History XVIII/Gunther Rall

[ctab5060X]

Re: Do You Know Your History? (Part XXXII)

Too bad that's not the case with what I mentioned though. Like I said, the pilots were claimed as shot down but FLEW their aircraft back home. Not a kill. Hartman did not shood down 4 P-51's that day and I'm not so sure his other 3 claimed P-51 kills can be verified. By that alone, he doesn't have 352 actual kills, he now has 351 kills.

All you said was "many of his victims made it back". Kind of vauge if you ask me. I was asking more of a question for more confirmation of exactly what you meant.


Maybe "kill" is too harsh of a word. Perhaps "aerial victory" better describes some of these situations you refer to. :dunno:

 

[bunk22]

Re: Do You Know Your History? (Part XXXII)

All you said was "many of his victims made it back". Kind of vauge if you ask me. I was asking more of a question for more confirmation of exactly what you meant.


Maybe "kill" is too harsh of a word. Perhaps "aerial victory" better describes some of these situations you refer to. :dunno:

Sorry, it was a bit vague but I thought with your knowledge I was clear. It has been a while since I looked at the book but I think it was those out of control victims that made it back....seen to go out of control while going into a cloud and claiming him. I know our leading ace of WWI, Eddie Rickenbacker, made several out of control kills without any secondary confirmation of kills. It's believed his score is much less than 26.

I'm in Korea without my books so I have to use the net but here is an article that demonstrates some of the German overclaiming in WWII and maybe why they did it:

http://www.1jma.dk/articles/1jmaarticlesww2luftwaffe.htm

Think about this, what about a probable? It's known that some probables didn't make it back and that's a victory but not counted. There is no doubt that Hartman, Barkhorn and Rall are the world's top aces and probably will be forever. I think listing their claimed scores is the right thing to do but for us nerds (I am at least when it comes to this stuff), their actual scores are a bit less than recognized. I just read a blurb about a 6 month period in New Guinea where Japanese Oscar pilots claimed 461 kills with an actual 21 American aircraft falling to them. Talk about overclaiming....it's known the Japanese had the least accurate scoring system, seemingly claiming any aircraft they shot at as shot down.

 

[ctab5060X]

Re: Do You Know Your History? (Part XXXII)

Sorry, it was a bit vague but I thought with your knowledge I was clear. It has been a while since I looked at the book but I think it was those out of control victims that made it back....seen to go out of control while going into a cloud and claiming him. I know our leading ace of WWI, Eddie Rickenbacker, made several out of control kills without any secondary confirmation of kills. It's believed his score is much less than 26.

I'm in Korea without my books so I have to use the net but here is an article that demonstrates some of the German overclaiming in WWII and maybe why they did it:

http://www.1jma.dk/articles/1jmaarticlesww2luftwaffe.htm

Vagueness is never good, more so when there are many potential variables involved in a vauge statement. That, combined with the fact it was late where I was... well, you know how it can be sometimes.

It is a good article, but it does bring up some questions that most individuals might not think about. Most research is done comparing victories with losses, but what about aircraft that are only forced to retire from the battle? Are those victories? Are they losses?

Example: Aircraft takes enough damage that the pilot can no longer participate in the fighting so he turns for home. Damage to the aircraft is enough to force a landing at an aerodrome other than his base, but subsequent repairs allow for not only the pilot, but the aircraft as well to rejoin their original squadrons. Is it going to be listed as a "loss"? Should it be credited as a "victory" for the opposing pilot?

There even appears to be some confusion with the author of one of the books referenced in that link you provided. What dertermines an aerial victory?

There is always going to be some discrepancy, especially when involving the human element (before the widespread use of the gun camera), but I still feel that Germany had one of the best systems in place to attempt to confirm the claims of their pilots.

With Rickenbaker, think of this possibility... the number of aircraft he destoryed may be less than 26, but are his victories (assuming a victory for forcing an aircraft to retire from battle) less than 26?

