Best fighter pilot of the War?
Just to toss in my two cents ...
A measure that would tend level the playing field would be kills credited per combat action sortie. Using the combat action sortie, i.e. a flight where there was contact with the enemy as opposed to a flight spent boring holes in the sky, measure eliminates having to deal with periods of time. It also provides a statistical measure of effectiveness. Seems to me that effectiveness is a better measure than "greatness".
Rich
A measure that would tend level the playing field would be kills credited per combat action sortie. Using the combat action sortie, i.e. a flight where there was contact with the enemy as opposed to a flight spent boring holes in the sky, measure eliminates having to deal with periods of time. It also provides a statistical measure of effectiveness. Seems to me that effectiveness is a better measure than "greatness".
Rich
Re: the best fighter pilot.
Bombers are ground attack aircraft. Fighters are air to air combat.tscrawford wrote:Not necessarily. It would probably be to destroy ANY enemy aircraft as the opportunity opened. Bombers would be an equally--and possibly more dangerous--opponent. Ground attack is another reason (fighter/bomber--Jabo??).Volklin wrote:The whole objective, the main reason why fighter planes exist are to destroy other fighter planes is it not? So that's what would signify a "best" fighter pilot.
Tom
Re: the best fighter pilot.
P-47/Fw-190, etc. both used in air-to-air or air-to-ground. P-47 was originally designed to be a high-altitude interceptor but largely became a fighter-bomber. Do we disagree on the definition of a "fighter/bomber"? And what about strafing by P-51's? That's ground attack.Volklin wrote:Bombers are ground attack aircraft. Fighters are air to air combat.tscrawford wrote:Not necessarily. It would probably be to destroy ANY enemy aircraft as the opportunity opened. Bombers would be an equally--and possibly more dangerous--opponent. Ground attack is another reason (fighter/bomber--Jabo??).Volklin wrote:The whole objective, the main reason why fighter planes exist are to destroy other fighter planes is it not? So that's what would signify a "best" fighter pilot.
Tom
I don't think that there was this clear a definition of roles as you have said.
Tom
Last edited by Grünherz on 08 Aug 2004, 03:35, edited 1 time in total.
best fighter pilot
Yes, a good point but I also wanted to emphasize that "fighter" pilots also attacked ground targets. In fact, Allied pilots (at least Americans) would get credit for "kills" against parked enemy aircraft in strafing runs. Perhaps this was due to the difficulty of attacking an enemy airfield against incredible flak* (and also reflecting the lack, later in the war, of enemy aerial opposition).Volklin wrote:Well title is best fighter pilot and not best fighter-bomber pilot, or best bomber pilot.
Tom
*kind of like attacking enemy observation balloons during WWI.
Ofcourse every opportunity was taken to attack the enemy, bombers, fighter-bombers, and fighters used means attacking enemies in the air and ground but their primary use came first obviously ie you wouldn't have a bomber engage a fighter and try to stay on its tail and mow it down, but the primary role of fighter planes as they were designed was for air to air combat. [/list]
Juke, in Finland planes didn't grow in trees and were more valuable than in Germany. Thus Katajainen is "out". Capt. Puhakka scored 11 kills between 10.6. - 4.9.1944. They are not equal: like I told Capt. Puhakka was considered the best Finnish fighter pilots by other Finnish fighter pilots. That is enough for me.Topspeed wrote:Hartmann crashed 14 times and many consider him an ok pilot.Harri wrote:Katajainen crashed too many planes to get that title. That does not mean he wouldn't have been good pilot. In addition he was also a bomber pilot for a while after crashing too many times...
Where is the kill chart from Puhakka from June-July 1944.
Puhakka flew for Finnair and Katajainen flew bombers..I think they equal.
