Talk:List of World War II flying aces/Archive 1

Nice. I was thinking a breakout of tops would be good (since a lot of folks want the biggest on the block). Was my intention in providing the "complete" list that some of the aces with smaller counts but with notable histories could also be linked. But I like this page. PilotPrecise 10:45, 9 March 2004 (UTC)

Reformatting
Hey I'm thinking that it might be more logical to sort Pilots by their respective countries. That way people could more easily find specific pilot, and not sift through a long list. Also It seems rediculous that allied fighters with under ten kills are listed but axis fighters with under twenty kills aren't. It seems that spilting this article into several different articles would enable a better perspective of the subject (Lucas(CA) 22:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC))

Eek!
I'd like to say that I'm shocked and appalled by the lack of respect writers of this article give to all those that died in World War II. "Oh, he killed 302 people, he's such an ace" ?! I'm beyond words :-(
 * FYI, a "kill" is shooting down another plane, tank, or similar craft. You don't get "kills" for strafing the ground shooting civilians.  (That's what Bomber Command is for!), so it's just that he shot down 300 enemy pilots. Sherurcij July 7, 2005 14:36 (UTC)
 * The more typical term for aerial combat was "victory."Al Lowe

Warning
Numbers of kills might be WRONG in this article - I've improved a few cases, that I've noticed (Frantisek, etc). Pibwl 23:36, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

FYI
I made a few corrections for what I am aware of. And "kills" is not the common word for downing airplanes. The more common word is "victory, or victories." In any event, I also added Lance C. Wade, an American who flew with the RAF until his death in 1944.Al Lowe 19:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Training issues.
I wouldn't say that the US wasn't trained as well in fighter combat than other nations; our doctrine was just different. After a certain number of missions, the more experienced pilots would be circulated back to the states to serve as flying instructors; thus, the relatively low number of kills for American pilots. The Japanese Naval Air Force, on the other hand, had a grueling pilot training regimen, put all their strength up front, and, well, we all know what happened. Suffice to say, the Battle of the Philippine Sea is an excellent example of the clash between American training doctrine and Japanese training doctrine.
 * It should be noted that the JNAF training was shortened considerably AFTER the US entered the war. Their training method, proved to long, and created a shortage they could not recover from.Al Lowe

Listing by country instead
Wouldnt it be better to list the aces in separate lists for every country instead of having them all lumped into one big list?
 * That might be a way to go, but I'd keep the UK/Commonwealth aces together. But that's just me.Al Lowe 21:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Gross POV
''Russian pilots had a hard time surviving long enough to become aces, as they often received little training, fought against more experienced Nazi pilots, and had planes that favored a skilled pilot rather than a beginner. Germany has the highest scoring aces due to often superior aircraft, many pilots having a lot of experience from earlier fighting, and the fact that German pilots had to serve until they were shot down. Most American pilots were cycled stateside to instruct newer pilots after a tour of duty, thus the lower number of kills.''

What in the world is this? a) Soviet pilots did not have a "hard time surviving long enough" b) Not all Luftwaffe pilots were Nazi's (by definition, members of that party) c) Luftwaffe did not have superior aircraft by many accounts

It should be noted that Luftwaffe counted kills in a very different fashion from other nations with many "word of mouth" tallies. Soviet Union did not count a kill unless it was confirmed by several independent observes in the air and on the ground. Aircraft shot down over enemy territory almost never counted because they could not be confirmed by the infantry.

- Emt147 Burninate!  07:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This is completely incorrect. The Luftwaffe tallying system was the most rigorous used by any nation.  Shared Kills were credited to squadrons but not individual pilots and no kill was accepted unless it was confirmed by at least two other pilots or preferably the infantry.  Furthermore, the Germans were this rigorous precisely because they were getting so many claims.  There is no reason to dispute any of the German aces scores, allied kill counts are far more doubtful what with the rewarding of "halves", reliance on gun camera in preference to confirmation from the ground forces and inclusion of air-to-ground kills in some cases.  The German Ace's got such high scores because they served continuously, not because they were cooking the books.  "Fighter" by Len Deighton has some excellent reference on this subject.  Getztashida 11:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Fighter is a very good book, but it doesn't deal directly with the Eastern Front or North Africa, the two most contentious cases. While the German records of WW1 are probably better than the Allied ones, the WW2 German system of rewarding pilots in direct proportion to the number of kills makes it suspect. Such a system put a premium on overclaiming and also for ones comrades to support overclaiming. Grant65 | Talk 14:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

How Do You Shoot Down Seven Eights of a Plane?
How is it possible to shoot down seven eights of a plane? Does like half of one wing survive and fly home on its own or something? I understand "sharing" the "credit" with another 1 or 2 people (x.5 and x.33), but how the hell can you know you shot seven out of the eight important bullets that made the plane fall? What if one of the bullets wasn't important in the end? What if only one was?--85.49.224.162 22:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Despite the obnoxiousness of this inquiry, a credit of x.83 is a combined total of a half and a third, defined by numbers of pilots sharing the claim. It had nothing to do with numbers of bullets but you knew that.

Let's say two pilots share credit for one plane shot down. Each is awarded half a kill. Then one of those pilots is part of a team of three that shoots down another plane. Thus he has 1/2 kill plus 1/3 kill. Nobody is ever alleged to have shot down 7/8 or 5/12 of a plane. The USAAF and USN merely used a different system in this regard. 65.66.216.175 (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there really a need for this?
Flying ace-article has the whole list, and is better. --Pudeo 17:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed (although the other article may not be complete, it is better than this one). Kablammo 18:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have since removed all aces with fewer than 20 kills from that page, as there was no way we were going to fit every ace in history on it. Grant65 | Talk 01:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Michael Jacksson
On the list is Michael_J._Jackson the singer, should he really be here? 130.76.32.145 20:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have altered the link to point to Michael Joseph Jackson (pilot) to distinguish between singer and pilot. They both have the same middle name Joseph which doesnt help with the links.MilborneOne 21:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

About the number of kills/victories
It seems like the numbers indicated in the list are not very right, cause it strongly depends on how you count your victory: share it with you team and count hit plane per each person, or claim your personal victory and prove it somehow.

