Jump to content

  • Log in with Twitter Log in with Windows Live Log In with Steam Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Photo
- - - - -

German And Allied Aces Ww2

GOTTHREAD

  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

#11 CORSNING

CORSNING

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,649 posts
  • Joined 4 Years, 4 Months and 5 Days
  • 186 topics
  • LocationClyde, Ohio, USA

Posted 10 August 2015 - 04:01 PM

Nice Greg. That took a little bit of work.

 

For the record here are some to add: http://acesofww2.com/soviet/



#12 Armand

Armand

    About the same age as another old Fokker: The F-27

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,665 posts
  • Joined 3 Years, 10 Months and 6 Days
  • 113 topics
  • LocationAbout 20 nm east of BLL

Posted 10 August 2015 - 06:06 PM

Pic. sizes:
I'm far from being expert on the subject, but my freeware 'Irfan View' picture viewer gives the possibility of deciding the size when saving an opened picture, wich can be used alone to reduce size by opening a picture and instantly save in lower resolution (for practical purpose, in a dedicated folder)!

#13 CORSNING

CORSNING

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,649 posts
  • Joined 4 Years, 4 Months and 5 Days
  • 186 topics
  • LocationClyde, Ohio, USA

Posted 10 August 2015 - 06:18 PM

Wow Armand, I could sure use your knowledge here. I am so busy with researching, I just don't take the time to learn how to post all the pictures and documents that I would like to. I'm an old fart and trying to fill as much information as I can into the AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE section of this site before I croak. :blink:


Edited by CORSNING, 10 August 2015 - 06:20 PM.


#14 Armand

Armand

    About the same age as another old Fokker: The F-27

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,665 posts
  • Joined 3 Years, 10 Months and 6 Days
  • 113 topics
  • LocationAbout 20 nm east of BLL

Posted 10 August 2015 - 06:55 PM

. . . . . . . Whilst I still haven't managed to post any picture but liked ones! ;-)
The trick with my picturewiewer might be at hand in many other picture viewers and my posting should be taken for inspiration to look closer after the detail on own viewer!

#15 GregP

GregP

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,295 posts
  • Joined 14 Years, 2 Months and 24 Days
  • 224 topics

Posted 10 August 2015 - 08:56 PM

Kozhedub is supposed to have downed three P-51 included in the total of 62 victories, all individual victories.  Altogether the Soviet Union had 12 pilots with 40 or more victories. Pokryshkin may, in fact, be ties with Koxhedub as his total is officially at 53 plus 6 shared for 59; but there is evidence of 59 individual victories plus 6 shared victories for a total of 62. Gulayev is generally acknowledged as second with a vcitory toal of 57 individual and 3 shared.

 

In the Soviet system, shared victories count as whole numbers. 53 + 6 = 59. In the US system, if two pilots share a victory, each gets on half.

 

So we will never have a unified system for comparing victories among aces since the Luftwaffe and several other Air Forces used a points system, the USA and the UK used actual count, splitting shared victories into a total of 1 credit, etc.

 

Hi Jeff,

 

Thanks.

 

It DID take a lot of work and it remains ongoing as I get time and the inclination. Mostly nobody else seems interested, so I pursue it on my own.



#16 curmudgeon

curmudgeon

    Regular Member

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,059 posts
  • Joined 14 Years, 10 Months and 7 Days
  • 29 topics

Posted 11 August 2015 - 07:13 AM

Problem with all these lists is lack of verification. In the RAF some squadrons and people were known for overclaiming ... in some situations (e.g. the 'rhubarbs' flown in 1941/2/3) diabolical overclaiming was the norm (contrasting claims(20 or more) to known Luftwaffe losses (perhaps 2)). Like with the RAF a lot of shot-up German aircraft made it home. This disparity was known from the time Enigma systems were broken and Luftwaffe returns were available, but it was held to be bad for morale to roll back 'tallies'. This contrasts to the punctilious tracking of U-boat sinkings, where claims were matched to U-boat numbers.

 

About the only reliable RAF numbers were the night fighters where a long radar-controlled stalk was followed by a bit of murder 1-1 combat, bang, or splash. Most dayfighter melees were too confused, and it being too dangerous to follow up on the outcome of a squirt with bits coming off ... unless you were suicidal.



#17 GregP

GregP

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,295 posts
  • Joined 14 Years, 2 Months and 24 Days
  • 224 topics

Posted 11 August 2015 - 09:33 AM

I realize that, Curmudgeon. The list I collected is the "official" list of the country on the tab. It's all we have. Use it or have nothing to talk about based on anything that anyone else recognizes.

 

I have a question for you or anyone else out there interested in aerial victories. That is, you say the pilots overclaimed and you look at the official losses to verify that. Is it possible the unit commanders fudged the loss lists so Hitler would think things were going better than they were? A better way to say it is why do you believe the loss lists and not any other lists? At this late date, we don't know, do we?

 

Has anyone out there added up the German production figures and the German planes left at the end of the war and verified the loss/scrap lists are correct? If not, I submit that making Hitler happy with good loss lists might have had a higher priority than accurate reporting.

 

I don't tend to believe "inventories," and I have good reason for that.

