this for hours and hours all day long) and they look at satellite, recon photos...because they can tell from one photo to the next that this little clump of dirt, or that bush, or that dark or light spot moved, or wasn't there before etc.

 

Thus they can spot a sniper, or other activity going on in the photos that someone else wouldn't catch.

Just one of the hundreds of things I learned from ol Amos during that trip.

 

Sitting on top (and just below) the Golan Heights and listening to him tell stories...damn...I just want to go back.

[J2_Trupobaw]

First thing first, the German pilots were very well motivated and their training came from (Prussian) military culture of comrades-in-arms going out of their way to keeping each other alive. This sense of purpose led to high number of sorties flown and enabled combined arms warfare involving Luftwaffe and Heer. So yeah, in a sense they were supermen - they would not stop flying while there was difference to be made, allowing some of them to gain lots of experience. Hans Rudel and Gerhard Barkhorn started as below-average pilots; both spent years working to improve their skills before breaking out (Rudel spent 1939-1941 as reserve / ferry pilot, Barkhorn flew 120 sorties before his first victory). 

During Fall of France, French pilots flew 1-2 sorties a day, going up to 3 when situation was desperate. Germans were consistently flying 5 sorties. 

The Western Allies had training, but didn't have that kind of motivation outside Battle of Britain. The Soviet authorities aimed at cultivating similar atmosphere, and were getting there in second part of the war.

[Hanu]

On 10/27/2019 at 1:49 PM, Bremspropeller said:

Marseille was a raw diamond, but never lived up to his capabilities when serving under Steinhoff. It took Edu Neumann to realise Marseille's potential and have him operate under his careful mentorship to make the best of this man. His skills were most outstanding (and unconventional) and remain unparalleled to this day.

 

Good post overall, and I want to raise one point. After reading his biography I'd say he surely had outstanding shooting/flying skills, but he was completely reckless and relied much to his luck to survive. He did grow up to think a bit in his last months, but still. I mean how many planes did he lost himself? How many times he came back with a plane that was shot to pieces? IIRC he got grounded before his stardom for losing so many planes.

 

My point is not to bash Marseille, he was phenomenal, but people rarely consider how good the ace was to achieve kills compared to keeping his own plane still in fighting condition. Like Terms of Trade perhaps? This of course is even more pronounced in smaller air forces which had limited amount of planes. And also bringing his wingman / squadmates back alive.

 

The highest scoring non-german ace Ilmari Juutilainen was incredible on this account. He scored 94 kills in 437 sorties, without getting a single hit from enemy planes. Actually the only hit he got was from friendly AA during the whole war. Sure he was lucky also, but he fought with wits and never lost a wingman either. And he did not evade fighter-to-fighter combat; on the contrary; one quote that one of his wingman recalled happened when they noticed that there were bombers and fighters, which should we engage was the discussion on radio? Juutilainen said "Let's fight with the fighters that our handwriting-skills won't suffer".

 

I mean you cannot serve your airforce any better than that.

 

Finns had the luxury of good leadership and training before going into combat, because we had much more pilots than planes and the background areas where the training was done were practically safe. And you always had the veteran as a leader when going into combat.