High Scoring Fighter Pilots in WWII
Thread Starter
High Scoring Fighter Pilots in WWII
Watching a programme on TV about the Me109 (hope I have got the "Me" bit correct) I was struck by the numbers of victories, in Europe, not Russian front, claimed by a few high scoring Luftwaffe pilots - in excess of 100 each. ISTR highest Allied scores were in the thirties. So, I ask with some trepidation, were the most successful Luftwaffe pilots more successful than the highest scoring Allied pilots and, if so, why?
I am now retrieving my steel helmet from the barn and await "incoming"
I am now retrieving my steel helmet from the barn and await "incoming"
One difference I have heard is that the concept of rotating pilots out of combat into training roles (or resting) was not practised to the same extent. So the aces just kept on going, some of them being shot down several times before the war ended or they were killed.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chessington, Surrey
Age: 76
Posts: 419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Watching a programme on TV about the Me109 (hope I have got the "Me" bit correct) ".
You will not need a steel helmet, nor will there be any incoming.....
It should be Bf109.
Chiarain.http://www.pprune.org/images/infopop/icons/icon7.gif
You will not need a steel helmet, nor will there be any incoming.....
It should be Bf109.
Chiarain.http://www.pprune.org/images/infopop/icons/icon7.gif
Gun cameras did indeed exist in WW2 as you can check quite easily on the internet. Whilst there was inevitably some over counting the Luftwaffe did have quite strict rules and if anything double counting may have been less than with the allies. The number of kills in Spain was also not much of a factor. As joy ride says it is an interesting question. One comment I heard was that more Luftwaffe pilots were killed in accidents flying the 109 (narrow undercarriage/view out etc.) than were shot down.
According to this:
So which is it?* Bf or Me 109?
Both Bf 109 and Me 109 can be correct.
My understanding is the same as lederhosen - German (and Japanese) pilots tended to stay 'on the line' until they were killed, captured, or wounded seriously enough that they could no longer fly. So the really good ones were able to run up very high numbers. I vaguely recall hearing of German pilots on the Russian front that had kill totals in the couple hundreds.
The Allies tended to rotate their pilots out and used them to train the newbies.
So which is it?* Bf or Me 109?
Both Bf 109 and Me 109 can be correct.
My understanding is the same as lederhosen - German (and Japanese) pilots tended to stay 'on the line' until they were killed, captured, or wounded seriously enough that they could no longer fly. So the really good ones were able to run up very high numbers. I vaguely recall hearing of German pilots on the Russian front that had kill totals in the couple hundreds.
The Allies tended to rotate their pilots out and used them to train the newbies.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My recollection, of something read a long time ago, is that there were two factors: honest over-claiming (two pilots shoot at an aircraft, both claim it), and propaganda. In the Battle of Britain, IIRC, the Luftwaffe were rather scrupulous about victories claimed, but grossly understated losses: the RAF were honest about losses, but claimed victories with a view to morale rather than accuracy. In the circumstances, it didn't make much difference whether or not the RAF believed their own figures, I guess, since the point was just to keep on keeping on.
So, it is likely that the official Luftwaffe figures for aces are reasonably reliable.
So, it is likely that the official Luftwaffe figures for aces are reasonably reliable.
I read that the Germans had a few very high scoring aces - for propaganda, often 'lesser' pilots, inexperienced pilots job was to protect the 'aces' and assist them in increasing their scores. This wasn't always appreciated as these pilots became cannon fodder.
The allied had more lower scoring aces; allied pilots rotated out, went to train new pilots etc - thus the stock of competent pilots increased whilst the Germans ended up with inexperienced, hardly trained pilots going down in droves.
German pilots stayed on the line until killed, too injured to fly or captured.
The allied had more lower scoring aces; allied pilots rotated out, went to train new pilots etc - thus the stock of competent pilots increased whilst the Germans ended up with inexperienced, hardly trained pilots going down in droves.
German pilots stayed on the line until killed, too injured to fly or captured.
