[John Beaman]

[quote=Franek Grabowski]John
The problem is that some people consider German pilots better than Allied ones because of their higher scores and reputed accuracy and were defeated only by an overwhelming enemy. This is not quite true so. Hartmann or Marseille for eg. rarely flew on equal terms with their enemies. They are in a large part a creation of Goebels' propaganda - please note there are almost no debates on Allied aces here!
]

Hi Franek:



I agree that people are all “hung up” on the high numbers Luftwaffe pilots’ claims and therefore consider them superior to Allied pilots. There were, no doubt, some very talented pilots/marksmen in the Luftwaffe just as in other air forces. Luftwaffe pilots had several advantages to run up scores:

• They had superior equipment in many circumstances (early war and early Barbarossa, and early Africa).
• They were operating from a tactics/mission advantage (superior height when on a mission versus defenders).
• Early in Barbarossa, their experience level was vastly superior to the average VVS pilot with resulting losses for the USSR. Look what happened to the Luftwaffe later when their experience levels dropped in 1944/45.
• They often flew multiple missions more than RAF or USAAF in a day which translates as opportunity.
• When on the defensive after 1942, if they survived parachuting out, they were over their own territory when Allied pilots were most likely captured if shot down during their offensive missions. Look at Hartmann: wasn’t he shot down 17 times (and was lucky to escape being a POW 2 or 3 times)?
• Opportunity is a huge factor in “acedom”. Those that were skilled and survived flew a lot of missions accumulated big scores. Hartmann’s mission/encounter/score ratio is about 24%, and George Preddy’s is about 25%, and I bet other “aces” were similar, although there certainly exceptions. However Preddy flew only about 10% of the number of missions Hartmann did. Once, when talking to Steve Ritchie, we were discussing this opportunity issue and I asked him: “If you had flew 1000 missions over North Vietnam, did not get captured if shot down, (or otherwise killed) and encountered MiGs about 30% of the time, how many kills would you have?” He enthusiastically replied, “A ton!”.

I think that rather than try to denigrate any one particular air force’s “aces” or claiming/credits in a nasty manner, it would be more profitable to study the records that are now and emerging (particularly the former USSR) to establish losses, claims etc., then trade information for the benefit of us all.


As for "debate on Allied Aces", there has been: witness the debate regarding Pattle who is often listed as the RAF's top ace when the legitimate documentation is almost nil.