Dunkirk and the BoB

[Karnak]

Originally posted by GScholz
Well Karnak, Marseilles had 150 kills in 1941, and he was not the first German pilot to make 100 kills. Skill definitively had a part in it.

The Germans had excellent pilots and their top pilots were great.  No arguement.

However, Allied pilots that didn't see 150 enemy aircraft, let alone the number that Marseilles saw, could not possible be expected to have killed that many, regardless of how good they were.

Do you seriously contend, as Barbi did, that even if the UK or USA had been in Germany's situation that some British or American pilots would not have climbed into the hundreds of kills?

If Britain had been under heavy daylight attack for years, with her pilots always able to bail to friendly territory?

That a USA being assaulted by German and Japanese aircraft from Canada and Mexico for years would not have likewise had a group of young men to get into the hundreds of kills?

Of course they would, just as Germany did.  Barbi sees it otherwise though.  He sees it as an afirmation of the inferiority of the Allied nations.

[Angus]

Marseille is an interest of mine.
I have some internet atricles about him, but would be delighted to get some more stuff about him.
Ok, here's what I have, which probably forms the backbone of his success.
- He was a phenomenally good shooter, and learned his ride to the utmost (Flying in tennis shoes for a better rudder feel for instance)
- He would engage close and nail his opponents at very short range, usually aiming at the cockpit/engine
- He would engage Spitfires in an unexpected way, - i.e. by breaking and throttling down rather than zooming away, - that gave him an opportunity for a shot.
- His squadmates would keep him clear while he went around with the butcher's axe.

Some of his kills are still under hot debate, since the claims do not match allied loss reports.
And, regardless of the amazing Axis scores or score claims in N-Africa, and their vastly shorter route to the theater, they lost the game. Absolutely.

[GScholz]

Originally posted by Karnak
The Germans had excellent pilots and their top pilots were great.  No arguement.

However, Allied pilots that didn't see 150 enemy aircraft, let alone the number that Marseilles saw, could not possible be expected to have killed that many, regardless of how good they were.

Do you seriously contend, as Barbi did, that even if the UK or USA had been in Germany's situation that some British or American pilots would not have climbed into the hundreds of kills?

Don’t put words in my mouth. I said that by 1941 Marseilles had 150 kills, and please don’t tell me the Allies in Africa didn’t have enough Germans to shoot at in 1941. They did. Also in 1941 ... before the Allied strategic bombing campaign against Germany ... there were several German pilots that had scored 100 kills and many more that had already outscored the highest scoring Allied aces of the war.

Clearly the superior training (pre-and early war) and subsequent unrivalled war time experience the German pilots had made them superior pilots. The late-war trained German pilots were lams to the slaughter.

[Karnak]

GScholz,

The differing policies of the Allied Air Forces may have had just a wee bit to do with that, don't you think?  You know, stuff like rotating pilots out to train new pilots and rest up?  Tours that had an end instead of when you died.

Unless I see some evidence that the Allied pilots had the same oportunity as the Germans, I remain unconvinced.  The Allies got thrown into the thick of it with an experienced adversary.  The Germans got to use the woefully underequipped Spainiards and Poles as training targets.

[GScholz]

The British did not have tours, and by 1941 the US had not yet entered the war. Marseilles was on leave in Berlin several times during his stay in Africa.

All I'm seing is you giving more reasons why some German pilots were better that the best of their Allied conterparts. Better training, Spanish and Polish "traning", longer war service, more actual engagements ... can you think of one reason why the Germans shouldn't be better?

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by GScholz
The British did not have tours, and by 1941 the US had not yet entered the war. Marseilles was on leave in Berlin several times during his stay in Africa.

RAF squadrons and the pilots during BoB were rotated in and out of combat in the south. And yes British pilots had 'tours'.

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by GScholz
The British did not have tours, and by 1941 the US had not yet entered the war. Marseilles was on leave in Berlin several times during his stay in Africa.

All I'm seing is you giving more reasons why some German pilots were better that the best of their Allied conterparts. Better training, Spanish and Polish "traning", longer war service, more actual engagements ... can you think of one reason why the Germans shouldn't be better?

RAF pilots did have tours.  As an example, a Spit pilot friend, started with a Squadron in August 40 and flew his first tour into 1941.  He was then seconded to Supermarine as a service test pilot and was not involved in active combat flying again until the summer of 44 when he did his second tour.

