PDA

View Full Version : Marseille (G2 Pilot)



Greenwidth
06-10-2004, 07:22 AM
Wow http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

from : http://www.2worldwar2.com/marseille.htm

In 11 minutes of combat, fighting practically alone against a large enemy formation, he shot down six victims, five of them in the first six minutes. He was the only attacker in the battle, and not a single round was fired at him. The surviving Tomahawk pilots said in their debriefing that they were attacked "by a numerically superior german formation which made one formation attack at them, shot down six of their friends, and disengaged".

Average of 15 rounds per kill as well...

Makes me glad that I'm not a WWII pilot.

http://members.lycos.co.uk/greenwidth/Greenwidth.jpg

Greenwidth
06-10-2004, 07:22 AM
Wow http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

from : http://www.2worldwar2.com/marseille.htm

In 11 minutes of combat, fighting practically alone against a large enemy formation, he shot down six victims, five of them in the first six minutes. He was the only attacker in the battle, and not a single round was fired at him. The surviving Tomahawk pilots said in their debriefing that they were attacked "by a numerically superior german formation which made one formation attack at them, shot down six of their friends, and disengaged".

Average of 15 rounds per kill as well...

Makes me glad that I'm not a WWII pilot.

http://members.lycos.co.uk/greenwidth/Greenwidth.jpg

nicli
06-10-2004, 09:04 AM
Yes, Marseille is often remembered as the best fighter pilot of WWII or even the best ever.

He got the bulk of his kills over North Africa, and once he had perfected his tactics he wasn't shot down anymore (but he bailed out or force landed 8 times before getting his 30th kill).

What is also remarkable about H.J. Marseille is that he was an incredibly gifted pilot, who didn't get his kills only because of his experience or his courage, though he lacked neither one nor the other.

On the other hand while glorified by the propaganda (though he was far from being a Nazi), he was never a great leader (except a schwarmfuhrer), but more a (although efficient) lone hunter (his closest allied counterparts being probably "Bob" Johnson and Grigoriy Rechkalov).

And while many have emphasized that his success were only against the Western Allies, it must be said that LW pilots having fought in North Africa in 1941-1942, and later on the Eastern Front considered the soviets were equal or better than the british at this time (it must however be said that by 1943 the western allies had also significantly bettered).

Finally, AFAIK, Marseille got all his kills including his famous multiple ones in a few minutes on Bf-109E and F, not G, though he died on a G2.

In Africa, he fought on the Bf-109E-7 and the Bf-109F4 (never F2, unlike what has often been written).

LeadSpitter_
06-10-2004, 10:15 AM
There was a japanese pilot that shot down 4 p39s in 30 seconds. I will need to look in my books for who it was. It wasnt saburo saki but another ijn ace

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif

p1ngu666
06-10-2004, 10:45 AM
i think half or so of his kills where actully kills according to RAF records.
still a good pilot tho.
i always had a soft spot for that french ace, shot down 3 aircraft in formation in a head on http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
<123_GWood_JG123> NO SPAM!

nicli
06-10-2004, 12:17 PM
"Originally posted by p1ngu666:
i think half or so of his kills where actully kills according to RAF records.
still a good pilot tho.
i always had a soft spot for that french ace, shot down 3 aircraft in formation in a head on"


In fact, the most recent works about Marseille consider that about 100+ of his kills should be considered as confirmed.

The difference between this figure and yours may be because of the fact the records of the RAF squadrons having operated in Africa at this time are often incomplete or missing concerning this part of their history (destroyed, lost in the retreats or when the squadron was sent back to the UK).

Nevertheless, you are right to point out that fewer of the kills recorded in North Africa are retrospectively confirmed than over Western Europe (though the worst was in the East, AFAIK, something like 2:1 overclaim, not that bad in fact).

This may be linked to the type of combat and the fact that in Western Europe the LW fought more often over german controlled territory than elsewhere (allowing more checking before crediting a kill).

As for pilots, one I always admired was Nicolay Skomorokhov, 53 kills I think, all on LaGG3, La-5, La-5FN, and La-7, he was never hit even by a single bullet.

