Re: I'll need an actuarial to finish this
Sun Oct 05, 2008 1:43 pm
astixjr wrote:This all started when one pilot said "the PT-X trained more guys that went on to become aces than any other PT". At first I thought, ok, I'll buy that but then I remembered that I'm from Missouri, the Show Me State, and a natural born skeptic. My reply was somewhat automatic.But then I was bluffing because he could be right.
Fair enough if that is the basis of the bet.
Seems to me that the person who made the statement is the one on whom the burden of proof rests.
Sun Oct 05, 2008 3:57 pm
For the record, Don S. Gentile had 20/10 vision (he says so in his 1944 book OMAF), but I seriously doubt that was the determining factor in his success. Gentile didn't train with the US, either. Randy, of course, is right: you can't get there from here basing a man's scoring success on his PT experience.
In the spirit of "You don't have to be a dog to judge a dog show" (one of the very pillars of the Internet, eh?
), I'll say from my own studies that there's something inside a man (if he can avoid getting his tushy shot off by chance in the meanwhile) that will put him way ahead of his fellows every time. I've seen reports from 4th FG pilots that say they had a devil of a time trying to keep up with Gentile as he engaged in combat - he really heaved his plane around; he put himself where he needed to be to make the kill. His teamwork with Godfrey came into play as well. He and Johnny Godfrey spent a lot of time working on their one-two punch strategies.
Aggressiveness is another major factor. "Be the Hunter!", as quoted above. Other, lesser-scoring pilots/flight leaders, I'd argue, who flew at the same time as Gentile and the like had pretty much the same initial opportunities to score, but that 1/10th razor edge Gentile had over his fellows in agressiveness, flying ability, physical strength and other factors like his eyesight of course, put him far ahead of the people flying alongside him in the same type plane and in the same sky. I say the best way to judge the final success of a fighter pilot is by comparing him with his contemporary squadron mates - why in a squadron full of studs do two or three stand out so much, and sometimes WAY above the others?
Ralph K. Hofer (the Frank Luke of WWII) is another great example - in the 'extreme'. He notched up a string of victories when his fellow pilots were getting by with one or two here and there. He had something to prove, or a death wish, but he was fearless, agressive, and determined to kill Germans, and the crosses on the side of Salem Representative were testaments to the inner man. That, I think, is something that cannot be trained into a pilot. Sure, you can provide the best equipment and BFM skillset, but that core 'fire' is the real determinant.
To end this 4th FG commercial ... be on the lookout for Osprey's book on the 4th, due out next month IIRC. I don't know how many of my picture collection will be in there, but I supplied the author with a CD full!
Wade
In the spirit of "You don't have to be a dog to judge a dog show" (one of the very pillars of the Internet, eh?
), I'll say from my own studies that there's something inside a man (if he can avoid getting his tushy shot off by chance in the meanwhile) that will put him way ahead of his fellows every time. I've seen reports from 4th FG pilots that say they had a devil of a time trying to keep up with Gentile as he engaged in combat - he really heaved his plane around; he put himself where he needed to be to make the kill. His teamwork with Godfrey came into play as well. He and Johnny Godfrey spent a lot of time working on their one-two punch strategies.
Aggressiveness is another major factor. "Be the Hunter!", as quoted above. Other, lesser-scoring pilots/flight leaders, I'd argue, who flew at the same time as Gentile and the like had pretty much the same initial opportunities to score, but that 1/10th razor edge Gentile had over his fellows in agressiveness, flying ability, physical strength and other factors like his eyesight of course, put him far ahead of the people flying alongside him in the same type plane and in the same sky. I say the best way to judge the final success of a fighter pilot is by comparing him with his contemporary squadron mates - why in a squadron full of studs do two or three stand out so much, and sometimes WAY above the others?
Ralph K. Hofer (the Frank Luke of WWII) is another great example - in the 'extreme'. He notched up a string of victories when his fellow pilots were getting by with one or two here and there. He had something to prove, or a death wish, but he was fearless, agressive, and determined to kill Germans, and the crosses on the side of Salem Representative were testaments to the inner man. That, I think, is something that cannot be trained into a pilot. Sure, you can provide the best equipment and BFM skillset, but that core 'fire' is the real determinant.