Just some math:

Total lost of all Russian Red Army airplanes is about 80'000 units A lot of it was destroyed "on the ground", and more than half - accidents, crashes etc.

According to archives:

About 25200 airplanes lost in actions (fighters + bombers). According to the given list of top pilots, together Luftwaffe aces destroyed about 16000 planes

Wow! That is 63%!!! So, what did other German pilots, anti-aircraft defence do? ...

Erich Hartmann is true Ace, and very probably his victories are about the claimed number. But what to do with simple math and other scores?

It must be pointed out that these are CLAIMED victories - not PROVEN records
Kurt, I think it is stupid for both of us to engage in a revert war so I will state here why the explaination should stand:
 * 1) Every single word is true - the kill records are (mostly) wartime claims of each of these aces verified by wingmen and NOT verified by the opposing sides’ reported losses (which if ever appeared after the war). Even with both sides’ cards shown it is difficult to impossible to create the whole picture.


 * 1) The paragraph was originally written by me, but was expanded by another user who added “despite some attempts..etc” at the end of the paragraph so there is at least one person on wikipedia who agrees with it, while you seem to be the only one complaining.


 * 1) You say “records stay until proven wrong” – ok I’d be happy to provide you with some examples:


 * Example 1 – IJN ace Hiroyoshi Nishizawa – a 100% overclaim – made in a very well-known air battle – the Tainan Wing’s first air clash over Guadalcanal.

The Tainan Ku. moved to Lakunai airfield on Rabaul the next day. On August 7, word arrived that U.S. Marines had landed on the island of Guadalcanal, more than 500 miles away at the lower end of the Solomon Islands chain, at 5:20 that morning. Without delay, Lt. Cmdr. Nakajima led 17 Zeros to escort 27 Mitsubishi G4M bombers of the 4th Ku. in an attack on the U.S. Navy task force supporting the invasion. The Japanese were met by 18 Grumman F4F-4 Wildcat fighters and 16 Douglas SBD-3 Dauntless dive bombers from the aircraft carriers Saratoga, Enterprise and Wasp. Nishizawa was credited with six F4Fs in this first air battle between land-based Zeros and American carrier fighters. One of his victims was probably Lieutenant Herbert S. ("Pete") Brown of VF-5, who was attacked by a Zero that made a full-deflection shot from about 1,500 feet overhead, shattering his canopy and wounding him in the hip and leg. Pete Brown reported that his opponent came alongside him, and after the two adversaries had looked each other over, the Japanese pilot grinned and waved. The skill and wildness of Brown's antagonist both suggest Nishizawa's style, but for neither the first nor last time, his assumption of the F4F's demise was premature. Brown managed to make it back to his carrier, Saratoga. Other likely VF-5 victims of Nishizawa included Ensign Joseph R. Daly, who was shot down in flames and badly burned but parachuted to safety just off Guadalcanal, and Lt. j.g. William M. Holt, who was killed... ... Japanese claims in the August 7 air battle totalled 36 F4Fs (including seven unconfirmed) and seven SBDs. Actual American losses came to nine Wildcats and a Dauntless. Four F4F pilots (Holt, Lt. j.g. Charles A. Tabberer and Ensign Robert L. Price of VF-5, and Aviation Pilot 1st Class William J. Stephenson of VF-6) and SBD radioman Elliott were killed. American claims were more modest--seven bombers, plus five probables, and two Zeros. The Japanese actually suffered the loss of four G4Ms and another six returning to base so damaged as to be written off, along with the loss of two Tainan Ku. members, PO1C Mototsuna Yoshida (12 victories) and PO2C Kunimatsu Nishiura, both killed by Lt. j.g. Gordon E. Firebaugh of Enterprise's VF-6, just before Firebaugh himself was shot down and forced to bail out.

http://www.historynet.com/wars_conflicts/world_war_2/3037341.html?page=3&c=y

Some other Japanese aces made huge claims that day as well – Junichi Sassai 5 and toshia Otha 4. At least some were wrong...


 * Example 2 – IJN supposedly 18-kill ace Masajiro Kawato – “The man who didn’t shoot down Greg Boyington” – this guy simply lied.

