Talk:Flying ace
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. | ||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
[edit] Edward Mannock
I believe there is some controversy about the number of victories achieved by Edward Mannock. Except for articles specifically about Mannock I have only ever seen Billy Bishop identified as the top British Empire ace. (Note that I was raised in Canada so this may have skewed things.) theaerodrome.com credits him with 61 victories while the citation for his VC (which was awarded posthumously) credits him with 50.
I am unsure what to do here. I am leaning towards changing his total in the chart to 50. Any objections/thoughts? Cjrother 09:14, 22 Dec 2004
- I have made this change as no one has objected. Cjrother 23:42, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
-
- All my sources say it is either 61 or 73 for Mannock so if 73 is discredited, it probably should be 61. Geoff/Gsl 04:16, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- I don't have a problem with 61. I'm curious if you (or anyone else) has heard Mannock reffered to as the leading Empire ace and if, as I mention above, Bishop being the leader is just a Canadian thing. Cjrother 23:03, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I'm Australian so I've never really had an emotional investment in Bishop or Mannock. For some reason I've always thought Bishop was the top ace but when I went through my books, I found three giving Mannock 73 victories and one hedging bets with 61-73. That said, the books were all popular histories (and a flight-sim manual) that I wouldn't trust implicitly. It appears Above the Trenches is the book to read to get the true story but I've never read it. Geoff/Gsl 11:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I'm a Yank, but a great supporter of Billy Bishop as well. All of my research agrees with The Aerodrome in that Mick Mannock had 61 victories. His score was artificially increased postwar, to 73, by his squadron mate and friend, Ira "Taffy" Jones (37 victories). He and Bishop did not get along for some reason (no one has ever been able to find out why.). And by increasing his dead friends score to 73, it was his way of snubbing Billy Bishop. Since in the post war period, many people didn't bother with official records that much, what Jones said was taken at face value for a long time. Although there were numerous questions that popped up from time to time, it wasn't really until "Above the Trenchs" came out that most WWI aero historians took a real close look at the scoring controversy.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Of course, there's a whole other controversy around Billy Bishop, but I will leave that for another time.Al Lowe 01:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Mannock's discrepancies are probably due to his 'giving away' some of his victories to other pilots. Mannock shot them down but gave the credit to newer (inexperienced) pilots who were flying with him.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Actually, according to the (various) system(s) in use by the RFC/RAF during WWI, there was no need for Mannock to "give away" any victory claim. All he had to do was share it. ALL parties involved in a victory claim got a FULL credit, once it was confirmed. Mind you, the confirmation process was somewhat in question also.Al Lowe 20:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Incidently, if anyone wants a good book to read about First World War flying then I can recommend Sagittarius Rising [1] by Cecil Lewis. Ian Dunster 11:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Mick was credited w 73 for years. Recall, tho, Br kept no official record. More recent analysis has downgraded many scores (see "The Fighter Ace" {Flight, Fall 1996}), including WAB's (N least his heavily-disputed mission for which he was awarded VC, now believed to be pure fic; & I'm Canadian...). Pattle's is in Q, too. Trekphiler 04:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Well, I'm not Canadian, and I, as well as a number of people do not think that WAB's VC raid was fiction. There's quite a bit of anecdotal evidence (which is about the only evidence remaining) that points to his actually going on that mission. As to whether or not he actually had 72 victories, that is another question. And since fighter pilots are agressive by nature, and aerial combat being what is and was, overclaiming is something that most fighter pilots can be "accused" of.Al Lowe 20:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
[edit] Repeat links
What do people think of all the repeat links, eg the fact that every mention of Germany is a link? In earlier versions of the page only the first mention of a country or unit in a given table would be linked. Is it better the way it is now or should we change it back? Cjrother 4 July 2005 18:14 (UTC)
- With regard to the links, I'd only go for making the first instance of any linkable item, a link, unless there's more than one. Say an external link as well as an internal one. Unless there's a way to do both links on one item. I'm sort of new so I don't know all the tricks yet. Al Lowe 01:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Corrections
I added Indra Lal Roy, RFC/RAF 10 victories, India's only ace, (so far as I know)[2]. I also corrected William Lambert's score from 21.5 to 18 [3]. And I corrected Raoul Lufberry's score from 17 to 16 [4].Al Lowe
==contradiction==ONE PILOT HAD PREVIOUS KILL'S FROM AN EARLIER WAR. ONLY TWO GOT ALL FIVE IN VIETNAM.