One of the most basic tactics of WWI was to spin your aircraft in an attempt to make your enemy think they shot you down. Since WWI victories required solely on human confirmation (ground troops, fellow pilots in your area), no pilot was given credit for victories they claimed, but not seen by anyone. Furthermore, due to the fuel limitations of WWI fighters, by the time a pilot were to climb back up to rejoin the fight after spinning away, the fight could very well be over so there were pilots that simply returned to their base. Is this a kill? I wouldn't think so. It is a loss? Doubtful. But is it an aerial victory? Considering you forced the enemy from battle... I think yes.

 

[bunk22]

That's the thing about Eddie Rickenbacker in that supposedly he was the only witness to his victim's demise and his word was taken at face value. I brought the issue up earlier in that planes that make it back after being shot up, are they kills? There is a great photo of a Marine F4U-1D Corsair that made it back after the big fight with the Georges of the 343rd Kokutai and it looks pitiful. I don't know how it made it back but it never flew again...I wish I had the book to scan and post, but like I said, I'm in Korea.

At the end of war over Japan, there was a big air battle between Hellcats and Ki-100's. Our guys thought they were Ki-84 Franks being they looked very similar. The Hellcats claimed 9 kills while the Ki-100 group claimed 10 Hellcats. One of the Navy's top aces, LT Nooy claimed 4 of the 9 kills to raise his official score to 19 victories. Problem is, the records now show that exactly 1 Hellcat and 1 Ki-100 were actually shot down with another Hellcat and Ki-100 colliding. So the final score was 2 for 2 and Nooy does not have 19 victories. Even with gun camera's and wingman or others confirming kills, we overclaimed by quite a bit. Common for the Japanese though.

 

[ctab5060X]

Extremely common for the Japanese.

I would venture to say that the Allies were fairly consistent between nations on accuracy and overages.

Japan and Germany... night and day.




As far as your Corsair making it back to the ship, it all depends on how you define exactly what a "kill" is.

Is it destroying the aircraft or is it simply causing enough damage that the pilot has to retire from the area of combat?

"Luftwaffe Fighter Aces" by Mike Spick (about 30 books published) which is an excellent story of the Experten and their Tactics

He also states "That an aerial Victory occurs when an enemy is DEFEATED in combat in circumstances where the victor believes that it will be a total loss.

In another chapter he mentions this phrase but ends with "the enemy aircraft can no longer take part in the battle"

I am leaning more toward refering to "kills" simply as "aerial victories". If you happen to kill your opponent, it should count. If you happen to force your opponent out of the fight, it should also count.

 

[bunk22]

Extremely common for the Japanese.

I would venture to say that the Allies were fairly consistent between nations on accuracy and overages.

Japan and Germany... night and day.

As far as your Corsair making it back to the ship, it all depends on how you define exactly what a "kill" is.

Is it destroying the aircraft or is it simply causing enough damage that the pilot has to retire from the area of combat?

I think we two are being laughed at by others, the two book nerds discussing kills I'm okay with it lol.

The Red Baron study defines what a kill is but I don't know the true definition. Going back to the first big air battle between the USN and the 343rd Kokutai, the actual air-to-air score was 15 to 8 for us but 5 more Navy and MC aircraft never flew again due to battle damage. They made it back to the boat or homefield but that was it. So the total score was 15 to 13, USN. I believe the damaged N1K2's all flew again. So do those count as kills? Btw, the claims were greatly exaggerated by both sides, I think the Japanese claimed like 40 kills and the US around 25 or so.

Hard part is the Russian side of the house, I don't think the records exist to find the true score. I was looking at one of my Osprey series and there were several battles listed where the Germans overclaimed by a bit. I think for one big air battle, FW-190 pilots claimed 26 bombers when 13 went down. This is in 1944 as well. Makes easier when the records are available.

I am leaning more toward refering to "kills" simply as "aerial victories". If you happen to kill your opponent, it should count. If you happen to force your opponent out of the fight, it should also count.

I would lean towards the aircraft would have to be destroyed in flight, including the pilot bailing out or the aircraft forced down to count. Making it back but damaged beyond repair is in the grey area. Forced out of the fight but can fight another day, the aircraft, no way a kill. At some point, all the aircraft leave the fight, lack of fuel, injured pilot, no more opponents, or outnumbered by the enemy and no way should that count as a "kill".

