Ares Games
Results 1 to 49 of 49

Thread: Top Aces of the War...Question

  1. #1

    Default Top Aces of the War...Question

    Not to nit pick, but shouldn't the aces from Canada, Australia, South Africa, and Ireland be all included under one "nation"? Were all of these "nations" actual self-sustaining countries during the Great War? Please do not misunderstand me, I am quite glad to see a separate listing for Ireland, but as most of these chaps flew in RFC squadrons, I would think they would all come under one commonwealth entry. Thoughts?

    Top Aces by Nation


    Country Pilot Score
    Germany Manfred von Richthofen 80
    France Rene Fonck 75
    Canada William Bishop 72
    UK Edward Mannock 61
    South Africa A. Beauchamp-Proctor 47
    Australia Robert Little 47
    Ireland George McElroy 47
    Belgium Willy Coppens 37
    Austria-Hungary Godwin Brumowski 35
    Italy Francesco Baracca 34
    USA Eddie Rickenbacker 26
    Russia Alexei Kazakov 17

  2. #2

    Default

    Shouldn't it just be Central Powers and Entente?

    Not that I'm disagreeing, but we are talking national pride and recognition. Based on numbers of bodies in uniform, the RFC could have been the CAC. If not for England imposing it's prerogative on it's "subjects" there would have been separate air forces in WWI. And there should have been separate forces in WWII (only after the BCATP were the "colonies" able to put their own countries names on their uniforms).

    My nickel.
    Mike
    "Flying is learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss" Douglas Adams
    "Wings of Glory won't skin your elbows and knees while practicing." OldGuy59

  3. #3

    Default

    No, I like national pride, just questioning the existence of separate nations during the Great War. Lord knows the Irish fight for independence during and after the war. Guess I was going for a technical answer, but certainly understand national points of view!

  4. #4

    Default

    All the colonies were separate countries before the war, whether England acknowledged it or not. Canada celebrated its 147th birthday on 1 July of this year, and we are marking the 100th anniversary of the start of the Great War this year.

    You do the math.
    Mike
    "Flying is learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss" Douglas Adams
    "Wings of Glory won't skin your elbows and knees while practicing." OldGuy59

  5. #5

    Default

    Hmmm...yeah, it is funny now that I think about it that pilots from all the commonwealth flew and fought as part of the RFC. Did the Canadians, etc. have distinct and separate ground crews made up of fellow Canadians, or did the UK provide logistic support? Were there separate squadrons people by exclusive nationalities? I need to do more reading!

    Btw, Billy Bishop needs to have an * after his name, don'tcha think?

  6. #6

    Default

    As I understand it, the British forces were pretty blended. Some Canadians weren't signed up as Canadians, but British subjects, depending on when and where they joined. About a third of all RFC/RNAS pilots were Canadian, but records for ground crew were not definitive. I can't recall from Collishaw's book if his Black Flight included Canadian ground crew, but I'm inclined to think not.

    As an example of the resistance to self-determination: It took significant political and internal pressure just to get the Canadian Division assembled, and then, Britain assigned them what should have been a suicide mission. Vimy Ridge cost the French army 150,000 casualties over a year trying to take it. The Canadian Division was 140,000 strong before the attack, and the British didn't even plan a follow-up exploitation operation.

    Not sure about the Bishop reference?
    Mike
    "Flying is learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss" Douglas Adams
    "Wings of Glory won't skin your elbows and knees while practicing." OldGuy59

  7. #7

    Default

    Okay, thanks. I guess with blended units like that you really get to have it both ways, since the commonwealth countries didn't really have their own units to promote, they could just celebrate their national citizens.

    The Billy Bishop * reference is to the well known American Baseball records system of putting an * next to the name of top performers in the records books who have illegal/cheating practices associated with them. For example, if they were found guilty of using illegal steroids while achieving their records. I was alluding to the fact that a growing consensus in the scholarship is that Billy Bishop fabricated most, if not nearly all of his air victories, and thus doesn't deserve the accolades and position of a top ace that pilots with documented and confirmed victories receive.

