[Franek Grabowski]

John

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:

Yes, indeed and those were discussed a lot of times.

[*]They were operating from a tactics/mission advantage (superior height when on a mission versus defenders).

This resulted from better equipment at some areas and periods.

[*]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!”.

OK, so we have Hartmann 24% efficient and Preddy - 25%. We know that the Red AF suffered both from equipment and personnel troubles and was not as though opponent as Western AFs were. Now, there is a question - was the Preddy's score so good because the Luftwaffe was for him as poor as the Red AF for Hartmann, or was Hartmann such a poor pilot that he was unable to achieve any better ratio?

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.

Well, this the task of Russian researchers, who have access to their archives. I know this is being done slowly but gradually. I am afraid those poor boys will be hated by both Soviet and German lovers when their works are published.
My point that we do not know enough on the Western Front. Interestingly, several historians draw quite advanced conclusions having not enough sources for them. Accuracy of the German scores - yes, please, but nobody went through every air combat to prove it. Overwhelming advantage of Allies - of course, but show it in actual combats. I do not believe Galland, he just only tries to hide his errors and incompetence. Many other German pilots do so as well.
The problem with Marseille is that his achievements were not so outstanding when he had no technical advantage. Most of his successes were achieved against Hurricanes, Tomahawks and Kittyhawks - decent aircraft but with too poor altitude performance to fight Me 109F efficiently. Spitfires appeared - problems started. Do you think 601 Sqn was the best unit in the RAF? Stanisław Skalski led the unit in 1943 and I have some comments of the pilots of the unit to put it in the proper perspective.

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.

John, I bet you are kidding. One discussion about one ace. Was he the only one Allied ace?

Best wishes