Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: garrido on August 10, 2001, 03:39:00 AM
-
That opinion you of these pilots Galland (102 Kill's), Marseille (152 Kill's), Hartmann (352 Kill's) , their Kill's, the way to obtain them, its form have to fly, etc.
Salute
SUPONGO
-
They were freaking uber.. the 109 is a bloody P I G
-
Luck, alot of Allied rookies/targets, 30mm, skill, and could pry see very well.
-
Originally posted by Duckwing6:
They were freaking uber.. the 109 is a bloody P I G
But Hartman walked home, what was it ... 8 times? Yeah the guy got 300 odd kills, but only at the expense of getting his butt waxed 8 times.
AKcurly
-
Marsaille killed with an average of 15 bullets. That is 15 bullets from the single MG151/20 ans 2 MG17 7.92mm in his 109F4 combined. Yes the LW mechanics counted after each sortie.
-
still 352 is a pretty good streak dont'cha think Curly ? especially considering the single life arena these dudes fought in .. and no icons...
and especially considering what a PIG the 109 is
-
"They were freaking uber.. the 109 is a bloody P I G"
No plane is a P I G when there are no icons. Well excpet for the Brewster Bufaloe ;)
Westy
-
Marsaille killed with an average of 15 bullets. That is 15 bullets from the single MG151/20 ans 2 MG17 7.92mm in his 109F4 combined. Yes the LW mechanics counted after each sortie.
Oh man...heh.
Incredible. Aircraft mechanics rewrite history.
Turn up the 109 MG's HTC, and quick! Its true, true, TRUE!
-
The General practice, except for Marsaille who was an exceptional deflection shooter, was to get in close until an unsuspecting enemy filled the canopy (easy in Hartmann's case give his exceptional eyesight that allowed him to set up the attack) fire a quick burst then keep moving on. At that range the weapons package didn't matter as it doesn't matter in AH at that range.
It also helped (a lot) that the allies lacked (early in the war) the sound tactical doctrin learned in Spain (finger four),the experience early in the war the LW gained in Spain (Galland, etc.) and that the Russians lacked quality aircraft early in the war, leadership (due to Stalin's purges), training (not seen as particularly necessiary vs. numbers and sacrafice), and confidence/agression (for obvious reasons noted above) until about 1944 or so.
The Kill tallies on the Easter front are exceptional, but reflect a target-rich environment with the above handicaps in place until 1944 or so (maybe late 43). The scores on the Western front tend to reflect more of a longer service career with ea. pilot. Give the allied aces a couple of thousand combat sorties and you would see the same figures -- if they survived.
It should also be noted that while the LW was outnumbered in general from late 1943 on, they at least enjoyed numerical parity through 1943 and they typically managed to maintain "local" air superority up until the darkest days on 1945 -- just not the numbers to establish superiority on a whole front.
Still, it's clear theat these were exceptional fighter pilots who enjoyed significant opportunities to hone their skills.
Charon
Good book on the subject:Luftwaffe Fighter Aces by Mike Spick.
[ 08-10-2001: Message edited by: Charon ]
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
Marsaille killed with an average of 15 bullets. That is 15 bullets from the single MG151/20 ans 2 MG17 7.92mm in his 109F4 combined. Yes the LW mechanics counted after each sortie.
bloody "untermench" if you compare him to René Fonck :D
15 bullet == 3 planes for him :eek: :eek:
Have a look to : http://www.theaerodrome.com/aces/france/fonck.html (http://www.theaerodrome.com/aces/france/fonck.html)
-
Their numbers are not all perfectly solid though.
Marseille reported 17 victories in a single day against the RAF/DAF. The British lost 8 aircraft in the area that day, and on the home front only one.
Have been doing a little research on LW claims on RAF aircraft vs. the actual RAF reports. Sometimes they are accurate, sometimes double and sometimes total nonsense (1 damaged aircraft successfully RTB becomes a few destroyed).
I met the old LW ace Gunther Rall (3rd on the list with 275 kills) last May, and over a cup of coffee I could not resist teasing him a bit with these numbers. He was firm on the opinion that they were absolutely solid.