    This is just one article: http://www.journal.dnd.ca/vo3/no3/doc/61-64-eng.pdf

  8. #8

    Default

    Then there's the attitude of the troops -- from the ACW: When a soldier serving with Sherman's March To The Sea force (which contained three corps raised in the West, and one from the East) was asked "which corps are you with?", he replied. "Corps? Hell -- I'm in General Sherman's army."

  9. #9

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by greenalfonzo View Post
    Hmmm...yeah, it is funny now that I think about it that pilots from all the commonwealth flew and fought as part of the RFC. Did the Canadians, etc. have distinct and separate ground crews made up of fellow Canadians, or did the UK provide logistic support? Were there separate squadrons people by exclusive nationalities? I need to do more reading!

    Btw, Billy Bishop needs to have an * after his name, don'tcha think?

    Looking forward to the upcoming book on BB from Peter Kilduff which hopefully will put to bed the controversy over the "Aerodrome Raid" once & for all!

  10. #10

    Exclamation

    Well Australia had 4 squadrons flying under the banner of "The Australian Flying Corps" in WW1.
    They were active in both the Middle East & Western Front.
    2 Sqds of Fighters & 2 of Recon/Bombers.
    The Australian Army had a number of separate Divisions but mainly served under British Army control.

    In WW2 our RAAF was a separate entity although Australian Pilots also flew in the RAF during the B of B.

  11. #11

    'Warspite''s Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Blog Entries
    4
    Name
    Barry
    Location
    north west Norfolk
    Sorties Flown
    760
    Join Date
    Apr 2013

    Default

    With regard to Billy Bishop I believe there is only some doubt about 25-30 of his claims, not all of them. He had confirmations for some of his score.

    Similarly there has been a shadow over Rene Fonck as some people claimed (at the time) that he 'robbed the dead' by claiming the kills of pilots who were shot down on the same mission. Part of this is based on the fact that some kills were achieved with the expenditure of as few as 10 to 20 rounds per kill. Either Fonck was a very good shot or he claimed dead pilot's victories. Anyone who remembers George Peppard in the movie "The Blue Max" will remember that this was how his character was caught over-claiming. In the movie he claimed two of Willi Von Klugermann's kills before someone points out that he only fired 40 rounds before his guns jammed.

    On Mick Mannock, the doubt on his score is the reverse - that his kill claims should actually be much higher. He sometimes did not claim after a kill and on other occasions he gave kills away to new and inexperienced pilots who had fired at the same target. He did this to boost their confidence, he was a good leader and team player.

    On the issue of nationality, the nationality should be that of the service for which they flew AT THE TIME, not a post-war tinkering with nationality. So some German pilots should be listed as "Bavarian" as Bavaria operated national units while nearly all British Empire pilots should be listed as such unless they flew exclusively in a national squadron such as the Australians' small air force.

    Nationality can be a VERY touchy subject. If you review the pilot nationalities listed at the end of the 1969 movie "The Battle of Britain" you may note that (in 1940) there was one pilot who was listed as 'Israeli' when Israel did not exist until 1948. (!!) When I checked the source book that the film was based on, the same single pilot is listed as a Palestinian Jew as Palestine was then a British protectorate but with a significant Jewish population. It appears that the film's producers were both Jewish and did not want to see a Jew listed as a Palestinian despite the fact that (in 1940) he was Palestinian. Nationality and politics… always a difficult subject.

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 'Warspite' View Post
    With regard to Billy Bishop I believe there is only some doubt about 25-30 of his claims, not all of them. He had confirmations for some of his score.

    ...

    On Mick Mannock, the doubt on his score is the reverse - that his kill claims should actually be much higher. He sometimes did not claim after a kill and on other occasions he gave kills away to new and inexperienced pilots who had fired at the same target. He did this to boost their confidence, he was a good leader and team player.