According to Wikipedia the top thousand or so pilots (20 or more kills claimed) shared 30,000 aircraft destroyed, with the top 100 making up about half this number (100 claimed or more). So there was definitely a core of star pilots very few of whom were senior officers and a lot of whom ended up dead. Interestingly one general was an ace in both the first and second wars.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Nearest Bombardier AMO
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The late Lieutenant-General Günther Rall (275 kills) sums it up here, starting at 01:00 minutes in:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STFdRrWBW2w
The main factor seems to have been the availability of targets, I have been told the same thing by other veterans in conversations in which this subject came up. Another reason, not mentioned by Rall in this video (possibly so as not to ruffle any feathers?) was that in the first years the opponents on the Russian Front were very poorly trained and these unfortunates primarily ended up as the proverbial fish in a barrel. Later the Russians caught up and were on an even footing, in some cases even surpassing the capabilities of the Luftwaffe as the experienced old hands were killed and the average skill-level dropped. Rall, Krupinski, Hartmann, etc. all amassed the bulk of their tallies on the Eastern Front. Aces that did not serve on the Eastern Front such as Adolf Galland or Josef 'Pips' Priller did not achieve similarly high numbers of kills, although their records are impressive in their own right. Again, availability of targets and duration of combat-duty.
As an aside: a kill had to be confirmed by a witness, which meant that kills were sometimes not accredited. If two or more pilots made a claim they were awarded a partial kill only, and that, again, only if witnessed and confirmed.
A sombre yet fascinating subject.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STFdRrWBW2w
The main factor seems to have been the availability of targets, I have been told the same thing by other veterans in conversations in which this subject came up. Another reason, not mentioned by Rall in this video (possibly so as not to ruffle any feathers?) was that in the first years the opponents on the Russian Front were very poorly trained and these unfortunates primarily ended up as the proverbial fish in a barrel. Later the Russians caught up and were on an even footing, in some cases even surpassing the capabilities of the Luftwaffe as the experienced old hands were killed and the average skill-level dropped. Rall, Krupinski, Hartmann, etc. all amassed the bulk of their tallies on the Eastern Front. Aces that did not serve on the Eastern Front such as Adolf Galland or Josef 'Pips' Priller did not achieve similarly high numbers of kills, although their records are impressive in their own right. Again, availability of targets and duration of combat-duty.
As an aside: a kill had to be confirmed by a witness, which meant that kills were sometimes not accredited. If two or more pilots made a claim they were awarded a partial kill only, and that, again, only if witnessed and confirmed.
A sombre yet fascinating subject.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Richmond Texas
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been told that the score of George Beurling was seriously under reported because he fired at such long ranges and large deflection angles that his gun cameras had ceased recording or were aimed elsewhere as he went on to the next target. In addition he used only short bursts to conserve ammunition.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The over -claiming by the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain was one part as to why they had to give up the fight, for those who think this wasnt the case I would sugest they read "The One Who Got Away", and pay close attention to the pilots " interview" during which the RAF interigator proved beyond a doubt that Von Wera, {the pilot in question} was a total bullslinger who like many other German pilots deserved the Pulitzer prize for fiction for his combat reports. Whilst training Luftwaffe students in Canada during the fifties many of them stated this fact in no uncertain terms. Later in the war, the night fighter arm was a model of acurate verified scores.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Nearest Bombardier AMO
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you for that name, I've just spent an enjoyable time over a glass of fine red browsing about his exploits, very interesting. Seems quite similar in character to Hans Joachim Marseilles, another introvert who was decidedly unmilitary in character and was constantly in trouble for his chafing at the authoritarian bit, long hair, listening to (shock, horror!) jazz, and so on. He was the acknowledged 'Experte' at the deflection-shot on the kraut side.
Which leads me to a thought, if a bit of thread-drift can be tolerated: if one takes into consideration the fact that axis firepower was rigged so as to converge at a predetermined spot in front of the aircraft, whereas I have gleaned from my readings that allied gunners would rig the considerable firepower (up to eight cannon in the later Spitfires, Typhoons, etc?) to fire straight ahead without convergence so as to increase the chances of a hit, would this fact not have made deflection shooting harder still? Because of 'less lead in one spot', if you follow my meaning, which would seem to indicate a lesser chance of bringing down a heavily-armoured opponent.
