WW2 pilots

>In Spain, Galland first displayed his unique style: flying in swimming trunks with a cigar between his teeth in an aircraft decorated with a Mickey Mouse figure.

...

...

...

...

Wasn't the aim to ensure total air superiority and then use it to keep the RN in its ports?

But yeah, I agree, the whole thing was a pipe dream.

If the krauts control the skies over SE England, then the bong navy during daylight hours becomes just another target, slow moving and conveniently packaged into an iron coffin. And at night, the krauts just run a submarine war against the bongs, and as they demonstrated clearly, the bongs were incapable of defending the waters around them against submarine attack. Air bases in Scotland are of little tactical help to SE England, fyi.

>Wasn't the aim to ensure total air superiority and then use it to keep the RN in its ports?
Nah. Most of the ports were outside fighter escort range in any case.

Retard. The Me-109 barely had enough range to get to London, fight a skirmish, and get back. Dominating the skies over SE England does jack shit when the shipping is going through places like Liverpool and Glasgow.

Retard. As soon as the krauts dominate the skies over SE England, a land invasion follows instantly, with accompanying air bases soon after, and Liverpool and Glasgow soon have swastikas flying over their shipping.

kek at this wehraboo delusion

>tfw you hold your manhood cheap
>tfw you are accursed you were not there

No the point was to stave Britain of oil with U-Boats for the RN and hope they don't save any to smash the gay river barges Sealion was meant to work with

philmasters.org.uk/SF/Sealion.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion_(wargame)
Please come back when you have the faintest idea what you're talking about.

352 air to air kills and not a single injury or accident caused by enemy fire

>Plays easy mode
Harttmann was a scrub

>Over half of his victories were against obsolete LaGG-3s
Heh

Salute!

He also shot down a lot of P-39, La-5 and Yak-9 though.

Most of his kills were Pe-2's and IL-2s, Marseille was the best German pilot in the war in a technical sense

>Victories against LaGGs: 207 (58%)
>Victories against P-39s: 81 (23%)
>Victories against La-5s: 3 (0.8%)
>Victories against La-5s including LaGG-5s; 13 (3%)
>Victories against Yak-9s: 26 (7%)
Only your P-39 statement holds some ground.

My personal favorite

>da
It's either Marseille or Adolf Galland, both were fantastic German pilots heavily underlooked because of le Bubi maymay.

Well Marseille was a pioneer of deflection shooting so I'd probably give it to him

Are there any other pilots known for deflection shooting aside from Ivan Kozhedub and Marseille?

>Marseille
Why is this guy named after a french city

>better
That's not how logical relations work.

If A > B, then C > A ^ D > B does not imply that C > D.

Who tells you that Hartmann wouldn't have outperformed Marseille had he been stationed in Africa instead? Marseille has a bit of a special status because he died so young unluckily killed in an accident, leading to everyone sucking his dick. Not to mention that the tactical conditions at the Eastern Front and Africa were completely different. Marseille performed poorly during the Battle of Britain while he excelled under the high visibility conditions of Africa, which favoured his good marksmanship skills. Whether he could have done similarly well at the Eastern Front is questionable.

In terms of overall victories, nobody shot down as many Spitfires as Joseph Priller, yet hardly anyone even knows the name of the man.

In the end, the point remains that Hartmann is the most successful fighter pilot in the history of aerial combat.

You can only shoot down what you encounter. The 26 Yak-9 alone would rank him among the top Allied aces in terms of absolute numbers.

>implying
Hartmann, Barkhorn, and Rall all flew over the Crimea in 1944 where Luftwaffe kill claims were at least 5 times the Soviet's reported losses. Barkhorn in particular was credited with 50 kills in the last few months of 1943 over the Crimea, and combined claims for the two staffeln of JG 52 and II./SG 2 amounted to something ridiculous like well over a thousand kills (though I've seen even more absurd claims like III./JG 52 downing literally a thousand planes with just 16 aircraft in their last month in the Crimea). That amounts to more than the total number of aircraft the Soviets ever committed to the theater (even if they had thrown everything available to the two air armies in the region, they'd only have had about 800 aircraft), and is well over the Soviets' reported 179 aircraft lost.

