German Fighter Acces

[Chris Allen]

I once saw a video listing Germany's best fighter pilots. As each of
them was named we saw his portrait of, an image of the type of fighter
he flew, and his "scores".

His "scores" were listed as 2 figures, so many Soviet and so many
against Western allies. I don't recall any mention about surviving the
war. Typically scores against the Western allies rarely approached 10
but score against Soviets range between 100 and 300.

Why should there be such a consistent discrepancy?

[Don Phillipson]

I once saw a video listing Germany's best fighter pilots. As each of them
was named we saw his portrait of, an image of the type of fighter he flew,
and his "scores".
His "scores" were listed as 2 figures, so many Soviet and so many against
Western allies. I don't recall any mention about surviving the war.
Typically scores against the Western allies rarely approached 10 but score
against Soviets range between 100 and 300.
Why should there be such a consistent discrepancy?

Tactical methods (of Red Air Force or RAF fighters) were
likely to be different. The RAF fought in 1939-40 according to
its prewar manual of Air Fighting, that was only in 1940 proved
to be much inferior to Luftwaffe methods and tactics. Tactics
also reflected equipment (e.g. VHF voice radio, present or
absent, e.g. radar coverage of the combat zone.)

Accurate records of fighter combat are known to be very
difficult to prove because of:
1. Verification from wreckage (impossible for combat over
water, difficult when the claiming party is retreating rather
than advancing.)
2. German practice of ascribing kills to the leader of 2-man
sections (whichever of the two pilots scored the kill.)
3. Deliberate falsification (whether by individuals or
governmental propaganda agencies) and government
policy about how to treat exaggerated claims already in print.

For example, RAF pilots in the Battle of Britain usually
claimed three times the number of victories that were
materially verified, and Eighth Air Force gunners (bomber
crew) claimed they shot down10 times as many fighters as
Luftwaffe recorded actually lost in combat.

[Haydn]

Post by Don Phillipson
3. Deliberate falsification (whether by individuals or
governmental propaganda agencies) and government
policy about how to treat exaggerated claims already in print.

The Germans happened to easily lavish with their claims, especially on
the Russian front - are Hartmann's 352 victories to be held as credible?
Seriously? And when fighting together with Italian units, which happened
90% of the times in Africa and the Mediterranean theater, they were
quick to regularly lay claim to the lion's share of all victories, which
may have been correct on the whole (considering their better planes and
better training and organization) but not always and not everywhere.

That said, documentary sources (unit diaries, reports etc.) may also be
missing or incomplete for a variety of reasons, bad faith and deceit not
necessarily included. And/or different sources - of the same air force -
may produce different and contrasting data on the same missions and
combats. That applies not only to the Axis but to the Allies as well.
Carefully crosschecking primary sources of all combatants may yield
interesting and unexpected results.

Haydn

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

I once saw a video listing Germany's best fighter pilots. As each of them
was named we saw his portrait of, an image of the type of fighter he flew,
and his "scores".
His "scores" were listed as 2 figures, so many Soviet and so many against
Western allies. I don't recall any mention about surviving the war.
Typically scores against the Western allies rarely approached 10 but score
against Soviets range between 100 and 300.
Why should there be such a consistent discrepancy?

The discrepancy is not that great, pilots like Galland, Priller and
Marseille are credited with over 100 kills and did most to all of their
combat against western allied air forces.

Having said that the Red Air Force had real problems for the first
half of the war matching Luftwaffe fighter performance and aircraft
often lacked radios. Then add significant issues with aircrew
training and the result was the Luftwaffe fighter units held major
advantages for most of the war in the east.

Finally most Luftwaffe fighter operations were in the east from mid
1941 to about mid 1943.

The Red Air Force reports total wartime aircraft losses of 106,000
of which 46,100 were in combat. The USAAF reports around 23,000
aircraft lost in combat, 80% against the axis in Europe and North
Africa, out of 65,164 aircraft losses to all causes.