The Vietnam table lists three US pilots with 5 or more kills, and then the note says that there were only two. I have no idea which is right, so maybe someone could check? DJ Clayworth 14:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- Another contradiction is that the heading chapter says the ace was defined to be 10 or more kills... so far I think it has been 5 or more kills. Now WWII vs. others are not using the same ace definition. I can add lots of more Finnish Aces to WW II if the definition is 5 or more... --Pile 21:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- And there ought to be dozens more Germans; the cutoff here seems to be 100 for them... Also, there are quite a few WW1 & WW2 Allied aces w 5 or more N listed. See Denis Winter, First of the Few. I'd also wonder where Boyd & Welch, 2 early AAF aces of WW2, went... Trekphiler 03:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Re the Vietnam table: some mention ought to be made of the backseater who shared in 6 kills, the only pitter to do it. (Driscoll, I think...) Trekphiler 04:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
The F-4 backseater (Wizzo) with 6 kills was USAF CPT Charles B. DeBellevue. Driscoll got all his credits with Cunningham. DeBellevue flew with Ritchie (4) and Madden (2) to get his. Buckboard 10:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you, sah. (Boy, I'm really on top of my watchlist, huh? ;)) Trekphiler 19:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Pattle
Now, I'd be the first to say that I know nothing about the subject, but the 51+ for Pattle seems a bit too definite as compared to this, which seems like a good source. Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- It's too hi. Commonly 41 (but recall, Br kept no official record), more recent analysis has downgraded many scores. See "The Fighter Ace" (Flight, Fall 1996). Trekphiler 03:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Luftwaffe tallies
I'm not sure if this can be done without original research, but a number of historians claimed that German WW2 aces wildly inflated their scores with many "word of mouth" and "probable kill" victories. In contrast, Soviet kills had to be confirmed by observers in the air and on the ground which means aircraft shot down over enemy territory (and thus unreachable by infantry) usually did not count. Unfortunately, I cannot provide a single definitive reference for this, but I have read (and can provide links (in Russian)) to a number of interviews with Soviet pilots discussing this matter. - Emt147 Burninate! 07:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- Not true. Germans were quite accurate about the numbers of kills, but it is worth noticing that their tactics lead often to that, that leading aces got the kills and their wingmen were often shot down. However, Hartman didn't lost a single wingman. Latre
-
- Regardless, my point was that Allied and especially Soviet victories are underestimated because of what it took to confirm a kill. I'll be happy to point you to a number of interviews (in Russian) with WWII Soviet fighter pilots who discuss the matter in detail. - Emt147 Burninate! 22:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- German confirmation practices were actually quite strict and for the most part, their claims were much more accurate than those of British or especially Soviet and Japanese who were notorious for their overclaiming. However, difference between theory and practice is considerable; in general, accuracy of German claims went downwards as war progressed and their fortunes dwindled. 3 to 1 overclaiming was commonplace. --Mikoyan21 16:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- For several reasons there was a culture of enthusiastic and at times optimistic victory claims in the Luftwaffe - promotion and decorations awarded to fighter pilots was closely linked to number of kills - and in spite of theoretically very strict confirmation procedures certain individuals in particular were awarded totals that bear almost no relationship at all to losses on the other side. This was as true (say) during the Battle of Britain as later. It must not be forgotten that the Nazi regime itself was in many ways quite insane - being (among much other counter-productive nonsense) far more concerned with the propaganda value of high scores than the intelligence value of accurate ones. Adolf Galland's book The first and the last is very illustrative of this kind of thing. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 14:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Soviet female aces
Do you think it would be appropriate to insert a blurb on Soviet Union's (the world's, actually) three female aces (11, 12, and 17 kills in WW2). - Emt147 Burninate! 07:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- Absolutely. See Night Witches & Red Phoenix. I recall there were more than three, too. Trekphiler 03:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- 587 BAP and 588 NBAP are a whole different story well worth telling. In the context of the Aces page, I could only find three pilots with such a distinction. - Emt147 Burninate! 04:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Agreed. Litvak is mentioned extensively in Night Witches, tho. On her, in the list, wasn't she FA, not VVS? Or am I nitpicking? Trekphiler 20:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- FA as in forward observer? No, she was a fighter pilot. I'm actually not sure why she's mentioned in Night Witches at all. She flew Yak-1's with 586 IAP. Night Witches were 588 NBAP flying Po-2's. - Emt147 Burninate! 20:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- FA as in Frontal Aviation (in Rus...). I don't have it in front of me, so I can't say why, but she's mentioned prominently (along with 1 other Yak flyer, a blonde who marries a fighter jock). It's main emph was the attack pilots, true, but it seems to've tried to cover F flyers generally. Trekphiler 04:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
Never mind on Yamschikova BTW, I misread the source. She scored 3 victories, her biggest claim to fame was a test pilot after the war, very likely the first woman in the world to fly a jet, etc. - Emt147 Burninate! 04:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Error?