In 1956, Kawato published a memoir called Zero-Sen Rabaul Ni Ari, a cheap paperback that made many extravagant claims for his wartime exploits but makes no mention of Greg Boyington. Twenty years later, Kawato came to the United States and was introduced to Greg Boyington, who at that time was busily involved as technical adviser to the TV series "Black Sheep." Kawato was asked if he had ever heard of Boyington or the Black Sheep Squadron; he said he had not. Boyington gave him a copy of his own book, and Kawato telephoned him shortly thereafter to say that, after reading Boyington's account of the shoot-down, he had concluded that he was the Zero pilot responsible. Zero-Sen Rabaul Ni Ari was translated into English in 1978 as Flight Into Conquest (also out of print). It's the same book, Henry says, yet miraculously it had sprouted new material on how he bested one of America's most famous pilots. Indeed, it had an artist's rendering of Kawato's Zero in combat with Boyington's Corsair with fuselage number 86 (which wasn't flown that day by Boyington). As he now told the story, Kawato spotted the Corsair over Duke of York Island, being chased by several other Zeros. "I kept my cool and waited until I had the right distance. After 15 or 16 rounds of 20 mm gunfire, some hitting the cabin near the cockpit, it started to smoke a little, but no flames. He rolled over to the right and went into a dive, but I was able to stay with him.... As he was going over Rabaul where our base was located, I was thinking how far this Corsair (F4U) would be able to escape me." Interviewed later by Henry Sakaida, Boyington scoffed at this account. He was nowhere near Duke of York or Rabaul itself; he had used the term "Rabaul" in his book, as the Marine pilots did, to refer to the general area, not necessarily to the port itself. Boyington was lost on January 3, 1944, near the island of New Ireland. Henry found that Kawato did indeed fly that day, in a 37-Zero effort led by Lt. Nakagawa Kenji. Along with 33 Zeros from Air Group 204, they engaged what they believed were about 30 Corsairs in a battle that lasted 35 minutes--an eternity in fighter-pilot time. All combat claims are apt to be exaggerated, and Japanese claims are more inflated than most, since there was no "ace" tradition and therefore no rigorous examination of what pilots reported after the fact. On the day Pappy Boyington went into the water, the claims were fairly modest: Air Group 253 credited with 5 Corsairs shot down, Air Group 204 with 3 Corsairs and 1 Hellcat. Actually American losses were two, the Corsairs flown by Boyington and his wingman, Capt. George Ashmun. As for Kawato's claim, Henry got this statement from the former president of the Japanese Defense Agency: "Kawato Masajiro piloted the third aircraft in a formation of four, and his assigned duty was to fly protective cover for the Japanese pilots actually engaged in the aerial combat in which Major G. Boyington was downed. Kawato Masajiro had a reputation among his fellow pilots as having plenty of guts. His courage in combat is not in question, but in so far as the battle of January 3, 1944 is concerned, his claim for credit is groundless and without a basis in fact." It wasn't only the Boyington shoot-down that Kawato apparently lied about. Henry goes through his other claims in great detail, and many of them have the same inconsistencies and impossibilities. The same was true of other details of Kawato's World War II experiences. He evidently was a natural-born fabricator.

http://www.warbirdforum.com/kawato.htm


 * Example 3 – A 900% US overclaim (ROTFL) . Not exactly concerning the ace involved, but enough for anyone to get the picture what may happen in an air combat.

7 November 1942: Solomons. ComDesDiv 15 Captain (Rear Admiral, posthumously) Sato Torajiro (former CO of SHINONOME) is leading a "Tokyo Express" troop reinforcement convoy of 11 destroyers bound for Guadalcanal. His air cover is being provided by six A6M2-N Rufes of the 802nd NAG and four of the KAMIKAWA MARU's F1M2 Petes. Sato's convoy is attacked by seven Marine SDB dive-bombers of VMSB-132, three USN Grumman TBF "Avenger" torpedo-bombers of the HORNET's VT-8 and eight Bell P-39 "Airacobra" fighter-bombers of the USAAF's 67th Fighter Squadron. The American force is escorted by 21 Marine F4F Wildcats of VMF-121. The P-39's jettison their bombs and engage the floatplanes as do the F4Fs. Marine Captain (later MOH/BrigGen, ANG/Governor, SDak) Joseph J. Foss is leading eight of the escorting Marine Wildcats. His Wildcats engage the Rufes and prepare to strafe the destroyers. Foss climbs to protect his flight and engages a Pete. He shoots it down, but is shot down by the Pete’s rear gunner. Foss’ parachute keeps him afloat until twilight when a native in an outrigger canoe from nearby Malaita Island rescues him. The next day, he is picked up by a PBY “Catalina” flying boat. The Army pilots claim five floatplanes destroyed that day and the Marines also claim five, including the one by Foss. In fact, rather than 10 floatplanes shot down that day, as claimed by the Americans, the IJN suffers but one of the KAMIKAWA MARU's F1M2s lost. The American's attack on the destroyer convoy is unsuccessful, however; and most of the IJA's 1,300 troop reinforcements are landed at Cape Esperance and Tassafaronga, Guadalcanal.

http://www.combinedfleet.com/Kamikawa%20Maru_t.htm


 * Example 4 – Greg Boyington:

http://www.warbirdforum.com/boying.htm]


 * Example 5 Now the Soviets – the text is a bit off-topic as it describes the events of the Korean War, but still one shold get the general picture out of it. Indeed I think that my fault is that I didn’t include the paragraph to all the aces’ pages on wikipedia. Note: I had some troubles opening this site today, maybe you’ll be more lucky. It should include a table of top Soviet aces of the Korean war with their claims and kills more or less confirmed by the US records (or so the article says) side by side. It claims that the Korean top scorer was not Nikolai Sutyagin, but actually the second-ranking Soviet ace – Yevgeni Pepelyayev. The extreme example of overclaims is the supposedly 5th ranking ace - Ivan V. Suchkov who claimed 12 but appeares to has only shot down 2 – ie he’s not an ace at all.

http://www.acepilots.com/russian/rus_aces.html


 * Example 6 – none other than Adolph Galland. An account that is possibly biased, but hardly more than the claimant.

http://members.aol.com/geobat66/galland/coppens.htm

Example 7 - For the end - one of my very favourites: ERROR OFT REPEATED -- THE ANABUKI HOAX I think that every man interested at air combat aces of WW2 should read the text’s last paragraph: Author's Note: This article (may also serve as) a cautionary tale. Many people think all is known about World War II and it merely remains for stories to be better illustrated and told more succinctly. This article may cause some to re-think that view. The fact that a story is officially accepted and often repeated does not make it fact. Go to the source materials! The serious student of history must necessarily be skeptical. Surely doing real research is more satisfying than just mimicking the narratives of others.

http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/rdunn/anabuki/anabuki.htm

I’m not a vandal - I’ll wait for your reply. Veljko Stevanovich 30. 08. 2007. 22:00 UTC+1