    On the issue of nationality, the nationality should be that of the service for which they flew AT THE TIME, not a post-war tinkering with nationality. So some German pilots should be listed as "Bavarian" as Bavaria operated national units while nearly all British Empire pilots should be listed as such unless they flew exclusively in a national squadron such as the Australians' small air force.

    Nationality can be a VERY touchy subject. If you review the pilot nationalities listed at the end of the 1969 movie "The Battle of Britain" you may note that (in 1940) there was one pilot who was listed as 'Israeli' when Israel did not exist until 1948. (!!) When I checked the source book that the film was based on, the same single pilot is listed as a Palestinian Jew as Palestine was then a British protectorate but with a significant Jewish population. It appears that the film's producers were both Jewish and did not want to see a Jew listed as a Palestinian despite the fact that (in 1940) he was Palestinian. Nationality and politics… always a difficult subject.
    For Billy Bishop, according to the linked article above, only 22-27 of his victories were backed by losses on the German side. That was how inflated his score was. Most of those "verified" victories were witnessed, unlike the rest of his tally, including, "Twenty-four victories in 23 sorties flown over 22 days, with only one of them confirmed by an independent witness" while he was flying an SE5a as a squadron commander and could "confirm" his own claims.

    Raymond Collishaw also gave away kills to rookies, for the same reason. By some investigative research and discussions/interviews with pilots who flew with Collishaw, he under-reported and some of the rookies swore (after the war) that their first kill was not actually theirs. They may have fired at it, were convinced they had missed, but the plane went down anyway. The only conclusion was that Collishaw was shooting at the same time from below them, and told all the pilots in the mess on arriving after the flight that the new guy was now "one of the boys". Estimates through this investigation suggest Collishaw may have had over 100 kills (sketchy, but possible, if all the witnesses gave up their firsts. Collishaw's personal claims were 81 planes and balloons, but the RNAS didn't count them all, and discounted balloons. Constable on Collishaw). Oh, and this doesn't count his flying with the Russians, in Mesopotamia or during WWII.

    There were no Canadian squadrons in Europe during the Great War, although there were Home Defence squadrons and training squadrons in Canada. Australia must have had better politicians, or Galipoli may have had something to do with why (but I'd be guessing).

    And you have to love 'revisionist history'.
    Mike
    "Flying is learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss" Douglas Adams
    "Wings of Glory won't skin your elbows and knees while practicing." OldGuy59

  13. #13

    Default

    I can only like to add, that I would not like to revisit a court case 100 years after the verdict.
    All witnesses dead and conflicting statements.
    Rob.
    "Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."

  14. #14

    Default

    "It does not matter who scores the kills, so long as the Staffel wins."

  15. #15

    'Warspite''s Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Blog Entries
    4
    Name
    Barry
    Location
    north west Norfolk
    Sorties Flown
    760
    Join Date
    Apr 2013

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OldGuy59 View Post
    For Billy Bishop, according to the linked article above, only 22-27 of his victories were backed by losses on the German side. That was how inflated his score was. Most of those "verified" victories were witnessed, unlike the rest of his tally, including, "Twenty-four victories in 23 sorties flown over 22 days, with only one of them confirmed by an independent witness" while he was flying an SE5a as a squadron commander and could "confirm" his own claims.

    Raymond Collishaw also gave away kills to rookies, for the same reason. By some investigative research and discussions/interviews with pilots who flew with Collishaw, he under-reported and some of the rookies swore (after the war) that their first kill was not actually theirs. They may have fired at it, were convinced they had missed, but the plane went down anyway. The only conclusion was that Collishaw was shooting at the same time from below them, and told all the pilots in the mess on arriving after the flight that the new guy was now "one of the boys". Estimates through this investigation suggest Collishaw may have had over 100 kills (sketchy, but possible, if all the witnesses gave up their firsts. Collishaw's personal claims were 81 planes and balloons, but the RNAS didn't count them all, and discounted balloons. Constable on Collishaw). Oh, and this doesn't count his flying with the Russians, in Mesopotamia or during WWII.

