WW2 air aces

[bf109 emil]

It also means that the Germans were 10 times more likely to get shot down on those fronts as well, if you want to look at that way. Yet they weren't. Greater opportunity also breeds greater risk.

By flying so many combat missions they had a vast range of experience over those of the pilots they often faced. So experience and skill did make quite a difference.

of course it did, and numerous individual pilots ran up there scores, but what if the lessons learned by say Hartmann, Barkhorn, Rall instead of remaining as individuals where sent back to Germany after 200 kills and teach the thousands of new recruits a few simple tactics, experience only a front line combat pilot experiences...there is no denying the cream of the Luftwaffe late in the war was watered down with so many under trained pilots, many whom could have achieved an extra 2 or 3 kills would have totaled more downed aircraft from these thousands of recruits instead of sending them up poorly trained and expected to gain this knowledge against a numerically superior and evenly contested aircraft as was found to be happening on the western front.

[Tim Smith]

The trouble with prioritising training, by sending experienced pilots to train recruits, is that it makes your air force weaker in the short term, as you have less fighting capability at the front. And the trouble with giving new recruits twice as much training, to make them better pilots, is that the squadrons at the front only receive half as as many replacement pilots in the same timeframe.

This is fine if you can dictate the pace of your air operations - if you can fly and fight when YOU choose. As the RAF and USAAF could from 1941 onward. But from June 1941 onwards, with absolutely continous air operations on a massive scale in Russia, the Luftwaffe felt they couldn't afford to temporarily weaken their front-line squadrons - that could have a disasterous effect on the German Army's ability to beat the Russians on the ground. And if your casualty rate exceeds your replacement rate (of pilots or of aircraft) at the front line, your air force at the front is going to get smaller and smaller and weaker and weaker.

The British and Americans could afford to divert far more men and more resources to their air forces than the Germans could, because they didn't need to maintain such huge armies in constant combat like the Germans and Russians had to.

Regarding victory totals - I personally regard all victory claims made by all pilots of all nations as 100% completely accurate. I do this by defining an air victory as an enemy plane destroyed or damaged. Erich Hartmann may not have destroyed 352 enemy planes, but he certainly damaged 352 enemy planes.

[bf109 emil]

Tim i didn't mean so much as flight time as i meant tactics...one for instance and hard to tackle or break up was the me110 when they went into a circle and any fighters chasing them would have a following plane on there tail, pilots then waited for a plane to peel off and went or had a go at this lone fighter but with a chance of others defending or a hurricane becoming chased...a simple tactic and one which worked well was developed by John Kent leading 303 squadron. Because a hurricane could out turn a me110, he would either himself or a another drop into this circle of death, fly the opposite direction and as each 110 went by and as the hurricane could out turn them they had a deflection shot at each passing plane with only the slight risk of the rear gunner, which had inertia working against him as well as parting speed of both aircraft for only a brief second for a shot. this quickly broke up the 110's where as before pilots would wait for a loner to breal formation...it was tactics like this i was referring to, ones where Hartmann, Barkhorn having flown and faced hundreds of enemy could have easily passed on through experience to do this, don't try that..the book is all wrong on this matter.
-The RAF still had new pilots flying the vic 3 coming out of training when front line squadrons had already found out the finger 4 as used by the Luftwaffe was a superior formation, yet never changed training or protocal and left up to wing commanders, squadron leaders to give a brief and hastily re-briefing...this is what i meant by experienced pilots passing on there knowledge or trials/failures
...JIM

[Tim Smith]

I know what you meant. But advanced combat tactics training has to involve flight time, not just classroom time, to be effective. An experienced combat veteran can spend hours, weeks, months in a classroom passing on what he's learned to thousands of recruits, but the lessons just won't sink in unless they are practiced in the air, through mock dogfights. ACM - air combat maneuvering training. Like a WW2 equivalent of 'Top Gun'.

ACM practice needs real flight time. Lots of it. With an expenditure in time, fuel, aircraft fatigue, and losses to flying accidents.

[Tim Smith]

I know what you meant. But advanced combat tactics training has to involve flight time, not just classroom time, to be effective. An experienced combat veteran can spend hours, weeks, months in a classroom passing on what he's learned to thousands of recruits, but the lessons just won't sink in unless they are practiced in the air, through mock dogfights. ACM - air combat maneuvering training. Like a WW2 equivalent of 'Top Gun'.

ACM practice needs real flight time. Lots of it. With an expenditure in time, fuel, aircraft fatigue, and losses to flying accidents.

