1. #11
    K_Freddie's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    3,997
    As said b4, a physical kill was a kill, the points allocated to that kill went towards promotions and medals as far as I know.
    Share this post

  2. #12
    AKA_TAGERT's Avatar Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    3,799
    Originally posted by Dogfighter1969:
    What do you guys and girls say about that?
    Myth
    In that some of the highest production numbers of 109s was during this so called period of no resorces. The materials to build planes was not the biggest problem, the fuel and pilots were.
    Share this post

  3. #13
    Xiolablu3's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    8,755
    Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
    because they tallied their kills like IL2 they got 1 kill for a fighter and 4 kills for a 4 engine bomber
    No. They got points not kills. A 4 engine bomber gave more points to the pilot but not more kills.
    Other thing is the overclaiming. In the Luftwaffe this was not that easy because the pilot who shoot an ennemy down had to have an other pilot to confirm the kill. If no one saw the kill it was not a confirmed one and did not count.

    So some pilots could have more kills than they actually got officially. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Hi mate, RAF and USAAF also had this system. The kill had to be confirmed.
    Share this post

  4. #14
    They just were lucky to survive being shot or brought down.

    First think of Marseille, who was often attributed as the ultimate expert by surviving LW fighter pilots. He scored around 150 kills, but became a fatal loss at the very one time he had an engine failure, because he climbed out unluckily.

    Nex look at the overall statistics of LW aces. Most did not score more then 10, 20, 50 kills, and then, while already "experts", were shot down (e.g. Muencheberg).

    Then think of e.g. Rall or Stinhoff (275 res. 176 attributed kills). Both were shot down several times, I believe 7 res. 12, but they always managed to survive a crash landing.

    This means around 15 - 30 scores for each time being scored (but surviving that), which is comparable to what the best allied pilots achieved.

    Add in their long time of service and the fact that they were not rotated or phased out.

    There is nothing miraculous about it, it's both luck and professionalism.

    Obviously some people feel offended or annoyed by their high socres. There is really no need for that.
    Share this post

  5. #15
    I didn't know that for RAF and USAAF, but I heard about half kills or something like that. What was that exactly?
    Share this post

  6. #16
    Originally posted by ultraHun:
    They just were lucky to survive being shot or brought down.

    First think of Marseille, who was often attributed as the ultimate expert by surviving LW fighter pilots. He scored around 150 kills, but became a fatal loss at the very one time he had an engine failure, because he climbed out unluckily.

    Nex look at the overall statistics of LW aces. Most did not score more then 10, 20, 50 kills, and then, while already "experts", were shot down (e.g. Muencheberg).

    Then think of e.g. Rall or Stinhoff (275 res. 176 attributed kills). Both were shot down several times, I believe 7 res. 12, but they always managed to survive a crash landing.

    This means around 15 - 30 scores for each time being scored (but surviving that), which is comparable to what the best allied pilots achieved.

    Add in their long time of service and the fact that they were not rotated or phased out.

    There is nothing miraculous about it, it's both luck and professionalism.

    Obviously some people feel offended or annoyed by their high socres. There is really no need for that.
    One other guy who doesnt fit your ID - Hartmann.
    One of the advantages of the Luftwaffe was that they normally fought over occupied territory so if they did bail or crash land ect they could be recovered.

    The combat experience of the top 100 aces is frightening they have well over 10,000 kills
    Share this post

  7. #17
    Akronnick's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,045
    Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
    I didn't know that for RAF and USAAF, but I heard about half kills or something like that. What was that exactly?
    That's when a single kill is shared between two pilots, i.e., you're my wingman, we bounce an enemy and both get hits, he goes down, we both get one half of the kill.

    It wasn't like Il-2 where the last person to hit gets the whole kill.
    Share this post

  8. #18
    Originally posted by mynameisroland:
    One other guy who doesnt fit your ID - Hartmann.
    One of the advantages of the Luftwaffe was that they normally fought over occupied territory so if they did bail or crash land ect they could be recovered.
    I don't think it was always an advantage: that wasn't Germany but over that land they were still the enemy... some german pilots got their asses kicked by partisans.
    Share this post

  9. #19
    One of the advantages of the Luftwaffe was that they normally fought over occupied territory so if they did bail or crash land ect they could be recovered.
    That would be true for "Defense of the Reich"-pilots. However, during BOB and the most part of the eastern campaign, they regularyly flew above enemy territory.


    Interestigly, many pilots shined as single "killing-machines", however some of them failed to lead their squadronmates adequately during combat. This lead to a high attrition-rate among their fellow wingmen.
    Share this post

  10. #20
    ...I don't think the P-47 nor the P-51 won the war. I believe that it works like an RTS pc game. The Germans could not keep up with the resources that the Allieds were able to produce in terms of both men and material. They never had a chance. By the time the P-47 and P-51 became big news the Germans were already set back heavily because of restricted resources. Imagine what would have happened if they were able to produce the Me-262 in the same quantities as the Me-109's. They would have kicked our butts. But, in my opinion the war was won on the ground and at sea.
    Now that's a hot potato. What do you guys and girls say about that?
    Every time I read an assertion in one of these forum threads about which plane won or lost the war, it really cracks me up. To believe that any single tactical weapon (like a fighter plane or fighter bomber) would have "made the difference", is ludicrous. The only strategic weapon which was used in WWII that actually had the potential to "win a war" is probably the atomic bomb.

    After 23 years of service in the USN, and 30+ years of studying military history, my personal opinion is the Allies won the war because they violated fewer of Sun Tzu's principles than the Axis did. Here are a few which are always worth another read:

    "When doing battle, seek a quick victory.

    A protracted battle will blunt weapons and dampen ardor.

    If troops lay siege to a walled city, their strength will be exhausted.

    If the army is exposed to a prolonged campaign, the nation's resources will not suffice.

    When weapons are blunted, and ardor dampened, strength exhausted, and resources depleted, the neighboring rulers will take advantage of these complications."
    Share this post