    There were no Canadian squadrons in Europe during the Great War, although there were Home Defence squadrons and training squadrons in Canada. Australia must have had better politicians, or Galipoli may have had something to do with why (but I'd be guessing).

    And you have to love 'revisionist history'.
    I rounded my figures from memory but yes, you are right.

  16. #16

    'Warspite''s Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Blog Entries
    4
    Name
    Barry
    Location
    north west Norfolk
    Sorties Flown
    760
    Join Date
    Apr 2013

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Officer Kyte View Post
    I can only like to add, that I would not like to revisit a court case 100 years after the verdict.
    All witnesses dead and conflicting statements.
    Rob.
    A fair point sir!

    However it has been possible to straighten out a very few cases in the light of post-war analysis. In particular the death of the Red Baron has been re-visited by several authors and experts. Taken together with his post-mortem evidence (MvR was one of the few to even receive a post-mortem) it is clear he was struck by a bullet low on one side and exiting high on the other. Taken with Brown's version that he was only ever behind the Baron then I think the credit must go to the Australia cooks/machine-gunners who had been firing from the same side and a slightly lower lever.
    Sometimes hindsight can be helpful, but not very often!

  17. #17

    Default

    Getting back to the topic of whether or not the British Dominions should be listed as separate nations, I'm going to use Mirriam-Webster's definition of a nation: "a large area of land that is controlled by its own government"

    Canada, Australia, and South Africa all had self-government at the time of WWI. (Excerpts below from wikipedia)

    Canada: "Pursuant to the British North America Act, on July 1, 1867 three colonies joined to form the autonomous federal dominion of Canada. This began an accretion of provinces and territories to the new self-governing dominion."

    South Africa: "Eight years after the end of the Second Boer War and after four years of negotiation, an act of the British Parliament (South Africa Act 1909) granted nominal independence, while creating the Union of South Africa on 31 May 1910."

    Australia: "On 1 January 1901, the six colonies federated, forming the Commonwealth of Australia. Since Federation, Australia has maintained a stable liberal democratic political system that functions as a federal parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy comprising six states and several territories."

    Interestingly, from my admittedly quick search it appears that Ireland did not actually have home rule during WWI.
    "After several attempts to pass a Home Rule bill through parliament, it looked certain that one would finally pass in 1914. To prevent this from happening, the Ulster Volunteers were formed in 1913 under the leadership of Edward Carson. Their formation was followed in 1914 by the establishment of the Irish Volunteers, whose aim was to ensure that the Home Rule Bill was passed. The Act was passed but with the 'temporary' exclusion of the six counties of Ulster that would become Northern Ireland. Before it could be implemented, however, the Act was suspended for the duration of the First World War."

    Of course, though it might be more correct, it would be tedious to indicate Aces who are from "that which would become the nation of..."

  18. #18

    Default

    Yeah, but just who was the head of state for those nations? Go ahead, look up just who the Queen of Canada currently is.

    As long as those pilots flew in RFC formations, with English pilots and grounds crew, it's pretty fair to lump them all together under the British banner.

    I do think it's very fair to label them by their actual nationality outside the Empire, of course.

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greenalfonzo View Post
    Yeah, but just who was the head of state for those nations? Go ahead, look up just who the Queen of Canada currently is.

    As long as those pilots flew in RFC formations, with English pilots and grounds crew, it's pretty fair to lump them all together under the British banner.

    I do think it's very fair to label them by their actual nationality outside the Empire, of course.
    The Queen is the "Head of State", but does she have direct influence on the day-to-day running of the country(ies)? No.

