Different Allied 'Ace' policy.

[Riain]

WI the US and UK kept their aces in the front line and in busy theatres like the Germans did, instead of sending them on war bond drives and to training units? BoB aces could be sent to Malta and Africa to populate the units there, each fighter sqn could have a core of proven aces. If given this sort of opportunity could Allied aces get the huge scores that the Germans achieved?

 

[larpsidekick]

I'd reckon you'd see a couple with high scores - probably nothing like those of the Luftwaffe due to a lack of targets, but higher than IOTL - however, this would be offset by less victories - and possibly a higher rate of loss - from the other pilots, who do not benefit from the experience and skills of the aces as they are training - in a busy fighter squadron, it's a lot harder to pass on hard won lessons, especially if you don't want to get too close to someone who may be dead by the end of the day.

Also, the sending of these men on war bond drives and to training squadrons was not just to use them to support the war, but to give them a rest from the high intensity, high stress aerial combat - many may have broken mentally if forced to remain on the line because they were successful

 

[HueyLong]

If they did this, there would be more failures.

Japan kept their aces in the sky- and they lost all the skill in their Air Force by war's end.

 

[Calgacus]

I'd reckon you'd see a couple with high scores - probably nothing like those of the Luftwaffe due to a lack of targets, but higher than IOTL - however, this would be offset by less victories - and possibly a higher rate of loss - from the other pilots, who do not benefit from the experience and skills of the aces as they are training - in a busy fighter squadron, it's a lot harder to pass on hard won lessons, especially if you don't want to get too close to someone who may be dead by the end of the day.

Also, the sending of these men on war bond drives and to training squadrons was not just to use them to support the war, but to give them a rest from the high intensity, high stress aerial combat - many may have broken mentally if forced to remain on the line because they were successful

Exactly. Many of the best pilots died as a result of the strain they were under. It's not a matter of skills so much as mental strength. Also the reason why the average pilot was very young, and even by their mid-twenties were probably a bit old to be flying fighters.

 

[CalBear]

The U.S. (not sure about the RAF) brought ALL of its experienced pilots home after they completed a tour (25, later 50, missions) and used them as training cadre. This allowed the experiences of combat to be taught to the next generation of combat pilot.

None of the RAF or U.S. pilots were ever going to get close to the German aces. They, especially the Americans, only had one chance to get shot down and it was "for you, the war IS over!" (there was at least one case, probably many more, of a German pilot getting shot down in the morning, catching a ride back to base, and taking a different fighter up that same afternoon) and limited chances for combat. German pilots often flew more than one combat mission a day, while allied pilots might fly 10-15 missions a month once the BoB was over.

The allied pilots also were fighting against other fighters, not against bombers. It took tons of guts to attack the bomber boxes, but the bombers, before they had escorts, were a far easier kill than a single engine fighter, especially once the American/RAF pilots got a bit of experience.

Lastly, the German pilots (and to an extent, the Japanese) got lots of kills against obsolete or obsolecent designs, especially on the Eastern Front or in China, early in the war. The American & British pilots had far fewer opprotunities to fatten up on biplanes and outdated transports flown by ill trained pilots (although the USN & USAAF pilots had more of a chance of this against the Japanese as the war entered 1944).

It is noteworthy that the top three American scores were rung up against the Japanese, where American pilots had the chance to go into combat against bombers and obsolecent fighters as the war ran on. Even in the Pacific the American pilots still lacked many of the "advantages" of their German counterparts since they had far fewer chances to engage in combat (Carrier strikes were far from an everyday event) and getting shot down was, as often as not, a one way trip to a watery grave, with POW status being the next most likely.

Given all the differences between the Allied and Axis pilots opprotunities it is almost beyond imagination that ANY allied pilot would get to Hartmann's 352 victories (1400+ missions, 345 victories on the Eastern Front, shot or forced down at least a dozen times) or even Galland's 103 victories (Galland was shot down at least THREE times).