In Vietnam, in late 1972, an Air Force crew chased a Mig-21 until is dissapeared from scope. It was later learned that the Mig ran out of fuel and crashed...the crew was awarded a kill. That same year, an F-8J Crusader from VF-211 was vectored onto a bandit, a Mig-17 and the pilot punched out without fighting. It has now been determined that he was having flight control issues and couldn't fight so he punched. Regardless, the Navy did not award a kill to our pilot. Another F-8 ran out of gas in an engagement versus a Mig-21 and he had to punch...his loss is not listed as a loss to a Mig. Different standards it seems though I thought under the Red Baron study, all standards should be equal.

 

[Nihon_Ni]

I got a chance to meet Gunther at Oshkosh this summer. His speaking events drew standing room only crowds and his singing sessions always had long lines. Now I'm glad I stood in line long enough to shake hands and get his signature.

RIP

 

[ozone]

Sad story about Mr. Rall passed on to me by a former military man who was stationed in Germany and has a passion for german airforce history:

He went to Mr. Rall's town and there was not one mention of the man. When he inquired as to where Mr. Rall might live, no one had ever heard of him. In a fit of seeming political correctness and historical re-writing, the germans have apparently purged all mention of Mr. Rall or his accomplishmnets; which include helping to build the WEST German airforce after he escaped east germany. Apparently, Mr. Rall's many post war accomplishments in the name of loyalty to his country dont matter to the German people.

I comare this with the USA tendancy to still laud people despite clear evidence that thye were notthe nicest people that mythology has made them to be (think General Amherst, for whom the town and college are named, who is credited with one of the first uses of biological warfare when he sent small-pox infested blankets to Indians with whom he was was trading...they were the middle men between the general and the french fur traders).

....I am sure that there is a middle ground somewhere.

 

[RynoB]

That same year, an F-8J Crusader from VF-211 was vectored onto a bandit, a Mig-17 and the pilot punched out without fighting. It has now been determined that he was having flight control issues and couldn't fight so he punched. Regardless, the Navy did not award a kill to our pilot.

There is a similar story from WWII. A P-47 pilot got on the tails of I believe 3 bf109s (not sure of the exact number). This was late in the war when many Luftwaffe pilots received minimal training prior to combat. All 3 109 pilots bailed when they saw the P-47, and the P-47 pilot was credited with 3 kills without firing a shot.

 

[MikeD]

In Vietnam, in late 1972, an Air Force crew chased a Mig-21 until is dissapeared from scope. It was later learned that the Mig ran out of fuel and crashed...the crew was awarded a kill. That same year, an F-8J Crusader from VF-211 was vectored onto a bandit, a Mig-17 and the pilot punched out without fighting. It has now been determined that he was having flight control issues and couldn't fight so he punched. Regardless, the Navy did not award a kill to our pilot. Another F-8 ran out of gas in an engagement versus a Mig-21 and he had to punch...his loss is not listed as a loss to a Mig. Different standards it seems though I thought under the Red Baron study, all standards should be equal.

To me, if the pilot isn't witnessed bailing out or the plane crashing, then the kill is a probable. Col. Jack Broughton, the Vice Wing CC of the Tahkli F-105 wing, engaged two MiG-17s he came across post-target attack. They were in a welded-wing formation and he engaged them with 20mm cannon, to the point of lighting one afire and putting a good amount of holes in the other. He had to disengage off of them.....I don't remember why, but his kills were only considered "probables", since the planes weren't witnessed crashing or the pilots bailing.

I agree with a kill not being given for the enemy running out of gas, in the case of the F-8s. But that now opens the door to kill claims where a shot was never fired. What of so-called "maneuvering kills" then? In Desert Storm, a USAF EF-111 was credited with such a kill against an Iraqi Mirage F.1 when the Mirage jumped them. The unarmed EF-111 managed to maneuver such that the Iraqi plane impacted the ground due to, essentially, CFIT. So is this a legit kill? I personally wouldn't say such, since it opens the door to so many other things.........next, it'd be "well, I illuminated this MiG with my radar from 40nm away, and he turned around and crashed while doing so, I should get the kill."