That being said, the argument is pointless as we're talking about human beings in different circumstances.  Certainly the LW produced some fantastic pilots, as did any of the powers involved in the war.  

I wouldn't have wanted to be in the circumstances the LW pilots were in from the end of the B of B on.  I'm sure they'd have preferred to know there was an end to their tour too, but it wasn't to be.  Think of all those young men who built up those kill totals and got the chop after being at it too long.  Photos of Merseille, sure seem to show the wear and tear as he clearly looks fatigued just prior to his death.

Regardless of who wrote the biographies and from which country, there is a constant theme of knowing they'd pushed it too far.  LW pilots got the 'twitch' just like RAF and USAAF pilots.  The stress of combat took effect regardless of who they flew for.

Bottom line is there seems to be this need to say that 109s were best, and LW pilots were best.  OK if that's what you need to hear, so be it.

Personally I think they were all remarkable men dealing with stuff I'm glad I'll never have to.

Throw all the stats you want out there.  All it means is you are missing the essential point.

I respect them all

Dan/CorkyJr

[straffo]

Originally posted by GScholz
Don’t put words in my mouth. I said that by 1941 Marseilles had 150 kills,  

hahem ... his 150th kill is the 15 september 1942 according to the article I'm currently reading
And so he had the "brillanten"

[GScholz]

My mistake, however none of you answered my question.

All I'm seing is you giving more reasons why some German pilots were better that the best of their Allied conterparts. Better training, Spanish and Polish "traning", longer war service, more actual engagements ... can you think of one reason why the Germans shouldn't be better?

[straffo]

Because they are German ?


More seriously it doesn't really matter because a soldier is only the tool of the HQ and politicians.

You can have the best training but if your order is "stay close to the bomber" and put you at disadvantage your doomed anyway

It just make you harder to kill.

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by GScholz
My mistake, however none of you answered my question.

All I'm seing is you giving more reasons why some German pilots were better that the best of their Allied conterparts. Better training, Spanish and Polish "traning", longer war service, more actual engagements ... can you think of one reason why the Germans shouldn't be better?

I was trying to address it in my last post, but didn't do it very well.

It seems clear from reading biographies of pilots from all the warring nations, that at a certain point the wear and tear/fatigue begain to take it's toll.

I think Johnny Johnson in his book described it well in talking about a fatalism that starts to set in.  A pilot was more apt to take risks that they wouldn't have at the peak of their abilities.  They'd make decisions that just weren't good ones based on how worn down they'd become from the constant stress of combat.

That being said, I do believe there were pilots who handled that stress better then others.  Don Blakslee is one who was described as an "Ironman"  in the USAAF when it came to combat.  Sailor Malan was another with the RAF.

I believe there were men from all the countries who fit that kind of profile, yet those guys, outside of the LW flew their tours and were done.  

The LW "Ironmen' just kept going on as there was no end to their tour.  Think about all those 100 plus kill guys who bought it, many when they switched to flying against the West.  How many of them were not as good as they were earlier due to being worn down from combat.

I believe that putting American, English, Russian, pilots in the same situation as the LW pilots were in from the Fall of 1940 on, that there would have been pilots producing the same numbers.

You can throw numbers at the argument all you want, but no other pilots were put in that situation so the LW numbers will remain higher.  I suppose you'd have to take all the pilot from all countries and compare sorties, to combat encounters etc to really know for sure.  As I posted in another thread, I have the logbook of a 2 tour Spit pilot.  on 289 combat sorties, totalling 325 hours of flying, he encountered LW fighters 5 times and never fired his guns.

I'd guess that Erich Hartmann encountered Soviet fighters a whole lot more often then that.

As I believe people are the same all over, regardless of country, there will be the 'ironmen' rising to the top in whatever air force is in that situation.

Hopefully we'll never have to find out.

Dan/CorkyJr

[GScholz]

Originally posted by Guppy35
I believe that putting American, English, Russian, pilots in the same situation as the LW pilots were in from the Fall of 1940 on, that there would have been pilots producing the same numbers.

Of course ... BUT the LW pilots were the only ones that ACTUALLY did it.

Originally posted by Guppy35
You can throw numbers at the argument all you want, but no other pilots were put in that situation so the LW numbers will remain higher.  I suppose you'd have to take all the pilot from all countries and compare sorties, to combat encounters etc to really know for sure.  As I posted in another thread, I have the logbook of a 2 tour Spit pilot.  on 289 combat sorties, totalling 325 hours of flying, he encountered LW fighters 5 times and never fired his guns.