 

I used to work for a big defense contractor in Phoenix, Arizona and we made the proximity Fuze for the Navy Standard Missile. Many times if it malfunctioned, the Navy would fix it themselves. Sometimes it was a "depot repair" situation that got sent back to the manufacturer ... us. Cut to 1986 - 1988. We got regular lists of units that were expended in test, destroyed, still in inventory or on ships, or had been sold through foreign military sales to other nations that were allies about every six months or so ... at LEAST every year.

 

I was doing some database programming at the time and was keeping track of the US Navy inventory for the company's depot repair station on a mini-mainframe computer.

 

One day, one of the Naval Weapons Stations got a new commander who wanted to "clean up the place." He had people cutting grass and looking at fences, water towers, etc. with an eye toward "beautification." Nothing wrong with making things look better. He found a rail spur with about 4 boxcars on it that were rusted and had grass growing all around them. It was sitting just outside the NWS fence, but was on NWS property. He had his people go cut the locks off the boxcars and look inside.

 

They found 24 packaged proximity fuzes and warheads for the Navy Standard Missile that had been overhauled and were thought to have been shipped ... and reveived by active units. Looking back at the monthly reports, the serial numbers of the six units in each boxcar were listed as having been "expended in test" shortly atfer each inventory of that particular year was conducted.

 

So, we had perfectly matching reports that listed the units as accounted for, but in fact, they were lost on a rail spur and nobody could find them, so they accounted for them anyway to stay out of trouble ... and we were NOT at war, at least not at sea.

 

I submit that the WWII loss reports are subject to the same sorts of errors. When a unit had  "bad day," I'm pretty sure some unit commanders found a way to get some planes and sweep it under the rug. The South Vietnamese Air Force did that, too, with Skyraiders, in a somehwat later war than WWII when I was there in the early seventies. No reason to think the Germans wouldn't do it, too.

 

So, I use the "official" victory lists from whatever nation has one ... because there is no other list that has any better chance of being accurate.



#18 curmudgeon

curmudgeon

    Regular Member

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,059 posts
  • Joined 14 Years, 10 Months and 7 Days
  • 29 topics

Posted 11 August 2015 - 10:08 AM

I'm pretty sure someone looked into the Luftwaffe lists and found them very reliable to January 1945.

 

Germans liked accounting for things and replacements etc depended on notified losses to maintain unit strength. If on inspection you were down a few machines or had extra machines and pilots questions would be asked. Pilots written off wouldn't be paid, and next of kin might get a bit uppity.



#19 GregP

GregP

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,295 posts
  • Joined 14 Years, 2 Months and 24 Days
  • 224 topics

Posted 11 August 2015 - 07:53 PM

If you say so. I have as much faith in inventories as I have in claims, but to a lesser degree. Claims have often been said to be double or rtiple. I think loss/scrap lists are about 85 - 90% accurate and probably won;t be much persuaded otherwise.

 

You do realize that six He 219s were assembled from spares and their existence was witheld from the RLM? And that was a GAIN, not a loss. You won't convince me the loss lists were more accurate than 990% and I lean toward 80 - 85% after Jan  1944.

 

But that doesn't mean we disagree on everything. It means I don't belive the loss lists are 100% accurate and so would not take them against claims as verification. How do you know you got the real loss lists and not the ones intended for public dissemination to convince the people the war was going well?

 

As for vetting the losses, a study like that would take time and funding. Germany had the time. They didn't have the funding and were anxious to move past the Hitler era when the war ended. I seriously doubt the Luftwaffe ever funded a study of wartime losses. If the UK did, I've never been able to locate it. We all know how much information flowed out of the Soviet Union and the Japanese insist they never kept victory totals for their units. The victory lists we get from them are from private journals.

 

The USA is the only country I know of that funded WWII victory and statistics studies and has publised them ... and even THEY aren't easy to get into computer-readable form.



#20 CORSNING

CORSNING

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,649 posts
  • Joined 4 Years, 4 Months and 5 Days
  • 186 topics
  • LocationClyde, Ohio, USA

Posted 11 August 2015 - 10:03 PM

Kozhedub is supposed to have downed three P-51 included in the total of 62 victories, all individual victories.  Altogether the Soviet Union had 12 pilots with 40 or more victories. Pokryshkin may, in fact, be ties with Koxhedub as his total is officially at 53 plus 6 shared for 59; but there is evidence of 59 individual victories plus 6 shared victories for a total of 62. Gulayev is generally acknowledged as second with a vcitory toal of 57 individual and 3 shared.

 

In the Soviet system, shared victories count as whole numbers. 53 + 6 = 59. In the US system, if two pilots share a victory, each gets on half.

 

So we will never have a unified system for comparing victories among aces since the Luftwaffe and several other Air Forces used a points system, the USA and the UK used actual count, splitting shared victories into a total of 1 credit, etc.

 

Hi Jeff,

 

Thanks.

 

It DID take a lot of work and it remains ongoing as I get time and the inclination. Mostly nobody else seems interested, so I pursue it on my own.

Go for it Greg. If you have a passion to know the answers, that means that others do to. That was my driving force to put together

the performance section of this site. It was a love/drive that needed to be answered in my mind.

Sincerely, Jeff







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: GOTTHREAD

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users