Talk:Flying ace/Archive 1

World's Best Mission
Fairly new here, but this sounds very biased and possibly trivial. Djizomdjinn (talk) 20:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention, several claims made in the below "Ace in a Day" section are equal to or greater than a 9:1 ratio. Integrate the sections? Rourin bushi (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

Agree with the above comment; however in the article text it says (incorrectly) that the RFC/RNAS/RAF in WW1 assigned fractions of 'kills'. Has anyone any objection if i amend this error with the obligatory references? Harryurz (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Incidently, if anyone wants a good book to read about First World War flying then I can recommend Sagittarius Rising  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)

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)

Corrections
I added Indra Lal Roy, RFC/RAF 10 victories, India's only ace, (so far as I know). I also corrected William Lambert's score from 21.5 to 18. And I corrected Raoul Lufberry's score from 17 to 16 .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)

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)

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)


 * Any proof that the enthusiastic and at times optimistic victory claims had a higher error margin than that of the Allied pilots? That'd be the important point. If everyone is 1000% wrong it doesn't matter that the Luftwaffe was 1000% wrong... 84.154.8.241 (talk) 03:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps no absolute "proof" can be adduced at this time - but in a situation where (let us suppose) one side claims 2 kills for each loss by the other side and the other claims 5 or 6 then I think it is reasonable to draw the obvious conclusion. A certain "ace" several times claimed more victories than his opponents' TOTAL losses for the day in question. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)
 * 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 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.

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)

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 19:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

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.

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.


 * On claims & accuracy, what does everybody think about removing "claims" & substituting "admitted losses"? Or postwar confirmed losses? This has its own problems (SU wasn't notorious for honest admissions, & records are sometimes chaotic, which is 1 reason the PacFlt Sub Force scores tallied by JANAC are such a bollox), but they're liable to be better than wartime victory claims.  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  08:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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).

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 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)

Confusing
"though his claims have been revised downward no where justifying the accredition." - punctuation is your friend. Shinobu 12:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 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)

Cruise speed
Überkanone : Top Gun? Trekphiler (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)


 * Allen (I should know how to spell that by now... ;) ) in Who Won the Battle of Britain? makes the same case, & the proportions sound close. IIRC, he also suggests, once a kill had been scored, it got easier; something to do with knowing how (arguably, also breaking the taboo about killing). Same kinds of stats apply in infantry; in WW2, FWI read, something like 10% of troops in action (in the line?) actually fired fired their weapons. (That may be a function of % line infantry/support troops, too...)   TREKphiler   hit me ♠  15:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

overclaiming
"the germans claimed 3000 fighters destroyed" doesnt madder for the fighter aces because this were propaganda numbers but these "kills" where never credited to pilots so it make no sense to mention this.The kill which were given to pilots were correct confirmed kills, at all the german criterias were !MORE! stringent than the allied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.143.17 (talk) 21:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

UAV (WWII V-1 Buzz Bmbs) In Aerial Combat
Requesting alittle help from historians: As one example, a NVAF ace, Nguyen Van Coc flying a MiG-21 has seven (7) confirmed aerial victories against US jet fighters during the Vietnam War; these aerial kills match US records. However, Van Coc also has claimed two UAV aerial kills; making 9 total air victories. US UAVs (Firebees) did conduct aerial reconnaissance missions over the North during the war; and it is known that NVAF pilots shot them down for training (and sport). Questions:
 * Could/did WWII RAF fighter pilots count downing a V-1 Buzz Bomb (a pioneer UAV) towards gaining flying ace status? In another words, 5 downed V-1s made him a flying ace.


 * Are official aces, pilots that shoot down only manned aircraft during aerial combat (the dog-fight)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.62.58 (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It wasn't always uniform. USAAF WW2 counted strafing (in some cases at least) toward "official" scores. Don't know what RAF policy/practise was, but AFAIK, buzzbombs were counted separately.  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  20:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.62.58 (talk) 06:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Shooting down a V-1 was not quite as easy as one might suppose - it was a small target, cannon shells often bounced off, and there was a risk of being blown up oneself if the bomb exploded! Many pilots preferred to upset the bomb's inertial "guidance" system by tipping the bomb over (the technique used involved putting one's own wing over the V-1's, making it lose lift and dip). This required skill and nerve, and was by no means without risk. I have an idea that the shooting down of a V-1 was not actually counted as a victory, mind, just saying that there would have been some justification if it had been! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "cannon shells often bounced off"? I really doubt it... It was difficult to cause failure of the simple stovepipe engine. And the wingtip technique wasn't the favorite, AFAIK, except for some (& in cases of being out of ammo, IIRC), since it was difficult & dangerous. V-1s had to be EZr, tho: no maneuvers to avoid, constant speed & height...  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  13:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I left this at the time, in fact it is a bit late to answer it really - but yes, a V1 was made of quite heavy guage steel rather than thin light alloy, and cannon shells designed to destroy conventional aircraft frequently exploded on impact or literally bounced off unless you fired at them at very close range (hence the large number of pilots who ran out of ammunition!). The speed was constant, but was high enough to make catching one in a stern chase quite hard, except for the very fastest manned fighters of the time. They couldn't take avoiding action or shoot back, but shooting one down still required skill, nerves, and a faster than average fighter. And, incidentally, it was quite dangerous. They were literally flying bombs, and were liable to go off. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

This Article is way to biased...
This article has way too many opinions... When i read this, all that i think about was, "Wow, German pilots kill counts were all scams, while the allies are authentic. No wonder Germans got higher kill counts, the places they battle, the promotion system, the system to award kill, etc etc etc was more in favor of the Germans.

I understand that it was all supported by facts... but the use of words and reasoning in the article, somehow made the reader discredit the achievement of Axis's aces. This is should not exist in a Wikipedia article, it is the readers right to put prejudice on the data and facts... but the writers should not be the one making it.

I'm aware there are some inaccuracy in the kill counts, but surely that's also the case with allies pilots, albeit not as much.

Bottomline is, I think we should stick to presenting the facts rather than making writing our opinion based on those facts.