 * This should be a list of officially-credited victories, not claimed victories or "proven" victories (a task which in most cases is impossible). In crediting victories, there were differences between nations, between services, between theaters, and between squadrons or units.  But this article is not an essay, but a list of pilots credited with 5 or more victories.  Can this not be left as a list of pilots officially credited with 5 or more victories, and have the discussion of differences in computation elsewhere?  To include a discussion of points such as those made just above would convert this page from a list to a textual article, something that it is not intended to be.  See List_guideline and Lists_in_Wikipedia for some guidance on the lead for a list, which can be as simple as one short descriptive sentence of the list's contents.  Kablammo 23:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's all OK, but it should be explained what the officially-credited victories are since a say 13-year old kid might get an impression that those are proven, true numbers. That's all (check the paragraph Kurt removed to see what we're actually arguing about). The above examples of dispairity are just for this discussion.


 * Veljko Stevanovich 31. 08. 2007. 21:45 UTC+1
 * VS-- I have been following this discussion and the edits, and I understand your point. I would however move the point to the textual article on flying aces, and have this list start only with a short sentence identifying its constituents as flying aces or pilots with five or more credited victories, with wikilink to the flying aces article.  That may be shifting the dispute to another page, but at least it would not clutter up this one. Regards,  Kablammo 10:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right. Agreed


 * Veljko Stevanovich 31. 08. 2007. 13:55 UTC+1

Hans-Ulrich Rudel listed twice
I noticed that Hans-Ulrich Rudel is listed twice, one time with 14 victories and the other with 13 victories "+ 519 tanks". Furthermore the article on him says he shot down nine aircraft. Nibios 17:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Toshio Ohta
I noticed that in the article about Toshio Ohta, he is claimed to be the sixth most succsessful japanese fighter ace. But on this list is he number four. Which one is right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.216.164.158 (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Johnny T. Baldwin ?
Where is Johnny T. Baldwin ? Forgotten ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.64.182.240 (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Math problem
This page says Welter got 25 in the 262; this page says 29. Which is it...? TREKphiler  hit me ♠  10:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Incomplete?
I think that the list is incomplete. I miss German aces like Hans Karl-Mayer and Helmut Wick, maybe others are missing too. 09:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Too many aces
I know this has been discussed in the past, by looking in the archive but their are thousands of ace pilots from WW2, and it's impossible to list all of them. In fact I think it is really moronic how there is a mile long list of fighter pilots with 5 kills, all of them being American, as a lot of the lower list seems to be, which is really biased. I mean seriously folks Germany alone has over 2000 ace pilots alone from WW2. We could be here forever listing all the aces, but wis that really necessary? My point being, we can't list of every run of the mill ace that happened to get 5 kills or a little more. We should set the bar higher and make a list of the most prominant aces with at least double digit scores, and when doing that keeping a balanced ratio between countries. There are a lot of great pilots still left out with very high scores, while there is a seemingly never ending line of lower digit aces. I like how there is an ace by country section which has such a section, or wide variety of aces per country, but this list is supposed to be a very general list. It in my opinion should be more of an outline, not a never-ending list. So I feel that we should overhaul this artcile more. -- 68.43.20.186 | Talk 15:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.20.186 (talk)

Setting the bar like where? There are about 1200 Soviet aces of WW2 with 10+ kills, and about 3000-3500 Soviet aces with 5+ kills. ellol (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Minoru Genda and Jimmy Thatch
I'm sure these two were aces, why are they not included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Staygyro (talk • contribs) 13:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Me 262
The table seems to indicate that some of the German aces shot down Me 262s! I presume that the intent was to say that they were flying Me 262s not shotting them down! Any particular reason to single out the 262 ? MilborneOne (talk) 10:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * jet-fighters!?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.159.162 (talk) 01:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Kennedy
I was going through the tables and this ace from the United States, who got his kills decades ago, links to a young actor from a soap opera. It is obviously not him. I don't know if Wikipedia does this by default or if it is a joke edit, but I just wanted to make you aware of this. Thanks. - Raymond —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.196.168 (talk) 05:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I redlinked him, so it is kind of solved. I doubt all this "five kill - aces" ever will get an article, though. Greswik (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Kill Counts
I have seen links to this page by people arguing about the unquestionable superiority of the Luftwaffe. I think there needs to be a better explanation of the astronomical kill counts for German aces so that there is a better understanding of WWII. For instance, on p. 266 of Adolf Galland's autobiography "The First and the Last" (1954, Henry Holt and Company, ISBN 0-89966-728-7) he says "The Luftwaffe employed a more liberal system of certifying 'kills'. Both the USAAF and the RAF required witness of (1) the crash of enemy aircraft or (2) the bailing out of pilot and/or crew.  Thus many kills registered by German pilots would be listed as 'probables' by the Allies." I can add this quote or at least summarize it and add it as a citation if no one has an objection. Pete71 (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Pete! I actually read the original german language "The First and the Last". What you credit to the US and British forces is actually the Luftwaffe modus operandi. A kill has to be witnessed by another pilot and the crash and/or bailing out. The e.g. USAAF credited percentile(!) kills which is defintely not what you describe. And more, Galland only talks about the propaganda claims for the Luftwaffe overall. Individual pilot scores were not affected, here the old system "one Pilot, one kill and affirmed by another source" was used and is used to this day. Walter Schuck for instance had to wait months at a time for the confirmation of a kill, since he often dived into the enemy formations and it took time confirm via wreckage. His official tally is 206 confirmed and there are dozens more unconfirmed (and stated as such) later in the war, when the kill he and his wingman observed could not be confirmed since the wrecks were behind enemy lines. I´d really like to talk to the "translator"(which will be impossible due to death or age), since he translated the whole text passage obviously with a definite tendency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neunhist (talk • contribs) 20:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