[bf109 emil]

True and maybe there wasn't or need to remove these top German aces, but maybe one of them came up with a simple flying maneuver to turn a bad situation into a successful one or as was found and passed onto Naval pilots against the superior agile and faster zero while losses mounted for pilots of F4F Wildcats, a simple maneuver called the Thatch weave helped to even the odds...Perhaps John S. Thach could have remained flying and not pass this simple tactic back, thank heavens he did...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thach_Weavebut not going to press this or argue, one has to wonder if indeed Hartmann, Barkhorn, or Rall had a trick,maneuver,roll,or tactic they used and in all essence helped them over the other thousands of Luftwaffe fighter pilots whom flew from 1938 until 1944 or early '45 who never had this knack, knowledge, and could never hope to be as successful then again, perhaps they had an angel or lucky star.

[FireFoxy]

I see that Australia always gets left out most times, so i am going to add something Aussie in to the mix.

Aussie leading Air ace of WW2 Robert Maxwell Gibbes *Bobby Gibbes*
Commanding officer and a Squadran Leader.
Recomended a Victoria Cross. Pretty great for a bloke from the land down under (Australia)with only 7 million people.

[JTG]

Robert Maxwell Gibbes:

http://www.ww2roll.gov.au/script/vetera ... ID=1204688

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Gibbes

The Aussie Bader without the Bader chippiness?



JTG

[FireFoxy]

Robert Maxwell Gibbes:

http://www.ww2roll.gov.au/script/vetera ... ID=1204688

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Gibbes

The Aussie Bader without the Bader chippiness?



JTG

He's Gibbes is the leading Aussie Air Man,German pilots are not the only air aces during ww2.
He's score is really good for a nation that don't build there own aircraft!

[JTG]

Robert Maxwell Gibbes:

http://www.ww2roll.gov.au/script/vetera ... ID=1204688

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Gibbes

The Aussie Bader without the Bader chippiness?



JTG

He's Gibbes is the leading Aussie Air Man,German pilots are not the only air aces during ww2.
He's score is really good for a nation that don't build there own aircraft!

Well, I thought that was what I had said... where do German pilots come in?

By the way,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government ... _Factories

"He's score is really good for a nation that don't build there own aircraft"..

OK. Forget I spoke.

[Pips]

The leading Australian Ace was Clive Caldwell with 28 1/2 claims. Gibbes was only fifteenth on the list. See here:
http://www.acesofww2.com/australia/Australia.htm

And yes, Australia did build it's own aircraft.

[FireFoxy]

Robert Maxwell Gibbes:

http://www.ww2roll.gov.au/script/vetera ... ID=1204688

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Gibbes

The Aussie Bader without the Bader chippiness?



JTG

He's Gibbes is the leading Aussie Air Man,German pilots are not the only air aces during ww2.
He's score is really good for a nation that don't build there own aircraft!

Well, I thought that was what I had said... where do German pilots come in?

By the way,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government ... _Factories

"He's score is really good for a nation that don't build there own aircraft"..

OK. Forget I spoke.

JTG.Sorry. I thought you were teasing me about Gibbes and Bader,i should have looked at you're links you provided!I am sorry.

Pips. By memory i went by England and America provided aircrafts to Austrlia during the course of the war,but ok I was wrong.

[Wokelly]

I think over-confirmation has to be factored into things as well. The terrible Schweinfurt raids saw the US lose roughly 30 and 60 bombers on both missions. Even with those wrecks on German controlled territory the Germans overconfirmed their pilots kills by at least a factor of two, if not higher. With those kinds of mistakes its easy to assume many of the kills the pilots got were probably not in fact correct.

A puff of smoke and a plane diving down does not equal a kill, but in the heat of battle you dont have time to watch the plane spiral to the ground, and I doubt your wingmen were paying attention either. But thats all combined with the fly till you die policy and the target rich enviroment of the east.

[bf109 emil]

I think over-confirmation has to be factored into things as well. The terrible Schweinfurt raids saw the US lose roughly 30 and 60 bombers on both missions. Even with those wrecks on German controlled territory the Germans overconfirmed their pilots kills by at least a factor of two, if not higher. With those kinds of mistakes its easy to assume many of the kills the pilots got were probably not in fact correct.

A puff of smoke and a plane diving down does not equal a kill, but in the heat of battle you dont have time to watch the plane spiral to the ground, and I doubt your wingmen were paying attention either. But thats all combined with the fly till you die policy and the target rich enviroment of the east.

good point, when totals seemed to get the glory one might tend to fudge a claim...in honor of past aces even the best pilots,tactics,planes happened to be downed or got stitched and poor pilots had at times luck or opportunity to down an opposing foe...

[Tim Smith]

A puff of smoke and a plane diving down does not equal a kill,

No, but it may equal an 'aerial victory'. The term aerial victory applies to a damaged enemy aircraft that the claimant thinks is destroyed, but is in fact able to return to base or to friendly territory.

When that damaged enemy aircraft returns to base, it becomes non-operational, because it need repairs before it can fly again. So a temporary reduction in the enemy's strength total has been achieved. So that counts as a 'victory'.

All ace scores for WW2 can be safely regarded as accurate if you view them as aerial victories and not as 'kills'.