HARD_Sarge
06-10-2004, 12:36 PM
also for his kills and how the Brits say they didn't happen, don't forget that they would say, look, on this day, only 5 British planes were shot down, and he claimed he shot down 7, easy to see, he is wrong, but they wouldn't mention that the SAAF, and the RAAF also were flying that day, and they may of lost 15 planes

and since they all flew with the same markings, it would be easy to be confused as to which AF you were fighting against

also, the Brits were fancy on what they admitted to being a kill, if any parts of a plane shot down, could be reused, it wasn't shot down, only planes that were missing, or totally destoryed, were admitted to be lost

(which the US pulled some wool also, the one I like is after a bombing raid, they would claim, that 15 bombers were shot down and 5 more were lost on landing crashes, but 45 were damaged beyond repair http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )

HARD_Sarge

Still, the guy who is remarkable, is still the Red Baron, to this day, they can still prove that 77 of his 80 kills were confirmable, the 78th, is strange, he fired at the plane and the plane blew apart, so he claimed it, even though it was at very long range when he fired, they think a Arty shell hit it, but he had fired, and the plane went down, so he had to be the reason it went down, and I think everybody here would feel the same way, if it happened to one of us

DrDave242
06-10-2004, 12:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HARD_Sarge:
Still, the guy who is remarkable, is still the Red Baron, to this day, they can still prove that 77 of his 80 kills were confirmable, the 78th, is strange, he fired at the plane and the plane blew apart, so he claimed it, even though it was at very long range when he fired, they think a Arty shell hit it, but he had fired, and the plane went down, so he had to be the reason it went down, and I think everybody here would feel the same way, if it happened to one of us<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, did he get an "Enemy Aircraft Destroyed" message or not?

---
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who can count in binary, and those who can't.

HL callsign: FruitPieJones
Today is a good day for pie.

Xnomad
06-10-2004, 01:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DrDave242:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HARD_Sarge:
Still, the guy who is remarkable, is still the Red Baron, to this day, they can still prove that 77 of his 80 kills were confirmable, the 78th, is strange, he fired at the plane and the plane blew apart, so he claimed it, even though it was at very long range when he fired, they think a Arty shell hit it, but he had fired, and the plane went down, so he had to be the reason it went down, and I think everybody here would feel the same way, if it happened to one of us<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, did he get an "Enemy Aircraft Destroyed" message or not?

---
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who can count in binary, and those who can't.

HL callsign: FruitPieJones
Today is a good day for pie.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Good One!

http://www.xnomad.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sig.jpg

wayno7777
06-10-2004, 03:19 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by HARD_Sarge:
also for his kills and how the Brits say they didn't happen, don't forget that they would say, look, on this day, only 5 British planes were shot down, and he claimed he shot down 7, easy to see, he is wrong, but they wouldn't mention that the SAAF, and the RAAF also were flying that day, and they may of lost 15 planes

According to Edward H. Sims in The Greatest Aces; "However, official records show the RAF lost 13 shot down, and that another 6 crash landed after being hit, for a total of 19. Of the 19 2 were Spitfires, 8 were Curtiss types and 9 Hurricanes." This was for his 17 kill day.
Sometimes Hurris and Curtiss types were confused.

Any landing you can walk away from is a good one!
!http://img74.photobucket.com/albums/v224/wayno77/Dux_Wreck.jpg

Kannaksen_hanu
06-10-2004, 03:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nicli:
As for pilots, one I always admired was Nicolay Skomorokhov, 53 kills I think, all on LaGG3, La-5, La-5FN, and La-7, he was never hit even by a single bullet.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What about Ilmari Juutilainen? 94 kills (top confirmed non-German score) flying Fokker D.XXIs, Brewster B-239s and Messerschmitt Me-109Gs, never hit even by a single bullet from enemy fighter. "The worst injury in the war I had was when wooden stick got under my nail" as he has said.

After the war, In late September 1944 a rare visitor, Soviet Air Force Col.Lt. V.F. Golubev, the commander of 4.GIAP(Guards' Fighter Regiment) came to see the pilots of the Squadron 34 at Utti Air Base. According to the conditions of the ceasefire treaty Golubev's unit had been stationed for a while at Malmi, the airport of Helsinki. He decided to make use of the opportunity and meet the men he had fought against - with a risk to himself. When Illu Juutilainen was introduced to Golubev, the Soviet officer said nothing, just shook his hand longer than anybody elses. 60 years later "Illu" said in an interview that the greatest decoration a soldier can get is an acknowlegment given by his enemy.

Last chapter was taken from:
http://users.senet.com.au/~wingman/illu.html
More reading:
http://www.sci.fi/~fta/finace01.htm

_VR_ScorpionWorm
06-10-2004, 03:51 PM
Qoute from Scale Warplanes Volume 1.

