top ten

[Masherbrum]

Indeed, Bong and McGuire get a great deal of attention, while David McCampbell is generally ignored...

His accomplishments, however, do outshine the P-38 aces in many respects.

McCampbell shot down 34 Japanese and had 21 ground kills. He also had 5 probables. Moreover, he managed all of this in one 6 month deployment. His best day was described above, but I will add that he shot down 7 Zeros and 2 Ki-43, with two probables (spinning towards the ocean on fire, but not seen to crash). It should be noted that this was done during a single sortie, not multiple sorties in a single day or over several days. This feat is the single sortie record for Allied pilots in WWII. Earlier, on June 19, McCampbell had shot down 7 Japanese fighters during a single sortie.

In contrast, McGuire was in combat for nearly a year and a half, except for 7 weeks when he was recovering from injuries sustained when his P-38 was demolished by Zeros and he was forced to bail out. The best McGuire managed was 7 kills over two days.

Bong was in combat for a total of just over 18 months. His best single day score was 4 kills.

All three of these gents were superior fighter pilots, but only McCampbell is generally unknown. Part of that results from the Navy not making the massive public relations effort that the USAAF did during the war. Also, unlike Bong and McGuire, McCampbell survived the war. This meant that his name wasn't splashed all over the National news media as Bong's tragic accident was. McGuire didn't garner the attention of American media due to a stateside accident, but his loss was reported extensively in newspapers and newsreels. McCampbell remained in the Navy, retiring in 1964. He died in 1996 and is buried at Arlington.

There's little doubt that had McCampbell been able to fly a second tour (as did both Bong and McGuire), he would have easily exceeded both in total kills.

My regards,

Widewing

Your posts are like a fine wine WW.   

[humble]

I'll argue that Soviet claims were extremely unreliable. In their short war with Japan in the late 1930s, they made massive over-claims. Likewise, Soviet pilots claimed more F-86s shot down in Korea than the total deployed there during the entire war. Why would their penchant for huge exaggeration be any different in WWII? It was standard procedure to "gun deck" the claims, else draw wrath from the political commissars. They were worse than the Japanese, and the Japanese were horrendous. 

I've documented the above on the forums several times.

My regards,

Widewing

From the actual translated stuff i've come across I'd say they were equal or better then anybody else, but then its possible that only those records that paint a positive picture are quoted/translated...

[Karnak]

I agree. 

The greatest aces cannot be scored merely by aircraft shot down.  Tuck is one of those guys that would have undoubtedly put up huge numbers had his war not ended in mid 1942.  Same can be said of some of the americans who were either removed from combat because of US rules of how many missions a guy could fly, or like McGuire, death. Even a few high scoring Germans like Marseille would have put up even larger numbers had they lasted until the end as guys like Hartmann did.

In January, 1942 Tuck's Spitfire Mk Vb took an AA round through the engine when he chased a train into a valley that was lined with flak.  Prior to that he had flown Spitfire Mk IIs, Hurricane Mk Is and Hurricane Mk IICs in combat.

[Cthulhu]

Also, unlike Bong and McGuire, McCampbell survived the war. This meant that his name wasn't splashed all over the National news media as Bong's tragic accident was. McGuire didn't garner the attention of American media due to a stateside accident, but his loss was reported extensively in newspapers and newsreels.

Widewing, sorry if I'm reading this wrong, but Bong died stateside, Tommy died over Negros Island in the Philippines.

[Widewing]

Widewing, sorry if I'm reading this wrong, but Bong died stateside, Tommy died over Negros Island in the Philippines.

I know, that's what I said.   However, I'll clarify it as it seems somewhat vague in retrospect:

"McGuire didn't garner the attention of American media due to a stateside accident (as Bong did)."

Bong's accident received a great deal of attention because it happened stateside, whereas McGuire died in the South Pacific where press coverage was spotty and often censored by the Military.

My regards,

Widewing

[Cthulhu]

I know, that's what I said.   However, I'll clarify it as it seems somewhat vague in retrospect:

"McGuire didn't garner the attention of American media due to a stateside accident (as Bong did)."

Bong's accident received a great deal of attention because it happened stateside, whereas McGuire died in the South Pacific where press coverage was spotty and often censored by the Military.

My regards,

Widewing

Thx Widewing, knowing your penchant for accuracy, I figured you'd want to correct any ambiguity.

Poor Tommy, even in death he found himself in Bong's shadow.