To end this 4th FG commercial ... be on the lookout for Osprey's book on the 4th, due out next month IIRC. I don't know how many of my picture collection will be in there, but I supplied the author with a CD full!
Wade
Sun Oct 05, 2008 8:35 pm
So, clearly the Bucker 'PT' Jungmann is the winner then, with aces in the three figure bracket.
Mon Oct 06, 2008 7:58 am
JDK wrote:So, clearly the Bucker 'PT' Jungmann is the winner then, with aces in the three figure bracket.
James, you've got it - a winner! Hard to argue with that conclusion. And, in the same vein as Randy's global temp vs. number of pirates curve, it's important for all homeowners to remember that the reason the sink is dripping is because the front door is unlocked ...
... or is that the way WINDOWS [insert trademark sound here] works ... ?
Wade
Mon Oct 06, 2008 8:09 am
See Wade, you understand!
And to be serious for a moment, there should be a small but significant number of American aces whose 'PT' time would have been on Tiger Moths, just like those who were qualified before joining up.
And to be serious for a moment, there should be a small but significant number of American aces whose 'PT' time would have been on Tiger Moths, just like those who were qualified before joining up.
Mon Oct 06, 2008 9:29 am
So # 1 would be the Jungmann and # 2 would the Tachikawa Ki-17?? #3 Yakovlev UT-2? ANd how about the Finns? Fokker C.V?
Bong flew what? BT-13's?
Bong flew what? BT-13's?
Axis PT types
Mon Oct 06, 2008 1:22 pm
On this research project, I'm just going to work on WWII pilots trained in North America and specifically, I'm using the list of the top 72 U.S. Aces. It's going to be difficult enough to compile that data without trying to figure out how things worked out with the other Allied or Axis powers.
I'm just looking at Primary trainers right now. There were a considerable number of different Pt types used from 41' to 45' Basic training seems to be centered on the Bt-13/SNV and of course Advanced centered on the At-6/SNJ
I'm just looking at Primary trainers right now. There were a considerable number of different Pt types used from 41' to 45' Basic training seems to be centered on the Bt-13/SNV and of course Advanced centered on the At-6/SNJ
Mon Oct 06, 2008 1:47 pm
As a side note, I think it would be interesting to know how many of the top aces were hunters prior to joining the service. I know Bong was an avid hunter, and it would seem his skill at leading a target (ducks, pheasants, etc) would correlate to his skill in the air shooting down airplanes.
Zack
Zack
Re: Axis PT types
Mon Oct 06, 2008 1:57 pm
astixjr wrote:On this research project, I'm just going to work on WWII pilots trained in North America and specifically,
Yeah I know...I was just being a bit of a S/A ...trying to keep up with JDK ya know
It is an interesting conversation to have...Just don't know if there is enough data to support a proper answer.
I would hazard to bet that most of the aces were country boys who could track, hunt and shoot. Maybe even ride horses or drive real fast on twisty roads in the sticks...
Good Luck!
Aces and guns
Mon Oct 06, 2008 8:27 pm
No doubt about it. In the information I've seen so far, shooting and hunting is mentioned more than a few times. A certain amount of disregard for authority and their own safety seems to play a role also. Go figure.
Mon Oct 06, 2008 8:42 pm
Sorry, astixjr, I'll go stand in the corner. 
Manfred von Richthofen (that well-known US W.W.II ace) was certainly a hunter. Of course there's hunters that are sucessful and hunters that like getting dressed up and running around in the woods. How do you establish that data?
You could also try and correlate how many successful aces were thugs, psychopaths or psychologically unbalanced. (MvR probably had 'issues' in modern parlance; Bearling was certainly odd to say the least...) Flaky data that may be, it's (seriously) going to be more relevant than what PT type they flew.
Again there's a classic mistake being made here, following Randy Haskin's initial point, IMHO. I would suggest that the PT type a pilot learned on is utterly irrelevant. The USAAC chose the W.W.II era PT aircraft carefully; some where better than others, but they were all adequate for the job. Other training period factors such as weather, crowding, instructor contact time etc. would be significantly more important than PT type 1 or 2. Likewise the US never faced the combat pressures that Britain did in 1940, or the Axis did towards the war's end, where training syllabuses were chopped and enemy interdiction might take out trainer, trainee and instructor.