Can someone change those, please. I don't think I'll be able to, since i don't have any knowledge regarding this matter, not to mention my crappy english, ;p

thanx Lolipedofin (talk) 06:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That really does need fixing. FWI read, the German system of checking was the best, in both wars. Not to say it was free from error; I've seen (Caidin, Me-109, IIRC) a report Marseilles falsely claimed 3 Hurricanes, when there were no Hurrys flying & his guns hadn't been fired. (No word on whether he got credit...)  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  15:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I am a little nonplussed by this - I don't, honestly, think we are overly biased - unless you read the "accuracy" section as being "anti-Luftwaffe" which I can't see. The only paragraph that specifically mentions the Luftwaffe bends over backwards to rationalise the grandiose Luftwaffe scores (broadly, assuming they were fairly accurate!!), and refrains from mentioning Marseilles - whose score has always been notoriously "iffy". In The First and the Last Adolf Galland himself - one of the greatest aces of all time (of any nation) refers to the Nazi propensity for grandiose propaganda and overestimation of success - his principle criticism was their tendency to believe their own propaganda - designed to fool either the enemy or their own populace, but which ended up fooling their own high command. The real point - which I honestly think the article currently makes in a reasonably fair way, is that for a number of reasons (of which outright fraud is probably about the least important!), fighter aces' scores (in all air forces) tend to be inflated, to a greater or lesser extent - although, on the other side, reported (even recorded) losses can be "incomplete".


 * While I appreciate Lolipedofin's desire for more "facts" - most of these facts are disputed - many of the sources are VERY prejudiced, and we only have so much room. A more "factual" account would be VERY long, and many of the "facts" would under perpetual (and unproductive) debate. Sadly, we are more or less forced into the kind of thing we have here, which is a summary, necessarily short on specific instances. Maybe the fault is that there is too much "fact" - amd that the whole section should be much more succinct??


 * Having said all this - by all means feel free to either edit the article text directly (but do try to be dispassionate and detached, and be prepared to get your changes reverted if we don't like them!) or make specific suggestions here - which can be tossed around a bit, and either accepted or rejected by consensus. There are obviously several well read enthusiasts (I hesitate to use the word "experts") here, and I'm sure any debate will be essentially well-informed.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Caidin, p.141, quotes Asher Lee as saying it was 3 Spitfires, not Hurricanes, & one of 3: Marseille, Wick, or Moelders. I stand corrected.  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  11:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Can I just mention here that care should be taken quoting Martin Caidin's works as reference sources, as 'facts' often detailed in his books are very often open to question and themselves unreferenced. I'm sure many of the more experienced devotees of air warfare literature will agree! Thanks Harryurz (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point the editors to Confirmation and overclaiming of aerial victories. The article had been created to objectively address the issues being criticized here. As we see the article evolve, over-claiming was an issues for all Air Forces. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The facts regarding the invasion of the Soviet Union is that the Soviets has huge amounts of equipment and men. Millions were killed or captured in 1941, and they verifiably lost thousands of tanks. Why is it considered exaggeration that German aces scored such high kills in the East? At least for the first few years of the war, if not longer, Soviet tactics were to throw men, tanks, airplanes against the Germans in large numbers, and very often these were poorly trained men who died very quickly. 66.214.187.229 (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Military Cross automatic for 5 victories?
The claim in this article that British pilots almost automatically received a Military Cross for five victories is easily demonstrated as false. Inspection of World War I aces credited with 5 victories proves it. Of the first 30 UK/Commonwealth aces listed, there are exactly two awards of the Military Cross. World War I aces credited with 6 victories and World War I aces credited with 7 victories are similar. I have removed this statement as contrary to fact. Georgejdorner (talk) 06:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well done!! This is a kind of "original research" that I don't think anyone could object to as contrary to wiki guidelines. If the official list contradicts the statement, well... In practice this is an incredibly difficult area. Most secondary sources (i.e. books, articles etc. directly ABOUT this subject) are highly partisan - either very pro-German (at times one almost suspects the more extreme of these people as being at least crypto Nazi) or (just as bad from our point of view) very pro-Allied. Primary sources (like the official lists of aces!) are rather thin on the ground, and frequently are contradicted not only by such statistics that exist, but also each other! Even statistics can lie. The Germans, for instance, were very good at "losing" statistics about their losses. We will never know, for example, just how many German soldiers were killed at the Battle of the Somme in 1916 - the German official figures just aren't there (yes I do have a ref. for this - can't be bothered looking it up for a discussion page). Similarly - the casualty figures that survived the war from the Jagdstaffeln almost uniformly only mention pilots killed in action - victories scored by the Allies against these squadrons cannot therefore be easily computed - as many pilots are of course shot down without being killed - in fact several top aces were shot down several times! The idea that official German figures were "lost in the disorganisation of defeat" may have some validity in WWII - but, I submit NOT in WWI - where there was little or no devastation in Germany itself. I am totally at a loss to explain this. The Prussian military culture (which to a great extent continued under the Nazis) was a very strange thing. Not a matter for a dispassionate encyclopedia article at all.


 * I am of half a mind to completely redo this whole article - replacing it with something MUCH shorter and more to the point - with LOTS of references and explanatory footnotes (in fact making no positive statement at all without a source). The only point is, would it be worth the bother, and would the "Schoolboy partisans" leave it alone? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Translation of the word "Überkanone"
I would rather translate it with "too big cannon" or "too big a cannon" as big cannon would only mean "Großkanone" a rather weak term compared to "Überkanone". "Über" means something is atop, and in this case, atop in quality of shooting down. But its a term you cannot properly translate, maybe just "the/a better cannon" would fit it best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.3.190.6 (talk) 08:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Then could "Überkanone" be translated as "top gun"? Or is that also a mistranslation?

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

"Top gun" is the best "colloquial" translation really - but it may be just a little TOO colloquial (and has anachronistic implications) - and we'd have the "literal translation" brigade on our backs that there's no word for "top" there. "Too big gun" or even "Very big gun" on the other hand isn't English at all, and neither is "Better gun". Given the context and the fact that we're talking about a colloquial phrase, I think we've got it about right. "Big gun" will do - IMHO anyway. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You could call them "top guns", but I wouldn't include it... As 'musicals says, it's too anachronistic.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  02:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

WWI Aces
I found this in WWI ace part: "Most aerial fighting was on the German side of the lines, so this quite rigorous system worked reasonably well for the Germans themselves, but would have been totally impractical for the Allies, especially the British, who fought mostly in enemy airspace."

