Villers Bocage: don´t be fooled by the Firefly

[Bgile]

And still, the German pilots overcame those obstacles and won again and again and again.

So, basically you are saying that an Allied pilot who never sees a German aircraft should still be able to achieve the same number of victories as a German pilot who sees his opponents every time he flies.

There were North Vietnamese aces who had 20 or so kills against US aircraft. The highest US ace had IIRC 6 or 7 kills. So NVA pilots are inherently better due to racial superiority, or what?

[alecsandros]

And still, the German pilots overcame those obstacles and won again and again and again.

So, basically you are saying that an Allied pilot who never sees a German aircraft should still be able to achieve the same number of victories as a German pilot who sees his opponents every time he flies.

There were North Vietnamese aces who had 20 or so kills against US aircraft. The highest US ace had IIRC 6 or 7 kills. So NVA pilots are inherently better due to racial superiority, or what?

First of all, you haven't adressed the issues that I raised. There are 3 of them.

Second of all, your comparison between WW2 and Vietnam is not quite correct. The scale of the conflict was much larger in WW2, and consequently the losses were high. How can you compare a NV fighter ace with 20 kills with Golobbs 150? Or Nowotny's 250? Not to mention the "Black Devil". The idea here is that the German pilots survived for very long and took down scores of enemy planes.

And finally, you are again inventing excuses: you are hiding behind "they didn't have a shot at the enemy" statement, but you fail to see that those that DID have a fair shot (and there were many, in the Battle of Britain, Malta campaign, Eastern Front, the campaign for Romanian oil, etc) haven't manage to do much.

I'm waiting for reply regarding the issues that I've raised.

[Bgile]

I'm waiting for reply regarding the issues that I've raised.

It wouldn't matter if I did. I can tell from your attitude that your mind is closed. You are one of those people that believe for whatever reason that if it's German it's automatically the best.

[lwd]

...
Germany was preoccupied with quality, not quantity. They didn't have as many planes or pilots as the Allies, but they sure were very good. \

Were they? Seems like I've read a lot about the poor training of late war German pilots.

As for saying that "they were operating in much closer proximity to their enemy than (for example) US 8th Fighter Command" or, as lwd wrote, "Many US fighter pilots never even saw an opponent much less got a shot at one" seem to me more like shameless excuses for the true problem: Allied pilot's inefficiency against German ones.

It's not the fault of the pilot if he never gets near an enemy air craft.

We're talking about people with 100+,200+, 300+ confirmed kills in 4-5-6 years, and you're pointing only at the external favorable conditions that allowed them to achieve this.

There's no reason to supsect that Germany produced inately better pilots than anyone esle. There is little evidence that they had a significant superiority in any as far as their aircraft are concerned. As for training the prewar IJN had probably the most rigorous program around and their pilots didn't end up with multiple hundreds of kills. "External" reasons are the only ones that make much sense.

But, if you're willing to blame it on the combat situation, why don't you go all the way, and admit that there were also Unfavorable combat conditions, that hindered their achievements:
- air superiority of the Allies (Eastern Front 1943-1945, North Africa and Mediteranean 1942-1945, Western Europe 1943-1945)

The allies had air superiority on the Eastern front in 43?

- significant amount of AA guns (especially on the Eastern front)

More than the allies faced? Certainly not in the west where most of their flying was over friendly territory.

- Allied fighters tendency to focus precisely on the "aces"

Documentation PLS

And still, the German pilots overcame those obstacles and won again and again and again.

Some of them did. Some of them didn't.

And, if you're willing to stick with victories/sortie, check out Hans Joachim Marseille, Gordon Gollob or Walter Nowotny on the internet. You might be surprised.

Perhaps but the question is how relevant is it. And of course if you are finding it on the net how accurate is it. I know I've seen reports that achecked Marseille's one day kills with the total British losses for the day in question and found the former exceeded the latter.

[lwd]

...
And finally, you are again inventing excuses: you are hiding behind "they didn't have a shot at the enemy" statement, but you fail to see that those that DID have a fair shot (and there were many, in the Battle of Britain, Malta campaign, Eastern Front, the campaign for Romanian oil, etc) haven't manage to do much. ....

At least in the west fighter pilots were simply not allowed to fly enough to get their kills up as high as the Germans. They simply didn't have the opertunities. They had to fly longer sorties which pretty much limited them to 1 or at the most two a day. The western allies also tended to rest their pilots as well and I know the US rotated their top aces back home often around the 30 kill point if not before.

[Karl Heidenreich]

lwd:

Again you are defending the Sherman tanks... You never learn, man?

Were they? Seems like I've read a lot about the poor training of late war German pilots.

The allies had a great training ground called continental US where the enemy cannot reach. There thousands of young men trained in the brand new almost infinite quantity of planes that got out of the mighty industrial complex of the US. Meanwhile the Germans were fighting with limited resources and, for smaller the ratio could be, getting killled, wounded or left without a plane.