"Marseille could be tempermental and indisciplined, but his colleagues and superiors were foreced to admire him because of his innate qualities, his leadership and magnetism. They know hime to be a unique gunner capable of bringing down an enemy plane at the first attemp in a brief burst of fire. On one mission in which her shot down six British fighter plane his cannon jammed when he had only fired 10 shots, which meant that the last three planes he hit were brougth down by machine gun fire only.

On 30 September he left on his final mission. Be chance he was trying out a new plane, a BF109G-1 Trop, instesd of his usual aircraft, the BF109F-4/Z Trop. On returning form his mission the plane's engine caught fire, filling the cockpit with smoke. His colleagues ureged him to continue for a few minutes more, in order to rach the German lines, but after a moment he radioed that he could hold on no longer and bailed out. As he did so the plane stalled and went into a dive. He was probably hit by the rudder, the parachute did not open and he fell to his death."

Sad way for an Ace to die, but then again little things like this happen.

"Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen of the Allied Expeditionary force:
You are about to embark upon a Great Crusade toward which we have strived these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. Good Luck! And let us all beseech the blessing of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking" - Gen. Dwight D. Eiseinhower-Supreme Allied Commander.

www.vultures-row.com (http://www.vultures-row.com)

raaaid
06-10-2004, 03:59 PM
he used the nose of his plain to aim

pity you cant do that in aep since you dont see the nose of 109

Blutarski2004
06-10-2004, 04:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by raaaid:
he used the nose of his plain to aim

pity you cant do that in aep since you dont see the nose of 109<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Let's start an adjustable seat thread!

BTW, apart from HJM's superb marksmanship, he was also an excellent naturally gifted pilot. He was equally comfortable flying in both B&Z and stall fight modes. His six kill mission was against a formation of Curtis Tomahawks(??) in a defensive Lufberry circle. Marseille was the only member of his flight with the skills to successfully engage it. According to FIGHTERS IN THE DESERT, he would dive from above, zoom up from beneath the edge of the circle and shoot at point blank range from below right at the tip of a stall. None of his fellow pilots could figure out how he was able to coordinate the relative motions. Impressive talent when you think about it.

BLUTARSKI

eodtech2000
06-10-2004, 07:24 PM
http://www.jg52.de/Abwehrkreis.jpg

BA31jocky
06-10-2004, 09:23 PM
...and later on the Eastern Front considered the soviets were equal or better than the british at this time...

I definately disagree with that statement. If I recall correctly HJM was the first pilot to gain 100 victories against the RAF alone, and awarded decorations accordingly. But I don't recall the average soviet pilot being at all equal with any Allied pilots.

nicli
06-11-2004, 02:12 AM
"Originally posted by Kannaksen_hanu:
What about Ilmari Juutilainen? 94 kills (top confirmed non-German score) flying Fokker D.XXIs, Brewster B-239s and Messerschmitt Me-109Gs, never hit even by a single bullet from enemy fighter. "The worst injury in the war I had was when wooden stick got under my nail" as he has said.""


You're right, Juutilainen was also one of the great, I don't think there were many aces who got great scores without ever having their plane damaged.

If I selected Skomorokhov, that's only because I'm a fan of Lavochkin fighters (even the LaGG-3), but others could compare with his achievements.

As we were talking about WWII aces, I didn't mention him but René Fonck, the french top ace of WWI got his 75 kills without ever being hit by the enemy, and, accordingly, his actual score was even higher because he had scored a lot of unconfirmed kills.

However, he never got the charisma of a guy like Guynemer, Mc Cudden, Richtofen, or Voss.

nicli
06-11-2004, 02:51 AM
"Originally posted by BA31jocky:
I definately disagree with that statement. If I recall correctly HJM was the first pilot to gain 100 victories against the RAF alone, and awarded decorations accordingly. But I don't recall the average soviet pilot being at all equal with any Allied pilots."


It's a fact that the soviet pilots had a very low training standard in 1941 and for the most part of 1942, but, by 1943, they were very dangerous opponents.

And, as I said, this was a comparison with North Africa in 1941-1942, where the Western Allies were far less effective than later in the West.

Moreover, the type of combat in the East was similar to that in North Africa in 1941-1942 (tactical combat over the battlefield).

The fact I mentioned (german pilots considering the soviet fighter pilots as better than the western ones at least in the later stage of the war) is mentioned in the BC/RS website, and in Bergstr√¬∂m's "Graf and Grislawski : a pair of aces", but also by Gunther Rall and other german aces (my books are still in a few crates in the basement, and I can't recall exactly their names).