I am without voice in front of such nonsense. Source please? 79.89.217.113 (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Read practically ANY source touching on the subject - the jastas almost never crossed the lines, even during German offensives - Richthofen, for instance, was over the lines when he was killed, but almost certainly by mistake. One reason was the extreme difficulty they had getting confirmation for victories scored over the British lines, the other was that Trenchard had a policy of unbroken "offensive" action, so that the British fighter squadrons, in particular, did almost all their fighting on the German side of the lines as a matter of course. The result was more British casualties, on the whole - but much more effective protection for the photographic and artillery squadrons that were, after all, doing most of the real work. Read, as I say, almost any book touching on the subject. The result was that the Germans could very often start the "kill confirmation" process with a wrecked allied aircraft, which they could match with the most likely claim. A British aircraft "forced to land" usually resulted in the capture of its crew (or even if the crew escaped, then the capture of the aircraft!) - and in either case a successful "kill" for the German pilot responsible, so the two systems were not so different as they might seem. There were of course cases of doubtful claims being credited on both sides, but on the whole both tried to keep honest "scores". It was just easier for the Germans to do so accurately because where the fighting took place.


 * If you have any evidence that any of this is just not so - then don't be "without voice" - let us know, and state YOUR sources. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You didn't understand what i meant. This: " "Most aerial fighting was on the German side of the lines, so this quite rigorous system worked reasonably well for the Germans themselves, but would have been totally impractical for the Allies, especially the British, who fought mostly in enemy airspace."
 * Is an incredible POV and erroneus (as far as i am concerned) sentence. Let me explain you why:


 * "for the Allies, especially the British, who fought mostly in enemy airspace" This needs to be rephrased otherwise implies that other non-British allies didn't fought or fought less in ennemy airspace, which is wrong.


 * " so this quite rigorous system [...]but would have been totally impractical for the Allies" How is that? To begin with, this rigorous system WAS used by (most of) other allies as seen here: Aerial victory standards of World War I . Second, other allies DID fight in ennemy territory. Well guess what? The war happened anyways.

The only difference being that what was counted as a kill by some was counted as probable by others. NOTHING ELSE! The result of the war didnt change because of that. Some pilots got 40 kills and 60 probables (Madon), 75 kills and 50 probable (Fonck); but the result in the war is the exact same and is not "impractical". Maybe you could say it's "unfair", and i would agree, but not "impratical". Other allied countries survived pratically using this system. It's just a matter of virtual number, having 20 or 100 CREDITED kill didnt change the result of the war in pratique. Madon would even say "The Boche knows his loss". Your sentence implies that British and allied air forces couldn't have used the German system, which is wrong.
 * You will probably think that i am nitpicking on the terms you use, but what you said there is actually wrong and could be considered POV by implying that only British fought on ennemy territory, while italian french belgian and american were sitting at home watching TV. What you probably didn't meant.79.89.217.113 (talk) 01:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "'for the Allies, especially the British, who fought mostly in enemy airspace' This needs to be rephrased otherwise implies that other non-British allies didn't fought or fought less in ennemy airspace, which is wrong." I don't see that at all. That says the RFC was particularly inclined to fighting over Germany, which even cursory reading on the topic supports (as 'musicals has already noted, & I agree, having only done cursory reading on it :) ).
 * "'this quite rigorous system...would have been totally impractical for the Allies' How is that?" This is so obvious, I don't know how you don't get it. The German a/c went down on German territory. What, were the Germans going to allow RFC Intel inspectors to wander around looking for wrecks to confirm claims. (Presuming Luftstreitkräfte wasn't recovering them & putting them back in service...) " Your sentence implies that British and allied air forces couldn't have used the German system, which is wrong." No, it's not, obviously.
 * Should RFC have denied "driven down" or "dived East"? Yes. That's not the issue, or is WP in a position to rewrite the stats. (Not unless you've got a reliable source that's done the work of breaking out the "driven down", "out of control", & others from the confirmed...)
 * OTOH, did Germany have a system for marking & defending crashed a/c to prevent looting? The Brits did in WW2. (It was never used AFAIK to confirm FC claims... :/ )   TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  11:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "" Your sentence implies that British and allied air forces couldn't have used the German system, which is wrong." No, it's not, obviously. "
 * I see you didn't even read my post. It is not wrong you think? Then check this Aerial victory standards of World War I at once and let's stop this useless argument. Allies [b] USED [/b] the german system.79.89.217.113 (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless you consider all allies to be British or commonwealth?79.89.217.113 (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "couldn't have used the German system" So how accurate were the Belgian scores? Not very, I'll wager, since they relied on finding wrecks. For the Brit/Commonwealth AFs, at a minimum, it was impossible to locate & record downed a/c. (We're not talking about "eyewitness confirmation", which AFAIK the Brits also used, so leave off.) So unless you mean they should use a system which would produce no verifiable results, the German system wasn't an option.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  18:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC) :::::(BTW, I did read your post. I disagree completely.)
 * "So how accurate were the Belgian scores? Not very, I'll wager, since they relied on finding wrecks" Well, to each one his opinion. For my part, my opinion is a dead wreak is more reliable source than unwitnessed OOC to confirm a kill. At least the first example wouldn't get a victoria cross for nothing. But to each his own.

""eyewitness confirmation", which AFAIK the Brits also used, so leave off." It wasn't necessary to confirm a kill although it was obviouly used. You can find unlimited examples of unwitnessed credited kills (uncrossed with german losses btw) in Billy Bishop and other people records. "Brit/Commonwealth AFs, at a minimum, it was impossible to locate & record downed a/c" If i show you pictures of downed german aircraft in british territory, will you stop affirming such wrong things? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.89.217.113 (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly, do you think before you post?
 * "my opinion is a dead wreak is more reliable source than unwitnessed OOC to confirm a kill" That's lovely if you can find & count them. Imagine you're a Belgian (or Brit) Army intel officer. Do you genuinely believe the Germans are going to point out crashed German a/c? Do you really not get that?
 * "If i show you pictures of downed german aircraft in british territory" We aren't talking about German fighters in British territory, we're talking about German ones in German territory. What part of that don't you understand?
 * Do me a favor? Don't try selling me the Brooklyn Bridge. I'm not buying.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  02:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm amazed. Instead of answering to you, i will just quote yourself a different stages:


 * "This is so obvious, I don't know how you don't get it. The German a/c went down on German territory."