(A Comment)
I edited Col. Reynolds Kill count, I have a picture of him with my dad from 1945 with a hand written note on the back indicating 18 kills in the southern pacific - ferg - 70.43.229.134 (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Quotation
Is there any citation for the following sentence: "Additionally, national policies differed; Axis pilots tended to return to the cockpit over and over again until killed, while very successful Allied pilots were routinely rotated back to training bases to educate cadet flyers."? Or are there any statistics that proove this fact? Did german flying aces not train yound pilots? I mean the top 3 german aces all survived the war (i additionally clicked some of the top 50 pilots as well and a lot of them seem to have survived the war) so i have a problem with "over and over again until killed". I admit im german and this is not getting in the direction of patriotism. I just personally think the reason for these majority of german pilots among the flying aces might lay in the fact that the russians were not trained so good and their planes were inferior. I just was wondering if the reason "allied pilots got back, train young pilots and never flew again" and "germans flew until death" is an accepted assertion among historians.188.107.245.105 (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Constantin Cantacuzino appears twice on the list...
And it's the same individual... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.8.98.118 (talk) 12:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * So did Latella and Littge, the latter four times (one more and he'd have been another kind of ace). I've deleted the extras. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

"Occupations" removed
Some 91.193.164.246, infamously known as a POV-pusher in Ukraine-related articles, added the irrelevant and erratic notes on "occupied countries". First, it is irrelevant. It does not change neither the person's fighting achievment nor his/her loyalty. And it is twice irrelevant since many of pilots from occupied countries, such as Poland, scored their frags before or after their country was under Axis occupation. Second, it is erratic and misleading. A claim that Ukraine was "occupied" by Soviet Union is a modern nationalist POV-pushing. "Occupation" implies that country was independent before falling under military control of an enemy, while Ukraine was the integral part of Soviet Union since the latter's first days. (As well as it was a part of Imperial Russia and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth before. So, was Ukraine "occupied" for most of its history? Does it mean that Scotland is "occupied" by UK for centuries?). And adding "Ukraine" as a country of service is anachronistic (91.193.164.246 went as far as listing Kozhedub under modern Ukrainian flag in other articles). And while Belgium, Czechoslovakia and Poland were occupied by Germany, notion of it is very misleading, making it look like aces were based on those occupied territories and therefore fought for Germany.Garret Beaumain (talk) 09:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the occupation
The Ukraine (Ukrainian People's Republic, UNR) was an independent state recognized by several "civilized" (Western) countries in 1918 (including future Allies: France, GB and even Soviet Russia). According to International law, the recognition is a necessary condition for an independent country to exist; and it continued to be independent state after occupation by the Soviet Russia (the USSR) in 1920-s (the Ukrainians continued to struggle up to 1928) -- as there were no act of capitulation or legal entry of Ukraine into any state formation. The independent Ukraine has the government in exile in London: the government represented the Ukrainian nation in international relations. Due to some political reason, the Allied countries recognized the USSR, earlier banished from the League of Nations as an aggressor and occupant (of Finland), as ally and equal member of the anti-Hitler coalition.

However, it is important to emphasize the fact that many prominent aces were Ukrainians: not Russian, not Soviet, namely Ukrainians, whose Fatherland was temporarily occupied by Russia (called the USSR: the USSR is an ancestor of Soviet Russia according the International Law).

In the list of aces are Croatian and Slovakian aces. However, coalition members did not recognize the independence of their countries - Germany puppets. Before and after the war, these countries were not independent. Should we erase the name of the heroes from the list? Should we write them as the Czechoslovakian or the Yugoslav? According to U, we should! What should we do with long list of Polish aces? The Poland was occupied both Germany and the USSR. So, according to your false statement there were not (and could not be) any Polish pilots, but only pilots of the Royal Air Force! It is nonsense.

Concerning Ivan Kozhedub, the Ukrainian, who was the greatest Allied ace -- he was born in the Ukrainian People's Republic (UNR) before the Russian occupation: according to the Ukrainian laws he remained Ukrainian until his death. There is no mistake -- you know I am right.

Denying the role of the Ukrainian nation in the war - you just insult the whole nation. According to your logic, it is the same to deny Holocaust of the Jews because of some reason. I suggest you do it unintentionally. In any case, your opinion is unscientific, illegal, wrong and leading to misunderstandings. I hope, you are not a Russian chauvinist who deny everything Ukrainian... just because of his chauvinism. Otherwise, you can state everything you wish - it will be only propaganda and kind of "biased information". --94.45.129.254 (talk) 00:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is about World War II. By 1940s, there was no Ukrainian People's Republic, there was Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. All Ukrainians in Red Army service were Soviet citizens, with Soviet passports. You don't seem to realize the difference between an occupied territory and a constituent part of a federation. Your idea of Ukraine being "occupied" for whole XX century is an invention not supported even by modern Ukrainian state.

In case of Kozhedub, in particular, he was born near Shostka on the territory already controlled by Soviets in 1920, and never was registered as an UPR citizen. By the way, if you really believe it is "important to emphasize" ethnic descent, then you should know that Kozhedub in his own autobiography "Служу Родине" describes his descent as mixed. His father, Nikita Kozhedub, was Russophone. And Vladimir Bobrov was born in Imperial Russia in Luhansk, which was not even claimed by UPR.