There are plenty of web sites discussing the aces, like

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

http://ww2talk.com/forums/topic/8743-luftwaffe-aces-list-of-pilots-with-100-kills-notes/

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/aces/aces.htm

http://www.bergstrombooks.elknet.pl/bc-rs/text.html

Then there are the night fighter pilots, few of their kills were
claimed on the eastern front.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair

I once saw a video listing Germany's best fighter pilots. As each of them
was named we saw his portrait of, an image of the type of fighter he flew,
and his "scores".
His "scores" were listed as 2 figures, so many Soviet and so many against
Western allies. I don't recall any mention about surviving the war.
Typically scores against the Western allies rarely approached 10 but score
against Soviets range between 100 and 300.
Why should there be such a consistent discrepancy?

The discrepancy is not that great, pilots like Galland, Priller and
Marseille are credited with over 100 kills and did most to all of their
combat against western allied air forces.
Having said that the Red Air Force had real problems for the first
half of the war matching Luftwaffe fighter performance and aircraft
often lacked radios. Then add significant issues with aircrew
training and the result was the Luftwaffe fighter units held major
advantages for most of the war in the east.

In a book on German aces, they put it this way; in the first part of the war,
the Russians had some trained pilots, but poor aircraft. When their
aircraft got better, most of the their trained pilots were dead. It wasn't
until later in the war they had both experienced pilots and decent planes.

Also, Luftwaffe pilots were known fly multiple sorties in a single day on
the Eastern Front.

Mike

[Michael Emrys]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
Also, Luftwaffe pilots were known fly multiple sorties in a single day on
the Eastern Front.

And particularly from 1943 on they were very likely to run into Soviet
formations. The more targets, the higher one's score...provided one lives.

Michael

[news]

Post by Michael Emrys

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
Also, Luftwaffe pilots were known fly multiple sorties in a single day on
the Eastern Front.

And particularly from 1943 on they were very likely to run into Soviet
formations. The more targets, the higher one's score...provided one lives.

Funny - I would have expected more Soviet formations the more likely
one was to be shot down. Particularly since Soviet pilots were
considerably more likely to survive from 1942 -> 1943 than 1941 ->
1942. Those that survived to 1943 (on both sides) can be expected to
have learned something compared to those taking to the air for the
first time...

[Alan Meyer]

... "scores" were listed as 2 figures, so many Soviet and so many
against Western allies. I don't recall any mention about surviving the
war. Typically scores against the Western allies rarely approached 10
but score against Soviets range between 100 and 300.

As Geoffrey Sinclair said, the scores of top German fighter pilots in
the west were very high. The Wikipedia lists Adolf Galland as having
104 victories, all in the west. Hans-Joachim Marseille was credited
with 158 victories, all in the west. I believe those were the two
highest scoring pilots in the west, but there were others with
impressive records.

Why should there be such a consistent discrepancy?

After the invasion of the USSR, and especially after the U.S. entered
the war, the skies in the west were dominated by the Allies. German
pilots fought against superior numbers, excellent aircraft, pilots who
entered combat with 600 hours in the air in training before they even
reached the combat theater, ample fuel, and well developed tactics. The
Soviets took much longer to develop to a high level and probably never
got as high as the British and Americans.

The amazing thing to me is not that kills of British and American planes
were low, but that they were as high as they were for both German and
Japanese top pilots. It is indicative of how critical pilot skill and
aptitude were in air combat. A relatively small number of the top
pilots on all sides could handle an airplane the way Paganini handled a
violin.

Alan

[Don Phillipson]

Post by Alan Meyer
The amazing thing to me is not that kills of British and American planes
were low, but that they were as high as they were for both German and
Japanese top pilots. It is indicative of how critical pilot skill and
aptitude were in air combat. A relatively small number of the top pilots
on all sides could handle an airplane the way Paganini handled a violin.

Air force commanders have been familiar with this phenomenon since
WW1. (Cf. also "the Matthew effect" in the literature of scientific
discovery.)
But air force commanders recognized at least by 1940 that combat ability
is nonidentical with piloting skill, even if less understood (viz. the
relationship
between tactical foresight and aggression.) This was why the military
always encouraged combat sports, notably fencing. Fencers were long
aware that ideal stylists were not necessarily victors and vice versa.