Another interesting point about the Canadian pilot is how the interwebs speak of his extreme maneuvers. I think that we struggle to imagine just how violently those machines were thrown about in battle back then. My own sadly unskilled attempts a basic aerobatics in a friend's tame little Pitts S2A left me with a tremendous respect for those colleagues who fling themselves about the heavens in an Extra or something similar when not poling around in the day-job, now upscale that into the dimensions where aircraft like the Bf 109 were fairly regularly ferried back to the heavy-maintenance shops with a bent main spar! (a quick trawl of the net will proffer pictures of the heavy-duty wing-box/main spar of that aircraft due to the restoration- and maintenance projects around the globe) These pilots had no g-suits. The mind boggles.
Which leads me to a thought, if a bit of thread-drift can be tolerated: if one takes into consideration the fact that axis firepower was rigged so as to converge at a predetermined spot in front of the aircraft, whereas I have gleaned from my readings that allied gunners would rig the considerable firepower (up to eight cannon in the later Spitfires, Typhoons, etc?) to fire straight ahead without convergence so as to increase the chances of a hit, would this fact not have made deflection shooting harder still? Because of 'less lead in one spot', if you follow my meaning, which would seem to indicate a lesser chance of bringing down a heavily-armoured opponent.
Another interesting point about the Canadian pilot is how the interwebs speak of his extreme maneuvers. I think that we struggle to imagine just how violently those machines were thrown about in battle back then. My own sadly unskilled attempts a basic aerobatics in a friend's tame little Pitts S2A left me with a tremendous respect for those colleagues who fling themselves about the heavens in an Extra or something similar when not poling around in the day-job, now upscale that into the dimensions where aircraft like the Bf 109 were fairly regularly ferried back to the heavy-maintenance shops with a bent main spar! (a quick trawl of the net will proffer pictures of the heavy-duty wing-box/main spar of that aircraft due to the restoration- and maintenance projects around the globe) These pilots had no g-suits. The mind boggles.
On the contrary the RAF harmonised their guns to meet at a certain point (iirc there was a 'std' range but some pilots had it set it closer). Again iirc that early in the war the convergence point was too far ahead and not focused enough esp given the small size of the Me 109...
The Me109 was notorious for being easily bent - I think the story went 'If a Messerschmitt crashes Willie Messerschmit finds out what didn't break & makes it lighter; if a Fw crashes Kurt Tank finds out what broke & makes it stronger' and as the war went on the build quality of the 109 suffered considerably. The Germans also counted repaired 'planes in their new plane construction figures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_harmonisation
The Me109 was notorious for being easily bent - I think the story went 'If a Messerschmitt crashes Willie Messerschmit finds out what didn't break & makes it lighter; if a Fw crashes Kurt Tank finds out what broke & makes it stronger' and as the war went on the build quality of the 109 suffered considerably. The Germans also counted repaired 'planes in their new plane construction figures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_harmonisation
The over -claiming by the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain was one part as to why they had to give up the fight
There is a great scene in the movie "Battle of Britain" - some aid comes in to the Air Marshall's office and tells him that the press is complaining about the discrepancies between the losses the British are reporting and what the Germans are reporting.
The Air Marshall responds something like "It's simple, if we're right, they'll give up. If they're right, they'll be in London in a week".
The Luftwaffe developed effective tactics earlier, in particular the concept of the Rotte (pack of dogs or other hunting animals) with a leader and wingman, which was copied by the RAF and almost everyone else afterwards. The wingman was known as the Kaczmarek (polish for innkeeper) implying a clearly subordinate role focussed on keeping his leader safe.
Interestingly according to I think Winkle Brown, Goering rated the Battle of Britain as a draw rather than the out and out victory it is mostly presented as. I think he was wrong. But whilst they clearly did not gain air superiority over Britain, they were an incredibly effective and innovative force. Their ground attack aircraft for example destroyed an almost unbelievable number of tanks.
This is not in any way to play down the terrible things that happened or the criminal energy of the Nazi leadership and indeed many/most of their willing followers. The tactics were for example first thought up in the spanish civil war another dark period.
