MARSEILLE his last kill

[Rob Romero]

Christer thank you for your thorough, comprehensive, well researched and fantastic reply –I’m sure this data will be chrished by many!



Thank you and all the contributors to TOCH once again!!!

[Christer Bergström]

Thanks, Rob. But as I said - it wasn't from me; it was from Shores's and Ring's book, which, to my knowledge, remains the most reliable printed source on that specific topic. I am not specialised in the North African air war, so I have to use what is already printed on the subject, like everyone apart from about a dozen people or so in this world.

[Franek Grabowski]

Originally Posted by robert

Sorry my fault, but I have mistaken the 03.06 with 03.07 - so the III/JG53 were made in the same area. We should add also another losses of RAF e.g. one a/c from 112 RAF. None RA claims in this time and area.

Robert

But in the history of 112 Sqn cause of the loss is not specified and it may have been well due to Flak. Concerning RA, I am not awared of complete and reliable listings of claims and losses, so how can you be so sure, they were not involved?
You draw your conclusions from fragmentary info. I am wondering why you cannot understand that.

[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.

[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

[Boandlgramer]

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

I am afraid those poor boys will be hated by both Soviet and German lovers

good to know, you have no prejudices.
who are these soviet lovers, and who these german lovers ?
are there polish lovers too ?

[Christer Bergström]

John, speaking about Preddy and technical superiority:

Weren't the P-51 types in service in Europe about as superior in speed to the German Bf 109 G-6 as the German Bf 109 F-2 and F-4 were against some of the most common Soviet fighter types in 1941-42?

If you look at the standard of the average German fighter pilot on the Western Front during the second half of 1944, you can see that the victories achieved by the Western Allied fighter pilots from the summer of 1944 and onward were increasingly "easy". During the major air battles between the 8th AAF and the Luftwaffe in November 1944, US fighters shot down an average of about ten German fighters for each own loss in air combat. That indicates quite an inequality between the two sides, which also can be translated into "easy Western Allied victories".

See:

http://www.bergstrombooks.elknet.pl/nov44.htm

[david Cotton]

Hello All
Regarding the German Pilots getting high scores due to the poor aircraft they met early one. I can understand this and would agree that some pilots would of gained high scores at this time. However, not all the high scoreres were around at this time. For example Hartmann and Lipfert did not get to the front until 1943.

I would also agree that the best German fighter pilots were not better that the best Allied pilots. I agree with the sentiment that German pilots had more oportunity for combat.

At the beggining of the war the German pilots would of been more experienced in combat than the allied pilots. But I would of thougt that the pilots leaving the training schools were about the same. During the BoB the new British Fighter pilots (10 hours on fighters) would of been cannon fodder, but by being there they drew the Germans off the better pilots.

Latter in the war, German pilots could not be trained well for lack of fuel and mustangs roaming over Germany. The allies could train up their pilots in safty and put them into combat with a lot more flying experience. Therefore, not only were there more allied pilots, but avarage allied pilot was better trained than the German Pilot he was likly to meet.

However, I would not say pilots like Marselle were over rated because they fought with loaded dice, so to speak. I think it is all part of being a good fighter pilot, getting into a position where you are pretty certain that you will make the kill and survive.

If i was to draw a comparison, I would say that Marselle and George Beurling seem to have the same ability when it comes to shooting. They seem to of got the art of defection shooting right. Both these pilots also seem to of got into dog fights as oposed to ambushing their victims from above. Their ability to defection shoot ment that the dogfight normally did not last long

David

[Christer Bergström]

the best German fighter pilots were not better that the best Allied pilots.

That would mean that after around 100 combat missions,* any fighter pilot stops developing his skills.

Well, that is not what I have heard from the fighter pilots themselves. Alfred Grislawski, whom I had the fortune of coming to know fairly well, said that by the time he flew over Normandy (when he had logged almost 800 combat missions), he was very much better than three years earlier, when he had flown "only" about 150 combat missions. (I specifically asked him that question.) In Grislawski's opinion, you had to fly at least 50 combat missions before you could get a grip of the whole air combat situation. But that of course was with the perspective of a man who flew over 800 combat missions. Grislawski said that when he flew over Normandy, he felt that he was immensely superior to any Allied pilot which he encountered; his experience had learned him to predict whcih his enemy's next maneuver would be. He noticed that any Allied pilot which he encountered was inferior to him in air combat.

Of course there is nothing which says that a man who has flown 800 combat missions has to be better than anyone who has flown only 100 combat missions. But you can compare one man with himself. And experience tells us that skill will increase with practise, in most fields of human activity. Since the pilots themselves tell us that too, I think that weighs more than the idea of a modern-generation guy that "all aces were equally good, regardless of experience".

Of course there are other factors, but assuming that none of these other factors supported any of the warring sides more than the other sides when we take the war as a whole, I think that we still end up with experience and practise as a very decisive factor.

This has nothing to do with nationality. I would assume that if e.g. Robert S. Johnson had flown ten times more combat missions than he actually did, he would have developed his combat skills even more. I don't think that there is anyone who has nothing more to learn in such a complex field. Another German pilot, Walter Schuck, told me that all the time he learned new things in air combat.


* George Preddy's 143rd combat mission was his last combat mission. Other top US aces stopped flying combat missions after about that number of missions. For instance, Gabreski left combat after 153 combat missions, and Robert S. Johnson flew no more than 91 combat missions. I am quite sure that Grislawski is right: If these men would have flown - and survived! - 800 combat missions, at least some of them probably would have become even better.

[david Cotton]

Hello
I understand where you are comming from. However, I would of thougt that combat fategue would start to arode the advantage of greater combat experence.

I read some where that only one USAAF 8th airforce pilot, with over 15 kills, was lost in air to air combat. This was Ralph Hofer. A lot of the German high scorers were lost in air to air combat against pilots who did not have the same combat hours as them.

I admit that some of these aces would of been shotdown by planes they did not even see, so no real duel would of taken place. However some of the pilots did have running battles and they lost.

I supose that if your plane is supirior and you are a good flyer, this may out weigh the more experienced pilot in a lesser plane.

Regards
David