    The British Empire is a bit of a quandary, and very convoluted. As is the British Commonwealth thing. In the Great War, Britain exerted a lot of pressure to "run the show" because it had the experienced and qualified officers of a standing armed forces, whereas the colonies just had a few regular officers and a lot of militia types.

    Even in WWII, the same rationale was used for "running the show" there, too. If not for the political pressure from the colonies to have their own troops in their own uniforms, the RAF would have been the only air force (and there would have been only one army) in Britain. Even with their own "air forces", the colonies were fully integrated into the RAF Orders of Battle, and personnel and squadrons used indiscriminately as "British" assets. Provision of equipment and resources was directed by RAF High Command, even for planes and equipment built and shipped from Canada. Actually, looking back at WWII, Britain violated portions of Article XV of the BCATP Agreement, and assigned colonial personnel to RAF units, rather than to their respective colonial units further diluting the separation, thereby inflating their appearance of a majority. Examples such as the use of British commanding officers in RAAF and RCAF squadrons abounded. Only in Home Defence squadrons were the colonies in charge of the use and deployment of the assets.

    I can understand not identifying pilots from individual states and provinces of a country. For the British part of both conflicts, the fact that the British wouldn't relinquish control of the military within the Commonwealth doesn't mean they should have been the only identified country. BTW: At the end of WWII, Canada had the third largest Air Force in the world, in personnel and planes. Admittedly, the planes were mostly the training assets for the BCATP, but the personnel were mostly Canadians.

    I'll go back to my comment way back at the beginning of this thread. Shouldn't the aces be identified by: Central Powers and Entente? Does it really matter where they came from. In the final analysis, it only really matters: "who won."
    Last edited by OldGuy59; 10-11-2014 at 13:45.
    Mike
    "Flying is learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss" Douglas Adams
    "Wings of Glory won't skin your elbows and knees while practicing." OldGuy59

  20. #20

    Default

    on a tangent, why are pilots revered in this way and why is it such a big thing? while other combatants aren't so much?

    Really at the end of the day we are basically glorifying state sanctioned serial killers.

    Just a thought for a Sunday morning here in Typhoon braced Yokohama.

  21. #21

    Default

    Hmmm, sorry, I think I made this topic a bit more political than what was intended. While Old Guy makes sense with his Central Powers/Entente idea, I think I will, for my purposes, consider that the South Africans, Australians, and Canadians, while often flying in British squadrons, can have their own top aces, but the Irish, while near and dear to my heart, should be lumped with the British as they did not have self-determination.

    It really was more of a random thought topic than anything too political.

  22. #22

    Default

    James,
    Anyone involved in a war is, by its very nature, either a killer or a victim.

    Interesting question, though. Perhaps, because on a battlefield, you can't really sort out the numbers? Whereas in the air, it is one machine against another, with clear markings on each (relatively speaking)? Leaders in battles on the ground rarely met face-to-face, and not many put notches in their belts, as it wasn't good PR. Hmmm... Quite a different attitude about pilots.

    Something similar in snipers, though?

    Anyone else got thoughts or opinions?
    Mike
    "Flying is learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss" Douglas Adams
    "Wings of Glory won't skin your elbows and knees while practicing." OldGuy59

  23. #23

    'Warspite''s Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Blog Entries
    4
    Name
    Barry
    Location
    north west Norfolk
    Sorties Flown
    760
    Join Date
    Apr 2013

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FarEast View Post
    on a tangent, why are pilots revered in this way and why is it such a big thing? while other combatants aren't so much?

    Really at the end of the day we are basically glorifying state sanctioned serial killers.

    Just a thought for a Sunday morning here in Typhoon braced Yokohama.
    Pilots and aircrew, by their very nature, are fighting not only the enemy but also the elements and the very force of gravity. A WW1 RFC pilot was more likely to die in an accentual crash than get shot down. Their war was very personal, man-to-man or machine-to-machine and there were a few shreds of honour and chivalry to still be found - at times, in some places and among some of the people.