To me, it doesn't matter what kind of weapon is used, but IMHO an enemy plane needs to be shot down AND witnessed doing so. The plane flying back to base and being unservicable isn't a kill. The pilot bailing out is a kill. Whether conventional air-air munitions are used or not doesn't matter. The F-15E that killed the Mi-24 with a GBU-12 LGB gets the same credit as the A-4C Skyhawk in Vietnam who shot down the MiG-17 in the Kep Airfield traffic pattern with Zuni 5-inch air-ground rockets.

 

[bunk22]

To me, if the pilot isn't witnessed bailing out or the plane crashing, then the kill is a probable. Col. Jack Broughton, the Vice Wing CC of the Tahkli F-105 wing, engaged two MiG-17s he came across post-target attack. They were in a welded-wing formation and he engaged them with 20mm cannon, to the point of lighting one afire and putting a good amount of holes in the other. He had to disengage off of them.....I don't remember why, but his kills were only considered "probables", since the planes weren't witnessed crashing or the pilots bailing.

I agree with a kill not being given for the enemy running out of gas, in the case of the F-8s. But that now opens the door to kill claims where a shot was never fired. What of so-called "maneuvering kills" then? In Desert Storm, a USAF EF-111 was credited with such a kill against an Iraqi Mirage F.1 when the Mirage jumped them. The unarmed EF-111 managed to maneuver such that the Iraqi plane impacted the ground due to, essentially, CFIT. So is this a legit kill? I personally wouldn't say such, since it opens the door to so many other things.........next, it'd be "well, I illuminated this MiG with my radar from 40nm away, and he turned around and crashed while doing so, I should get the kill."

To me, it doesn't matter what kind of weapon is used, but IMHO an enemy plane needs to be shot down AND witnessed doing so. The plane flying back to base and being unservicable isn't a kill. The pilot bailing out is a kill. Whether conventional air-air munitions are used or not doesn't matter. The F-15E that killed the Mi-24 with a GBU-12 LGB gets the same credit as the A-4C Skyhawk in Vietnam who shot down the MiG-17 in the Kep Airfield traffic pattern with Zuni 5-inch air-ground rockets.

CDR Hal Marr, the first F-8 driver credited with a Mig kill (Mig-17) downed one with an AIM-9 and hammered another one with 20mm cannon. He claimed it as a probable as it was not seen to crash. It's now known that a hill watcher saw the engagement and saw that Mig crash but he never recieved official credit for it.

An Army OV-1 Mohawk hammered a Mig-17 just south or north of the border. The Mohawk crew so the Mig go down but did not see it crash but it was known later that it did crash. No confirmed kill....though some interservice politics played a roll it in the confirmation. Some probables are upgraded when confirmation comes through. These are two for other reasons that were not.

I read a good book on Pappy Boyington before I came to Korea. Some folks gave it a bad review because the author shed some light on the man, meaning made him out to be human. His score of first 28, then 26 (official) is not even that. Looking at the Japanese records and AVG, he scored probably 2 air to air with the AVG and though listed as 22 with the Blacksheep, it's more half that. Probably 11 or 12 kills plus 2 in the AVG gives him 13 or 14 (which in itself is highly respectable). Regardless of that, it doesn't take away that he was a natural leader, an outstanding pilot, a fierce warrior who led his men in battle during difficult times. It wasn't always take-off, fly through cavu sky and engage. The Corsair's of the time had all sorts of maint issues, the weather in the south pacific can be dog (I've been there done that), disease and sickness, constant boredom followed by intense combat, takes its toll. I had more respect for the man after I read that book than I ever did. Because he didn't have 22 or 26 or 28 kills and was a leading ace means nothing. It was the man that was a legend. Same with Rall or Hartman. No doubt they don't have their "official" kills but they were leaders of men, during horrible times and came through as respected warriors. That's what counts in my book.