 

[Riain]

I'm reading a book on Malta at the moment, which has prompted this question. I was thinking that post BoB the RAF could send aces and Spitfires to Africa and Malta as a sort of 'fire brigade' to take on long odds and rack up lots of kills. Sending aces could make the most of the few fighters available outside Britain. I'm aware they would have to be looked after, but how much can you teach an innate skill like deflection shoting?
I don't know how the US could go about it, they didn't really get presented with scenarios like the Brits; BoB, Malta, Greece, Africa.

 

[backstab]

Given all the differences between the Allied and Axis pilots opprotunities it is almost beyond imagination that ANY allied pilot would get to Hartmann's 352 victories (1400+ missions, 345 victories on the Eastern Front, shot or forced down at least a dozen times) or even Galland's 103 victories (Galland was shot down at least THREE times).

I think you are dreaming with the above comment. If you think that the German high kill score was due to the obsolete planes they fought against .... look at the Russian Aces, they have quite a few who out scored US pilots.
US pilots relied on wolfpack tactics (Several fighters jumping one or two). Thier answer to war is much in line with the Russians..... Throw equipment at them until they are overwelmed

 

[Shimbo]

The U.S. (not sure about the RAF) brought ALL of its experienced pilots home after they completed a tour (25, later 50, missions) and used them as training cadre. This allowed the experiences of combat to be taught to the next generation of combat pilot.

This is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Gibson:

After the dambusters raid, Guy Gibson was sent on a lecture tour of the United States by the government, partly to keep the new hero safe. The tour was "at a time when the first American airmen were coming home 'tour expired' after 25 operations. During questions one young lady asked `Wing Commander Gibson, how many operations have you been on over Germany?' 'One hundred and seventy-four.' There was a stunned silence."

 

[CalBear]

I think you are dreaming with the above comment. If you think that the German high kill score was due to the obsolete planes they fought against .... look at the Russian Aces, they have quite a few who out scored US pilots.
US pilots relied on wolfpack tactics (Several fighters jumping one or two). Thier answer to war is much in line with the Russians..... Throw equipment at them until they are overwelmed

It is true that several Soviet aces outscored both British and American top aces. The Soviet pilots also flew many of their missions against bombers, IL-2’s and transports. The top Soviet ace, Ivan Kozhedud, also flew 330 missions in just over two years, far in excess of his Western counterparts while achieving his 62 kills. This illustrates the advantage of flying missions against non-fighter targets (not taking anything away from Kozhedud, he is among the elite group to obtain a victory in a prop plane against a jet, having a victory against a ME-262).

It is also very true that the early war years Soviet equipment was absolute garbage (Kozhedud didn’t enter combat until March 1943). The top two non-Axis aces of the war are both Finns, Ilmari Juutilainen (94) & Hans Wind (75). Both men had great success while flying Fokker D XXIs and Brewster Buffaloes (yep, the “Consider the pilot lost before he leaves the ground” Buffalo of Midway infamy) achieving 40 & 39 victories respectively in the types. After moving to Bf-109’s Juttilainen racked up an additional 54 victories.

It was against the Soviets that the top German aces racked up many of their victories Gerhard Barkhorn (301, the second highest scoring German ace) had 87 victories over the LAGG fighters (the varnished coffin), 21 over IL-2 attack bombers, & 12 against twin engine bombers. A further 110 victories were over Yak-1 &Yak-3/5 & Yak-7 fighters, none of which are equal to either the Spitfire or any of the most common American designs He was also shot down at least nine times in his 1104 missions.

It is clear that two factors have enormous impact on victories, missions flown (both because of the experience each mission provides AND the additional opportunities for victories). Hartmann averaged a kill every 4 missions and Barkhorn every 3.6 missions, as a comparative, Robert Johnson, the second highest scoring American ace in the ETO averaged a victory in slightly more than every other mission. The second factor is realitive quality of equipment. German pilots had a huge advantage in this area on the Eastern Front, where the most impressive victory total were achieved.