Huguenot heritage
>Who tells you that Hartmann wouldn't have outperformed Marseille had he been stationed in Africa instead?
Because he was fucking shit at deflection shooting

inflated numbers to boost the morale at home

>Because he was fucking shit at deflection shooting
Wrong.

Walther Krupinski was shit at deflection shooting, having said so himself. Hartmann was taught by Krupinski to get close, but Hartmann himself was not known for bad marksmanship - he deliberately chose to only open fire when close in order to conserve ammunition and not alert the enemy before victory was certain. Tactics like that were a consequence of the environmental conditions at the Eastern Front. In Africa, they wouldn't have worked because everyone knew at any given point where the enemy was due to high visibility.

Don't you think that if the numbers had been fake we would have known by now given that it would have been in post-war interest to make Nazi aces look bad?

>he deliberately chose to only open fire when close
Yeah so he couldn't lead a target, it's not like the Ostfront is constanr snowstorms and heavy cloud you know

We do know every pilot over claimed, fog of war and all that, plenty of planes that were "destroyed" were perfectly serviceable

>Yeah so he couldn't lead a target
Again: you're talking out of your ass. Krupinski said himself that he couldn't do it and that he was a bad marksman, leading him to develop such tactics. For Hartmann there is no indication that he was a bad marksman or that he couldn't have become a good marksman if forced to due to different environment requiring different tactics.

Not to mention: Hartmann's tactics are superior. If you can, you don't want to make a deflection shot for the very reasons named. You don't want to alert the enemy and you want to make sure that every bullet counts. Deflection shooting is something which they HAD to do in Africa because there was no way around, not because they wanted to show off their marksmanship skills.

>We do know every pilot over claimed
This is true. Overclaiming is generally a problem in air combat. However, said user was talking about politically motivated overclaiming.

> For Hartmann there is no indication that he was a bad marksman or that he couldn't have become a good marksman if forced to due to different environment requiring different tactics.
By the same metric there's no evidence he could have either

Which is the entire point I made in .

Just because Marseille was up against adversaries you believe to be superior to the Russians at the Eastern Front does not mean that he was necessarily a better pilot than Hartmann, or any other pilot at the Eastern Front.

We do know. Just about every fighter pilot overclaimed, and the degree of the overclaiming gets worse when pilots are particularly stressed or there's extra incentives to do so. We see it with the Flying Tigers, who are credited with downing more aircraft than the IJA ever had in the theater thanks to the particularly stressful environment and the monetary rewards for downing enemy aircraft. On the Eastern Front, there's the Kuban campaign, where both sides claimed something like twice as many planes as the other guy had. The Crimea has probably the worst instances of over-claiming I've seen, and that's probably a lot thanks to the fact that you had at the most three staffeln of fighters facing off against two air armies, meaning that pilots were often flying upwards of five sorties a day with little rest.

found the gamerfag

See what I said in .

There is a difference between the general problem of overclaiming that generally happens in air combat and accusing one side of deliberately inflating their numbers.

Except he was, JG. 52 would have been destroyed on the Western Front in 43-45 with those close in tactics, being versatile is bigger virtue than over 300 alleged kills on Soviets

>Except he was
And you know that why? Because of Marseille's poor performance during the Battle of Britain?

>JG. 52 would have been destroyed on the Western Front in 43-45 with those close in tactics
Is that so? I would argue that those tactics are generally advisable and the first thing you should attempt in air combat, because it secures you victory. Deflection shooting is something that happens AFTER alerting the enemy.

>being versatile is bigger virtue
How was Marseille more versatile? He was good under the very specific conditions of Africa, where they flew in big circles under the blazing sun. He hasn't shown great performance elsewhere.

Of course that doesn't mean that Marseille was necessarily worse, but my point is: it doesn't tell us that he was necessarily better either.

Those close in tactics JG 52 adapted to would get fucking raped by P-51s, Marseilles deflection shooting style on the other hand gives them a chance to counter the raw speed advantage P-51's have

>Those close in tactics JG 52 adapted to would get fucking raped by P-51s
I don't think you have a good understanding of the tactics involved here.