I'd guess that Erich Hartmann encountered Soviet fighters a whole lot more often then that.

EXACTLY! And that’s why Hartmann was a much better fighter pilot than the Spit pilot you refer to. The Spit pilot never got the chance to develop into a “Experten class” pilot. The Germans were the only ones that could accumulate the necessary experience.

Were the Germans somehow “genetically” better fighter pilots than their allied counterparts? Of course not. Were they better fighter pilots? Of course they were.

[thrila]

Malan's last victory was in July '41.  He was taken off operations not long after and shortly became a chief instructor at 58 OTU before travelling to America.  It wasn't until Jan 1943 he returned as station commander of Biggin hill even then his flights were limited.  For instance when Al Deere was Wing Leader, he would allow Malan only on certain missions, with Malan bitterly complaining.  

He was rested for a month in Oct, then  was posted as CO to 19 and then 145 Fighter Wing, spending his time training pilots for d-day.  From July onwards he was CO of the advanced gunnery school at catfoss.  

If Malan had the opportunities he had in 40-41 i'm sure he would have had many more victories than his 32.


Edit: found a Marseille quote-

(to Nathaniel Flesker, RAF)

"I am Hans Marseille; you are number 56.  You British pilots fly a tour of 50 sorties, and then retire from combat.  We Germans continue to fly.  The more we fly, the more experienced and effective we become.  That is why Germany is winning the war.  I have flown over 200 sorties"

[SELECTOR]

it is true that many of the top scoring germans were fighting over safe territory, and would bail at the first signs the plane was in trouble..(this tactic is no to be critisised,, it was a smart move)..
I don't belive that axis pilots were any better than their allied counterparts, take sailor malan and put him into the same enviroment and im sure he would have been a double centurean..
the allies had a few out dated tactics at wars start but soon caught up with the axis who had been fighting and honing their skills in spain..

its always harder to fight in the enemies back yard where he has all the luxuries that brings..it just make you more proud of the courage the young guys had back in the 40s in the air on the land and in the sea...

away win 3 points , best side won..

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by GScholz
Of course ... BUT the LW pilots were the only ones that ACTUALLY did it.




EXACTLY! And that’s why Hartmann was a much better fighter pilot than the Spit pilot you refer to. The Spit pilot never got the chance to develop into a “Experten class” pilot. The Germans were the only ones that could accumulate the necessary experience.

Were the Germans somehow “genetically” better fighter pilots than their allied counterparts? Of course not. Were they better fighter pilots? Of course they were.

I think you missed it completely.

You are not taking into account the point where the stresses were counterproductive to the ability.

You argument would suggest that given a 1 v 1 situation, that Hartmann would defeat a Johnny Johnson, Richard Bong, etc. without question. There's no way to know that, just because the number of combat encounters was so much greater for Hartmann.  ACM is ACM.

Again, the pilots writing about it, regardless of country, talk about a peak time where the experience is coupled with the aggressiveness, and how after a time that balance was lost due to fatigue, stress, etc. and they were not at their best despite the experience.

If it's purely the number of kills, that equates to skill, then why did any of the 100 plus guys get killed?  Their skill should have been so far beyond any of the no kill guys they were flying against that the issue should not have been in doubt?  Why did Bully Lang go down to P47s.  With over 170 kills, I doubt the group of Jugs he was flying against that day had that total as a whole?

Is it possible he wasn't at his best after that much combat? Had he tempted fate one too many times?

I remember seeing before/after pictures of different pilots and the strain is evident.  Someone used photos of 357th FG Ace Kit Carson to show this once and you could barely tell that the newbie Carson and the vet Carson were the same guy.  Look in Knoke's book at the early photo and the one taken just before the war ended. You can't tell me the strain isn't written all over his face.  Photo's in Hartmann's biography show the same thing too.

Infantry books tell the same thing.  There is a time frame of greatest combat effectiveness, followed by a time of diminishing returns without a break due to the stress of combat.  

You seem to be suggesting that Hartmann for example was at his very best after his last kill, because he'd had the experience.  I'd suggest his best was long before his last kill, and I'd bet he'd agree with that.

There are too many factors to consider to just make a blanket statement that the LW pilots were better.

What we can agree on is that the highest scoring fighter pilots in WW2 were the LW drivers.  I don't think we'll agree on the other stuff

Dan/CorkyJr