 * And when i propose you a proof that this statement is partly false, here is your answer:


 * We aren't talking about German fighters in British territory, we're talking about German ones in German territory


 * And here is my preferred part:


 * "What part of that don't you understand?"


 * Dude, do you at least understand how you are contradicting yourself? Germans didn't let French Belgian or Italians either to check for german wrecks in german territory. This didn't prevent Belgian Italian French to have 20, 40, 75 victories aces. The same would have applied to British. They would have had less credited victories and more probables, but still a great number of aces for all the german airplanes downed in their territory or witnessed being crashed in german territory near the frontline.
 * Thus defeating your initial point, that British couldn't have used such a crediting system.


 * About the bridge: Lets keep to subject and stop trolling, if you want to have a decent discussion. And even if you don't want to, all has been said already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.89.217.113 (talk) 03:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Trolling? Look who's talking.
 * "contradicting yourself"? Really? You're the one saying the Brits should use the German system: to wit, count the wrecks. Wrecks on German territory, where the majority of British (Commonwealth) operations took place. Contrary to Italian, Belgian, & French experience, unless I'm much mistaken. Which fact you conviently ignore.


 * "i propose you a proof that this statement is partly false" A proposal that has no bearing on the reality of the British situation. Thus proving you're not paying attention.
 * "Thus defeating your initial point, that British couldn't have used such a crediting system."? Actually, it proves I was right all along: you're deliberately not seeing evidence that contradicts your contention.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  05:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * " where the majority of British operations took place Contrary to Italian, Belgian, & French experience, unless I'm much mistaken"
 * Lol mate, you are much mistaken. Now i understand why we couldn't agree since the beginning. It looks like you were not aware that ALL allies fought mostly in ennemy airspace (ON WESTERN FRONT), not just british. Thats why, as i said before, so much french and belgian pilots got probables instead of kill credits. Up to 50% of their total kills in some cases. Because they fought on ennemy territrory. Anyways, all has been said. No need to go on, regards.79.89.217.113 (talk) 05:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

In replay to the anonymous query above from 79.89.217.113: Checking Aerial victory standards of World War I shows that "Over the Trenches" describes exactly the situation being questioned; that's why I cited it when I wrote that article. The other Grub Street books say the same, but OTT was handiest while I was writing. A biography of Hugh Trenchard will probably rub your nose in his theory and practice of constant attack in excruciating detail. Even popular history texts covering the war mention it.

Georgejdorner (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, time to wrap this non-discussion up. We are being gamed by someone whose only contribution to WP has been this line of specious argument. If you don't believe me, take a look at his/her anonymous account at 79.89.217.113 (talk).

Georgejdorner (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes you are right, as i don't agree with you then my arguments are probably false. That's probably why so many people above me have protested about POV and BIAS. If it makes you feel better to ignore the truth then ok, keep saying wrong things on wikipedia.


 * ALLIES (most of) USED the "IMPRATICAL" system as said there: Aerial victory standards of World War I So the sentence is wrong. Not proved by me, but by the very wikipedia article i just linked. I hope other wikipedia members will consider normal to not say 2 different things on the same site, as i do, instead of discrediting me because i'm not british enough not to see how the phrase is pov. And i'm not anonymous since you can see my freaking IP address!79.89.217.113 (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sad that you're taking all this the wrong way. No one is "intent on discrediting you" but not everyone is going to agree with everything you say. At least read their reasons for doing so without flying off the handle.


 * Now plaese get real - NO Allied nation "used the German system" or, of course, anything very much like it. It is doubtful if they even knew (or cared very much) what the German system was. Looking at the situation from an historical perspective, there may well be aspects of (say) the French way of confirming and recording kills that resembled the German way of doing it - on the other hand there are also quite marked differences (look at "shared kills" for instance) where the BRITISH "system" (in so far as they had one) was closer to the German system than the French one was.


 * The point, and it really is important you at least try to come to grips with this, is that the Germans COULD confirm victory scores (as, at least in part, they did) by identifying wrecks. They (that is the jastas) seldom flew over the Allied side - and when they did they found it VERY difficult, if not impossible, to confirm kills made there. If the British (and to a lesser extent the other allies) had stuck with THAT system then they would have had no confirmed ace pilots at all - nor, for intelligence purposes, much idea of how they were doing in terms of enemy aircraft destroyed. In that sense the strict German system would not have been practical for them - they were forced to work with something less rigid, and probably rather less accurate. This is the context in which categories of claim like "forced to land" or "out of control" need to be considered. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I want to thank you for bringing that up. We're treating the ace scores like box scores or stats for a fantasy fighter ace game. They're not. Their most important feature, & one usually overlooked by historiography, is their measurement of the effectiveness of an air force's fighters. This also bears on the training program(s), procurement, technical intelligence, R&D, all kinds of other stuff. At bottom, that's why accurate recording & reporting is important. Inaccurate reporting is corrosive, leading to a false sense of security (as the Japanese learned...). If we rewrote to emphasise that aspect, correctly sourced, IMO we'd have added something important, & gotten something useful out of this discussion.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  05:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * @ SOundofmusicals : Yes there was difference between German and French system, but also Belgian one was said to be the most severe of all.
 * What i meant, and it looks like i'm either talking chinese, or people writing to me don't want to understand, is that in the core, italian french and belgian requested INDEPENDANTLY WITNESSED DESTRUCTION OF AIRCRAFT which is totally opposed to British system, and very close to German. And i never said they tried to copy german system, it just resulted that way after each country chosing its own system.
 * Let's be honest, request of a proved destructed aircraft didn't impeech French Italian and Belgian to have aces. So what you said there: " If the British (and to a lesser extent the other allies) had stuck with THAT system then they would have had no confirmed ace pilots at all" is really wrong:
 * Belgian had the most severe crediting system OF ALL and they still got a 40+victories ace.
 * It looks like you forget that German DID attack and fight on allied airspace too, even though in a lesser extent. ANy german aircraft downed in allied territory would be considered a victory no matter how severe the crediting system was. You are way too paroxic. Not 100% of the aereal fights were on german territory.79.89.217.113 (talk) 06:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Now plaese get real - NO Allied nation used [...] anything very much like the german system".