Wasn't Nishizawa IJAAF? And didn't Buerling only get 31 1/3? Also, can we credit Chinese pilots in the 1931-45 period? And include a WW2 note box that would ref WW1 (Osterkamp's 32) or AVG (Boyington's 2) scores? Trekphiler 03:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- Nope, Nishizawa was an IJN pilot, beginning the war in Tainan Ku with Saburo Sakai as his superior officer. He only got killed in IJAAF "Donryu" bomber as a mere passenger, at the beginning of the campaign for retaking the Phillipines,
Veljko Stevanovich 25. December 2005. (UTC+1)
[edit] Major Edit
This was the original:
I added or edited on the basis of an article drawing from several sources (the title of which I now can't find...), I've made substantial additions. The article sourced from Edward H. Sims' American Aces (Ballantine, 1958), William N. Hess' The American Aces (ARCO, 1968), Constable & Toliver's Fighter Aces (Macmillan, 1965), Gene Gurney's Five Down and Glory (Ballantine, 1958), USN press release 1971, Frank Olynyk's "USN Credits for the Destruction of Enemy Aircraft in Air-to-Air Combat, WW2" (1982) in Naval Aviation News 1986, Frank Olynyk's "USMC Credits for the Destruction of Enemy Aircraft in Air-to-Air Combat, WW2" (1982) in Naval Aviation News 1986. This piece is (as I recall) is based on extensive study of the records & latest research. I'm hoping somebody else has heard of it & can ID it... Trekphiler 13:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- I don't know who did it, I assume it was the major edit. RS Johnson's score, thought for quite some time to be 28 is really 27. HE even said his score was 27, and the USAF Historical Research Agency says it's 27. Apparently what happened was some of his claims got mixed up with Gerald Johnson, adding one to many to RS Johnson's score, and taking one away from Gerald Johnson. USAF study 85 found that RS Johnson had been given credit for a double kill on a day when he wasn't even flying. Also in the mixup, one of his single kills had been attributed to the other Johnson in the 56th, and that is what lead to his being given credit for 28 instead of 27 victories. If you check out the USAFHRA list of victory credits for RS Johnson, you'll find the total is 27.
Also, someone put a note in that of Joe Foss's 26 victories, 6 were garnered while with the AVG. Foss never flew with the AVG.Al Lowe 08:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Boyington flew with the AVG, not Foss. Buckboard 10:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Speaking of Boyington, there is no basis to his claim of 6 vics with the AVG. Even his "official" score includes aircraft destroyed on the ground. See his Wiki bio. Shouldn't there at least be a note to that effect? --Cubdriver 10:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] KIA
Just came across a note laiming Lt Quana Fields, 17h PS, out of Batavia, 1942, was first American Indian KIA in USAAF. Trekphiler 04:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Notes
I moved the two WWII notes down to the Notes section. Oddly, the Wagner note (#3) shows up as #1. Could somone more adept look at this and maybe fix it? (They hyperlink just fine; it's only the number that's wrong.) At the same time, the adept fixer might move the Vietnam War notes--which are structured differently--down to this section. I fear it will blow up in my face if I attempt it. Thanks!