You are not the first nationalist to come to Wikipedia to rewrite history articles, driven by intentions he believes are good. But marginal theories are just not welcome there. Wikipedia describes the commonly accepted point of view, which may or may not be what you believe is right. Garret Beaumain (talk) 05:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * There are several regular misconceptions that you deliberately being touted as truth. According to your text I understand that you're Russian: you know the history pretty well, but deliberately attempting to rewrite it. It is unscientific approach. Concerning the misconceptions:


 * Firstly, the country does not disappear as a result of the occupation. It disappears as a result of the special legal act. There was no country named the "Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic" - it is the part of Soviet mystification: all Soviet "Republics" were territorial (administrative) unit of the USSR, not public formation. The UPR (Ukraine) never has been canceled or become a part of Russia -- there was the UPR (recognized by Allies) government-in-exile in 1940s. Also, there was a symbolic act of restoration of independence of Ukraine on the territory liberated by the Germans (from the Soviet occupational forces) in Lviv on June 30, 1941. To say truth, it was only political, not juridically significant act: it was necessary to show both the Germans and the Russians (USSR) -- that Ukraine takes part in the war as a separate side (it is important proclamation for the future post-was period). What is more: Ukraine was even recognized by Nazi German state later, in March of 1945; and UNA (Ukrainian National Army) was recognized as official allied army to German Wermacht. And the last interesting moment (unimportant concerning aces theme, but important for understanding the theme of Ukrainian statehood): the UNA soldiers (who surrendered to British forces after war) were NOT given to the Government of the USSR by Allies (but all citizens of the USSR, like Russians from ROA, cossacks etc. were sent into Russian concentration camps and punished). That was because of official recognition by Allied governments (British mostly, where Ukrainian government-in-exile was located) that the UNA soldiers WERE citizens of UPR. By diplomatical language -- that means the GB government stated: the Ukrainians, who were UPR citizens, were not any Soviet people -- despite of the Russia's hysterical screams. Most of them (soldiers of UNA) were born in mid-1920s and lived in every region of Ukraine, including Crimea (temporally proclaimed a part of RSFSR).


 * It's just real true facts, which are clear evidence of a very complex and complicated legal and political issue concerning Ukraine of 40's; and that you either do not understand or oversimplifying -- or just consciously falsify the real facts (I hope the last thing is not true).


 * Secondly, according to the UPR's law, all people born on the territory of UPR (occupied or not) are citizens of UPR. You have no need to register your citizenship. Also, maybe you know or have heard, the USSR was a totalitarian political regime. That means: ANY disloyal statement or actions leads to criminal responsibility (25 years in the concentration camps). Therefore, we can't refer to the print source of the USSR, it is absurd: in this source, there can be nothing that contradicts the "policy of the party". Also it is absurd refer to Kozhedub's relatives language skills: the majority of people in the Soviet Union had to knew the Russian language (otherwise they  went to the concentration camps as "nationalists" and "public enemy", so called "ВРАГ НАРОДА"). Also, very few inhabitants of Ukraine-before-the-war (before the settlement of the territory of Ukraine by Russian immigrants), including the Lugansk region, -- do not speak Ukrainian language. There were more than 90% ethnic Ukrainians in the Ukraine before the war begins.


 * It is absurd doubly to state about citizenship (or about ethnic appliances) of the person, based on language skills. I am a half-Pole living in Ukraine, speaking four languages ​​and reading eight languages; does that make me a citizen of USA, GB, Canada, Australia, Latvia, Russia, Poland, Spain, etc.? Kozhedub was Ukrainian by birth, Volodymyr Bobrov (ethnically Russian) was Ukrainian by birth (the rule jus soli, place of birth)-- but Kuban' cossacks (for instance) were not Ukrainians, because they were not citizens of UPR (nevertheless they are mostly ethnically Ukrainians). Major Robert Olejnik (Luftwaffe top jet ace) was not Ukrainian ace too, although he was half-Ukrainian and spoke Ukrainian and stated several times about his Ukrainian origins.


 * All of Soviet aces were at service of USSR, it's true; but the truth is that part of them juridically (or even consciously) were Ukrainians.


 * Thirdly, you state: "You are not the first nationalist to come to Wikipedia to rewrite history articles". There is somebody else who try to rewrite the history. There are many "historians" in my country, who do not recognize even the fact of independence of MODERN Ukraine (they are led by our Minister of Education D. Tabachnik, you've heard about this guy). Nevertheless, that does not mean the Ukraine is not independent state. Concerning myself, I have to say: I'm a PhD of Political Science graduated from Central European University, so I can not be any kind of "-ist" (nationalist, socialist, Russian chauvinis, racist, mistificator etc.). I am a scientist and I can't bare distortion (I'd rather say: perversion) of historical reality. --94.45.129.254 (talk) 10:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I hardly can believe you are a scientist. For a historian, you don't know Ukrainian history well. First, UPR was never recognized by France or Britain. It was only recognized by some of the Central Powers in 1918 as a part of Brest Treaty. The respective governments of Central Powers were overthrown within year or two, German Empire, Austria-Hungary and Ottoman Empire, that recognized UPR, ceased to exist. By mid-1920s, there was not a single country to recognize UPR.

Secondly, you have a heavily distorted vision of Soviet Union. Your claim that not speaking Russian well constituted a crime in USSR contradicts everything known to historians. And it contradicts Kozhedub's own memoirs: he writes that people in his village used to speak both Ukrainian and Russian because of their ethnically mixed neighborhood. His mother preferred Ukrainian and his father spoke mostly Russian. To avoid arrest, you say? Then why his mother spoke Ukrainian? Absurd. Ukrainian was one of the official languages.