 * French Italian Belgian German requested witnessing. British did not.
 * French Italian German claims in ennemy airspace without witness would not count. It would for the British.
 * French Italian German OOC never counted if it didn't result in actual proved destruction. It would for the British.
 * French Italian German Belgian only validated witness when it was INDEPENDANT. For the British, a wingman witnessing was valid.


 * YOu still think what you said?


 * "It is doubtful if they even knew (or cared very much) what the German system was" When did i say the contrary?


 * "(look at "shared kills" for instance) where the BRITISH "system" (in so far as they had one) was closer to the German system than the French one was."
 * What is said there Aerial victory standards of World War I is that unless in  some exceptions, sharing victories was also done on British side like on the french. And if you check British aces kill records you will notice many of them if not all have shared kills. So i'm sorry but i dont agree there.79.89.217.113 (talk) 07:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not think we need to change this article just to include an anonymous editor's unsourced information. As I pointed out previously, this editor's purpose seems to be argumentation, not a search for truth. Georgejdorner (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Unsourced? How about you check your own source there, all is there: Aerial victory standards of World War I. And nothing is from me in that article. Your only purpose seems to be discrediting me, not a search for truth.79.89.217.113 (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Rephrase proposal
Since the discussion isn't giving any fruits, i propose the following rephrase and will do it if you agree:

Original sentence

"Most aerial fighting was on the German side of the lines, so this quite rigorous system worked reasonably well for the Germans themselves, but would have been totally impractical for the Allies, especially the British, who fought mostly in enemy airspace."

Proposed sentence:

"Most aerial fighting was on the German side of the lines, so this quite rigorous system worked reasonably well for the Germans themselves, but the British considered it would have been totally impractical for the RFC and RNAS, who, like most allied air forces at that time, fought mostly in enemy airspace. However other allies (Belgian, Italian, French) still used a system very close to the German one (see Aerial victory standards of World War I )"

What do you think? Is everyone OK?79.89.217.113 (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No. I do think that we probably need to describe the German system in greater detail in the article you keep quoting at us, to make it clear how different it was from anything any of the allies used - but your proposed change is totally unecessary, and adds nothing constructive to this article. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "and adds nothing constructive to this article." Yes it does. It adds objectivity and truth. I cannot believe i am debating here on if it is a good thing or a bad thing to make people reading "flying ace" article on WP aware that British and other allies crediting system was totally different. We probably should let the lie that it was the same, however another WP article says exactly the contrary.


 * You are not bothered by the credibility of wikipedia?79.89.217.113 (talk) 07:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

WW.1 British scoring
For a long time it was assumed (in English speaking countries at least) that first world war allied pilots' scores were more accurate than those of the central powers. There was never any real reason for this, and inevitably there was a backlash, sometimes going to the extreme of treating British claims the same way German ones used to be! A lot of our sources are in fact pretty partisan (OK in a certain type of publication, but not in an encyclopedia!) Real historical evidence, like the quote from Gould-Lee's 1918 letter, which bears quite directly on questions like "shared victories" is very rare indeed, and - in view of the contradictory assertions of many of our secondary sources - extremely relevant. If we are including fashionable generalisations for which there is in fact little direct evidence, then this really needs to be balanced by what real evidence is available. Just mentioning this, as this passage seems to be under attack from several directions. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "For a long time it was assumed (in English speaking countries at least) that first world war allied pilots' scores were more accurate than those of the central powers"


 * I don't know where you take that from. Belgium, French, and American ratached to french standards of confirming victories were totally different from the British, similar to german standards. Only independantly witnessed DESTRUCTION of aircraft counted, as opposed to british "out of control" and other non-destructed that count as a kill, or worse, the Billy bishop non witnessed but still awarded 3 kills + VICTORIA CROSS.


 * Check it out there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_victory_standards_of_World_War_I


 * So don't generalise british claming accuracy to "allies". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.89.217.113 (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you might not understand exactly what I was getting at here - It WAS assumed (by English speaking authors at least) for many years after the war that German claims were inflated while Allied ones (especially British, of course) were accurate. This was, of course, not so - in fact later, more impartial historical research revealed that as a rule the opposite was usually the case. There has been a bit of an over-reaction, and what may even be excess cycnicism about Britsh claims - most of which we assume here to have been honest, if occasionally mistaken - and incidentally - they normally needed to be witnessed. Incidentally some American claims - like a certain U.S. ace's "Dived East" would have been "probables" at best in later wars.


 * This is an encyclopedia - and we try hard to be fair, and not to draw too many firm conclusions about facts that must forever be highly debatable. Many of the accusations of "bias" come from people with an obvious partisan attitude. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, you talk about Rickenbaker, and you are right. Actually as stated in the link i gave, some american squadrons took British standards, other took the french.
 * I don't doubt about most British/commonwealth pilots honesty. All pilots from all countries are prone to overclaiming.
 * The difference being that to the difference of other allied countries (less part of american) that did not allow INDEPENDANTLY unwitnessed destruction, British standards was to consider most of the offensive action against the ennemy as a "victory", and as such, out of controls and other which may not have resulted in actual death, capture or difficult landing. As a result most of what would have been counted as "probable" for an Italian Belgian French, Amercican under french colors, would be counted as a victory for a commonwealth pilot. Most of english pilots had very few probables, and great numbers of "confirmed" unconfirmed victories. I just randomly took Mannock (i have nothing against him) and i could count not less than 15 out of control awarded kills, of his 61.


 * What i mean by all that is that i have difficulty to believe part of what you said in first quote, that "english speaking countries" people would consider(in the past) ALL ALLIES kills to be more reliable than GERMAN, when actually kill crediting system of 3/4 of the allies was more similar to German crediting system than British one. Do you understand the nuanciation?


 * No flamewar intended. I say this because i'm feeling more and more that you must be a British guy.79.89.217.113 (talk) 01:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not British really (British Commonwealth I suppose). If you read older English language sources, you very quickly pick up the (incorrect of course) prejudice most of them had that Allied (and especially British of course) victory totals were much more reliable than those 'horrible huns" - who naturally exaggerated everything. This probably had its roots in wartime propaganda. Nowadays we know better of course - but it WAS a very common impression you'd get from reading most English language sources when I was young (wheeze wheeze :-) ). Modern research, as we all know, tends on the other hand to confirm what you'd in fact expect - that most aces on both sides were quite honest (not our job here to attempts to identify, much less vilify, any exceptions)and in fact sometimes surprisingly modest, and that most overclaiming is certainly not due to intentional fraud. What I actually said was that in this new fairer atmosphere is that there is sometimes a tendency to denigrate Allied (especially British) victory scores. This is as silly and prejudiced as the old anti-German one.