An enemy who closes in on you from where you don't notice to the point where he literally can't miss and then blasts you with lead is not going to get raped. What you need to keep in mind is that this is the initial attack. You bounce an enemy that is unaware of your position and you do it just once. If you defeat him you're good - if not, then you don't stick to him but try another day. Hartmann got close to maximise his chances, and a mistake that many novice pilots made is that they opened fire too early, missing shots, alerting the enemy (even worse when they had tracers loaded) and wasting a good chance. What Hartmann did is generally advisable in air combat - even today. And it would have worked under any conditions and is generally a good approach - assuming the enemy is not yet alerted.

Marseille fought under high visibility conditions. They saw each other coming from miles away and entered big defensive circles. Completely different conditions from how they fought over Germany or the Eastern Front. Here the enemy was already alerted, so Hartmann's approach would in most cases not work. If however, you caught someone off-guard and got a bounce on him, then of course you would first attempt it Hartmann's way.

>As soon as the krauts dominate the skies over SE England, a land invasion follows instantly

>implying the RN wouldn't sail at all costs to stop a land invasion despite threat posed by Kraut air superiority
>implying the Sealion fleet composed of flat bottomed barges (only 1/4 of which had engines) would be able to get far across enough the channel to face the RN in the first place
>Implying said fleet of river barges (plus what few S-boats, M-boats and destroyers the Germans had managed to build at this point) wouldn't suffer tremendous casualties to the home fleet
>implying that whatever invasion force which does land wouldn't fail to capture any major harbour in the face of resistance from literally every schoolboy and angry old man in Britain in fields full of pillboxes and home guard roadblocks every two miles let alone the regular army

>An enemy who closes in on you from where you don't notice to the point where he literally can't miss and then blasts you with lead is not going to get raped
Radar existed on the Western Front boyo, I don't think YOU understand, they knew when Germs were going to show up and the only thing Germany had in the bank for that was exploding coal fired rocket fights and jets

...

>Dab on the haters
Is Jake Paul a Nazi?

>Radar existed on the Western Front boyo
They had a general idea where the Germans would come from, but that's it. Even with today's radar, you don't have 360° awareness of what goes on around you. You need to rely on your own vision and your wingmen. And that leaves plenty of room to be surprised.
Not to mention, even if you do have spotted the enemy and you engage them, during combat you could get separated from your flight. One of the enemies might dive defensively, you might follow after him, end up below the rest of the enemy flight, leaving you as a perfectly viable target for someone else to bounce you - regardless whether you got the faster aircraft or not, because an energy advantage in height is worth more than that.

The reality of air combat leaves a lot of opportunity for nasty surprises, radar or not.

>I don't think YOU understand, they knew when Germs were going to show up and the only thing Germany had in the bank for that was exploding coal fired rocket fights and jets
I think you're underestimating the complexity of the situation involved.

>implying ancient gunships can stand up to air attacks in the mid-20th Century
>implying the bong navy survives the above air assault
>implying the ancient bong fleet wouldn't be occupying a new home on the bottom of the sea because of mid-20th Century realities
>implying a landed Wehrmacht doesn't destroy the bongs in whatever form they come in, same as they did in about every battle they faced them in the 20th Century, with a 3:1 kill ratio the norm

I think you're overestimating the skill of people like Hartmann

You don't need every schoolboy and home guard. The British had 26 divisions in England by September 1940, several of them armored. Germany could sealift one at a time in a best case scenario.

> Germany could sealift one at a time in a best case scenario.
On river barges?

The bongs probably had 26 divisions in Singapore too, and against a far inferior force. How'd that work out?

Every us navy carrier pilot after 1942

most of those divisions were shit tier colonial troops with no armor, anti tank guns nor they had any air support and they were cut off from the rest of the British Empire by the Japanese Navy

They had 85,000 men in Singapore you disingenuous little cunt

A combination of river barges, their few actual transport ships, loading people onto destroyers, etc.

No, they didn't, they had 6. And only 1 of those divisions (the 18th) was actually British. And the Japanese were "only" attacking at about 1:2.5 odds, not 1:20, nor were they trying to do a beach assault with no navy worth mentioning.

A far more comparable battle would be something like this.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Crusader

The viability of tactics has nothing to do with individual skill. Even the worst pilot of the world will do better if he picks a target that hasn't yet noticed him and gets as close as possible before opening fire. This is the most basic of advice that one can give and it's generally good advice.

I am not trying to extrapolate any kind of skill rating here - that's what you've been doing.

My point is: you can't tell whether Marseille was a better fighter pilot than Hartmann.

>80,000 fresh conscripts
>15,000 non-cons
Singapore's surrender and a hypothetical invasion of the homeland should not be compared.

>My point is: you can't tell whether Marseille was a better fighter pilot than Hartmann.
But I can, because Marseille could do deflection shooting and the typical chase, and Hartmann is only attested to doing the chase

Again: the fact that you want to avoid taking deflection shots does not mean that you can't do it.

Marseille HAD to take deflection shots due to the environmental conditions of Africa, where the high visibility conditions left enemies alerted all the time and the defensive tactic was to fly in big defensive circles. This is something they didn't do in the skies of Europe. Marseille was known for his deflection shooting skills because the environmental conditions required them.

Would Marseille however have had the awareness to perform similarly well under conditions with less visibility? Would he have the tactical awareness to plan his approach as well as Hartmann did in order to bounce a target and get away before getting entangled in lengthy dogfights? Air combat is more than hitting your shots. And at least in European skies: if you have to take deflection shots all the time, chances are you're not very good at making your approach because you've been alerting your enemy too much or because you're picking the wrong targets. That being said: that doesn't mean that you never have to do so, however, you want to avoid doing so if possible - even if you're good at it.

Being able to shoot in the turn accurately is a virtue

It's a skill, not a virtue. And it's still something you don't want to be doing if you can avoid it because it means that your target has entered defensive manoeuvres which means that he knows where you are. Ideally you want to defeat your target with your initial approach, never giving him the chance to do something about it. And if it doesn't work: get the fuck away and try another day.

Marseille might be Revolver Ocelot, but Hartmann is Solid Snake.

I think you're under the false impression deflective shooting is a purely ambush tactic, it's incredibly useful even when the enemy has been alerted to shoot them down at an angle they can't hit you at

>vidyagayme references
Get lost manchild

>deflective shooting is a purely ambush tactic
That's my point: it's not an ambush tactic. It's something you do AFTER the enemy knows where you are and has entered defensive manoeuvres, which means you've failed on your first attempt when the enemy did not yet know where you are.

>it's incredibly useful even when the enemy has been alerted to shoot them down at an angle they can't hit you at
I don't disagree here. I'm just saying that it's a skill one should not overemphasise because even though it's absolutely essential in circular defensive tactics under the African sun, it becomes much less vital under European conditions where you have much more opportunity to engage enemies that are yet unaware of your position.

>no argument

On a sunny day over Germany your stick close is going to be a bit shitty

It's not about "stick close". "sticking" is generally against everything Hartmann advised, and "sticking" is generally a bad idea if WW2 aces in general are to be believed because it's a waste of time and energy. You want to make your attacks short and precise and not get entangled in dogfights, trying to chase tails.

Hartmann advises: you make ONE approach on a target that is unaware of your position and you only open fire when you are certain that you won't miss. And after having made your approach you have either destroyed your target or you haven't. And in either cases you get the fuck out. You don't "stick".

This should ALWAYS be your initial approach and it's generally a good advice.

That does not mean that you are necessarily unable to make deflection shots, neither does it mean that different tactical situations may not require different approaches. It just means that you're going to be more successful if you don't try to pick off an enemy at distance and that you're better off trying to shoot targets that are not trying to evade your attacks. It really doesn't get more basic than this in terms of advice.

I\d agree with that, and it's a great ambush idea using the sun or cloud to hide you, but without that it's use is heavily diminished unless you can also lead a target in a turn

Of course.

I'm not saying deflection shooting is useless. I'm merely saying that Hartmann's advice does not imply that he was a bad deflection shooter, because even a good deflection shooter would be wise to first try to attack targets that haven't yet noticed him and fire at them where the risk of alerting them and missing shots is minimal.

What should be noted however is that the deflection shooting became exceedingly important in the circular defensive tactics that were used in Africa. There, every shot taken had to be a deflection shot, so good deflection shooters like Marseille would stand out. In Europe, they didn't generally do these sorts of tactics, so while it was absolutely vital to hit something in Africa, it was not nearly as important in Europe. Even if there were good deflection shooters in Europe, they probably wouldn't stand out as much.

This thread is why Veeky Forums was a mistake.