[edit] Forgotten Aces
There are hundreds of aces.Any pilot who scores 5 victories or more is deemed to be an Ace. For whats its worth in Major edits list,though he has only choosen to list a fraction of the aces of WW2. I would like to submit Major. George Earl Preddy Jr. USAAF. Highest ranked P-51 pilot of WW2 for aerial victories. 26.83...not including 5 ground victories if included.Plus ETO record of 6 victories in 5mins, 6th August 44'. Plus, Col.John C.Meyer same FG...with 24 aerial victories...not including 13 ground victories...Which if included ranks him unofficially as the USAAF's higest ranked Ace of the ETO. Here are a few others.US ETO Aces
Name Kills Medals Unit Plane
Francis "Gabby" Gabreski 28.0 DSC 56FG P-47 Robert S. Johnson 27.0 DSC 56FG P-47 George Preddy 26.8 DSC 352FG P-51 John C. Meyer 24.0 DSC 352FG P-51 Ray Wetmore 22.6 DSC 359FG P-51 David C. Schilling 22.5 DSC 56FG P-47 Dominic Gentile 21.8 DSC 4FG P-47 Fred J. Christensen 21.5 SS 56FG P-47 Walker M. 'Bud' Mahurin 20.8 DSC 56FG P-47 Glenn E. Duncan 19.5 DSC 353FG P-47 Duane W. Beeson 19.3 DSC 4FG P-47 Leonard 'Kit' Carson 18.5 SS 357FG P-51 Glenn T. Eagleston 18.5 DSC 354FG P-51 Walter C. Beckham 18.0 DSC 353FG P-47 John Godfrey 18.0 SS 4FG P-51 Col. Hubert 'Hub' Zemke 17.8 DSC 56FG P-47 Lt. Col. John B. England 17.5 SS 357FG P-51 John F. Thornell Jr. 17.2 DSC 352FG P-51 Henry W. Brown 17.2 DSC 355FG P-51 Robert W. Foy 17.0 SS 357FG P-51 Gerald W. Johnson 17.0 DSC 56FG P-47 Ralph 'Kid' Hofer 16.5 DFC 4FG P-51 Clarence 'Bud' Anderson 16.3 LM 357FG P-51 Donald M. Beerbower 15.5 DSC 354FG - Don Blakeslee 15.5 DSC 4FG P-51 Richard A. Peterson 15.5 SS 357FG P-51 William Whisner 15.5 DSC 352FG P-51 Jack T. Bradley 15.0 DSC 354FG - James A. Goodson 15.0 DSC 4FG P-47 Donald Bochkay 14.8 DFC 357FG P-51 Joe H. Powers Jr. 14.5 SS 56FG P-47 Bruce Carr 14.0 DSC 354FG - Kenneth H. Dahlberg 14.0 DSC 354FG - Wallace N. Emmer 14.0 DSC 354FG - Arthur F. Jeffrey 14.0 SS 479FG - Donald Strait 13.5 SS 356FG P-51 Donald S. Bryan 13.3 DSC 352FG P-51 George Carpenter 13.3 DFC 4FG P-47 Willard W. Millikan 13.0 DSC 4FG P-47 Glennon T. Moran 13.0 SS 352FG P-51 Robert W. Stephens 13.0 SS 354FG - Felix D. Williamson 13.0 DSC 56FG P-47 Lowell K. Brueland 12.5 DSC 354FG - Paul A. Conger 12.5 DSC 56FG P-47 James C. Stewart 12.5 DSC 56FG P-47 James Howard 12.3 MOH 354FG P-51 Quince L. Brown 12.3 - 78FG - Clyde B. East 12.0 - 10PRG P-51 George W. Gleason 12.0 - 479FG P-51 Howard Hively 12.0 - 4FG P-51 Pierce W. McKennon 12.0 - 4FG P-51 Robin Olds 12.0 SS 479FG P-51 Michael J. Quirk 12.0 - 56FG P-47 LeRoy A. Schreiber 12.0 - 56FG P-47 Nick Megura 11.8 - 4FG P-51 Chuck Yeager 11.5 DSC 357FG P-51 Louis Norley 11.3 - 4FG P-51
- This whole article needs a jolly good shake-up. Either it is simply to explain what an Air Ace is, & the different definitions, or, it also includes complete lists of all aces. The lists at present are woefully inadequate with huge numbers missing. Is somebody seriously saying there are virtually no German aces with between 5 & 100 kills? What about the Nomonhan Incident between Japan & the USSR in Mongolia in 1939, where there were numerous Japanese aces. Etc, etc.