None of this denigrates the skill or courage of the Luftwaffe pilots, they had both in abundance. It does, however, make it fairly clear that there was no chance for American or British pilots, post BoB to rack up victory totals anywhere near the Luftwaffe (or Finnish, Japanese, or even Soviet) pilots. The mission totals achieved by the pilots of these nations were unapproachable by Allied pilots (thankfully, since very high mission number indicate desperate conditions)

 

[Riain]

I don't care if they shoot down fighters, its war not a jousting tournament. The Brits especially were often in very bad positions at home, Greece, Malta and Africa and it's in Greece where Pattle got most of his 44-51 victories. I was thinking that should RAF policy toward desperate situations be different they could have situations where pilots do rack up kill numbers well above 50.

 

[Riain]

I don't care if they shoot down fighters, its war not a jousting tournament. The Brits especially were often in very bad positions at home, Greece, Malta, Africa and Malaya. It's in Greece where Pattle got most of his 44-51 victories. I was thinking that should RAF policy toward desperate situations be different they could have situations where pilots do rack up kill numbers well above 50.

 

[Peter Cowan]

With due respect to pilots on all sides, kill figures are unreliable - I'm dubious about RAF figures - the 185 kills on Sept 15th may be as few as 55, and am certainly doubtful about German and Soviet figures.
Any fighter pilot tracking a kill cannot be be keeping track of the battle and is, therefore, a prime target.

What is clear, though, is that most kills went to experienced pilots in much the same way that the most killed were the junior new to squadron pilot officers.

 

[CalBear]

I don't care if they shoot down fighters, its war not a jousting tournament. The Brits especially were often in very bad positions at home, Greece, Malta, Africa and Malaya. It's in Greece where Pattle got most of his 44-51 victories. I was thinking that should RAF policy toward desperate situations be different they could have situations where pilots do rack up kill numbers well above 50.

Again, without belaboring the details, the biggest problem with the RAF making the huge numbers similar to the German, Finns, or Japanese, it still the lack of missions to fly (Malaya & Greece were short term events, especially compared to the Finnish experience or the Eastern Front for the Luftwaffe), the chances of being shot down over enemy territory and parachuting well behind enemy lines leading to capture (look at the number of times the aces with big numbers got knocked down, it's astounding), and the near parity, if not slight superiority of the enemy's aircraft. Greece & Africa, where the RAF faced at least some obsolete enemy machines (chiefly Italian) offered a small chance to fatten up scores against lesser opposition, but even there the most likely opponent was a Bf-109.

There is also the matter of how the RAF credited kills, often giving part credit (1/2, 1/3) to multiple pilots, rather than assigning credit to a single man. This had a significant effect on scoring, as did the American practice of requiring conclusive gun camera evidence (or sworn statements from other pilots) before providing credit for a victory. As was mentioned, a pilot who spent too much effort to get a kill verified in these conditions often BECAME a kill for the other side. Robert Johnson, in his autobiography, mentions several seeming certain kills that were only credited as probable or damaged because of the strict standards in place.

The RAF and, especially, the USN & USAAF also managed to produce huge numbers of pilots who became aces, generally with between 5 & 10 victories. The number of Allied pilots in the "Ace" & "Double Ace" ranks is truly stunning, reflecting the wisdom of using the previous generation as training cadre, and the Allied practice of, for lack of a better term, democratic method of assigning missions (i.e. you didn't get extra missions just because you were the top scoring pilot in a Wing).

 

[Riain]

To look at this problem from a different angle, as soon as the Luftwaffe appeared in the Med their Bf109Fs outclassed the Hurricanes and as such were able to gain air superiority with small numbers of fighters. So what if the RAF used a similar 'tactic' forming elite sqns of the latest Spitfires and each sqn having a few high scoring aces? With 3 such sqns formed one each could be sent to Greece, Malta and Egypt to achieve results beyond their meagre numbers by means of excellence. This would allow these aces to rack up high kill numbers and provide air superiority by dint of their excellence.

 

[aktarian]

Japan kept their aces in the sky- and they lost all the skill in their Air Force by war's end.

They (and Germans) had no option. Not enough pilots to withdraw good ones to train others. so they went up again and again. Sooner or later their luck was bound to run out.