Well, solid or slightly inaccurate, their numbers are high. Ralls as well as the others approach to combat, especially in the latest years of the war may explain how they got so many kills. Simple reason: plenty of targets, many of those russians with either primitive planes or little experience, and finally, LW survive tactics, for many of the best looked after themselves, - a dead pilot shoots no enemy planes down. Rall: "We would not attack unless we were at advantage"
-
Creamo thats really unneccesary.
-
well... sometimes even the mighty LW may have gotten a little "confussed" Marsaills kills are in question as a few equalled 2 pissant .30 cal kills.. hartman claimed 5 mustangs in one sortie when recorsd show only two lost the whole day and one not even in the area.. Saki claimed his life and death struggle with 6 Hellcats all gangbanging him to no avail but no hellcats were in the area that day. Bomber gunners got even more excitable on claiming.
All countries did it. Mostly in the best of faith and the best pilots (such as those above) were still outstanding.
lazs
-
Nothing wrong with the Mausers. If you think there's something wrong, you aren't hitting with all the rounds hitting the same area.
I guarantee you, the Mausers are as lethal as they should be.
-SW
-
Originally posted by SWulfe:
I guarantee you, the Mausers are as lethal as they should be.
-SW
You guarantee me?. fine. Where is the proof? :)
-
Originally posted by R4M:
You guarantee me?. fine. Where is the proof? :)
Where's your proof something's wrong?
DOH!
-SW
-
Originally posted by SWulfe:
I guarantee you, the Mausers are as lethal as they should be.
-SW
You are the one who guarantees it, so I guess you should have some good proof or information to be so sure, right?...
Or maybe it is that you think they "feel" right? :D
-
SW, remember the post Pyro recently made about the .50's vice the 13mm's that included a specific ballistic comparison?
Even that didn't convince them.
Save your electronic ink. ;)
-
No, the fact that I can consistantly reproduce critical damage with 3-4 hits is proof enough for me.
Of course, you probably believe the D-9's guns are screwy because of that screenshot that had two different view points for the A-8 and D-9.
And Toad is right....
-SW
-
S!
Every single airforce in the Second World War overclaimed. Usually by an average of 2-1, sometimes as in the case of the Soviets and Japanese, by as high as 3 or 4 to 1.
That doesn't take away from the achievements of the Aces.
At lot of it has to do with training, opportunity and technology. If a pilot is well trained, has a superior aircraft and has lots of chances at combat, then he will get a lot of kills. A 'target rich' enviroment is what is needed.
When Marseille was at his peak, the Me109F4 was the best aircraft in the world. German pilots at that time also had the best training on average of any airforce. And he had the opportunity to have combat with a lot of British aircraft, which were primarily occupied in the Ground attack role. He almost always had the height advantage, against inferior aircraft like the Tomahawk, Kittyhawk and Hurricane II.
Hartmann and the other Eastern Front Aces had the technological advantage early on, later found themselves at a slight disadvantage at the end. However they were fighting against one of the poorest trained airforces in the world, which was almost always operating at low levels, with the Germans having the altitude advantage. They also had the opportunity to have combat almost every day.
Buzz Beurling the Canadian Ace had 31 1/2 victories. 27 of them came in 3 weeks when he was fighting over Malta. The remaining 4 1/2 came over a much longer period of time over Europe. At Malta he had the opportunity of combat every single day. In Europe he rarely saw a German. He was well trained, and although the Spit Vb was not superior to the 109F4, it did have a slight advantage over the MC202, Beurlings other major opponent. He was operating from a altitude disadvantage most of the time though.
-
Toad I was just making a little fun of that cathegorical affirmation he did :D
Originally posted by Buzzbait:
S!
When Marseille was at his peak, the Me109F4 was the best aircraft in the world. German pilots at that time also had the best training on average of any airforce. And he had the opportunity to have combat with a lot of British aircraft, which were primarily occupied in the Ground attack role. He almost always had the height advantage, against inferior aircraft like the Tomahawk, Kittyhawk and Hurricane
Tell the whole story please. During much of the time he fought at North Africa, the LW and RA were severely outnumbered by the RAF. And many of his kills happened against superior odds, too.