Sure it's a bit of fun to win a drink or two, but to take it seriously even for a moment misleads those less knowledgeable than WIX habituates...
Regards,
Zachary wrote:As a side note, I think it would be interesting to know how many of the top aces were hunters prior to joining the service. I know Bong was an avid hunter, and it would seem his skill at leading a target (ducks, pheasants, etc) would correlate to his skill in the air shooting down airplanes.
Manfred von Richthofen (that well-known US W.W.II ace) was certainly a hunter. Of course there's hunters that are sucessful and hunters that like getting dressed up and running around in the woods. How do you establish that data?
You could also try and correlate how many successful aces were thugs, psychopaths or psychologically unbalanced. (MvR probably had 'issues' in modern parlance; Bearling was certainly odd to say the least...) Flaky data that may be, it's (seriously) going to be more relevant than what PT type they flew.
Again there's a classic mistake being made here, following Randy Haskin's initial point, IMHO. I would suggest that the PT type a pilot learned on is utterly irrelevant. The USAAC chose the W.W.II era PT aircraft carefully; some where better than others, but they were all adequate for the job. Other training period factors such as weather, crowding, instructor contact time etc. would be significantly more important than PT type 1 or 2. Likewise the US never faced the combat pressures that Britain did in 1940, or the Axis did towards the war's end, where training syllabuses were chopped and enemy interdiction might take out trainer, trainee and instructor.
Sure it's a bit of fun to win a drink or two, but to take it seriously even for a moment misleads those less knowledgeable than WIX habituates...
Regards,
Sorry JDK
Mon Oct 06, 2008 11:50 pm
JDK, I missed your 2nd to last post and just went back and read it. It's ok, you can come out from around the corner now! You are certainly correct in that plenty of the early guys did some time in Canada and England so they probably saw time in Tiger Moths and maybe Fleets.
I'm not quite ready to say that the type of PT these aces first flew was "utterly irrelevant" to their success in air to air combat but I'm getting close to that point. At first there were hints of a pattern developing in the data but it quickly vanished. Of the top five U.S. aces on that list, two of them (40%) had their initial flight training in a Taylorcraft, yeah, a Tcrate. I'm a long, long way from being done with that list of 72 aces but so far, the N3N is staying right in there with the Stearman, if we include the N3N as a PT that is.
Ok, here's the deal. He said that the Pt-22 generated more aces for the U.S. than any other Pt.
And by the way, it's a well known fact that 94.8% of all statistics stated in a bar bet are made up on the spot.
I'm not quite ready to say that the type of PT these aces first flew was "utterly irrelevant" to their success in air to air combat but I'm getting close to that point. At first there were hints of a pattern developing in the data but it quickly vanished. Of the top five U.S. aces on that list, two of them (40%) had their initial flight training in a Taylorcraft, yeah, a Tcrate. I'm a long, long way from being done with that list of 72 aces but so far, the N3N is staying right in there with the Stearman, if we include the N3N as a PT that is.
Ok, here's the deal. He said that the Pt-22 generated more aces for the U.S. than any other Pt.
And by the way, it's a well known fact that 94.8% of all statistics stated in a bar bet are made up on the spot.
Tue Oct 07, 2008 12:58 am
So how many flew the N2T?
Otto Timm
Tue Oct 07, 2008 7:05 am
Hmmm...
The PT-220C eh? Well there's yet another Pt type I need to consider. And unlike the the TBY Seawolf which never really existed, the Navy had 262 Timm N2Ts. Good point, I'll keep my eye out for that type in the data Obergrafeter.
The PT-220C eh? Well there's yet another Pt type I need to consider. And unlike the the TBY Seawolf which never really existed, the Navy had 262 Timm N2Ts. Good point, I'll keep my eye out for that type in the data Obergrafeter.
Tue Oct 07, 2008 7:28 am
Zachary wrote:As a side note, I think it would be interesting to know how many of the top aces were hunters prior to joining the service. I know Bong was an avid hunter, and it would seem his skill at leading a target (ducks, pheasants, etc) would correlate to his skill in the air shooting down airplanes.
Zack
For what it's worth, the Showdown episode featuring Bong indicated that Bong was a lousy shot at the start. Roughly midway though his combat period he went home and re-took gunnery class and markedly improved his shooting capabilities.