I suggest that the lists be removed & only reinstated when someone or some group completes them. What say you? Graham Bould 14:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- I suspect that Nomonhan victories are included in WWII, at least for the Japanese. As for deleting the lists, please don't! Better to have a partial list than none. I earlier mentioned the possibility of breaking the article into several pieces, whether by war (as I suggested then) or by nationality. If the latter, then differing requirements would perhaps be easier for you to take. To be a five-vic ace in the Luftwaffe was presumably not a big deal, or not as big a deal as in U.S. service. This would also stop folks from comparing apples to oranges: there is a lot more bullfeathers in Japanese victories than in those of western air forces, for example, as a result of the very different attitude toward crediting victories. See http://www.warbirdforum.com/aces.htm --Cubdriver 21:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd suggest eliminating any ace with fewer than 10 victories. A bit hard on VN War aces, to be sure, but reflecting the historic change in the fighter pilot's role beginning about that time. --Cubdriver 17:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
As of 2006, nobody knows who all the aces are, or under which of many and varied scoring systems they may be recognized. Obviously it's impossible to list them all (there are about 1,400 Americans alone). One thing we need to do on this list is standardize the career totals of those who flew in two wars. I've noted the Korean War tallies of such WW II notables as Gabreski, Whisner, Eagleston, etc., but have not adjusted their totals as currently listed. B Tillman.
[edit] Listing aces by nationality & war
I think that instead of trying to make one comprehensive list of all nations' figter aces, we should just give separate lists for each nation for each war. Each nation had its own system of crediting victories and fought in its own unique circumstances; victories are not as comparable as one, unified list suggests. It takes some work, but the result would be far more meaningful and encyclopedic. What do you think? - Mikko H. 09:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- Do you mean separate articles for U.S. pilots for WWI, WWII, Korea, etc; or merely one article for U.S. pilots for all wars? My own opinion (expressed earlier) is that either do it by nationality or by war. Doing it by nationality has the great advantage of more or less consistency in attitude toward attributing victories. Doing it by war will interest those who like to compare say Japanese with say American aces, at the cost of implying an equivalence between their very different systems. (Of all nations, it seems to me that the Japanese scores are the least related to reality.) --Cubdriver 18:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- In my opinion a separate list for each nation for each war. For example, under World War II a separate listing for each nationality. Perhaps just top 10 pilots for each, and the whole list of that nation's aces in a separate article (like US aces of World War II etc)? Above each nation's list a short treatment of that nation's claim confirmation procedure and other factors that influence the amount of 'kills'. I agree with you that putting all the different nations' aces in one list gives the false impression that the claims are exactly comparable. - Mikko H. 15:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Israeli aces
Note that the bio for Giora Aven (Epstein) says he holds the record for jet air-air kills (17 or 18) but two other Israeli pilots (Shalmon and Marom) are listed with 19. On at least one IAF site all three are specifically credited with 18. It may be nearly impossible to resolve the situation, given the security that attends Israeli military subjects, but the contradiction should be addressed.
Ref. listing all aces by wars, I favor the previous suggestions of breaking them out by nationalities AND wars. Two reasons: first, it removes the "apples and oranges" problem of vastly differing victory credit system, and it's more "readable". The oft-made comparison between Rickenbacker's 26 victories in WW I and Foss' 26 in WW II offers a case in point: under the latter system, Rickenbacker would be a much lesser ace with 9 to 11 "kills" among 26 victories.
B Tillman April 2006
[edit] Eric Lock
This link shows that Eric Lock shot down 16 in the Battle of Britain. Should he be added to the WWII table, or is it considered complete?
Slumgum | yap | stalk | 22:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Lock was credited with a total of 26 victories and is eligible for inclusion, but there were a couple of dozen RAF pilots with 20+ scores, not to mention other nations' air arms. It's probably best to allow Wikipedia to determine the extent of such lists, which could grow to enormous proportions.