    Most nations revere individual warriors with medals, parades, war memorials and the like. With air combat it may be a little easier to quantify what we see as their achievement as there is a 'score', a numerical way of comparing the men. Many of us may feel this is wrong and I myself am not entirely comfortable with the 'cricket score' or 'game stats' approach at looking at this subject, but I admit that it happens and I admit that I am a person who does it.
    We should not judge people by numbers but the presence of the numbers makes it easier for us to make that judgement.

  24. #24

    Default

    Guys please remember I was a high school history teacher for 7 years before descending in to madness taking a position of head teacher at a Kindergarten and so raising questions like this comes naturally and designed to create thoughtful debate rather than all out flame wars.

  25. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 'Warspite' View Post
    In particular the death of the Red Baron has been re-visited by several authors and experts. Taken together with his post-mortem evidence (MvR was one of the few to even receive a post-mortem) it is clear he was struck by a bullet low on one side and exiting high on the other. Taken with Brown's version that he was only ever behind the Baron then I think the credit must go to the Australia cooks/machine-gunners who had been firing from the same side and a slightly lower lever.
    Except: According to the most-recent edition of Franks & Bennett, *none* of the Aussie ground-gunners which were interviewed was in the correct position to have made that shot (p. 114); and the shot had to come from at least 500 yards away, so none of them were at the correct range either. So either the post-mortem was badly botched (the most-likely case, all factors considered), and cannot be considered reliable evidence; or we have the grandfather of the "magic bullet" which took out JFK.... In short: Even with new data, the case does not necessarily become any more clear.

  26. #26

    Default

    Small contribution

    Top Serb ace (flew for French airforce Escadrille SPAD 94) was Petar Marinovich, with 22 victories:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petar_Marinovich

  27. #27

    Default

    Very cool info, Heмaњa.

    I would like to see that plane in full color. Seems like I have somewhere.

  28. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Пилот View Post
    Small contribution

    Top Serb ace (flew for French airforce Escadrille SPAD 94) was Petar Marinovich, with 22 victories:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petar_Marinovich
    I don't care about the colors, but that scheme is awesome! Next time the SPAD repaints come due, make sure Andrea knows about that one!

  29. #29

    Default

    The top New Zealand Ace was Keith Caldwell with 25 victories. He rose to become an Air Commodore in the RNZAF.

    Interesting, their second best ace was Keith Park with 20 victories. He commanded 11 Group in the Battle of Britain.

  30. #30

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by Naharaht View Post
    The top New Zealand Ace was Keith Caldwell with 25 victories. He rose to become an Air Commodore in the RNZAF.

    Interesting, their second best ace was Keith Park with 20 victories. He commanded 11 Group in the Battle of Britain.
    Yes & Keith Park is credited as being one of, if not "the" key figure in winning the Battle of Britain!

  31. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gully_raker View Post
    Yes & Keith Park is credited as being one of, if not "the" key figure in winning the Battle of Britain!
    Yes but he was treated shabbily by the RAF once the battle was over because the 'Big Wing' enthusiasts got into power. Here is a link to his biography on Wikipedia.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Park

  32. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Naharaht View Post
    Yes but he was treated shabbily by the RAF once the battle was over because the 'Big Wing' enthusiasts got into power. Here is a link to his biography on Wikipedia.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Park
    But I will be very grateful to him when he turns up in Malta.
    Rob.
    "Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."

  33. #33

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by Naharaht View Post
    Yes but he was treated shabbily by the RAF once the battle was over because the 'Big Wing' enthusiasts got into power. Here is a link to his biography on Wikipedia.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Park
    True but there is now a statue to him & Historians have embraced his contribution.

    I really liked how they had him portrayed in the movie "Battle of Britain" & Trevor Howard did him proud.

  34. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OldGuy59 View Post
    James,
    Anyone involved in a war is, by its very nature, either a killer or a victim.