No "Best"
I submit that there is no "best" pilot any more than there is a "best" military leader. For starters, everything is cyclical, and those who are flawless one day are flawed the next. And so many things (many of which are seemingly trivial) occur in such a short span of time during an air combat, that comparing pilots is like comparing apples and cd disks. Perhaps it might be a little more accurate somewhat to state that there are pilots of the first rank, then those of the second, and so on. And I think that most folks would agree that there would be quite a few in the first rank.
-S- all,
Centurion
-S- all,
Centurion
Re: No "Best"
I disagree...there were better and best pilots...there were pilots unable to take of with a fighter like Me 109.Centurion wrote:I submit that there is no "best" pilot any more than there is a "best" military leader. For starters, everything is cyclical, and those who are flawless one day are flawed the next.
What I just heard in a swimming hall was that finnish squadrons flew with perfect order like clockwork when pounding soviet troops in summer of 1944. A lot of sorties with a few planes and did an excellent job saving a country ( like BoB ).
Best fighter pilots in scorewise were Illu Juutilainen and Hans Wind in Finland.
rgrds,
Juke
Re: No "Best"
Centurion wrote:I submit that there is no "best" pilot any more than there is a "best" military leader. For starters, everything is cyclical, and those who are flawless one day are flawed the next. And so many things (many of which are seemingly trivial) occur in such a short span of time during an air combat, that comparing pilots is like comparing apples and cd disks. Perhaps it might be a little more accurate somewhat to state that there are pilots of the first rank, then those of the second, and so on. And I think that most folks would agree that there would be quite a few in the first rank.
-S- all,
Centurion
"Unknown" pilots
Hail Topspeed,
You earlier mentioned Finish pilots. Funny thing when you think about it; alot of pilots from countries other than major powers did their duty, and many of them became aces. How many of them died doing that? Too many no doubt, and yet it always seems to be pilots from the major combatants that get alot of the 'star' recognition (nothing against those men though).
Regards and -S-
Centurion
You earlier mentioned Finish pilots. Funny thing when you think about it; alot of pilots from countries other than major powers did their duty, and many of them became aces. How many of them died doing that? Too many no doubt, and yet it always seems to be pilots from the major combatants that get alot of the 'star' recognition (nothing against those men though).
Regards and -S-
Centurion
This question--which is of course unanswerable--arises all the time on aviation forums, especially in WW I. Inevitably, the instigator omits any criteria and it's up to the posters to sort things out.
I've known a few hundred aces from half a dozen countries, and will just say this: "the score" is relatively meaningless because it reflects opportunity as much as anything. The pilot who shoots down the only two bandits he ever sees is likely as good as the triple ace who misses half the planes he shoots at.
My highest regard goes to those (like Rich's dad) who fought superior numbers of better aircraft and not only survived, but excelled.
BTW: the "batting average" method cited by Rich is as good as any and better than most. Of course, there are a few pilots who had one really good day and "made ace" in their only combat. Yeager, for instance, was as good a stick as anybody in any air force, and his average of 2.2 kills (per mission resulting in claims) is meager by statistical comparison but quite good overall.
Some others:
Bong 1.42
McGuire 1.80
McCampbell 2.26
Gabreski (WWII) 1.47
Preddy 1.48
Foss 2.36
I've known a few hundred aces from half a dozen countries, and will just say this: "the score" is relatively meaningless because it reflects opportunity as much as anything. The pilot who shoots down the only two bandits he ever sees is likely as good as the triple ace who misses half the planes he shoots at.
My highest regard goes to those (like Rich's dad) who fought superior numbers of better aircraft and not only survived, but excelled.
BTW: the "batting average" method cited by Rich is as good as any and better than most. Of course, there are a few pilots who had one really good day and "made ace" in their only combat. Yeager, for instance, was as good a stick as anybody in any air force, and his average of 2.2 kills (per mission resulting in claims) is meager by statistical comparison but quite good overall.
Some others:
Bong 1.42
McGuire 1.80
McCampbell 2.26
Gabreski (WWII) 1.47
Preddy 1.48
Foss 2.36