[edit] Should the kills be confirmed by both parties
What is the norm for a "confirmed kill"? Should it be confirmed only by the claimant Air Force or the opposing ones. for instance if USA and Canada went to war ;-) and a US pilot claims 10 confirmed ones while the Royal Canadian Air Force confirms only 8 have been down by the USAF, which should be taken into consideration for this purpose? --Idleguy 07:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Confirmation historically is based upon other witnesses confirming the action, that might be another pilot in the action or a ground observer. With modern reporting and openess a third party might be able to tally up the losses to one side against the claims of the other 9poraganda and fog of war notwithstanding) but the attribution of the kill to a given pilot would be an internal matter. GraemeLeggett 09:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- There are multiple problems with having both sides of a conflict confirm victory (AKA "Kill") claims. First, you're not likely to get REAL confirmation from the opposing side until the conflict is over. Next, if the losing side is seriously devastated, (such as Germany and Japan were at the end of WWII), paperwork is likely to be seriously lacking. Third, each country's military command would likely not stand for it. And finally, the propaganda machines in each country won't care. Like it or not, ace pilots are a propaganda tool. When one side or the other gets to brag about their top "anything," they're going to do it. While I'll grant it hasn't happened much lately, you have to realize, I don't think there's been an air combat ace since the Vietnam war. Also, even when records are available from the opposing sides, confirmed scores usually aren't changed, unless proof is found that confirms an UNconfirmed claim.Al Lowe 20:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- As a general rule - at least two victories are claimed for every one aircraft lost by the opposing side. This assumes no deliberate falsification of either losses or victories - it's just how it is. There are times when victories are claimed at a rate that has lost any kind of relationship with enemy losses altogether - they might well rise to ten or twenty times as many. In these cases there is evidently something fishy going on - although it may be as much enthusiasm and optimism as deliberate exaggeration.
- In historically assessing a given battle or campaign we usually compare assessed losses on each side and basically ignore victory claims. When treating individual aces, their "scores" are pretty universally taken to be what they were officially credited with at the time. So long as the likely discrepancy between this and reality is mentioned (as it is in the article) this is really all you can do. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 15:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
-
Post Vietnam Combat
The US Air Force and Navy have claimed about 55 shootdowns since 1973 but no aces in that period (top scores are three). I believe the last pilot to become an ace was an Israeli in 1982, unless some South American air arms have produced "drug runner aces". It is unlikely that there will be any new US aces in the next decade or more, and we may well have seen the last of the breed since the next generation of fighter aircraft will be unmanned.
[edit] Spurling and Bell
The addition of this bomber crew to the paragraph describing WW I victory credits seems misplaced. It is specific to a single event, and seems more appropriate in a separate biographical entry. I might note that the "one vs. thirty" combat has been questioned by WW I researchers on the basis that it was largely unknown for the German Air Service to put up 30 fighters in one formation. By that stage of the war, increasingly rare assets (especially fuel) required the GAS to spread its formations wider rather than concentrating them that way. A similar argument has been made regarding William Barker's VC combat, which reportedly involved 60 German planes--a logistically near-impossible feat, and tactically questionable.
I've not deleted the passage, but suggest consideration whether it should remain in the body of the text.
Its a good point you've raised, though generally I feel some mention should be made of the two-seater fighter crews who collectively became 'aces', particularly the RFC's Bristol Fighter crews, and the convention of the time to lump the gunner's victory claims in with the pilot, thereby confusing the issue even more.Thanks Harryurz (talk) 08:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Roderic Dallas
As the reference for Dallas explains, his total is now believed to be 49 "plus one balloon". Please do not change it to 32, 39 or whatever unless you have a good reason for doing so. Grant65 | Talk 05:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 1 addition/1 removal
I added Jan Reznak - best Slovak ace - with 32 victories and removed Karel Kuttelwascher. Karel Kuttelwascher has only 18 confirmed victories, and the entry stated 20. I checked a few sources (including his Wikipedia page), in Czech and English language and 18 is the only confirmed number. He has 2 probable victories and 2 shared victories. --Svetovid 18:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] British Aces in WWI
This article states in the history section that "British Empire defined an ace as a pilot with 10 or more confirmed catastrophic kills" during World War I. Yet later on in the same paragraph, it says that Britsh pilots had no criteria to become aces. I am no expert, so would someone who is please clarify this. KingK327 06:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Definition of Ace has changed with subsequent increase in airpower.