    Interesting question, though. Perhaps, because on a battlefield, you can't really sort out the numbers? Whereas in the air, it is one machine against another, with clear markings on each (relatively speaking)? Leaders in battles on the ground rarely met face-to-face, and not many put notches in their belts, as it wasn't good PR. Hmmm... Quite a different attitude about pilots.

    Something similar in snipers, though?

    Anyone else got thoughts or opinions?
    Just a thought Mike (and anyone else) and a hypothetical question - If I am flying a Bristol Fighter and my rear gunner shoots down an opponent does that count as a 'kill' to me the pilot, thus increasing my score?
    Never have been able to find an answer to that one?

  35. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hedeby View Post
    Just a thought Mike (and anyone else) and a hypothetical question - If I am flying a Bristol Fighter and my rear gunner shoots down an opponent does that count as a 'kill' to me the pilot, thus increasing my score?
    Never have been able to find an answer to that one?
    It depended on the air force, and the time. For ex.: In Vietnam, when a US 2-seater shot down an opponent, both crew received credit; if memory serves, the "top-scoring ace" of the fracas scored his kills with two different pilots.

  36. #36

    Default

    I also taught about that... and I came up with the following:

    Every set of 5 victories are awarded to pilot OR to observer (never mind who shot the actual airplane) at owners discretion. While one member is developing, other can't. So, you'll choose whom to develop. If that guy gets killed, you transfer every “unused” victory (every victory after 0, 5, 10 etc.) to survived crew member an develop him. New guy starts with 0.

    Examples:
    Airplane A has 2 victories. Owner decided to develop observer. But, he was killed. Both victories are transferred to pilot, and now he is to be developed. New observer is starting with 0 victories.

    Airplane B has 8 victories. Owner decided to develop pilot, so pilot has 1 ability and 3 victories. Pilot gets killed. Ability is lost, but 3 victories are transferred to observer, and he is to be developed. New pilot is starting with 0 victories.

    (This for the game purpose)
    Last edited by Пилот; 10-19-2014 at 00:44.

  37. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hedeby View Post
    Just a thought Mike (and anyone else) and a hypothetical question - If I am flying a Bristol Fighter and my rear gunner shoots down an opponent does that count as a 'kill' to me the pilot, thus increasing my score?
    Never have been able to find an answer to that one?
    Apparently so in the RFC/RAF:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_George_Gass
    No idea for the other air services, but I'd be surprised if they didn't. Much harder in something like an Albatross C.V or SPAD.16
    karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  38. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jager View Post
    Apparently so in the RFC/RAF:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_George_Gass
    No idea for the other air services, but I'd be surprised if they didn't. Much harder in something like an Albatross C.V or SPAD.16
    karl



    did i miss something? i didnt see anything in the article that stated or implied that any of gass' victories were credited to his pilot instead of him. i doubt any air service would do such. imagine the effect on gunner moral and subsequent performance.

  39. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hedeby View Post
    Just a thought Mike (and anyone else) and a hypothetical question - If I am flying a Bristol Fighter and my rear gunner shoots down an opponent does that count as a 'kill' to me the pilot, thus increasing my score?
    Never have been able to find an answer to that one?



    i would think youd have to keep a separate tally as its the gunners skill that brought the enemy a/c down.

  40. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by csadn View Post
    It depended on the air force, and the time. For ex.: In Vietnam, when a US 2-seater shot down an opponent, both crew received credit; if memory serves, the "top-scoring ace" of the fracas scored his kills with two different pilots.


    thats something of a "different beast" as the RIO (radar intercept officer {ie 2nd seater}) wasnt a separate gunner but in reality a "second pair of eyes, hands, and brain" for assisting acquiring a target. gunners in ww1 and ww2 were, for the most part, along for the ride with little, especially in the heat of battle and played varyingly little part in maneuvering the a/c in acquiring the target and were, mostly, just protecting a vulnerable area of the a/c. i know there are notable exceptions to this depending on how much pilot-gunner communication/cooperation was possible (the fe2 comes to mind {hmmmmmm i wonder why }).