 * For what it is worth - the RFC/RAF simply didn't make anything like as much fuss about fighter pilots' victory claims as other nations did. It was felt that the French and German "ace" systems were unfair to the many brave pilots who had little or no opportunity to become aces in terms of aircraft shot down - especially in bomber and reconaissance squadrons. As a result the Brits didn't actually have a centralised "system" in the sense that the French and German air services did - at different times, and in different units, the likelihood of combat reports getting endorsed as "decisive" varied - which is very frustrating for aviation historians, but something we have to live with. "Shared" scores were another thing about which unlikely generalisations are often made. In practice most shared scores (in the RFC/RAF) seem to have been credited as fractions - or to the pilot who "got in the nearest shot" or just to the unit. Most pilots probably wouldn't have claimed an "out of control" as a victory unless he (and his witnesses) were pretty sure the aircraft WAS at least "forced to (crash) land". When OOC claims got rather high, late in the war - they were no longer tallied as victories at all - apparently more to save the clerical effort involved than anything else.


 * I did have a feeling that your reaction was to something I didn't actually say - the point of the above comments is just to make things clearer. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * What we need to keep in mind is that this is after all a general encyclopedia. We record known facts ("X" pilot was officially credited with "Y" vicroies) without going into details about how likely it was that his total was inflated. Above all we avoid contoversy, and making generalisations that don't stack up - that sort of thing belongs to a different class of literature than an encyclopedia.

Poor old Brits again (WWI victory claims)
Rearranged and consolodated this yet again - removing irrelevancies (we're talking about acehood/victory claims, so casualties from groundfire are not very much to the point! and paring the infamous "sentence" around which such distortion and strange interpretations have been put forward down to its very barest essentials. I only hope that the next batch of one-issue "editors" don't attack this one again down the track, pushing it even further towards the level of a "Boy's Own Stories" type magazine.

Frankly - to me this whole section now reeks of childish chauvinism and retrospective rewriting of history - but it DOES reflect the current "fashion". We are after all not writing a definitive book on the subject here, replete with our own research, but gathering readily available and generally accepted "information" (albeit much is after all just someones personal take on what remains very thin and incomplete evidence) and presenting this in as succinct a way as possible.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The flip side of WP's freedom to edit is dealing with anonymous ignorant bozos with access to a computer; cripes, they may be anyone dialing in from a cyber-cafe or public library. Heck, they can be a rotating cast of jokesters gaming WP. They all too often are single-issue crackpots who are totally clueless about standards of proof.

Hang on, my tuneful buddy; we'll thresh out a good article yet. It can be as simple as editing out the junk and bracing up the facts with some reliable citations.

Perseverance furthers.

Georgejdorner (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Some things I'm VERY unhappy with still. Our last "ignorant bozo" was obsessed with a notion that Trenchard's (often very much criticised) policy of continuous offensive applied to the other Allies. It didn't of course, even when they did act offensively it was much less singlemindedly than the Trenchard doctrine (and, according to many, not necessarily the worse for that!!).

It was in fact perfectly in order (although perhaps a little OR) for this article in its "pre-flame attack state" to point out that the Germans (and to a lesser also extent the "non-British" allies) simply had better opportunities for physical confirmation of their victories. (It's NOT just a matter of locating wrecked aircraft - they were also far more likely to get "independant" witnesses). I think we have caved in far to much to the "Bozo's" obsessive ignorance - he may have had a minor point or two when it came to O.R. and references (they very often do - in spite of themselves) but the bit in this article now duplicates to far too great an extent your "Confirmation standards" article, while losing the main point in a lot of murky detail. Since the great majority of fighter-to-fighter combat was in fact between the British and the Germans (contentious statement I realise, but broadly TRUE) details about the allies' different standards of victory confirmation should perhaps be kept for that article.

I think we need:

A minor rewrite of the German bit - this needs to state (with suitable references if at all possible)
 * That the Jastas (which were the single seat fighter units to which virtually all the aces belonged to) fought defensively - especially against the highly agressive British - generally speaking intercepting enemy formations only when they were well over the lines.
 * That as a direct result of the above it was much easier for them to confirm victories conclusively. (Wrecks, and more witnesses hanging around.) An allied aircraft "forced to land" was captured or reduced to wreckage, and hence a legitimate kill.

The "British" bit needs to be cleaned up a little. The relevant points are:
 * British usage of their fighters was very highly agressive - they routinely flew deep over German held territory (NOT "Germany", as our Bozo would have) - and sought out German aircraft (including fighters) flying on their own side of the lines. This was due to a deliberate policy by Trenchard (the field commander of the RFC, and later the RAF). It was NOT an overall allied policy really - although the other allies may have been moved at times to emulate it, they also criticised it a lot as foolhardy.
 * As a result it was harder for them to get conclusive evidence of the destruction of their victims. Hence the infamous "moral victory" categories ("forced to land", "out of control" etc.) - and also the crediting of at least some kills that may not have been considered properly "witnessed" by the standards of other combatants. Over German held territory many British victories did not in fact represent an aircraft "lost" pernamently to the Germans, since it could be salvaged or repaired.

The "other allies" bit needs one very short, simple summary paragraph - keep details for the other article. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * OK - I'VE DONE IT. Sorry for the shout but I'm quite pleased with myself. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

(Sound of applause) GOOD SHOW!

Are you also going to rewrite WWII?

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Answer to soundofmusicals

Keep insulting me as much as you want, if it makes you feel better, i will consider that the lack of evidence or source provided for the part of sentence implicated is a proof of what i had been suspecting since the beginning: It had been written by a WP user (of dubious neutrality btw) and not a serious writter or historian.

Now if it makes you feel better to use offensive language when my sole purpose was to have a discussion on what should appear on the (probably) most viewed page of wikipedia about aerial pilot and aces (which is what WPdiscussion is for), feel free to do it. I'm happy with it as long as it keeps you away from adding more unsourced material and personal convictions in main article, obviously.