[Angus]

I'm afraid not that much that it would have caused a big change. Training suffered not only from lack of trainers, but also planes and most important: fuel.

All resources were completely overstressed from a very early point on the war, in times of crisis often the only manpower the Luftwaffe could fall back on was coming fom the schools and academies. For example during the Stalingrad crisis they grazed all transport schoools for planes & pilots, many of them never to return again.

They screwed up rather early by NOT making old hands (or some/more of them) into trainers. The Brits would have TOD, then school/training or training others, so the trainers were not domestic, they were fresh from combat.
As for planes, the LW was actually not too badly off.....if you listen to our LW crowd anyway. And indeed their productions hit good numbers late in the war, with the problem being pilot skill more than lack of targets or aircraft.
But then, in the end, lack of spares, fuel etc etc...
As for the German resources being overstressed, the Brits had to start rationing way before the Germans (in months of war) and the German backland of resources was both mostly done on land transport mostly within the range of danger, as well as ruthless exploitation of the goods of the conquered. You must bear in mind that the Axis HAD France, Poland, The Netherlands, and Italy aside with Germany, Austria etc, you had their allies/conquered with their goods, Romania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia...and then problematic things like Greece and Yugoslavia where terrain was difficult and lots of resistance.
But in short, the Axis was sitting on the kitchen of mainland Europe, and I am not counting Norway, Denmark, their business with the Swedes...ohh...as well as their plunder in the Russian front.
So, their backland was quite some. But the logistic in a Nazi world is another story...

[alskahawk]

It's still very debated over the top ace for these two. Pokryshkin's squad would give a day's kills to a fallen squad mate so the extra money could be sent to his family. His unoffical score (as Soviet scoring only counted if they could find the wreckage) is actually 100+ kills, not to mention the ones he didn't count when he'd give the kills. Offical is Kozhedub, unoffical (and reality) is probably Pokryshkin.

 In addition to other Soviet irregularities, some of the top aces under reported their accomplishments simply because being too well known, or a hero in the Soviet Union could get you in trouble with Stalin and the paranoid hierarchy.     
 Gaining power in the Stalin era was not always a good thing. There's the story of the Russian resistance leaders being invited to a dinner near the end of the war. They were to be honored for their defense of the occupied motherland. They were never heard from again. 

[angelsandair]

What ever happened to Pokryshkin though? It would be very interesting to see a Show-Down Aircombat with a sortie of his.

[alskahawk]

What ever happened to Pokryshkin though? It would be very interesting to see a Show-Down Aircombat with a sortie of his.

 That I don't know off top of my head. I am away from home so I can't even look it up. Many of the Russians aces also went on to fly in Korea and never reported their kills there either.
 

[Widewing]

That I don't know off top of my head. I am away from home so I can't even look it up. Many of the Russians aces also went on to fly in Korea and never reported their kills there either.
 

Somebody was reporting kills... Far, far more than they actually had. Some sources claim that over 300 F-86s were shot down. Actual losses, to air combat was 78 known, perhaps as many as 85 counting those damaged beyond repair, but limped home. Of these, the Soviets may have shot down 45 to 50. In exchange, admitted Soviet MiG losses to F-86s were 319. Considering the major tactical advantages the Soviets had (higher altitude, far greater numbers and sanctuary in China just minutes away), I'd say they fared rather poorly.

There are documented cases of Soviet squadron commanders adding to the claims, and in at least one case, stealing claims for themselves from junior officers.

The whole notion that the Soviet pilots were under-reporting kills sounds like nonsense to me.


My regards,

Widewing

[alskahawk]

 RE; Pacific Aces

 This is not intended as a belittling in any way of the Pacific aces, just a comparison of the theatres of war.

 The Japanese air forces in World War two had some very bad habits. Habits brought about by their excessively disciplined society and by their easy victories in China. In the 1930's many air forces including the Japanese flew rigid inflexible peacetime formations. When Japan went to war in China, with the exception of their encounters with the Flying Tigers they had very little opposition. Their battles with the Flying Tigers should have been a wake up call, but instead they hit the snooze button. Compare this to the Luftwaffe experiance in Spain. The Luftwaffe took some lumps but thanks to the input of their pilots they developed better tactics. Tactics which are still used by most Air forces today. The rigid system of the Japanese did little to encourage ideas or creative thinking.

 An excessively rigid system can train out the very trait you need in a fighter pilot. Aggression. Every fighter pilot needs to be aggressive. Aggressive, creative and willing to change with the fluid situation of air combat. This is not to say there were no Japanese hotshots. There were. Very few especially when you consider that Japan had been at war almost continuously since the early 1930s.
  
  The Japanese pilot had almost no chance of being rescued if he was shot down. How many of the German, or American aces would have been but footnotes if they died the first time they got shot down? The Japanese were shooting themselves in the foot. They underestimated the value of one pilot.
 By 1943 the Japanese air forces were in trouble; they had almost no experienced pilots, little time to train new pilots and a inflexible system.  

 In Europe, early on the  British had problems in the Battle of France. They encountered a combat experienced Luftwaffe and very quickly found out that some of their prewar flying formations were getting them killed. Their prewar inflexible Vic formations was no contest against the flexible German Rotte. In 1940 the Luftwaffe was probably the best air force in the world. With one serious flaw. Leadership at the top. And by 1943 fighting a war on two fronts, unable to replace their losses in material or in pilots they were bleeding to death. Add to this the American air force and production capacity. The war was effectively over. But the American and British pilot still had to be on his guard. The average German pilot might be a lot less experienced than a year earlier but their were still some of the old hands flying.

[alskahawk]

Somebody was reporting kills... Far, far more than they actually had. Some sources claim that over 300 F-86s were shot down. Actual losses, to air combat was 78 known, perhaps as many as 85 counting those damaged beyond repair, but limped home. Of these, the Soviets may have shot down 45 to 50. In exchange, admitted Soviet MiG losses to F-86s were 319. Considering the major tactical advantages the Soviets had (higher altitude, far greater numbers and sanctuary in China just minutes away), I'd say they fared rather poorly.

There are documented cases of Soviet squadron commanders adding to the claims, and in at least one case, stealing claims for themselves from junior officers.

The whole notion that the Soviet pilots were under-reporting kills sounds like nonsense to me.


My regards,

Widewing

That (the over reporting)was in Korea the under reporting I was referring too was from WW2. The reference is the Mike Spick Aces series of books(Luftwaffe Aces, Allied Aces, and World Aces). I think it was the Allied Aces book.  (again going from memory here) 
 By the time Korea came along the political scene had changed. With mass communications the Russians and for that matter all the Communist nations attached propaganda to all their activities. Whereas in WW2 the Russian pilot may have been afraid of being purged for being more popular than Stalin, by Korea the Soviet propaganda machine was in full force world wide. They actually pushed individuals ahead of their accomplishments. As for the Russian pilots in Korea, your probably right on there. They had many advantages and didn't fare that well against the F86. I think the F 86 had a 10 to 1 kill ratio (?) Mindboggling when you consider the odds against them.   

[Wmaker]

One of the most moronic comments I've read here. For the most part russian claims were among the best documented on any front. No question that mistakes and overclaiming did occur but the soviets also denied a much higher % of claims. Soviet records actually have suprisingly significant detail including enginer block/airframe #', pilot name/rank etc for a suprisingly high % of claims.

Hehehe, I find this bit funny.

Can you give me any examples of these "Soviet records" which list engine block/airframe serials? I know reseachers who have actually dug pretty deep into soviet archives but I haven't seen them publish/bring foward anything you are telling here. What are your sources when you can make claims like this?

Here are VVS claims compared to the Luftwaffe losses on the eastern front during the Kursk battle (5.7-8.7.1943). This table is based on archive sources. The information is published in finnish aviation historian Hannu Valtonen's book POHJOINEN ILMASOTA (NORTHERN AIRWAR).

Date-----VVS Claims--------Actual German losses

5.7.---------320--------------------26------
6.7.---------217--------------------14------
7.7.---------245--------------------13------
8.7.---------166---------------------7------

Overclaiming by 92.7%.

Another example...

Hero of the Soviet Union Colonel N. Toroptsin tells about air combat which occurred on 2.2.1940 (Winter War) in book "Boi v Finljandii":

"On 2nd of February there was an air combat over the Imatra railway station. There were twelve our planes against eighteen Finns. The battle lasted 15-20 minutes. We didn't lose a single pilot. After the battle five planes needed repairing, one even got a hit to its undergarriage and the pilot had to do a bellylanding. In this battle we shot down twelve Finnish aircraft."

...The problem with this comrad's story is that Finnish Air Force actually lost just one Fokker D.XXI on that day. So Humble, do you believe that one can "accidentally" claim 12 aircraft destroyed when only one goes down? It is pretty obvious that comrade Toroptsin is flat out lying.

In the Winter War Finns lost 47 planes to enemy action. Right after the war Colonel B.A. Agejev stated that Finns lost 300 aircraft in air combat and 20 on the ground and 50 planes in accidents (funny how well aware he was about our air force's accidents ). The problem here is that FiAF never had that many planes during the Winter War even though we recieved from abroad during the war.

I could go on and on with examples like these.

So I wouldn't really call the Soviet time kill records very accurate. As for the most moronic comments...ah, nevermind.

[angelsandair]

Pokryshkin's confirmed victories from his memoirs.

1941: 14 confirmed victories (plus several unconfirmed)


06.22.41 - 'friendly' kill, Su-2; killed the plane's navigator
06.23.41 - Bf-109E
06.24.41 - Bf-109E
reconnaissance flight, shot down two Hs-126
fought with four Bf-109s, shot down 1 Bf-109
fought a group of Ju-88s and Bf-109s, shot down 1 Ju-88
escorted SB-2 bombers, shot down Bf-109
ground attack against enemy airfield, destroyed Bf-109 on the ground
ground attack against Kishinev airfield, destroyed Ju-87 on the ground
escorted SB-2s, shot down 1 Bf-109 personally and one Bf-109 in group;
fought with four Bf-109s, shot down 1 Bf-109
attacked reconnaissance Ju-88, shot up but unable to shoot down due to problems with armament
fought 3 Ju-88s, shot down one by air-to-ground rockets (not officially confirmed), officially credited for the second
reconnaissance flight, shot down Hs-126
fought four Ju-88s, shot down one
escorted SB-2s, shot down one Bf-109
reconnaissance flight, shot down one Bf-109
1942: 7 confirmed victories


January and February - reconnaissance flights only, no air combat
early March - shot down Hs-126
special reconnaissance missions flying a captured Bf-109 in German markings
May - escort mission, shot down one Bf-109 and damaged another
reconnaissance mission, shot down Bf-110
escorted Il-2s, shot down Bf-109
escorted Il-2s, shot down Bf-109
fought a group of Bf-109s, shot down one
fought a group of Ju-88s, shot down one
1943: 55 confirmed victories
Before April 17

fought a group of Bf-109s, shot down one
shot down Bf-109 and Ju-88
April 11
four Bf-109s in a single engagement
another sortie, shot down Ju-87
third sortie, shot down Ju-88
April 12(?) - three Bf-109s in two engagements
three Ju-87s in a single engagement
one Bf-109
Between April 18 and April 21

escorted Pe-2s, shot down Bf-109, shot up FW-190
escorted Pe-2s, shot down Bf-109
April 21 - escorted Il-2s, shot down Bf-109
escorted Pe-2s, shot down FW-190
escorted Pe-2s, shot down Bf-109
April 29 - intercepted Ju-87s, shot down five
fought group of Ju-87s and Bf-109s, shot down two Ju-87s
Between May 5 and May 10

one Bf-109
intercepted group of Ju-88s, shot down 3, 2 confirmed (1 personal and 1 group)
Before the end of May

escorted Pe-2s, shot down Bf-109;
intercepted Bf-109s, shot down 1
intercepted Bf-109s, shot down 1
intercepted Bf-109s, shot down 1
intercepted Bf-109s, shot down 2
May 29 - shot down two Ju-88s
June, shot down one Bf-109, scored three other victories
Mid August - transferred to new area; Airacobras often attacked by other Soviet pilots as the unfamiliar type looks like the Bf-109

shot down Ju-88
shot down reconnaissance Ju-88 at altitude above 8,000 m (26,000 ft)
August 21, shot down two Ju-87s, shot up one Bf-109
one Ju-88
one Ju-87
September 21 - three Ju-88s shot down, two confirmed
reconnaissance Ju-88
one Ju-87
five unescorted Ju-52s
1944: 4+ confirmed victories {+1 reported shot down}

May 7 - a Romanian He-111H-6 No. 48 {Observer killed} See [[1]]
July 16 - fought group of Ju-87s and Hs-129s, shot down three Ju-87s and one Hs-129
1945: 1+ confirmed victories

mid-January - shot down one Ju-87

[edit] Summary of victories
Bf-109: 34
Ju-87: 19
Ju-88: 15
Ju-52: 5
Hs-126: 4
Fw-190: 2
Bf-110: 1
Hs-129: 1
Total: 88

Edit: Got this off of wiki, dont flame me.