 

[MikeD]

CDR Hal Marr, the first F-8 driver credited with a Mig kill (Mig-17) downed one with an AIM-9 and hammered another one with 20mm cannon. He claimed it as a probable as it was not seen to crash. It's now known that a hill watcher saw the engagement and saw that Mig crash but he never recieved official credit for it.

Kills have been awarded later after being confirmed through X source(s), I wonder why that one wasn't. Maybe no wreckage to truly confirm?

An Army OV-1 Mohawk hammered a Mig-17 just south or north of the border. The Mohawk crew so the Mig go down but did not see it crash but it was known later that it did crash. No confirmed kill....though some interservice politics played a roll it in the confirmation. Some probables are upgraded when confirmation comes through. These are two for other reasons that were not.

Have read about that one, and I think too that interservice politics played a part....which would be total BS. I don't care where or who got the kill, a kill is a kill; and the OV-1 should get it. Would be cool too since it'd possibly be the first Army air-air kill post WWII?

On the same vein, an Air America UH-1 shot down two VPAF (North Viet) An-2 Colts with small arms fire from the crew chief. They officially have credit for the kills, as they should.

I read a good book on Pappy Boyington before I came to Korea. Some folks gave it a bad review because the author shed some light on the man, meaning made him out to be human. His score of first 28, then 26 (official) is not even that. Looking at the Japanese records and AVG, he scored probably 2 air to air with the AVG and though listed as 22 with the Blacksheep, it's more half that. Probably 11 or 12 kills plus 2 in the AVG gives him 13 or 14 (which in itself is highly respectable). Regardless of that, it doesn't take away that he was a natural leader, an outstanding pilot, a fierce warrior who led his men in battle during difficult times. It wasn't always take-off, fly through cavu sky and engage. The Corsair's of the time had all sorts of maint issues, the weather in the south pacific can be dog (I've been there done that), disease and sickness, constant boredom followed by intense combat, takes its toll. I had more respect for the man after I read that book than I ever did. Because he didn't have 22 or 26 or 28 kills and was a leading ace means nothing. It was the man that was a legend. Same with Rall or Hartman. No doubt they don't have their "official" kills but they were leaders of men, during horrible times and came through as respected warriors. That's what counts in my book.

Agree. I'd love to check out that book. Seems like a good read.

 

[SteveC]

...No doubt they don't have their "official" kills but they were leaders of men, during horrible times and came through as respected warriors. That's what counts in my book.

What about post count???

 

[granlistillo]

Re: Do You Know Your History? (Part XXXII)

So... how does Richthofen tie in with the WWII aces?

Didn´t fat Hermann Goering fly with Richthofen?

Also, technically wasn´t the blue max originally a prussian medal that the predated the kaiserreich?

 

[granlistillo]

Re: Do You Know Your History? (Part XXXII)

But why is the highest medal awarded by Germany enscribed in French?

Maybe the French can claim Marseille as theirs and their military history will double in prestige??

 

[bunk22]

Kills have been awarded later after being confirmed through X source(s), I wonder why that one wasn't. Maybe no wreckage to truly confirm?

My understanding is it has to do with the sensitivity of the hill watcher program. Still kind of hush hush to this day. Though he saw the Mig crash, he was never there and thus never saw it. I think they monitored radio transmissions too.

Have read about that one, and I think too that interservice politics played a part....which would be total BS. I don't care where or who got the kill, a kill is a kill; and the OV-1 should get it. Would be cool too since it'd possibly be the first Army air-air kill post WWII?

On the same vein, an Air America UH-1 shot down two VPAF (North Viet) An-2 Colts with small arms fire from the crew chief. They officially have credit for the kills, as they should.

What about the C-130 crew who went low to avoid the Mig-21 chasing them and the Mig hit a hill. I think it was on the same day a Mig-21 blasted a Jolly Green 53 out of the sky.

Agree. I'd love to check out that book. Seems like a good read.

I believe the book is called "Black Sheep One" The Life of Gregory "Pappy" Boyington by Bruce Gamble. It's in paperback, very cheap on Amazon.com.