-" Since the great majority of fighter-to-fighter combat was in fact between the British and the Germans (contentious statement I realise, but broadly TRUE)"

I always love when you make such statements that look to be directly taken from a fanboy forum troll. No flame intended, but what i just said is " broadly TRUE" as i am going to prove:

during 14-18, western front


 * Built aircraft

French + US: 68000 + 15000

British: 58144

France + US: 138 + 55
 * Operational aircraft in 1914:

British: 113

French + USA: 4511 + 711
 * Operational aircraft in 1918:

British: 3300

Most produced single seat fighters:

French spad7 and 13: 6000 and 8400

British Camel and SE5: 5500 and 5200

All this without counting the fact that part of British stuff satyed in UK for home defence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.89.217.113 (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Total aircraft losses due to war

French: 52640

British: 35973

sources: History of aviation by Editions ATLAS and Aerospace publishing LTD p94; World Encyclopedia of military Aircraft by enzo angelucci p29; Wikipedia

I won't lower myself to debate on a "who's got the biggest" type argument, however your statement seems to be wrong in regard to these statistics.

-"British usage of their fighters was very highly agressive - they routinely flew deep over German held territory"

This is wrong or badly phrased. If you look at Trenchard biography you will notice that he was an unconditional partisan of ground troops support doctrine, offensive sure, but still ground troops support. Long range bombings or anything that wasn't a direct help of ground units wasn't his objective. And if you have some knowledge about the Battle of the Somme (for which his policy would be either acclaimed or criticized depending on who). I suggest you read Trenchard article on wikipedia.

Which makes me think that even in that aspect you are wrong. Following Trenchard doctrine, Most aerial fights would have occured near british troops, even in "German held territory", large ammount on ground witnesses, Artillery or balloon observers would have been available to confirm British "offensive" kills. Belgian got rewarded many kills this way, even though the wrecks wouldn't fall in allied territory.

-"German held territory (NOT "Germany", as our Bozo would have[said?])"

Sure. With the same idea when i said "British territory" i actually meant "British airspace in French territory". I didn't think it was necessary to precise in such intellectual talkings between "experts", looks like i was wrong.

Also i want to precise that i don't think Brits SHOULD have used this system over this system. I don't say this one is best this one is worse. What i say is that they COULD (potential) have used such a system and still have lots of aces.

Yes, i do think German Belgian or French systems have some unfair aspects. This being said it is not the matter of the discussion to know "which was best". And that should be the aim of wikipedia users, giving neutral impersonal information, try to have a critical view/interpretation of information, nomatter what your culture of origin is. Also trying to have sources from different countries may help. Regards79.89.217.113 (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous,

First, I am the one who used the pejorative "bozo" in a general sense above, so don't blame Sound of Musicals.

I am glad to see you finally can quote a source for some of your information; however, aircraft production figures are irrelevant to the historical process of the origin of flying aces. You see, you may ignore my relevant cites above concerning British military policy, but I acknowledge even your flawed attempt to justify yourself by quoting data for an entirely different subject.

As for the validity of various nations' victory confirmation rules...there are plenty of aviation history forums where you can go bicker with other contenders about opinions all you want. However, this is an encyclopedia. We record the aerial victory rules used at the time. We record the reported results. We give the sources of our information.

We don't report unsubstantiated opinions from casual dropins. And you are the latest in a seemingly endless succession of clueless dropins for this article, so if s.o.m and I, who have put so much work into WP, seem grouchy, it is because we are frustrated by the disruptions.

If you are serious about Wikipedia, then register and get a user name. Lose the pushy attitude so you don't come across as a nuisance, come up with some reliable information with good sources, and you will find that we will welcome you. I have mentored a couple of non-English speakers in their debut, and edited their text to improve it and make them look good. Why not? I am a retired writing instructor.

However, if that process is not happening, then I am not wasting any more time and energy discussing this with you. I have fully cited reputable articles to write instead.

Georgejdorner (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear anonymous friend


 * George has actually answered you very well - but just to reiterate:


 * We are talking here about FIGHTER aviation - like ACES. Is that beyond you? that's like, the article we're discussing, right?
 * A good deal of aircraft production, losses etc. on both sides were bomber and reconaissance aircraft. In fact the bulk of most aces' victories were over these airraft rather than other fighters.


 * If you want to look at some relevant statistics, just look at Richthoven's victory table - virtually ALL British - wonder why?? like most crack units his spent almost all its time on the British part of the front (wonder why?) many of his victories were over two-seaters rather than other fighters (any relevance do you suppose to the above).


 * Talking about "agression" HERE (this is after all the aces article) we are talking of fighters. Even the notoriously "defensive" Germans used aircraft other than fighters (close support, bombers, high altiude recon.) quite offensively. Trenchard was indeed not an especially enthusiastic proponent of strategic bombing - the French did rather more of that than the Brits (and suffered many casualties as a result). But Trenchard DID have his fighters range many miles over over German lines - far away from any chance of independent corroberation of their claims; they were only anywhere near British ground troops during offensives (either their own or German ones) when the troops actually required close support. Neither side had their fighters dawdle near the trenches themselves very much at any other time (escorting photo recon and gun spotters an obvious exception) - they would be risking being shot down by groundfire for no reason.


 * And all this over a statement that didn't get even into the article - for the very good reason that it IS contentious!


 * Have you read the section we have been bickering over recently? I hate to have to say this - but I think it is now clearer and more focused, mainly becasue of the fuss you have been making. Remember this IS an encyclopedia - we are intersted primarily in facts, and perhaps the immediate reasons for those facts rather than endless speculation. That someone COULD or SHOULD have done things differently is by no means totally futile - but this is just not the place for it.


 * Finally - an unreserved apology for the "Bozo" bit - insulting each other is NOT what good wiki editors do. Have to say I was provoked - among other things by some of your own remarks that at least border on personal attacks - but that of course is rather less than no excuse. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

answer to SOM:

Hi. I'm happy to see we can now discuss and behave. I admit that my overreactive tone in first posts was probably the reason all this childlish attitude begun. You don't need to apologize. I knew you were not this type of guy anyways. Furthermore, it looks like you are the only one to carefully and entirely read my posts, IDE a good argumentation without repeating oneself over and over is possible.