Don't misunderstand what I mean, they said "individually better", but also mentioned that western tactics created more dangerous situations (with comments like : "the americans always appeared in great numbers, which wasn't the case for the russians").

The whole story about soviet pilots being significantly inferior to the western allies is some cold war stuff, while it was certainly true in 1941 and till late 1942, later in the war it wasn't that clear, and the stories of german aces later settled in West germany can be seen as sometimes (not always) unreliable.

E.g : Hans "Assi" Hahn (108 kills - 68 in the West- , shot down and taken POW in the East) recalled in the 70's the soviet pilots as markedly inferior to those he had met in the West, but in late 1942, after being transfered on the Eastern Front, he told Hannes Trautloft (JG54 Kommodore) that he had never had such serious opponents before, and that the combat in the East was the most dangerous he was ever involved in...

So what ?

Personnally, from what I read from different sources, I think that in 1941-1942, the western allies had better pilots than the soviets, that in 1943 till 1945, the soviet and western pilots were equals.

Some will object and point out the high scores of german pilots in the East, but, apart from the fact some of them had got an enormous experience against inferior soviet pilots in 1941-1942 or benefitted from this type of experience acquired by others, what is the most important is that they were engaged in fighter vs. fighter combat with similar-sized formations (the soviets had more aircraft but, what differed was the number of small size formation launched, with the result that a german pilot was far more likely to meet the soviets than the other way around), which allowed individual scores to climb significatively unlike a strategic air war, in which fewer missions were flown, but each combat was against enormous numbers of opponents at the same time (simple : 2 vs. 2, three times a day is better for your score - and survival - than 2 vs. 15 once a day).

hop2002
06-11-2004, 05:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>also, the Brits were fancy on what they admitted to being a kill, if any parts of a plane shot down, could be reused, it wasn't shot down, only planes that were missing, or totally destoryed, were admitted to be lost
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not true at all. It's a claim I've only ever seen on this board, and seems to have been dreamt up to explain the Germans overclaiming 3 to 1 in the Battle of Britain.

The RAF had 3 main damage categories, A B and C, which meant minor damage, major damage requiring repair at a specalist depot, and write off.

There were sub categories, for example write off included written off but some components recovered, but a write off was listed as a loss wether sove parts were salvaged or not.

In fact, at some stages at least, the RAF seems to have been more ready to call an aircraft lost than the Luftwaffe.

During the Battle of Britain, the RAF lost 420 Spitfire and Hurricane pilots killed.

The RAF said they lost just over 900 Spitfires and Hurricanes in the same period, which means more than 2 aircraft were admitted lost for every pilot killed.

In the channel front fighting of the second half of 1941, the Luftwaffe lost 148 fighter pilots killed, and admitted only 168 planes lost. That's a ratio of barely over 1 plane per pilot, which indicates far more planes repaired, and far fewer written off.

Abbuzze
06-11-2004, 05:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:

During the Battle of Britain, the RAF lost 420 Spitfire and Hurricane pilots killed.

The RAF said they lost just over 900 Spitfires and Hurricanes in the same period, which means more than 2 aircraft were admitted lost for every pilot killed.

In the channel front fighting of the second half of 1941, the Luftwaffe lost 148 fighter pilots killed, and admitted only 168 planes lost. That's a ratio of barely over 1 plane per pilot, which indicates far more planes repaired, and far fewer written off.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So please explane me how a german fighter pilot, shot down over London should lose another fighter for the Luftwaffe! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

For the RAF:
Pre 1941

Cat.U Undamaged

Cat.M(u) Capable of being repaired on site by the operating unit

Cat.M(c) The repair is beyond unit capacity.

Cat.R(B) Repair on site is not possible; the aircraft must be dismantled and sent to a repair facility.

Cat.W Write-Off

http://www3.mistral.co.uk/k5083/DAM_CAT.HTM

So if a Plane Cat.R(B) is it called a loss or not? Thats the question!



I./JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
http://www.jg53-pikas.de/

http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/bilder/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam%20neu.gif

nicli
06-11-2004, 06:14 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by hop2002:
"Not true at all. It's a claim I've only ever seen on this board, and seems to have been dreamt up to explain the Germans overclaiming 3 to 1 in the Battle of Britain."


Well, while the Brits didn't hide the majority of their losses, it's difficult to claim that their records cannot be challenged.

It has often been said (not only on this forum but also in serious publications such as the Aero-Journal) that they didn't consider a plane as a loss if it wasn't to be totally destroyed (the LW, AFAIK, considered a loss all planes damaged beyond 60%).