Ah, and for the time Marseille was at his peak, the best fighter in the world was the Fw190A2-A3, not the 109F4.
Hartmann and the other Eastern Front Aces had the technological advantage early on, later found themselves at a slight disadvantage at the end. However they were fighting against one of the poorest trained airforces in the world, which was almost always operating at low levels, with the Germans having the altitude advantage. They also had the opportunity to have combat almost every day.
Hartmann got the whole major part of his kills from 1943 onwards. At that time there was no technical advantage (and if there was any was on the soviet side), the LW was severely outnumbered, and the VVS had quite capable pilots.
About overestimating kills I remember I read somewhere that the USAAF claimed, a couple of times in 1944,much more 109s downed in a day in sorties over Italy, that what there were available in hte whole front (not to talk about the numbers wich actually sortied ;).
German pilots also overestimated, I'm sure...but their protocols to confirm kills were WAY harsher than what it ws for hte US or UK's AFs.
[ 08-10-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]
-
I don't want to belittle or rain on anyone's parade here, but do you think the numbers are 100% accurate?
I mean combat gets real confusing. Just like many false allied claims have been talked about I think these pilots downed many planes....but perhaps not that many.
<prepares to be flamed>
-
RAM,
Go look at the kill claims for the Luftwaffe and RAF leading up to, and during the Battle of Britain. Then look at the actual losses.
The German numbers are pure fiction, the British numbers are pure fiction after the first month. This "Luftwaffe kill confirmation was more accuruate" stuff just doesn't seem to hold up if the "kill" occurs somewhere where the Germans can't inspect the wreckage.
I'll post them if I can find them.
-
Well, here are the final total claims and kills for the Battle of Britain, but it doesn't break it down month by month.
RAF
Claimed Kills: 2,698
Losses: 915
Luftwaffe
Claimed Kills: 3,058
Losses: 1,733
The RAF overclaimed by 965, the Luftwaffe overclaimed by 2,143.
-
don't get me wrong Karnak, I am NOT saying german kill numbers were right.
But I am also have seen different numbers on allied loses than you present.
I believe that both sides manipulated with both numbers.
Back to the topic ;). I just think they were damned good fighter pilots.
maik
maik
-
Karnak:
If I am reading that correctly, in that particular campaign the RAF overclaimed by about 50% and the LW overclaimed by about 200%. Is this correct?
Hooligan
-
Hooligan,
According to my source, "The Battle of Britain, by Richard Townsend Bickers" that is correct.
You are reading it correctly.
-
What was so rigorous about Luftwaffe claim procedures?
1 witness was required, and that could be the pilot's wingman. Given that pilots often make mistakes in claiming a kill when they merely damaged an aircraft, or even mistook an evasive manoeuvre for a kill, what chance has a wingman got of getting a more accurate version of events? Combine that with the fact that Germany set great store by high scoring pilots, and that any pilot is inclined to back up his comrades version of events, and the German system doesn't look very rigorous.
All AF's produce more accurate figures when the fighting is taking place over their own territory, where wrecks can be inspected, and ground observers can confirm or deny a pilot's story. That's the reason the RAF's awarded claims in the BoB were fairly close, and the reason the German's claims over france, Germany and the Low Countries were pretty accurate.
The German claims system was no better or worse than the USAAF or RAF (don't know enough about the Soviets), but it was far more open to abuse by pilots determined to lie, or simply too optimistic, if they had a wingman who would back them up. Far more (all?) RAF and USAAF planes had gun cameras, and whilst they aren't infalible, they give a more accurate picture than the views of a couple of pilots who can easily get confused by the actual course of events in the midst of a battle.
-
An italian ace I talked to (*) a couple of months ago said me that Marseille was used to fly with 2-3 wingmen. Their only duty was to watch his six while he went hunting DAF aircraft. Neverthless, he said to me he was a tough guy and an excellent hunter. They considered the Bf109F an outstanding fighter in comparison to the Hurricanes and P-40s you usually met in those years. Annoni and Marseille tested their respective C.202 and Bf109F.
(*) Tenente Emanuele "Ele" Annoni, Commander of 96^Squadriglia, 9^Gruppo, 4^Stormo Caccia, Regia Aeronautica, North Africa 1941-42.