I want to THANK you for the edits that makes the article better than what it was before. The sentence that looked like a personal thought isn't anymore, now the only material there looks to be nearly all sourced.

In your last post you said somehing very important:

"Remember this IS an encyclopedia - we are intersted primarily in facts, and perhaps the immediate reasons for those facts rather than endless speculation."

EXACTLY!! This is an encyclopedia!! So anything else than PURE SOURCED FACTS shouldn't appear there. SPECULATION SHOULD NEVER appear there. The kind of sentence like "Since the great majority of fighter-to-fighter combat was in fact between the British and the Germans (contentious statement I realise, but broadly TRUE)" (i know you had the diligence to not add it to main article, thanks to god) hasn't its place there.

However i'm hinted that even if it didn't make it to the main article, it still influenced you, by what you said there: "The "other allies" bit needs one very short, simple summary paragraph " and by the fact that there are 3 paragraphs dedicated only to British, one about an anecdotic letter that (IMO) shouldn't be there, and because you still think British fighters did most of the work, the overall section looks kind of unfairly attaching more importance to the British.

I WON'T EDIT ANYTHING MYSELF. However you raised some points that looks like your personnal thinking that British fought more than other allies. I will just answer (with source) to your points that this statement is, for the least, UNVERIFIABLE, for the most, wrong.

After that i hope that this will convince you and, in the future, that you will see WW1 aerial dogfights not just through a British perspective.79.89.217.113 (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

answer to SOM:

ARGUMENTATION:


 * You said: "If you want to look at some relevant statistics, just look at Richthoven's victory table - virtually ALL British - wonder why??"

That's partially true! It's just a pity you didn't went downwards on the list of German aces.(no offense)


 * Richthofen (80) has    7 French fighters victories, 16 british fighters
 * Ernst UDET (62) has    19 french fighters victories, 22 british fighters
 * Erich Löwenhardt(54)   18 French fighters victories, 16 British fighters
 * Josef Jacobs (48)      13 French fighters victories, 20 british fighters
 * Rudolf Berthold(44)    13 French fighters vitories, 3 british
 * Oswald Boelcke (40)    20 french aircraft victories 20 British aircraft (fighters?)
 * Franz Büchner (40)     19 French fighter victories, 5 british fighters
 * Karl Menckhoff (39)    17 French fighter victories, 11 british fighters

source: Theaerodrome http://www.theaerodrome.com/aces/germany/udet.php see the note below

Some others have nearly French only victories, Arthur Laumann(28), others have mostly british only victories Karl Bolle (36).

(note: Since french aircraft were exported in relative low numbers to UK,US,Bel and british aircraft were exported in relative low numbers France US belg, i'm counting a french aircraft as french, and a british aircraft as british for comparation puposes-unless there's proof of contrary in the record. *exception: Since there were 3 french strutters for 1 british strutter, in the case of Boelcke i'm counting 3french and 1 brit)

As you can see the percent of victories depended often of the sector where the jastas were located, which fluctuated over the time. After seeing the statistics we honestly can't say there is a huge difference between British (&commonwealth) and other allies fighter-to-fighter victories from the highest german aces.

Which negates your following argument:

"like most crack units his spent almost all its time on the British part of the front (wonder why?)."

Boelcke Udet and Lowhenhardt statistics tend to show you are not exactly right. It fluctuated over time, all countries squadrons often moved. And the airspace wasn't delimited to either french or british.

However i let you know that i have one source that tend to say that "they would be risking being shot down by groundfire for no reason." was actually part of Trenchard doctrine. He didn't consider it was for "no reason" though, for many reason, either strategical or psychological.
 * About TRENCHARD: SInce you said speculation is futile, and it looks like talking about this is annoying you, i won't continue with the Trenchard topic.

If you want me to post the text concerned out of my source (History of aviation by Editions ATLAS and Aerospace publishing LTD p82-83) just say it. Otherwise let's forget this speculative topic.

Kind regards 79.89.217.113 (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This is NOT to prolong this argument - in fact as an "argument" (in the negative sense of the word) the argument is over as far as I am concerned. But do be careful of statistics. The French built far more aircraft than they could use - while the RFC/RAF (like most other air services involved in the war, including the Germans!) suffered from chronic shortages, especially of up-to-date operational types. This is one reason for the widespread use of French aircraft by other allies (the other being that on the whole they were rather good, of course). SPADs and Nieuports (and in the early days of the war Moranes) were used quite a lot by the RFC - I think (off-hand) for instance, that all the SPADs and Nieuports Richthoven shot down were RFC rather than Aviation Militaire - with the exception of one SPAD that they think might have been Belgian. The British used the Sopwith "Strutter" as a two seat fighter and as a light bomber - by the time the French built examples reached the front (mostly as general reconaissance aircraft) the British had largely discarded theirs, at least as front line aircraft. So you could actually tell with a pretty high degree of accuracy if a victory over a "Strutter" was French or German - by the date.


 * The figures for the other aces might turn out to be a little skewed by this "French aircraft in British service" factor as well. All the same, you've probably got a point. As I made that particular comment, I was very much aware that it was "off the top of my head" - and far too contentious and generalised to get into the article. If you have a look at the discussion pages for a few articles you will see that we quite often work that way - the discussion page contains information (much of it accurate enough) that we would NOT put into the article itself without further research and/or bouncing about between us, and that even then wouldn't get in without a reference. Another thing is reference quality. There are a lot of aviation history books that are poorly researched, and certain authors who are frankly best avoided as references. If you've done a fair bit of reading you probably know just what I am talking about. Websites are also poor references - an authoritative book by a well known and respected air historian is generally to be preferred.


 * --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, just one more thought - the para about Gould-Lee is NOT anecdotal - it is referenced to a book that largely consists of his letters home, as they were written at the time - and it is there NOT as waffle, but because it makes the important point that the Brits were casual, rather off-hand, and not at all consistent about victory claims. If we just made that statement, with no explanation or reference, I think you'd be one of the first people to object! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I said that because at the time i added my own edit, i added an anecdotic reference to french pilot Georges Madon (105 victories claimed 41 credited) as a "proof" of the fact that either witnesses or wrecks were needed for a kill to be confirmed, and soon after someone erased it. So i considered that this kind of one pilot experience/example wasn't to be added in that section.


 * But it doesn't matter anyways.79.89.217.113 (talk) 00:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)