  41. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by milcoll73 View Post
    thats something of a "different beast" as the RIO (radar intercept officer {ie 2nd seater}) wasnt a separate gunner but in reality a "second pair of eyes, hands, and brain" for assisting acquiring a target. gunners in ww1 and ww2 were, for the most part, along for the ride with little, especially in the heat of battle and played varyingly little part in maneuvering the a/c in acquiring the target and were, mostly, just protecting a vulnerable area of the a/c. i know there are notable exceptions to this depending on how much pilot-gunner communication/cooperation was possible (the fe2 comes to mind {hmmmmmm i wonder why }).
    That's as may be, but I keep thinking of the punchline to that old joke: "Listen, buddy -- I got 4,000 hours without a navigator; how many you got without a *pilot*?"

    To a lesser extent, I have the same problem with auto racers' statistics -- for ex.: The number of wins for Richard Petty, and the number of wins for Petty Enterprises, are distinctly different; the latter includes as well all the other drivers who raced for the team, plus the couple years where Richard was racing for Mike Curb (including getting his 200th).

  42. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by milcoll73 View Post
    did i miss something? i didnt see anything in the article that stated or implied that any of gass' victories were credited to his pilot instead of him. i doubt any air service would do such. imagine the effect on gunner moral and subsequent performance.
    Oops; read the question backwards
    The pilot and observer kept separate tallies.
    As for other planes and services, this book might have answers:
    http://www.ospreypublishing.com/stor..._9781782008019
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  43. #43

  44. #44

    Default

    [QUOTE=csadn;316752]That's as may be, but I keep thinking of the punchline to that old joke: "Listen, buddy -- I got 4,000 hours without a navigator; how many you got without a *pilot*?"






  45. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jager View Post
    Oops; read the question backwards
    The pilot and observer kept separate tallies.
    As for other planes and services, this book might have answers:
    http://www.ospreypublishing.com/stor..._9781782008019
    Karl



    as they say wish i had a nickle for every time that happened............................

  46. #46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jager View Post
    Oops; read the question backwards
    The pilot and observer kept separate tallies.
    As for other planes and services, this book might have answers:
    http://www.ospreypublishing.com/stor..._9781782008019
    Karl
    Quote Originally Posted by milcoll73 View Post
    as they say wish i had a nickle for every time that happened............................
    Well, dyslexia is rarely harmful, unless you're spotting for artillery
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  47. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jager View Post
    Well, dyslexia is rarely harmful, unless you're spotting for artillery :eek::takecover::smack:
    Karl
    The less said of the dyslexic traffic cop who pulled over the drunk driver, the better.... >;)

  48. #48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by csadn View Post
    The less said of the dyslexic traffic cop who pulled over the drunk driver, the better.... >
    Sounds like a skit for Monty Python's Flying Circus
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  49. #49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jager View Post
    Sounds like a skit for Monty Python's Flying Circus
    Karl
    I don't think the BBC would have allowed them to say "'DUI' backwards" [hint, hint] on the air; look how they flipped out over the "Wine Tasting" sketch....



Similar Missions

  1. Ace of Aces
    By The Cowman in forum Polls
    Replies: 106
    Last Post: 05-27-2022, 04:37
  2. Who of the Aces are YOU?
    By Nightbomber in forum Officer's Club
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 02-10-2013, 10:28
  3. Osprey aces 110 Austro Hungarian Albatross Aces of WW1
    By Boney10 in forum Officer's Club
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-11-2012, 21:02
  4. Aces of Aces Limited Edition Reprint Kickstarter
    By jbmacek in forum Officer's Club
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-06-2012, 04:34
  5. A possibly odd question about Austrian Aces
    By Wolfbiter in forum WGF: Historical Discussions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-02-2010, 10:37

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •