Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Shuckins on December 11, 2004, 08:13:16 AM
-
This is not an Allies versus Axis debate. It is a country versus country discussion. Arguments pro or con for any particular nation's pilots should consider, but not be limited to, the following factors:
1. Training (Strengths and weaknesses of each nation's approach.)
2. Individual skill in one on one combat.
3. Tactics; at the two-man, four-man, or squadron level.
Regards, Shuckins/Leggern
-
Training: USA/UK
Individual skill 1-1: Japan
Tactics: Germany
-
I'll discuss the individual skill with France where emphasys was put on individial fight àla WWI more than team work.
-
Finland is very close to the top, at least by numbers.
-
The Luftwaffe produced a very small percentage of really experienced pilots and their pre-war training standards where very high.
The majority of Luftwaffe pilots however were poorly trained cannon fodder.
The USAAF and RAF had much higher individual pilot training standards with the exception of the very begining.
AS already pointed out, their tactics were the best and by wars end in use with all the major combatants except Japan.
By the last years of the war though, it was a mute point, as most Luftwaffe pilots could not fly the formations or use the tactics with their level of training.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
2. Individual skill in one on one combat.
israel, no doubt about it.
Hey, you didnt say WW2 :D
-
Tactics early war: Germany, Japan
Training early war: Germany
Bravery early war special mention: Poland
Mid war-late war: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Great Britain incl. RAF allied , the United States
Mid war tactics special mention: USN
Tronsky
-
Clearly Germany had the best training, tactics and pilots.
Thats a simple fact.
Further, any objective analysis will conclude that the allies only won because of lag, HOs and gangbanging, and oh the BS hispano.
-
Which country had the most Aces?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Clearly Germany had the best training, tactics and pilots.
Thats a simple fact.
Further, any objective analysis will conclude that the allies only won because of lag, HOs and gangbanging, and oh the BS hispano.
it is proven, otherwise how'd the germans rack up the perk points for all those 262s?
-
I wonder how training could be compared, really. It`s not just how many hours he received, it counts a LOT what exactly he was thought during that.. For example, the US pilots are usually called well trained, which is true in the sense that they passes a very long training, but from what I have read just recently, this training was rather more about flying and not fighting. They grow very good at handling the aircrafts, general flying skills, but there was very little simulated air combat done otherwise. In that sense, they were rookies, but also highly agressive, as told by their German opponents, and important attribute to a fighter, especially if you have massive advantage in numbers. I can`t say for the RAF, pre-war they seem to have followed the same trend, and in mid-1940, only the most basic training was given. Then what happened, I don`t know. Did they increased the amount of combat training or they kept telling the pilots just how to take off and fly in formation? The LW held the RAF pilots far less agressive and less initiative than those of the USAAF. I can say very little for the Russians, their training AFAIK was rather low standard, never more than 50 hours received. They gained their experience directly via combat - some were very good indeed, most of them were poor..
Japanese were of course the BEST individually trained fighter pilots early in the war, a true elite. But they can`t keep up that training with those losses, so quality declined..
Germany of course was in far the best position early in the war, with a lot already learned in Spain, and not having Stalin at home to mass execute guys like Moelders and Galland. They already perfected their tactics there, and only refined them later. German training seem to always strongly emphasize on tactics of air combat, and lasted well after the official training course, the rookie being first sent to replacement units, then he was put under the wings of an experienced rottenfuhrer, to learn how things go in life. Up to about 1943, their rookies spent just as much time in trainers as the Allies, and they received it from experienced teachers. From 1944 onwards, the training time went down to about half, to 100 hours for a fighter pilot, half of that the Western Allies but twice of their Soviet foes. But they still received very good tactical training, practicing air combat, the moelders formation was high on priorities. It gave them a very good base to start with, but the experience had to be also gained in real combat.
-
The Luftwaffe was not best trained AF in WWII by any means. That is a myth just like the "large Luftwaffe".
It was a small force and not very well trained. The Luftwaffe did produce a very few extremely experienced pilots who were well trained.
Only in the begining did they hold any training advantage.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1102855171_gaf-raf-aaf-fighter-training-hours.gif)
Crumpp
-
Crumpp, its an excellent chart (from where is it from BTW?), but as all statistics, it can be misleading. You missed the main point I raised, ie. the quality of training. The best trained pilot is who receives the most practical and longest training. Overall = Quality x Quantity.
For example, if Air Force A has 300 training hours, but only 5 hours of that is air combat, and Air Force B has 200 training hours, but 50 hours of that is spent on air combat manouvers, which pilot would you judge the better, the one with 300 or 200 hours ?
Kinda like spending 5 years on the Harvard is not equal spending 5 years in some backyard 'university'.
OTOH, I disagree with your 'few experten, lots of rookies' theory. The LW had a very large pool of experienced pilots, as indicated by the sheer number of the aces they produced. Literally thousends, and not just the 'big names'. of course it was the experienced pilots who scored the most. But why, isn`t that the case with all airforces, or even, other aspects of life?
-
Actually Russian training was well organised and quite diciplined what it may have lacked was tactical content (but so famously did that of the RAF)
All Russian fighter pilots went thru a standard training and many returned to be trainers after a year at the front.
Some trainers them selves went on to be Russian Aces.
However field training was deemed very important and tactical classes were held between sorties to discuss situations encountered on previous missions and aviod or benefit from them on future missions.
These classes were a far cry from "mess gossip" which seemed to be the rule elsewhere.
Frontline trainers went from regiment to regiment checking the quality of field classes and flying with the regiment to inspect its quality of acm.
Which country had the best? Well it had to be Germany the LW elite were the most experienced fighter pilots in history todate and whilst their numbers dwindled to nearly naught I doubt their massive lead in shear experience (as individuals) can be equaled.
-
For example, if Air Force A has 300 training hours, but only 5 hours of that is air combat, and Air Force B has 200 training hours, but 50 hours of that is spent on air combat manouvers, which pilot would you judge the better, the one with 300 or 200 hours ?
This is true , Izzy. Problem though is that in order to gain experience you have to survive the lesson.
The Pre-1943 trained pilots recieved the pre-war training course and died at a fairly steady rate the entire war. They actually had a much better chance of surviving 6 years of conflict than a B17 crew had of surviving 25 missions in 1943.
The Post-1943 pilots died like flies with an almost 98 percent attrition rate. The Majority died on their first 6 missions. If they could survive those first 6 missions statistically their chances of survival went up astronomically. Just a little below the pre-1943 pilots.
http://www.butler98.freeserve.co.uk/thtrlosses.htm
They had a tremendous turnover rate. In the last years of the war, the Luftwaffe accident rate shoots up to almost 50 percent. Almost half their casualties are self inflicted in flying accidents!
Here is another table that agrees with Caldwells research.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1101664939_luftwaffe_strength2.jpg)
In 1944 the USAAF was launching bomber raids that had MORE bombers than the Luftwaffe had fighters in their whole force to shoot them down. These bombers are escorted by as many fighters or in some cases more than the Luftwaffe could launch to intercept.
That is only the Western Front. Throwing in the pressure from the MTO and the Eastern front it is very easy to see the Luftwaffe quickly became "no place for amatuers".
They were short sighted and did not plan to conserve their fighter force's strength or enact an effective replacement program. They gambled on a short war and lost big.
Now they did produce a large number of aces because the Luftwaffe existed for much of the war in a very target rich enviroment. Mike Spick has a great study on the sortie to kill ratio. Hartmann's was below average IIRC and the majority of the Luftwaffe Experten were average. They just encountered the enemy much more often.
Crumpp
-
Actually Russian training was well organised and quite diciplined what it may have lacked was tactical content (but so famously did that of the RAF)
The Russian definately get the award for most improved Air Force of WWII. They developed a first class force from literally nothing.
"Tough" is correct word IMO to describe the Russian Fighter Pilots.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
The Post-1943 pilots died like flies with an almost 98 percent attrition rate.
[/B]
That`s bullocks, in the entire war the LW lost something like 7000 fighter pilots killed.
The Majority died on their first 6 missions. If they could survive those first 6 missions statistically their chances of survival went up astronomically. Just a little below the pre-1943 pilots.
http://www.butler98.freeserve.co.uk/thtrlosses.htm
[/B]
Ah, now I see. You based the above on Groehler`s numbers, but you ignored that Groehler notes all kind of losses as "lost", even 10% damage... not to mention a lost aircraft rarely equalled a killed pilot.
If you kindly look down the page below, you will see that the avarage loss rate of fighter planes was 5.3% on the Western front, and 0.7% on the Eastern front in 1944. Thus even by these numbers, an avarage LW fighter survived an avarage of 20 missions w/o being shot down, and a pilot`s chances were even better (not every pilot shot down was killed).
BTW, these 99% etc. losses is little else than playing with numbers. I can show you anytime the USAAF lost a similiar percent of it`s planes in the first 5 months of 1944... yet it`s something quite different than everybody who served in Jan was a dead man by May. Losses usually happen among rookies, while the aces get the kills, and the rookies are replaced. In every air force it worked the same.
They had a tremendous turnover rate. In the last years of the war, the Luftwaffe accident rate shoots up to almost 50 percent. Almost half their casualties are self inflicted in flying accidents!
[/B]
Nothing surprising here. The same ~50% losses is true for 1940, 1941 etc, and it`s true for the USAAF for 1944, or any other air force. It was the rule and not the exception, that about half the lossess sustained were due to non-enemy related reason.
Saying the LW sustained 50% isn`t anything country specific, but it`s misleading in the context you put it.
Here is another table that agrees with Caldwells research.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1101664939_luftwaffe_strength2.jpg)
In 1944 the USAAF was launching bomber raids that had MORE bombers than the Luftwaffe had fighters in their whole force to shoot them down. These bombers are escorted by as many fighters or in some cases more than the Luftwaffe could launch to intercept. [/B]
I doubt this tells anything except than the US had vastly larger resources than Germany. No amount of pre planning, etc. would change that fact. Besides, I really do not see the point about fighter reserves etc. Up to 1944, they had not got to worry about enemy fighter. In 1944/45, they made the neccesary measures, but of course they couldn`t change simple facts like the vastly higher resources available to the allies.
Now they did produce a large number of aces because the Luftwaffe existed for much of the war in a very target rich enviroment. Mike Spick has a great study on the sortie to kill ratio. Hartmann's was below average IIRC and the majority of the Luftwaffe Experten were average. They just encountered the enemy much more often.
[/B]
That sounds like more to me as the usual Western excuse for their high scores. " They just encountered the enemy much more often." - yep, and SURVIVED every time, or even WON every time.
Winning&Surviving 800 dogfights DOES sound me as a record well above the avarage, and speaks of skill. Of course the amount of action they saw helped them the get high scores - provided they could best the enemy every time. Hartmann in example only served in the second half of the war, yet he outscored all allied or LW aces - and many allied aces served from the beginning till the end. Don`t tell me it was coincidence, or the lucky situation. The guy was good, no, he was the BEST, simple as that.
-
The most impressive thing about Hartmann and Rall is that they survived the war.
They were undoubtedly great pilots. But I take the German claims of astronomical scoring with a grain of salt. Even the sol-called "records" so meticulously kept by Luftwaffe officials must be considered suspect, since they were produced in Doctor Goebbel's Germany, and quite probably were "Doctored" to provide evidence of the uber mensch.
One famous incident involving Marseille provides proof of this. He put in claims for multiple kills (either 9 or 14, forgive my faulty memory). Yet British records show that actual losses for the day were only four, including some Hurricanes, a type that Marseille did not claim. In fact, some of these losses occurred while he was on the ground.
-
Shuckins,
I agree the claim of Luftwaffe superman is hardly viable.
Overclaiming was a factor and did occur, no doubt. The funny thing is the Luftwaffe had some of the highest standards for confirming a kill. If you study the airbattles as you have done with Marsailles you will see that is very much the exception and not the rule. The majority I have studied for my book show the Luftwaffe as very honest in their claims. They are not habitual overclaimers.
hat sounds like more to me as the usual Western excuse for their high scores. " They just encountered the enemy much more often." - yep, and SURVIVED every time, or even WON every time.
I would agree if the 800 "encounters" were 800 "dogfights". This is not the case nor is it the nature of WWII Air Combat. Dogfighting was very much the exception and not the rule. Not to say it did not occur, it is just that most pilots avoided it like the plague with a few notable exceptions like Krupinski. That is true I believe for All AF's with the exception of the Japanese.
Crumpp
-
Saying the LW sustained 50% isn`t anything country specific, but it`s misleading in the context you put it.
I think the Luftwaffe took an unusually high number of non-combat casualties.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1102865158_german-aircraft-losses-in-wwii-over-time.gif)
I would not characterize it as "average" for an Air Force. It would be surprising and interesting information if it was the case. Do you have a reference for this?
Crumpp
-
Now they did produce a large number of aces because the Luftwaffe existed for much of the war in a very target rich enviroment. Mike Spick has a great study on the sortie to kill ratio. Hartmann's was below average IIRC and the majority of the Luftwaffe Experten were average. They just encountered the enemy much more often.
That sounds like more to me as the usual Western excuse for their high scores. " They just encountered the enemy much more often." - yep, and SURVIVED every time, or even WON every time.
Winning&Surviving 800 dogfights DOES sound me as a record well above the avarage, and speaks of skill. Of course the amount of action they saw helped them the get high scores - provided they could best the enemy every time. Hartmann in example only served in the second half of the war, yet he outscored all allied or LW aces - and many allied aces served from the beginning till the end. Don`t tell me it was coincidence, or the lucky situation. The guy was good, no, he was the BEST, simple as that.
Everyday combat flying can also be considered training. In the units, flying actual missions, is where the gems are turned into diamonds. Real action and real dogfighting is very effective training, providing you have the basic training to survive your first encounters.
By that definition, the LW (and other air forces flying against the allied) got much more training. On average, they were in dogfights more often than the allied pilots. Which equals "better training".
I would agree if the 800 "encounters" were 800 "dogfights". This is not the case nor is it the nature of WWII Air Combat. Dogfighting was very much the exception and not the rule. Not to say it did not occur, it is just that most pilots avoided it like the plague with a few notable exceptions like Krupinski. That is true I believe for All AF's with the exception of the Japanese.
I disagree. It is the nature of the fighter pilot to look for a fight. If the pilot loses the aggressiveness, he has already lost the fight. If there was a pilot in the unit who avoided fighting, he was transfered away from the front.
The Finns always looked for a fight. Most of the Finnish missions were intercepts, a few planes against a numerically superior enemy. The poor quality of the early war soviet pilots gave the Finns lots of effective practise. Team tactics were honed to perfection. Finger four formations were actually adopted in the Finnish Air Force before the war, a few months before Werner Molders started testing them in the Luftwaffe. The individual fighter pilot skills were always regarded important, with the new pilots always getting lots of mock combat lessons and tutoring from the best pilots of the squadrons. The quality of training was very high, both in flight school and in the combat units.
Like Mora said, Finland is very high on the list of "which country produced the best fighter pilots".
The Finnish Air Force motto has always been "Qualitas Potentia Nostra", Quality is Our Strength. We've always had a small but very effective air force. It still holds true today, the Finnish Hornet pilots regularly kick foreign butt in the international trainings. ;)
Camo
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Shuckins,
I agree the claim of Luftwaffe superman is hardly viable.
Crumpp
hell, based on comparing a 1/48 scale FW with any alliled ride, the luftwaffe seems comprised of dwarves....
:p
-
since this is not a question of quantity vs quality, I'd say Germany.
2 pilots with over 300kills
:p
-
By that definition, the LW (and other air forces flying against the allied) got much more training. On average, they were in dogfights more often than the allied pilots. Which equals "better training".
Very true. However as you point out:
providing you have the basic training to survive your first encounters.
There lays the rub. The majority of the Luftwaffe did not receive the basic training necessary to survive their first few "classes" in the air.
Comparing pilot training before entering combat, the Luftwaffe received very little beyond the basics of flying the plane. That is evident from looking at the training hours.
Basic Pilot certification in the Luftwaffe was your A1 license. This required a minimum of 30 hours and is the equivalent of today's basic pilots license. Next was his A2, which allowed him to fly aircraft up to1000kg in weight, and required another 50 hours minimum of training. The next step the B1 required 50 hours of training, as did B2 certification. This qualified a pilot to FLY an aircraft between 2500-5000kg in weight, single engine aircraft. All in all, a minimum requirement of 180 hours of training for just flying the planes. None of this is in air-to-air combat. Now these designations and requirements changed during the war somewhat but the fact remains 100 hours of training includes NO air-to-air combat training. That was the job of the Erganzungsgruppe at the Geschwader of assignment. By 1944 these operational training units had almost completely dropped off the books and became operational Gruppes.
There is not doubt as to the bravery and quality of the Finnish Air Force. I am curious how they were organized and what sort of rotation plan they had for pilots in combat.
Crumpp
-
Thus even by these numbers, an avarage LW fighter survived an avarage of 20 missions w/o being shot down, and a pilot`s chances were even better (not every pilot shot down was killed).
Sorry I missed this. Izzy you have to remove the pilots who completed pre-war training standards and survived literally hundreds, some of them thousands of sorties. Factoring in the small percentage of experten distorts the ratio and creates a false picture.
This will give an average for the post 1943 trained pilots and it should line up closely with my stats come from the Luftwaffe casualty list's.
Crumpp
-
I would switch Germany and U.S. the way you rated them.
The German pilots (at least the early war ones) spent a lot of time flying gliders after WWI and, at least I think, really , really had a fine feel for the mechanics of flight.
I never really felt that the U.S. had the best planes in any arena (maybe, just possibly, by late war) but made up for it with numbers and tactics (wingman, wingman, wingman).
Originally posted by GScholz
Training: USA/UK
Individual skill 1-1: Japan
Tactics: Germany
-
An interesting perspective to discuss would be that if the USAAF pilots were sent on full-length war time duty lasting all the years, the list of 'aces' we know might be totally different from what it is now.
Germany for instance, in the early days of war produced a chockful of aces in range of 20~40 kills. Not many of them survived the war.
Aces with high number of kills over 100+ who survived the war, distinctly mention that as the years passed their flying styles and doctrines changed from a dashing competitiveness in combat arts, to a conservative and safe method of team-oriented flying.
Some people mention that as respected as 'hotheaded' aces like Marseilles was, even people like him would have either not survived the war to be remembered, or would have had to change their flying styles.
Alfred Grislawski for instance, specifically mentions that when he returned to the Eastern Front in '43 it was nothing like he remembered it to be - the Soviet opposition was increasingly getting tougher and smarter. He mentions of trying to put young pilots 'under his wing', and even discouraging some of his personal friends from transferring to the Eastern Front.
The well known Hartmann's kill rate was something like 1 kill in about every three sorties. Some people mention that this is actually not a very impressive feat when compared to other USAAF aces like Johnson or Gabreski, but with no disrespect to the USAAF aces we know and cherish, I hardly think any of them really could have survived the whole war, if they were sent in such a duty. My take is it would probably be someone totally unknown to us, if such long tours happened with USAAF pilots.
It's an interesting thought :)
-
Interesting take Kweassa.
Not rotating pilots was a huge mistake on the part of the Germans. Most pilots got worse as time progressed. Good example is Krupinski. A great combat leader and very much the "tiger" in the air. The kind of stuff of Johnson or Gabreski.
When he took over III/JG26 in the last months of the war, Walter Krupinski was a different man. He did very little leading much less flying aggressively. Without a doubt he suffered combat fatigue.
I think the USAAF would have had a much rougher time had they not rotated pilots.
Crumpp
-
Tactics?
In the beginninng the LW, absolute masters. Then the ball rolles over to the DAF (They copied many LW tricks) and on later to the USAAF.
Individual skills? In the Beginning IJN, then it rolls over to the Brits and their commonwelth. Argualbly it may have stayed there.
As a sidenote, I know of a RAF pilot who fought 1 vs 2 in his first combat mission. He didn't get a scratch, and would have carried on untill somebody ran out of fuel. Eventually his comrades helped him out.
Training? Very much like the one before.
The LW had the best training in the very start, but screwed up big time like Crumpp pointed out.
The RAF sort of learned a hard lesson in 1940 when they almost went dry of pilots, and they cured it very properly.
And then this line:
"I doubt this tells anything except than the US had vastly larger resources than Germany."
Very true, especially in regards of manpower for pilot training.
Remember though that Germany had their fingers in huge resources for most of the war, Germany along with the conquered nations and areas of the USSR as well as Italy sums up a capacity which may even be greater than the USA.
However, the inhabitants of those nations were usually not so happy about Gerry, so.....
-
From what I have read from material from both sides about the Pacific War -
EARLY WAR:
The IJN had the best pilots by far.
The IJAAF pilots were not trained to the level of the Navy pilots in either skill or tactics.
On tactics - the Japanese pretty much still perscribed to the WWI tactics of Pilot vs. Pilot in A2A combat even though they flew in a standard 3 plane formation which proved not as versitle as the American 4 plane formation made up of two pairs.
Same for the USN & USAAF.
The USN probabily had the best trained pilots as well as tactics.
Once the Navy started useing the "Thatch Weave" tactics (first used at Midway) that boosted them even higher.
Combat losses at Midway, New Guinea & Guadalcanal pretty much eliminated the "Cream" of the IJN & IJAAF. The failure to train large amounts of pilots to the same skill level as the old pilots and the failure to introduce new aircraft to match the F4U, F6F, P-38, P-51, etc. doomed the rest.
-
"I doubt this tells anything except than the US had vastly larger resources than Germany."
Good point about the resources, Angus. However it takes time to develop and exploit those resources. Time the axis just did not have at their disposal.
It is a fact that in 1944 the USAAF alone is able to launch raids which the numbers of escorting fighters match the total serviceable strength of the Luftwaffe in the West. The USAAF bomber formations on these raids outnumbered the entire Luftwaffe fighter force.
Factor in the RAF, VVS, RCAF, and all the other allied forces and it is easy to see that the Luftwaffe was no place for amateurs.
Crumpp
-
Hyas Crumpp.
I may be able to dig up some of Germanys sources, such as oil and steel at some stages of the war.
In 1942 those were staggering, in 1944 very little.
BTW, the population of Germany and Italia with the conquered nations added was close to the one of USA.
And then there were the Brits with their colonies....
Anyway, this is something to look into.
Oil: Romania and the best part of the USSR wells
Food, textiles,timber, workshops, steel, Most of Euroland, and even buying from the rest.
The Brits had to cross the atlantic, or go all the way to the far east to get some of those. And until 1942, much for money...
-
When did Germany finally go into all out war production? Sometime around 1943-44, iirc. The Allies went into full war production from the get-go.
Angus, the Swedes supplied top quality iron ore to Germany.
-
Here is the Avgas.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1103294570_germanavgas.jpg)
such as oil and steel at some stages of the war.
Exactly. These are strategic resources. It takes years to exploit them in an economy. It is not feasible that in a few years the Axis powers were able to establish new mines, refineries, transportation systems, and other infrastructure needed to fully exploit these resources in conquered territories.
Basically if it was not already in place and up and running it was not useful to the Axis in the war years. As Milo points out, especially with Adolf Hitlers "Ostrich" policy of not putting the German economy on a war footing until mid-war. There simply was not time.
If it was damaged or destroyed during the conquest then it was an outlay of resources instead of incoming resources to get it running again. Depending on the damage, this could be months to years out of commission.
Crumpp
-
Good graph, thanks.
BTW ;)
Just read in my home newspaper that Hitler was a bigtime taxcheater from '26 onwards!
will post after milking, lol.
regards
Angus
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
I wonder how training could be compared, really.
Some good points, but consider that as the war went on many of the US trainers had completed a tour and had flown 25, 50 combat missions. Experience counts.
As you know, German pilots who had lots of combat missions didn't get rotated back to train new pilots, they flew until they were unable to.
-
Originally posted by -MZ-
As you know, German pilots who had lots of combat missions didn't get rotated back to train new pilots, they flew until they were unable to.
Not entirely true, but for the most part yes.
-
Originally posted by -MZ-
As you know, German pilots who had lots of combat missions didn't get rotated back to train new pilots, they flew until they were unable to.
75% true... In Germany combat pilots weren`t called back like in the US after flying a specific number of missions. However combat pilots who become unfit for frontline duty because of injuries etc. DID become trainers in the 'hinterland' and passed on their experience, ie. in Tobak`s book he mentioned he got his training for 109G from one such ex-combat pilot in Germany. These 'unfits' also did lighter duties, like test/transfer flying newly produced aircraft to their locations etc.
Only the USAAF (fighters&bombers) and the RAF (bombers only afaik) followed this policy because of the public moral. Statistically, an avarage bomber pilot would be dead anyway just the time he finished his 'tour' (ie. with 4% loss rate and 25 sorties needed to be completed...). I think it was more useful for the morale of the pilots; a hotshot ace, who seen some combat but had relatively small flying experience wasn`t neccesarily the best trainer to teach the basics of flight to embryo pilots. He could pass on some real experience, but I firmly believe that regardless of nation, the combat training prepping them for Real World Air Combat was received at the 1st line units, under the wings of experienced flight and section leaders, on their initial combat missions. The loss rate was unproportionally high among these 'greens', and the rotation among them was high, the vets only falling occasionally to the quirk of fate.
-
They did not go back and train new pilots. The went to the Advanced schools for the Americans and OTUs for the CW where air combat was taught.
A good book to read is,
Wings for Victory by Spencer Dunmore, ISBN 0-7710-2918-7
about the BCATP in Canada.
-
but I firmly believe that regardless of nation, the combat training prepping them for Real World Air Combat was received at the 1st line units, under the wings of experienced flight and section leaders, on their initial combat missions. The loss rate was unproportionally high among these 'greens', and the rotation among them was high, the vets only falling occasionally to the quirk of fate.
Very true. By mid-war the Luftwaffe's OTU's just became Operational Units with no training mission.
Even early war, fledgling pilots were "trained" on operational missions stewarded by experienced instructors. As the war progressed it became untenable to "train" on an operational mission for the Luftwaffe.
Had an interesting comment from a P51 pilot who served in the 8th Fighter Group about training. He says their motto was "finish 5 to stay alive". Seems it took at least 5 operational missions for a new pilot to develop some SA among the USAAF. Thought it was very interesting as the 6 mission cut off for the post 1943 trained pilots was very close to that mark.
-
Interesting.
What I know from the RAF is that by 1941 summer or so, they were pumping out quite decently trained pilots, the final training done by combat veterans. Newbies by autumn 1941 had up to hundreds of hours on the clock.
Then it was the hard road to stay alive for one TOD anly to be either sent to officer's school or to a OTU as an instuctor.
But a clever move really. Train pilots with a snowball effect, morex2x2 etc, - builds up quickly.
BTW, somewhere I read that the US had trained something like 1 million pilots from 1941 to 1945. Do you know if that is true?
-
Originally posted by Angus
BTW, somewhere I read that the US had trained something like 1 million pilots from 1941 to 1945. Do you know if that is true?
How does aircrew sound?
The BCATP in Canada trained 131,553 aircrew of which 49,808 were pilots.
-
Sweet Jeezus!!!
Multiply that number!
-
Angus, I should have added that schools were closing down from mid 1944 because there was too many aircrew.
Just to describe how large was the program there was:
32 Elementary Flight schools
29 Service Flying Training schools
10 Air Observer schools
5 Air navigation schools
2 General Recon schools
11 Bomber and Gunnery schools
4 Wireless schools
1 Flight Engineers' school
7 OTU
3 Flight Instructors' schools
plus a few more various schools.
-
There were Canadians in World War II??
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
There were Canadians in World War II??
Crumpp
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
A typical comment one would expect from the puffed up blowhard expert on everything Crumpp. So :( :( :( he is.
-
Chained pulled......
Chain released.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Which Country Produced the Best Fighter Pilots?
Bishland produces the best pilots and the most sheep.
For some reason good pilots leave for Knitland soon they realize that Bish suck, and sheep leave for Rookland as soon as they can't take abuse anylonger (little do they know Rooks).
Long live the !
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
A typical comment one would expect from the puffed up blowhard expert on everything Crumpp. So :( :( :( he is.
or maybe his grandpa was a Nazi sympathizer like Prescott Bush.
-
This is a ridiculous argument.
ALL countries produced outstanding fighter pilots.
Is the question,the best,or the most?Or perhaps the best trained?
My opinion-all of the major and minor powers produced outstanding fighter pilots during the early war,before attrition reduced training time for the Japanese and Germans,as well as the number of experienced pilots.
-
I readily admit to being biased, but I would have to say that the best trained pilots flew Naval Aviation. Be they USN, IJN, FAA or other Commonwealth nation. Anyone can takeoff and land from 5,000 ft runway that's neither rolling or pitching.
Of course, U.S. Naval Aviators built an astounding record in Pacific, and during Operation Dragoon/Anvil (invasion of southern France), swept away what little opposition the Luftwaffe offered. It's too bad the Luftwaffe fighter arm stayed away from the south of France, or we might have had some interesting historical data to look at.
If you want an interesting topic to reseach, dig into F6F ops during Dragoon/Anvil. 71 F6Fs destroyed 825 military vehicles (tanks, armored transport, trucks, etc) and damaged 334 more. They knocked out an estimated 90 howitzers and anti-tank guns.
As many as 115 triple-A batteries were knocked out. They destroyed 84 locomotives and as many as 600 rail cars (with their cargo). In addition, they shot 8 Luftwaffe aircraft. In exchange, 11 F6Fs were shot down or ditched due to enemy ground fire.
Note also that some FAA Hellcats were deployed (about 16 aboard HMS Emperor) and Sea Fires (97) as well as 56 Wildcats were involved in covering the invasion force and beaches.
My regards,
Widewing
-
I readily admit to being biased, but I would have to say that the best trained pilots flew Naval Aviation. Be they USN, IJN, FAA or other Commonwealth nation. Anyone can takeoff and land from 5,000 ft runway that's neither rolling or pitching.
Very true. Just the nature of their operations demands a higher training standard. That legacy continues today.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Very true. Just the nature of their operations demands a higher training standard. That legacy continues today.
Crumpp
I'd always thought that prior to the Battle of Britain; the cream of RAF and LW pilots were actualy sent to the bomber arms.
And... Let it be understood that the best fighter pilot is not nessacerily the best pilot (or vice versa).
Would you consider Schumaker "a good motorist"? A great racer; certainly; but a good motorist?
You're discussing who had the best fighter pilots when you haven't yet defined what a great fighter pilot is!
Was Lindbergh a great fighter pilot? He was certainly a great pilot; who occaisionaly flew fighters; but does that make him a great fighter pilot?
-
Very good point Widewing!
I have some stuff from the USAF ground strafing during the beginning phase of operation Market-Garden. I'll post it here tomorrow.
Those guys were sent directly against AA batteries.
Highly skilled and incredibly aggressive pilots they were.
-
Originally posted by Muddie
I would switch Germany and U.S. the way you rated them.
The German pilots (at least the early war ones) spent a lot of time flying gliders after WWI and, at least I think, really , really had a fine feel for the mechanics of flight.
I never really felt that the U.S. had the best planes in any arena (maybe, just possibly, by late war) but made up for it with numbers and tactics (wingman, wingman, wingman).
No I think I'll stick with my original post. You see the German training was good, but not markedly better than their allied counterparts. It was numerical, technological and tactical advantages that won the day for the LW early in the war. The US tactics you mention are simply carbon copied from the Germans. Even today the basic tactics and formations are the same. The basic modern combat formation known as "finger four" is just a renamed "Schwarm".
-
U.S. Naval Pilots developed a finger four formation during the war in the PTO. How much this development was influenced by combat reports from Europe is open to debate.
Commander Jimmy Thach (a fellow Arkansan, ahem) developed tactics for the section and flight levels which transformed the aerial war in the Pacific. The type of teamwork demanded by these tactics was almost unknown among the Japanese Naval and Army air arms. These tactics were largely responsible for the often staggering disparities in combat losses between the U.S. naval pilots and their Japanese opponents.
Hellcats: 19/1
Corsairs: 14/1
Wilcats: 10/1
What were the combat victory to loss ratios of American pilots fighting against the Luftwaffe in Europe?
-
Originally posted by Widewing
I readily admit to being biased, but I would have to say that the best trained pilots flew Naval Aviation. Be they USN, IJN, FAA or other Commonwealth nation. Anyone can takeoff and land from 5,000 ft runway that's neither rolling or pitching.
This is a frequently raised notion, which I don't buy. No question but that it takes special skill to land (or crash, depending on POV) on a carrier, as well as to navigate to and from one. But I think these skills are separate from ACM proficiency.
No way to tell, really. PTO was probably the only place with a lot of side-by-side Navy and Air Corps people, and there were many variables that would throw off any useful comparison.
- oldman
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
This is a frequently raised notion, which I don't buy. No question but that it takes special skill to land (or crash, depending on POV) on a carrier, as well as to navigate to and from one. But I think these skills are separate from ACM proficiency.
No way to tell, really. PTO was probably the only place with a lot of side-by-side Navy and Air Corps people, and there were many variables that would throw off any useful comparison.
- oldman
Remember, I said "best trained" and didn't refer to ACM skills. However, the best trained usually have the better ACM skills as well. Far more than the USAAF did, the Navy trained for aerial combat as much as anything else. The only formal combat training in the ETO was the 8th AF's Clobber College set up to introduce incoming P-51 pilots to basic aerial combat, beyond the extremely basic training they received stateside. P-47 and P-38 pilots learned from their combat experienced peers during shakedown flights. Not exactly Top Gun quality.
On the other hand, the Navy saw fit to organize a formal aerial combat training program. The results were seen throughout the Pacific.
Let's look at the Navy's Ace of Aces, David McCampbell. His combat tour lasted 6 months, little more than a quarter of the time Bong was on combat duty. During those six months, he shot down 34 Japanese aircraft, is credited with another 7 probably shot down and an even dozen damaged. He is also credited (via gun camera film) of destroying another 21 on the ground. He was the only American pilot to shoot down 5 or more on two occasions. He holds the absolute Allied record of 9 kills, 2 probables and 3 damaged during a single sortie. His two wingmen claimed another 10 kills, one probable and 4 damaged. So, three pilots shoot down 19 confirmed, probably 21 enemy fighters (17 Zeros, 4 Oscars) plus another 7 damaged. In exchange the Japanese couldn't even claim to have hit any of the three Hellcats. McCampbell, Rushing and Slack had attacked 42 Japanese fighters. Japanese records show that only 18 returned to base. This indicates that 24 of the fighters were shot down, or failed to return to base (likely those being among the probables and damaged, or maybe mechanical failure or simply getting lost). Nonetheless, the Japanese claimed to have been attacked by "many enemy fighters" and claimed 12 kills. Of course they were not likely to admit that they fought just 3 Hellcats and hadn't even scored a single hit in return.
This little brawl is an excellent example of training, tactics and equipment. For the Americans it showed what training, teamwork and good aircraft can do. For the Japanese, it showed what will befall poor training, abismal tactics and second rate aircraft.
So, in just six months of deployment, McCampbell destroyed 55 Japanese aircraft in the air and on the ground. Add to that 7 probables and 12 damaged. His combat record is without peer in the American WWII fighter pilot community. I think he earned his CMoH.
His squadron, VF-15 destroyed 313 enemy aircraft in the air, another 314 on the ground, and produced 26 aces. All three were records never broken by any other Navy or Marine squadron. And, remember, they did this during a 6 month deployment, 6 weeks of which was spent in transit outside the combat zone or at anchor. Losses were 21 to all causes, the bulk of which were to ground fire and accidents. Only 7 are believed to be related to air combat, although some studies have reduced this to 5. At worst, it's a 45/1 kill ratio. At best, it jumps up to 63/1. Can any other combat unit, flying for any nation claim a kill ratio that high for a combat tour? Maybe some units in the Luftwaffe were that successful against Poland, or against the Soviets in the summer of 1941. Maybe Japan could post similar numbers against the Chinese I-15 biplanes in the late 1930s. Lot of maybes....
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
U.S. Naval Pilots developed a finger four formation during the war in the PTO. How much this development was influenced by combat reports from Europe is open to debate.
The Finger Four formation was "developed" by the RAF during the Battle of Britain in 1940.
Originally posted by Shuckins
What were the combat victory to loss ratios of American pilots fighting against the Luftwaffe in Europe?
Irrelevant.
-
"The Finger Four formation was "developed" by the RAF during the Battle of Britain in 1940."
IIRC the idea of that formation originates much earlier (WW1) and was invented by the British. Mölders made it a part of German fighter doctrine and it was used already during the BoB by the Luftwaffe.
It was later used during BoB by the British, also, but some of their squadrons used the inferior "vic" or even worse formations (line aft aka "idiotenreihe"?) quite long.
The Finnish airforce used the Finger4 in training already in 1935 and opertionally when the war broke out.
-C+
-
You are partly correct Charge. The original formation was developed by none other than Oswald Bölcke himself during WWI, the father of air combat tactics.
Boelcke felt that pilots should become accustomed to fly-
ing in regular formations and to maintaining formation integ-
rity. This goes without saying; one cannot fight on his own
and survive day after day. This was found out the hard way
by such World War I aces as Rene Fonck, Albert Ball, Frank
Luke, and Werner Voss.20 They were all "mavericks" who pre-
ferred to fight alone, and as a consequence, they did not
survive the war. Boelcke rectified this preference for indi-
vidual combat by developing a standard formation which proved
successful in combat and later became the basis for all nation's
fighter forces. Although not technically considered a tactic,
Boelcke's formation deserves addressing since it still applies
in this supersonic age.
There are three criterion which govern the organization
and the positioning of formations. First, they should present
a difficult target for anti-aircraft artillery or missiles:
more than one aircraft should not be vulnerable to the same
flak burst or missile detonation. Second, the formation should
allow aircraft to support one another quickly in the event of
air attack. Finally, the formation should provide latitude
for maneuvering within the formation without losing mutual
support. Many formations were developed during World War I,
but the most successful one was developed by Boelcke. It con-
sisted of four aircraft almost line abreast, operating in ele-
ments of two.21 Richthofen adopted Boelcke's formation and
with his fighter group (JG-1), known as the "Flying Circus,"
ruled the skies over France until his death on April 21, 1918.22
During the Spanish Civil War, it seems that German pilots
forgot the lessons of Boelcke and Richthofen and returned to
the three plane Vic formation. This arrangement protected the
leader on both sides but sacrificed maneuverability. The man
who revived Boelcke's formation was Hauptman Werner Moelders,
Germany's highest scoring ace in the Spanish Civil War with
14 victories.23 Moelders occupied the same position as Boelcke
in World War I, being the supreme tactician of his day in
terms of combat success and constructive thinking. The basis
of Moelders' formation was the Rotte (unit) of two aircraft.