I remember learning long ago that almost each major war had almost its own definition of what a flying ace was. As per this article, 10 kills was considered an ace for both World Wars. With the advent of the jet age, fighter kills became harder both in number and verification. At some point the Defense Department or the powers that be decided that five kills were required to be considered an ace. Supposedly, it was made retroactive back to the other wars. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ronbo76 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC).
- Nope. Definitions differed during World War I, but by World War II, every nation had an unofficial agreement that five kills constituted an ace. Chuck Yeager's designation as an "Ace in a Day" is confirmed by the "Stars and Stripes," the US military newspaper during World War II. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iceberg3k (talk • contribs) 14:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Jet aces?
I'm inclined to rewrite this:
- "The jets employed on both sides were now approaching closure rates of 2000 miles per hour (3200kph), which meant aerial combat (the dogfight) had turned into a blink of an eye affair between the combatant pilots. Added to this was the US policy of using VISUAL ID on an aircraft before engaging, a necessary procedure to avert fratricide (one F-4 had already been lost this way), and the MIG-17's primary weapon of cannon fire; in the era of near super-sonic aerial combat (dog-fighting), F-4s and MIGs reverted to the two basic ingredients of the WWI dogfight; vision and guns."
First, it's not a "dogfight" in modern slang, it's a "furball". Second, it's not "a blink of an eye affair", any more than it was in Korea. Turning fights very rapidly drop below Mach 1, & it becomes a matter of thrust:weight, acceleration, throttle response, & energy management. It's also an issue of surprise & advantage, which goes all the way back to Boelcke's famous 1916 dicta, which, amazingly, aren't even mentioned. (Nor Chennault's AVG tactics, equally astonishing.) Also ignored is the technical issue: the Rhino didn't have an onboard cannon, because U.S. doctrine expected & planned for BVR missile intercepts, not dogfights. (Sound familiar? Fratricide, too: how many potential enemies today are flying U.S. designs? Oops...) I'm relying on Airwar Vietnam, Broughton's Thud Ridge, Fitzsimons (ed) 20th Century Weapons & Warfare, Berent's Steel Tiger and sequels, Gerry Carroll's North SAR trilogy, & other sources I can't recall the names of... Anybody got sources? Or comment? Trekphiler 00:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- That section was indeed not very well written from a simple technical point of view (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style). I have wikilinked (or corrected links) numerous concepts. Most importantly I think the section on Vietnam could be trimmed as it tends to get off topic somewhat. --Deon Steyn 06:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thanks. I'm thinking less "trimmed" than "tightened". The article wants a common thread: who are the aces, how do they think & fight, what characteristics do they have in common, how has the art changed (or not), that like. I recall reading once (but not where) pilots who checked their guns & ammo (Beurling did, for instance) would live, because they were hunters; those who checked their parachutes would die. If you mean delete ref to the BUFFs, go for it; I'd leave in the NVAF claims, if only because opfor claims are seen so rarely, well-attributed/no. Trekphiler 13:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- With your comments in mind, I deleted this
- " The B-52 raid that occurred on 20/21 December 1972, sometimes referred to as the "Christmas Bombing", officially known as Operation Linebacker II, consisted of 99 B-52's, of which 6 were shot down on this date. All six had been downed by SAM's, but one as noted above had been hit by an air to air missile from a MIG-21. Approximately 220 SAM's had been fired at the 99 bombers, and, according to B-52 crew reports, MiG-21's had flown along side the B-52's, at distance, to act as FAC (Forward Air Control) for the SAM sites. The US Command knew the procedures of MiG pilots; they were controlled/directed from ground control. MiG pilots did not knowingly fly over AAA/SAM kill zones (they too had suffered from fratricide), and with MiG's currently in communication with SAM sites as they flew along side (at a safe distance) the B-52's during the raid, it could have been a coincidence that the MiG-21 pursued his target over the SAM site, and at nearly the same time, a SAM struck his target, only seconds after his air to air missile struck the B-52. The USAF has acknowledged the MiG-21's hit on the B-52, but not the kill. Although the USAF's stance is official, as was the US Navy's with LT Cunningham's F-4 loss, most combat veterans, whether they fought on land, sea, or air, will state, that sometimes, during the heat of battle, when survival is a priority on his mind; that there are times, when explosions can be mistaken for another, especially at night.[4][5][6]