Thirdly, you seem to list any person who has any connection to modern Ukraine as an Ukrainian, even for those who were born outside UPR. You claim that Vladimir Bobrov, a person of Russian descent born outside the UPR, is Ukrainian, because his birthplace is what you consider "a historical Ukraine". You even write his name a Ukrainian way, despite that the person never called himself "Volodymir". Worse, you listed Amet-khan Sultan, a Crimean Tatar from Alupka, as an Ukrainian, despite that UPR never claimed and never controlled Crimea. You claim that people born before the very establishment of UPR are its citizens, if they're born on the territory UPR will claim in future (how far does in stretch out? Would you list Bulgakov, Ilf, Petrov and Tsvetayeva as "Ukrainian writers"?). You claim that an unrecognized government-in-exile should be treated in Wikipedia as the only legal power in Ukraine, even concerning the 1940s when it was neither in power nor recognized. And you deny Soviet Union the right to give citizenship to Ukrainians, but you call Nazi Germans a liberators and Bandera's Insurgent Army as a representative of the whole Ukraine.

You point of view is very marginal, and is opposed by the majority of historians. And it strongly contradicts the Wikipedia policy concerning biographies and nationalities.Garret Beaumain (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a list of flying aces listed by the service and country they flew with, the actual origin of individuals is not relevant to this list and can be covered in any related article on the individuals. MilborneOne (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, it is a good idea to create related article with additional information and a bit another structure of the table. I'll ask professional linguist to assist me to create such article. Thanx for advise! --94.45.129.254 (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Spanish aces
Either in the Luftwaffe's Blue Squadron (for instance Gonzalo Hevia with 12 air victories) or in the Soviet Air Force (Juan Lario with 27 plus 8 shared?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.85.148.202 (talk) 12:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Italian aces
In this list missing (almost) the italian aces. The Italian wiki page about it is very well done:http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista_degli_assi_italiani_della_seconda_guerra_mondiale I'm not able to modify it properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.9.51.100 (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Deal with the problems before they arise
Hello, all,

I compiled the World War I flying ace list of slightly over 1,800 men. When I was done, it was the second-largest article in WP. There were screams of outrage from other editors until I split it nine ways.

This list will be at least several times that size. Some forward looking editor(s) should plan to split this ace somehow, perhaps in 20 pieces, before the entries are made, while it is not too difficult.

Another difficulty is that you are writing about an undefined term. So far as I know, there is no thorough explanation of what constitutes an aerial victory during World War II. It is very difficult to generate a decent list or article if you literally do not know what you are discussing.

To those who bridle at the above statement, answer me a random question: How did the Slovak Air Force verify an aerial victory by one of its aces?

While you ponder the resulting silence that serves as an answer, I would also note that every ace on this list needs a cite to verify his score. Cites in the lead are also needed.

Good luck to those who will invest their years in completing this list.

Georgejdorner (talk) 01:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

USA or United States?
Why do the high ranking aces have "United States" as their country but the lower ones "USA"? Shouldn't it be consistent? Emperor001 (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Wrong War for Harry W. Brown
I notice the list includes Harry W. Brown of the 'Canadian Expeditionary Force' who died in World War I! I will give whoever put him there opportunity to correct this before doing so myself.Cloptonson (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Kill count, again
To tackle the question raised above about the "explanation of the astronomical kill counts for German aces", the short answer is that their scoring careers were longer; Hartmann, with 352 victories, flew front line operations for 3 years (October 42-May 45) (Spick p201-6), making 1,425 sorties, a sortie to victory ratio (SR) of 4.07 to 1 (Spick p225); Barkhorn made 1,104 sorties and scored 301 victories (SR 3.69)(p226). By comparison the US ace Bob Johnson accumulated "only" 28 victories, but flew just 91 sorties (SR 3.25)(p219). The longer answer involves addressing some misconceptions, and examining some particular features of the German air forces situation. First, the fact that these scores seem unbelievable is rooted in some misconceptions about aerial warfare. Fighter aces did not, in the main, shoot down their opponents in whirling dogfights or displays of aerobatic skill; the vast majority of were achieved in surprise "bounces". Barkhorn, master of the surprise bounce, stated “a lot of them didn’t even know I was there”,(84) while Hartmann reckoned 90% of his attacks were surprise attacks (203). And whilst some were excellent flyers (H-J Marseille is a prime example) many were decidedly average; what set them apart we was that they were invariably excellent shots. Also, while statistics like “the average life expectancy of a fighter pilot was two weeks” illustrate the hazards endured and losses suffered, it is also misleading. The losses fell disproportionately on new and inexperienced pilots; if they learned to survive and become old hands they generally had a better chance of continuing to survive (creating the depressing scenario of the experts soldiering on while replacements "came and went like ghosts") So, given that experts like Hartmann continued to survive and shoot straight, it is hardly surprising their scores continued to rise(219). Second, some peculiarities of the Luftwaffes situation certainly helped some flyers to obtain huge scores. One was the tendency to emphasize and reward individual achievement; in contrast to the Allies, who favoured a team approach; so flyers who could score were generally given the opportunity to do so. Holmes states the German system was geared to let a chosen few to claim the bulk of the victories, while the rest supported and protected them (Holmes p73). An extreme example would be HJ Marseille; whilst his individual score was 158 (Spick p227) his squadron’s score wasn't much better; whilst the Star let rip, those with him merely kept a lookout and kept score (p140). Another factor was that Axis fliers in WWII (and German fliers in WWI) were, for much of the war, on the defensive, flying over friendly (or at least occupied) territory. This not only helped in confirming aircraft shot down, it also meant that a pilot in a damaged plane, or one forced to bale out, was more likely to return to the fray. In situations where a budding Allied ace who was downed faced ending the war as a POW, or a long walk home; a German plot in similar straits could pick up where he left off. A notable example of this was Werner Molders; shot down during the Battle of France in June 1940, he became a prisoner of war, his score standing at 15; he was liberated at the fall of France, and continued his career, finally reaching 101.(Spick 44-45): Compare that to Douglas Bader, shot down in 1941 with a score of 20, and spent the rest of the war behind barbed wire. It is instructive to consider how many times the German aces were shot down, and how often in the beginning of their careers. Barkhorn was shot down twice before his first victory (84); Marseille scored 7 victories in the Battle of Britain, but was shot down 4 times, and in the Western Desert he was downed within days of arriving, before achieving anything (139). Galland was downed 26 times, and in June 1941 managed to be shot down twice on the same day! (p129). In most cases, for an Allied pilot, these events would have been the end of their fighting careers. In a slightly different case, Hartman claimed never to have been shot down, but lost numerous planes from debris damage caused by being too close to his victims; such an approach would have spelt disaster if he was over enemy territory. There was also the technical advantage; over Poland, France and, In the early days, over the Soviet Union, the Luftwaffe had better aircraft, giving its pilots the advantage. Once they faced aircraft of equal or better quality (the later Spitfires, the Mustang) things got more difficult. Marseille, for example, had little luck over England against Spitfires; In the desert, flying a Me109F against Tomahawks and Hurricane IIs, his score improved dramatically (though there were other factors also) Finally, the high scores amongst some pilots says nothing about the air war as a whole. it shouldn't be assumed because it had extraordinary numbers of pilots with extraordinary scores that the Luftwaffe held air superiority; if anything, the opposite is the case. As an example, Hartmann's career started in October 1942; by July 1943 his score stood at 20; though it rose rapidly during the Kursk operations and after (when Germany lost the initiative in the air in the east), most of his victories were against a backdrop of Soviet air superiority. In July 1944, the Luftwaffe had just 395 fighter aircraft opposing 13,500 Soviet aircraft, half of which were fighters (p195). While Hartmann and the other experts could carry on picking off Soviet aircraft in ones and two's, they could do nothing to affect the overall slide into defeat. It also means that, being outnumbered 10 to 1 in the air meant German pilots were far more likely to encounter enemy planes to attack than vice-versa. In the west, making the same point, Johnnie Johnson compared his score (38) to that of Josef Priller (101) “we fought over the same territory for about the same time, but he saw many more hostile aeroplanes than I did” (219). (Refs: M Spick, Luftwaffe Fighter Aces: T Holmes, Spitfire vs Bf109). Xyl 54 (talk) 00:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Links Redirecting To Page For Anime TV Show
Takeo Tanimizu and Kaneyoshi Mutoh redirect to List of Strike Witches characters. Will propose deletion of redirect pages. Might be beneficial to search User:Tyciol contributions for other erroneous redirects from this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Form d k (talk • contribs) 22:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