-
The 3,080 who comprised the RAF aircrew of the battle (pilots, and gunners in the short-nosed Blenheims, and Defiants, hopefully supposed to be fighters) were only the equivalent of a Brigade Group or a capital warship in terms of manpower; the fact that they achieved the survival of Britain is in itself worthy of note as is their youth. Many were under 20, and, still under training, I was not unique at 17, being one of several who had increased their ages to enlist. Many pilots were NCOs unlike the conditions in the USAAC where most were commissioned, and many gunners were lowly airmen until the order came in making them sergeants. Ernie Mayne of 74 Sqn RAF flew in the battle to age 39 but he was a most notable exception. "Sailor' Malan CO of the same squadron seemed grandfatherly to us. He was 30 and married. Of 2949 fighter pilots, 515 were killed between 10 July and 31 Oct 1940. German bomber casualties were not revealed, but 340 fighter pilots were lost (261 killed). The RAF lost 715 Spitfires and Hurricanes, the Luftwaffe 348 bombers, 45 dive bombers, and 558 fighters.When these total German losses (951) are contrasted with the figure of 2375 quoted at the time, the mythical claims then current become apparent.
The debate on the subject of overclaiming of aircraft destroyed lingers on. In the absence of any centralized agency for checking pilot's victory claims, gross errors were inevitable even though individual pilots' figures were usually made in all honesty. The mythical high figures have been perpetuated through the years; how did they arise? It was almost impossible to avoid duplication of claims, for when a pilot saw his tracer hitting enemy aircraft, saw the aircraft crash, and claimed accordingly, he often did not even see the other aircraft that also hit and claimed the same enemy. One victim could be claimed by as many as 5 or more pilots with very little dishonesty of intent on the part ofthe pilots. Claims for the same aircraft could indeed be made to 5 different Intelligence Officers as the aircraft landed at different airfields. Intelligence Officers were as careful as possible and often only allowed a fifth of a kill, or a half or whatever depending on the number of claims for what in their view was one and the same aircraft.
There were one or two pilots whose victories always appeared to occur out of sight of anybody else, but they were well-known to us, if not to the Intelligence Officers who allowed their claims for enemy aircraft shot down in cloud! The British claimed 144 destroyed on 18th August, whereas in fact there were 69, and the Germans admitted 36. They claimed 147 British aircraft destroyed, whereas in fact there were 68, and the British admitted 23! On 15th September the British claimed 185 and it is celebrated as Battle of Britain Day. In fact the Germans lost about 60 beyond repair. As Dean Acheson remarked "...propaganda is that branch of the art of lying which consists in very nearly deceiving your friends, without quite deceiving your enemies."
Doug Tidy 1998
-
Originally posted by Westy MOL:
"They were freaking uber.. the 109 is a bloody P I G"
No plane is a P I G when there are no icons. Well excpet for the Brewster Bufaloe ;)
Westy
The Brewster Buffalo is lotsa things, but a pig it is not. The original F2A-1 model was, to quote the factory test pilot, "the most maneuverable monoplane in the world".
But in case you were referring to the F2A-3, thats another story. ;)
Camo
-
ram... u continue to ignore the fact that the germans did their best work when they faced forces that were tied to ground support roles as in north africa and russia. If they didn't start with an alt advantage they didn't do so hot and if they had to come up to their enemy they did very poorly. When they had the most experianced pilots in the theatre they did well when they lost experianced pilots and had more green pilots they did poorly. No real mystery.
The several dozen "romance" semi fiction bios that are out there are fun to read but they cause problems when that's all a person has read and then he comes in a flight sim thinking that the P47 or 190 is the best dogfiter in the world and gets his butt handed to him.
lazs
-
"..in case you were refering to the F2A-3.."
Of course!!! :D
Westy
-
Oh man...heh.
Incredible. Aircraft mechanics rewrite history.
Turn up the 109 MG's HTC, and quick! Its true, true, TRUE![\quote]
Were you born a Jerk or has something happened to make you one Creamo?
Statements like the one you just made are just stupid and gives you no respect, nor does anyone think you're funny, grow up.