E.g. : Pierre Clostermann, the French ace, Wrote in the French magazine "Le fana de l'aviation" a few years ago that he was shot down by Hans Dortenmann in early 1945 (who claimed as a Spitfire while he in fact flew a Tempest), but that the loss wasn't in the RAF records as he had to force land with damaged gas exhausts which could be rather easily r√¬™paired.

But this situation isn't only for the British, the loss records of the US have often been considered as uncomplete by the historians, the Soviet ones were not easily accessible for a long time (and lacked precision), and the German records had the same problem as the British ones (if a plane wasn't sufficiently damaged, although forced down, it wouldn't be considered a loss).

E.g. : When W.D. Huy was shot down by Mikha√¬Įl Avdeyev in early 1942, he took a burst from the Yak-1's machine guns in his engine and had to force land with a heavily smoking Bf-109.

The damage was estimated at only 25%, and therefore the plane not considered as a loss.

Anyway, a large part of Marseille's score has since been confirmed by British and German historians (who knew that the material they had wasn't perfect, and therefore had a critical approach towards it, at least since the end of the eighties) and can be assumed to be 100+, which is already large enough to assess the skill of this pilot.

hop2002
06-11-2004, 11:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>So please explane me how a german fighter pilot, shot down over London should lose another fighter for the Luftwaffe! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He can't, that's why I gave the German figures for the second half of 1941 when the Luftwaffe were mainly fighting over France and the channel.

Note, though, that the figures I gave were almost 1 pilot killed for every aircraft admitted lost, so even if the fighting had been over the UK, it wouldn't have made much difference.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>So if a Plane Cat.R(B) is it called a loss or not? Thats the question! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know, but the original poster claimed that even if written off, as long as a single part was salvaged (say the rev counter) then it wasn't listed as a loss.

Because I don't know for certain wether cat R was written off or not, and wether the Germans were writing off aircraft with a similar damage level, I gave the figures for planes lost per pilot.

Fairly obviously, if the pilot is killed the plane is likely to sustain much heavier damage, or be lost altogether.

So from the two examples, the RAF lost 2 planes per pilot. 1 is almost certainly lost for each dead pilot, the RAF admitted 1.1 more written off with pilot survivied for every pilot lost.

For the Luftwaffe, 1 is still lost for every pilot, which leaves only another 0.14 written off with pilot survived for every pilot lost.

There's two possible conclusions.

1 The Luftwaffe aircraft almost never suffered damage, with pilots being killed outright or not being hit at all.

The only way that would be possible is if the Luftwaffe aircraft were very fragile, and nothing I've seen suggests that.

2. The Luftwaffe were not admitting planes lost, but were repairing them and returning them to service with damage levels that would cause the RAF to write them off.

This isn't a minor discrepency. Assuming that a pilot killed almost always meant an aircraft destroyed, the end result is 1.1 aircraft damaged for every loss for the RAF, 0.14 for the Luftwaffe. That's a huge difference.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Well, while the Brits didn't hide the majority of their losses, it's difficult to claim that their records cannot be challenged.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've never claimed that. Nobody's records are perfect. IIRC, Galland, on one of the occasions he was shot down, recorded that his wingman was also shot down. That doesn't appear in the official German records.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It has often been said (not only on this forum but also in serious publications such as the Aero-Journal) that they didn't consider a plane as a loss if it wasn't to be totally destroyed (the LW, AFAIK, considered a loss all planes damaged beyond 60%).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's all a question of degree. The Luftwaffe considered damaged beyond 60% lost, the RAF certainly considered a write off lost. Did the RAF write a plane off it was damaged 60%? I'd say almost certainly yes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>E.g. : Pierre Clostermann, the French ace, Wrote in the French magazine "Le fana de l'aviation" a few years ago that he was shot down by Hans Dortenmann in early 1945 (who claimed as a Spitfire while he in fact flew a Tempest), but that the loss wasn't in the RAF records as he had to force land with damaged gas exhausts which could be rather easily r√¬™paired.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Would the Luftwaffe have called that a loss? Damaged exhausts sounds like 10% damage or less, nowhere near approaching 60%.

Both sides did this, which is why I am focusing on the pilot losses. A pilot is either dead or not, and pilot losses tend to be recorded more accurately.

From these two periods at least, the RAF were writing off just over 2 planes for every pilot lost, the Luftwaffe just over 1 plane for every pilot lost. That suggests the RAF were writing off damaged planes that the Luftwaffe were repairing and not admitting as a loss.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Anyway, a large part of Marseille's score has since been confirmed by British and German historians (who knew that the material they had wasn't perfect, and therefore had a critical approach towards it, at least since the end of the eighties) and can be assumed to be 100+, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you have any details of where I can read this work? I'd really like to see the comparisons between Marseille's claims and British loss records. It's a common error to just look at a particular pilot in isolation.