- I still believe improved focus is needed. Trekphiler 13:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Confusing
"though his claims have been revised downward no where justifying the accredition." - punctuation is your friend. Shinobu 12:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ace in a Day, Alam from Pakistan
The section on Alam from Pakistan added by Skybolt101 reads like a press release. I'm not disputing the facts - I don't know the facts - just the writing. Aside from not having an impartial encyclopedic tone, repetition could be reduced and grammar improved. I could clean it up, but it might be better for someone who does know the facts to revise it, lest I produce a clean yet inaccurate text. --LowRise 19:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- The facts are disputed for according to revised accounts he is given credit only for shooting 4 aircraft and the para is a simple cut-n'paste job from http://www.pakdef.info/pakmilitary/airforce/war/heros2.html I've therefore removed it for copyright violation. --Idleguy 15:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:M M Alam.jpg
Image:M M Alam.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cruise speed
Überkanone : Top Gun? Trekphiler (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] what nonsense
On the other hand, losses (especially in terms of aircraft as opposed to personnel) are sometimes reported inaccurately, for various reasons. Nearly 50% of RAF victories in the Battle of Britain, for instance, do not tally statistically with recorded German losses - but some at least of this apparent over-claiming can be tallied with known wrecks, and aircrew known to have been in British POW camps. [6] There are in fact a number of legitimate reasons why reported losses may be understated - including poor reporting procedures and loss of records due to enemy action or wartime confusion.
A bit embarrassing, this. In fact, German losses ought to exceed actual shoot-downs over Britain, given that an unknown but probably significant number went into the drink because of battle damage, mechanical failure, and fuel exhaustion. As it reads, we are to assume that the RAF claims are to believed over the German reported losses, which is absurd. Shall we similarly believe German claims over British reported losses? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.34.89 (talk) 20:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- No, it isn't nonsense at all! Having stated that fighter pilots tend to overclaim - it is only fair to note on the other hand that loss records are sometimes incomplete. The BoB figures are mentioned as an example of this because as it happens there are known discrepancies and gaps in the German loss records for this battle. These are not based of "RAF claims" - but on the number of Luftwaffe personnel entering PoW camps in the summer of 1940 - and the evidence of wrecked German aircraft littering the English countryside. To be blunt - this happened on some days when no German aircraft were officially lost, which IS absurd. The extent to which this would "redeem" RAF overclaiming is, of course, unquantifiable. Probably not that much after all. All responsible histories take reported losses as likely closer to the truth than victory claims - even when there are known problem with the former. On the other hand this is a factor that should be mentioned, at least, out of fairness to ALL fighter pilots. Could you think of a better way to word it?--Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Proportions of aces to other pilots- example
I've just found data in my own records relating to 8th Air Force claims in WW2, which breaks down the claims tallies for the various numbers of US 8th AF fighter pilots ( havent posted in the article as I'm frantically trying to find the references as we speak!) but the breakdown will be no doubt interesting to those on here and could be safely related to most fighter arms of that conflict I feel;
~5,000 8th AF fighter pilots saw action, of which 2,156 made at least a 'shared' victory claim. 1,031 (20.6%) made up to 1 kill
496 (10%)made 1-2 kills
226 (4.5%)made 2-3 kills
107 (2.1%)made 3-4 kills
98 (1.9%)made 4-5 kills
88 became an ace with 5-6 kills
53 made 7-10 kills
50 got 10-20 kills
7 got 20-28 kills
The one overriding point that leaps out at me is that shooting down even one enemy aircraft was (for all the various reasons) very hard! The aces were the 'cutting edge' of any fighter aram but the 'non-scorers' formed the vast backbone of these arms and their contribution to their forces' achievements shouldnt be forgotten. It also certainly heightens my respect for those 4% of pilots who were talented enough to score again and again.Harryurz (talk) 08:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