This arrangement differed not so much in the reduction from
three to two aircraft but in the spacing. Earlier formations
flew with aircraft about 40 feet apart and allowed better con-
trol in typical European cloud conditions. Moelders placed the
two aircraft of the Rotte approximately 600 feet apart with the
leader slightly ahead of his wingmen. Each of the pilots con-
centrated his attention inward and watched the other's blind
spot dead astern.24
To increase firepower, Moelders initiated the use of
Schwarms consisting of four aircraft. These were composed of
two Rotten and were disposed with one Rotte flying slightly
ahead and to the side. The four aircraft were then in the rel-
ative positions of the nails on the four fingers of a hand.
The Schwarm was spaced between 1500 and 2000 feet apart which
made it impossible for the formation to turn in the right order.
Moelders solved this problem by originating a crossover maneu-
ver in which the man on the outside of the turn crossed to the
inside after 9O degrees. The formation then became a mirror
image of itself prior to the turn.25
The open position of the German fighter's formation per-
mitted each pilot to continuously scan the skies for the enemy;
whereas, in tight formations much time was spent watching the
leader in order to maintain position. Wide dispersion of the
formation meant that if one aircraft was attacked, the other
aircraft could perform a hard turn and "sandwitch" the attacker,
bringing weapons to bear. In a tight formation, an attack on
one aircraft essentially placed all the aircraft in joepardy.
Moelders' formation allowed complete freedom of maneuver since
maximum turn rates could be utilized without compromizing the
integrity of the formation, unlike the Vic initially used by
the Allies.26
Moelders' Rotte and Schwarm gave the Luftwaffe a signif-
icant advantage at the start of the war. A tribute to these
tactics is the fact that all allied air forces eventually
adopted these formations. After suffering severe losses dur-
ing the Battle of Britain, The RAF switched to four-plane for-
mations. Squadron Leader A.G. Mahan, No 74 Squadron, lossened
the Vic, added another aircraft, and positioned the sections
700 to 800 feet apart. By 1943, this formation was modified
to a line of four fighters disposed almost abreast. By the
end of 1943, Moelders' formation had been universally adopted.
To the Germans, they were still the Rotte and Schwarm, to the
British and Americans the Pair and Finger-four, to the Russians
the Para and Zveno, and to the Japanese as the Buntai and
Shotai.27
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1984/HEW.htm
-
Hey Scholzie!
Bölcke indeed! Dikta Bölce works even today.
There is a very good book about aerial warfare from the tactical perspective from WW1 to Korea.
Johnny Johnsson's "Full Cirkle"
Highly reccomment it.
Regards.
Angus
-
Thanks for the book recommendation Angus.
-
It was actually a German pilot who recommended it too me, then I ran across it at Foyle's, London.
Now, let me see, ISBN 0-304-35860-6.
"Full Circle"
It's old, but it has the basics pretty well sorted, and quite good coverage of WWI.
For a good selection, try
http://www.motorbooks.co.uk
They have something in excess of 6000 titles about aviation.
Worth a visit if you're there.
Foyle's also has some goodies, never get out of that store without a flight book in a bag,lol.
So, good luck.
-
Thanks again!
-
NP and merry Christmas. Hope it won't be too cold in Norway!
(Here it is Arse-cold..Brrr)
Will have a very good boksite link to post later, - hehe, a present.
Mostly German stuff, but they have some very nice offers.
So, - later.
Angus
-
Originally posted by Widewing
I readily admit to being biased, but I would have to say that the best trained pilots flew Naval Aviation. Be they USN, IJN, FAA or other Commonwealth nation. Anyone can takeoff and land from 5,000 ft runway that's neither rolling or pitching.
Of course, U.S. Naval Aviators built an astounding record in Pacific, and during Operation Dragoon/Anvil (invasion of southern France), swept away what little opposition the Luftwaffe offered. It's too bad the Luftwaffe fighter arm stayed away from the south of France, or we might have had some interesting historical data to look at.
If you want an interesting topic to reseach, dig into F6F ops during Dragoon/Anvil. 71 F6Fs destroyed 825 military vehicles (tanks, armored transport, trucks, etc) and damaged 334 more. They knocked out an estimated 90 howitzers and anti-tank guns.
As many as 115 triple-A batteries were knocked out. They destroyed 84 locomotives and as many as 600 rail cars (with their cargo). In addition, they shot 8 Luftwaffe aircraft. In exchange, 11 F6Fs were shot down or ditched due to enemy ground fire.
Note also that some FAA Hellcats were deployed (about 16 aboard HMS Emperor) and Sea Fires (97) as well as 56 Wildcats were involved in covering the invasion force and beaches.
My regards,
Widewing
Hmmmmm.....Guess that must make James Howard the best fighter pilot of all time :)
Navy carrier trained pilot, AVG blooded against the Japanese in China and MOH against the Luftwaffe while flying P51Bs with the USAAF 354th FG.
Guess that would just about cover it :)
Dan/Slack
-
I don't know who were the best,but I have to admire the Finns,when you think of what they flew and the success they had!
:aok
-
Russian aces (http://www.acesofww2.com/soviet/Soviet.htm)
German Aces (http://www.acesofww2.com/germany/Germany.htm)
USA Aces (http://www.acesofww2.com/USA/USA.htm)