Eg, Pilot X claimed 5 kills this day, the RAF lost 7, therefore pilot X didn't overclaim. However, when you study all the Luftwaffe claims, you find Pilot X claimed 5, the rest of his staffel claimed another 3, another JG claimed 6, flak got 3, etc.

When you study particular days, you find that the Luftwaffe, like everyone else, frequently overclaimed by 2 - 3 or more, especially when fighting over enemy territory or the sea, where crash sites couldn't be checked.

Abbuzze
06-11-2004, 12:47 PM
hop2002

Hop you should read

"Fighters over the desert" from Ring/Shores
I think this is what you asked for.
Very intersting book- after reading this book I did not believe in any cheating overclaiming myths anymore... 99% of all claimd kills are seem as a real kill for the pilots but sometimes badly smoking planes are returning to base, or they could bellyland and were no write off.

For example: 10th September 1942
the 252. Squad got a message form a Pilot who was POW he was shot down in March by a 110 over Tobruk, but the wardiary of his squad didnt mentioned his lost! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

At the 1. Septemer 42 the day of Marseilles 17 kills the Allies lost 20 singelengineplanes (without bellylanded !) german claims for this day where 26 - includeing Marseilles 17.

The problem was more, that the type of the planes where often incorrect- Marseille had the tendency to claim Curtiss even if they were Hurricanes, but- british and russian pilots claimed even He 100 kills!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I./JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
http://www.jg53-pikas.de/

http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/bilder/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam%20neu.gif
couldn‚¬īt restist http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

DONB3397
06-11-2004, 01:53 PM
I think you're right, Abbuzze. On this day, Marseille claimed 17 and his wingman confirmed with times and locations noted. The RAF said this claim exceeded the total number of British losses for that day. But the losses of the RAF, Australian and South African fighter squadrons, taken together on September 1, did in fact exceed the clams of all German figther pilots...by about ten per cent.

I think that Marsaille and his wingman possibly got the wrong aircraft (P40 vs. Hurricane), and perhaps markings.

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v243/DONB3397/SpitSig01b.jpg
"And now I see with eye serene/The very pulse of the machine;
A being breathing thoughtful breath,/A Traveller between life and death." -- Wordsworth

Blutarski2004
06-11-2004, 03:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Abbuzze:
hop2002

Hop you should read

"Fighters over the desert" from Ring/Shores
I think this is what you asked for.
Very intersting book- after reading this book I did not believe in any cheating overclaiming myths anymore... 99% of all claimd kills are seem as a real kill for the pilots but sometimes badly smoking planes are returning to base, or they could bellyland and were no write off.

For example: 10th September 1942
the 252. Squad got a message form a Pilot who was POW he was shot down in March by a 110 over Tobruk, but the wardiary of his squad didnt mentioned his lost! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

At the 1. Septemer 42 the day of Marseilles 17 kills the Allies lost 20 singelengineplanes (without bellylanded !) german claims for this day where 26 - includeing Marseilles 17.

The problem was more, that the type of the planes where often incorrect- Marseille had the tendency to claim Curtiss even if they were Hurricanes, but- british and russian pilots claimed even He 100 kills!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I./JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
http://www.jg53-pikas.de/

http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/bilder/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam%20neu.gif
couldn‚¬īt restist http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I enthusiastically endorse Abbuzze's recommendation of FIGHTERS OVER THE DESERT. It should be on the bookshelf of every WW2 aviation enthusist. Also the book FIGHTERS OVER TUNISIA by the same authors.

BTW, re mistaken identity claims, US pilots in the Pacific theater even claimed 109's on occasion.


BLUTARSKI

nicli
06-15-2004, 10:52 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by hop2002:
"Do you have any details of where I can read this work? I'd really like to see the comparisons between Marseille's claims and British loss records. It's a common error to just look at a particular pilot in isolation."


My sources were (direct and indirect) :

- Aero-journal n‚?21 oct-nov. 2001, p. 7 (in French)
- Shores' "Fighters over the desert"
- Weal's "Jagdgeschwder 27 "Afrika"" (for Marseille's 17 in a day)

I also read it elsewhere but I should check more carefully to find out all the sources.

Sorry to have answered so late, I didn't come on this forum for the last few days.