why not #?
Why the list has no ranking number? 77.165.175.249 (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree. This list would be better with a ranking number. Joe Gatt (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Soviet aces
Hello. I have a book, 2007, "Aces of the Great Patriotic War" (in Russian), listing Soviet aces with more than 10 kills.

And actually I need some advice. There are personal and group victories listed separately. Moreover, there is information from the summarized military documents, which is often different from the information from the operational military documents which is also listed.

A typical example, data on Vasily Afonin. Summarized documents state that he had 14 personal victories and 3 group victories. While operational documents list 11 personal victories and two group ones.

There is also the information about shot planes, extracted from operational military documents, which shows personal victories as integer numbers, and group victories as fractional ones (in most cases, there are exact numbers; if info is unavailable, there's something like "1/group"):

What way should the information about the Soviet aces be shown here: should we show this difference between summarized and operational documents in the list?

ellol (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

p.s. In case anybody is interested, recently an encyclopedia was published listing 3200 Soviet aces with more than 5 kills. ellol (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello. It is quite bizarre that the list contains a lot of US pilots with 5 victories but misses 39 Soviet pilots having 30 victories and more. They are listed in the Russian list. I don't even speak about thousands of Soviet pilots who have 5 victories and more. Ok, probably the readers in English are more interested with the US pilots but then it should at least be stated somewhere that the list is made incomplete for the Soviets. Another question is about two missing victories of Kozhedub - he actually had 64 victories, not 62. Actually such type of errors is quite common for the English Wiki. User:Balalayker (User talk:Balalaykertalk) 17:12, 07 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree this is a major omission, why all the aces from every other country but not the Soviet ones?

72.203.202.130 (talk) 21:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Lydia Litvyak.JPG

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Rsjhnson.jpg

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Jan Reznak.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Alexander Pokryshkin 1941.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Bazu.cantacuzino.jpg

Size: Should this list be all inclusive?
This list is very large. Should this list be broken up into various sections and limited in length? One could break up this list by country and limit the number entries per nation either by a specific count, or any other criteria. Thoughts please. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree this is getting pretty big. However, breaking the list up by country seems to be a duplication of effort in that there are already a number of "List of World War II aces from COUNTRY" pages. I think the point of this page is that it allows the reader to compare the various nationalities at one location. Maybe a cutoff point for number of entries for a nation, that would probably affect the German entries the most. Zawed (talk) 09:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What about splitting it by range of victories? Like more than 300, 100-299, less than 100? Don’t worry about the numbers, I haven’t even looked at the spread, just suggesting this as an approach. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , : So in essence mimicking the layout of Lists of World War I flying aces?
 * 100+, would have 106 entries
 * 50–99, would have 228 entries
 * etc
 * breaking the list down to sections of up to 250 entries. Would that work? MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, something like that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , good job! Zawed (talk) 10:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The way it was previously was great. It should be by the number of kill scores descendand everyone together and their country flags!... Please let us have that choice again and stop messing with such a great list of records!... 86.165.218.102 (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no pleasing everybody. This is a pragmatic change which should help facilitate ease of editing and maintenance, and therefore quality. Zawed (talk) 03:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What crap! Bring back the list. This is just deliberate vandalism. You destroyed a great resource where we had all information in one place. 188.170.85.101 (talk) 06:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)