But if you take a look to this link you will find, easily that the first 100 air aces of WWII were all German, and then we got people from Finland, Romania, Japan and then, low in there, the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wo ... I_air_aces

Let´s say that Hartman was half the good pilot he was and that the top American ace was twice as better as he was. What is the ratio, then, for statistical comparison that you so very much love:

Hartmann: 352 / 2 = 176

Bong (US Air Forces): 40 x 2 = 80

Then Hartman has twice the ratio of Bong.

Please, refer to the list and try not lose any time defending the indefensible. Germans had the best pilots, the best U Boat aces and the best tankers of the world.

[Karl Heidenreich]

It's not the fault of the pilot if he never gets near an enemy air craft.

Could be. I don´t imagine a Tuskagee airman trying to down Hartman. As a matter of fact, which is the downing ratio of the Tuskagee airmen? I think Spielberg is considering to film a movie about them. I imagine the scene in which Cuba Gooding Jr. shots down Richtofen brother or nephew...

[Karl Heidenreich]

There's no reason to supsect that Germany produced inately better pilots than anyone esle. There is little evidence that they had a significant superiority in any as far as their aircraft are concerned. As for training the prewar IJN had probably the most rigorous program around and their pilots didn't end up with multiple hundreds of kills. "External" reasons are the only ones that make much sense.

False! Again, take a look at the ranking! The Luftwaffe, it is true, had to fight an enemy that disregard the lifes of it´s own figthing men, as the USSR, but still the Germans were incredible superior, nor to any race stupidity but because the discipline and strenght of their training, the cohesion of their officer corps and the circumstancial need of the times.

Again: if the case would be reversed you will be claiming that the US could afford to have those ratios because of their training methods and all that propaganda that History Channel try to sell to the future generation through TV series as "Aces" and such.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Documentation PLS

It is I that ask you documentation, because you never provided such. Why ask alecsandros to do what you are uncapable of doing, man?

[Karl Heidenreich]

Perhaps but the question is how relevant is it. And of course if you are finding it on the net how accurate is it. I know I've seen reports that achecked Marseille's one day kills with the total British losses for the day in question and found the former exceeded the latter.

Man: you are sick, really! It´s irrelevant because do not suit your US superiority complex? Please, man, be serious! Nowotny or Rall or those guys were the epitome of the air aces! Bong was an amateur compared to them. Stop this ridiculous argumentation now!

[Karl Heidenreich]

At least in the west fighter pilots were simply not allowed to fly enough to get their kills up as high as the Germans. They simply didn't have the opertunities. They had to fly longer sorties which pretty much limited them to 1 or at the most two a day. The western allies also tended to rest their pilots as well and I know the US rotated their top aces back home often around the 30 kill point if not before.

Has you ever wondered why the US did not allow them to fly more than some tens of missions?

First: they have enough pilots to put in their machines so they needed the rotation.

Second: Psychological Studies revealed that the most "soft" western life style boys from the US cannot take that much stress, so added to Reason 1 they can rotate their personel.

Third: Political. The US needed to have the population identifyied with the war effort so they put their sons in the fight for a while and then their dads will buy war bonds. Just before the exhaustions shows (which is when the Germans gave a vacation of three days to their pilots) then the US pull the guys out and put new ones so that the drill starts all over again.

Germany, on the other hand (as well as Japan) being a country the size of a little bigger size of just Texas, had limited resources, limited manpower and were forced to have their people fighting for years, maybe driven them crazy but producing the greatest aces of all times... as also produced the greatest soldiers of all time.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Returning to the main topic, I don´t know if I posted this link before, but if not here it goes again. It shows the kill ration between Tiger equiped units and their foes:

http://www.alanhamby.com/losses.shtml

The summary goes as follows:

Total 1,715 units lost vs 9,850 enemies destroyed for a 5.74 ratio. Not bad?

[alecsandros]

I'm waiting for reply regarding the issues that I've raised.

It wouldn't matter if I did. I can tell from your attitude that your mind is closed. You are one of those people that believe for whatever reason that if it's German it's automatically the best.

Quite the contrary. I'm waiting for facts from you, not various indicators that you come up with, and can not back up.

Please. This whole "the Germans weren't the best" thing is getting old. It's historical revisionism gone awfully wrong. Child judgments stated by adults.
I'm almost ashamed of what I'm writing here: of course not ALL the germans were THE best. But those of them that became aces BECAME IN WAR. They were put to the test, each day of fighting. And you're telling me that they LIVED trough it and DESTROYED PLANES BY THE HUNDREDS because THEY WERE LUCKY ENOUGH TO BE IN ENOUGH MISSIONS? Please.

And, because I said I want to discuss over factual truth, do you know what nationality do the top 100 aces of WW2 have? Hmm?

[Karl Heidenreich]

From our friend Chuck Hawks:

"The high velocity German guns that could easily penetrate the Sherman's armor, coupled with vulnerable ammunition storage, gave the Sherman the nickname "Ronson," taken from the Ronson cigarette lighter. This was based on the Ronson Company's famous slogan, "lights first time, every time."

It was the Americans that put this nickname to the Sherman, not the Germans. If someone refers to the Tiger, it was always the Tiger.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Historical revisionism is a two sided weapon. Taken to the extreme can produce monsters and pathetic arguments as those we are facing in this thread.