Again, are you just trying to argue with me? What do you mean "The allies had air superiority on the Eastern front in 43?" The russians had plenty of warplanes! Much more than the Germans.lwd wrote: 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.Facts? Can you tell me how many planes/sortie those "poorly trained" pilots scored? Do you know that the air raids that hit Germany from 1942 to 1945 had up to 13% planes destroyed? Did you know that at the battle for the Ploiesti airfields, over 400 allied planes were destroyed in exchange for less than 100 German and Romanian ones?
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.Have you read Pierre Closterman's book "The great Circus"? It seems that you haven't, judging by the your ideas. The book is in fact the war journal of the best French ace of WW2 (33 kills). He fought all the war! He had hundreds of missions! And In it, you'll find tremendous respect for the German pilots, especialy for the aces.lwd wrote: 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.Seriously now, are you even trying to make some sense, or just want to make contradictory speech on the net? What do you mean "there's no reason to" ????? How about this reason: the first 100 aces of WW2 are GERMANS!lwd wrote: There's no reason to supsect that Germany produced inately better pilots than anyone esle.
[quote="lwd]
The allies had air superiority on the Eastern front in 43?
- significant amount of AA guns (especially on the Eastern front)
[quote="lwd]
More than the allies faced? Certainly not in the west where most of their flying was over friendly territory.
[/quote]
Realy? How about the Battle for Britain? Offensives on France, Greece, Crete, Malta, Egipt? And anyway, I stated "especially on the Eastern front".
You'll find plenty yourself. Just look for it, instead of contradicting me without backing up any of your claims.lwd wrote:- Allied fighters tendency to focus precisely on the "aces"
Documentation PLS
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.[/quote]lwd wrote: 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.
So you are questioning the relevance of an indicator THAT YOU HAVE PROPOSED TO USE? Yes, there are discrepancies, but the fact remains that each one of those destroyed up to 5 planes/day (in aerial battle, not on the ground).