Interestingly according to I think Winkle Brown, Goering rated the Battle of Britain as a draw rather than the out and out victory it is mostly presented as. I think he was wrong. But whilst they clearly did not gain air superiority over Britain, they were an incredibly effective and innovative force. Their ground attack aircraft for example destroyed an almost unbelievable number of tanks.
This is not in any way to play down the terrible things that happened or the criminal energy of the Nazi leadership and indeed many/most of their willing followers. The tactics were for example first thought up in the spanish civil war another dark period.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Nearest Bombardier AMO
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Toad got me googling. Wiki claims that:
''Early in WWII, the British were in favour of "pattern harmonisation", a shotgun-like tactic which disperses the fire of multiple guns to gain a greater chance of a hit.[1] The Royal Air Force (RAF) tried various patterns of gun harmonisation, with the convergence area taking the form of a rectangle or a circle. In December 1939, No. 111 Squadron RAF adjusted its Hurricanes to fire into a wide rectangle that was 12 by 8 ft (3.7 by 2.4 m) at 750 ft (230 m).[5] This was referred to as the "Dowding spread" because the Air Chief Marshall advocated such a large pattern to make it more likely that a fighter pilot would obtain a hit.[10] After evaluation in battle, by mid-1940 pattern harmonisation was dropped in favour of "point harmonisation".[1] British fighters were generally set to fire into a single point at 750 ft rather than a larger area.[5] The British observed that too many German bombers were returning home after taking many rounds of dispersed fire. It was decided to concentrate the fire in a much tighter pattern.[19] However, the flexibility of the wings could contribute to a larger-than-intended convergence pattern, especially with thinner wings as on the Spitfire.[12] Any flexing of the wings in flight would cause movement of the gun mounting which would affect the aim. Some American groups also converged their guns in a rectangle. USAAF Major James White described how the Mustangs of his 487th Fighter Squadron were harmonised to fire their six guns into a wide rectangle 10 by 6 ft (3.0 by 1.8 m) at 450 ft (140 m).[17] The outer guns of the Mustang were 15.846 ft (4.830 m) apart, so this ten-foot box narrowed in width as the firing distance increased.[20]''
It seems both approaches were experimented with, if the net can be trusted. Interesting stuff, also about Prof. Willi's designs being more prone to distortion. Does seem plausible, Tanks 190 looks like an oversized brick outhouse when parked next to the more dainty 109.
''Early in WWII, the British were in favour of "pattern harmonisation", a shotgun-like tactic which disperses the fire of multiple guns to gain a greater chance of a hit.[1] The Royal Air Force (RAF) tried various patterns of gun harmonisation, with the convergence area taking the form of a rectangle or a circle. In December 1939, No. 111 Squadron RAF adjusted its Hurricanes to fire into a wide rectangle that was 12 by 8 ft (3.7 by 2.4 m) at 750 ft (230 m).[5] This was referred to as the "Dowding spread" because the Air Chief Marshall advocated such a large pattern to make it more likely that a fighter pilot would obtain a hit.[10] After evaluation in battle, by mid-1940 pattern harmonisation was dropped in favour of "point harmonisation".[1] British fighters were generally set to fire into a single point at 750 ft rather than a larger area.[5] The British observed that too many German bombers were returning home after taking many rounds of dispersed fire. It was decided to concentrate the fire in a much tighter pattern.[19] However, the flexibility of the wings could contribute to a larger-than-intended convergence pattern, especially with thinner wings as on the Spitfire.[12] Any flexing of the wings in flight would cause movement of the gun mounting which would affect the aim. Some American groups also converged their guns in a rectangle. USAAF Major James White described how the Mustangs of his 487th Fighter Squadron were harmonised to fire their six guns into a wide rectangle 10 by 6 ft (3.0 by 1.8 m) at 450 ft (140 m).[17] The outer guns of the Mustang were 15.846 ft (4.830 m) apart, so this ten-foot box narrowed in width as the firing distance increased.[20]''
It seems both approaches were experimented with, if the net can be trusted. Interesting stuff, also about Prof. Willi's designs being more prone to distortion. Does seem plausible, Tanks 190 looks like an oversized brick outhouse when parked next to the more dainty 109.