Top ten aces - Lists - (mainly to Knusel)
 

Hello Knusel and everybody else. I am new here and I find Knusel's "top ten" lists, among others, interesting. As we all know ace lists are partly arbitrary and unfair. I feel so especially for those who are NOT included in such lists. Those who are really deserve it in most cases, possibly in all cases.

Post the best fighter pilot in the world to a place where there are only a few air battles from time to time and he'll never be included in a top-ten list, not even top-hundred. So such judgements ought to take all circumstances into account, in particular area, fighter armament, armour and performance (speed, climb rate etc.), number and frequency of air battles etc. Obviously this is hardly possible on a purely rational basis but a man making an assessment is able to think that pilot X was great even though he won only 3 (or 7) confirmed victories. (A good example is a Hurricane pilot sailing on a ship equipped with a catapult but no landing deck, for convoy protection at sea but bad luck is possible on land too).

Re: Top ten aces - Lists - (mainly to Knusel)
 

Read James Salter's novel "The Hunters" which may reflect your (and also my) sentiments about 'aces' and those not achieving such status thru whatever circumstances.



Regards,


Leendert

Re: Top ten aces - Lists - (mainly to Knusel)
 

Hello rof120,

yes, top ten ace lists are a good basis to think about why an ace was among the top-scorers of a certain plane type and why others were not.

Michael