Villers Bocage: don´t be fooled by the Firefly

[Karl Heidenreich]

RF:

How many countries as single nations could take on half the world and fight for years?

Germany was a little bigger than just Texas against the three greatest empires of the world: British Empire, USSR and USA which in area, population and resources account, yes, for a little more than half of the world. Still the Germans were so hard that still Hollywood tries, even the XXI Century, to show to the youth how easy was to win WWII, singlehanded with Bruce Willis, Brad Pitt and some Tuskagee pilots.

Best regards

[RF]

Not just the three empires you mention, but also France (which was defeated and occuppied) and against military forces contributed by numerous other nations, not just from the other occuppied countries in Europe but also outside, even Brazil had troops under US command on the Italian front.

The only modern comparisons I can think of such conflict hosted against one country would be the war against Naploleon Bonaparte, possibly Japan in WW2 and perhaps, in South America, in terms of a continent rather than the world, Paraguay in the War of the Triple Alliance 1864-70.

[Karl Heidenreich]

I never mentioned France because I regarded that campaign as a warm up and training exercise for the German Army to fight real enemies.

[RF]

Ithink it was more than just a warm up and training excercise.....

[Bgile]

Isreal vs Egypt, Jordan, and Syria in '73.

[JtD]

Prussia in the 7 year war beat 1:17 odds, iIrc.

But the Finns were probably the most effective in WW2 in terms of using their resources.

[RF]

But the Finns were probably the most effective in WW2 in terms of using their resources.

With plenty of help from the Soviets - at least initially.

[Bgile]

But the Finns were probably the most effective in WW2 in terms of using their resources.

With plenty of help from the Soviets - at least initially.

You mean because the Soviets were incompetent when they invaded Finland?

[RF]

Not so much incompetent as tactically inept. The Soviet tactics enabled the Finns to make best use of what little military resources they had; the Mannerheim Line was deficient in terms of artillery and ammunition, instead of concentrating on that the Soviets launched a broad front invasion allowing the Finns to operate a mobile war using troops on skis, not being forced to defend static positions. Only when the Soviets concentrated on breaking through the Mannerheim Line and depriving the Finns of space to practice mobile warfare did the Soviets win.

[Cohaagen]

MIchael Wittmann was killed by the TA

Well done, Joe Ekins.

[Karl Heidenreich]

MIchael Wittmann was killed by the TA

Well done, Joe Ekins.

The Ekins "theory" has been in dispute lately by some Canadians (it sounds like Ritchofen). The basic point here is, honestly, that when Wittman died he did with a "kill ratio" in his favour that would forever seal his reputation as the greatest tank ace as was Eric Hartmann the greatest flying ace or Gunther Prien or some of his fellows as the greatest U Boat aces.

Somewhere in the net I found, once, the kill ratio per unit having Tiger against the allies, west and east. And the ratio was incredible, around 6 to 1 average. Will have to find it and post the link.

[alecsandros]

People who have actually studied Wittman's kills don't seem to think the numbers were that high for the one day. For one thing, they don't seem to agree with actual losses. There is no doubt he was a skillful tank commander ... maybe the best, but he wasn't fighting materially equal opponents. He wouldn't have done as well fighting allied heavy tanks which had weapons that could penetrate the frontal armor of a Tiger.

Actually, the Fireflies could penetrate Tiger armor. In fact, Wittman's tank was blown off precisely by a Firefly.

[Byron Angel]

There is no question that German fighters pilots put up some prodigious victory scores. However, there are factors which must be taken into account when comparing their achievements to those of pilots from other nations. As as rule, the high-scoring German pilots flew hugely greater numbers of sorties over their much lengthier careers. And, in many cases (Eastern Front for example), they were operating in much closer proximity to their enemy than (for example) US 8th Fighter Command.

The only reasonably fair way to make a comparison is to examine victories per sortie. When approached from this point of view, it becomes clear that there were respectable numbers of pilots of other nationalities who were as equally efficient in aerial fighting as the German experten.


Byron

[lwd]

...The only reasonably fair way to make a comparison is to examine victories per sortie. ...

But this breaks down as well especially when the numbers become uneven. For instance late in the war a German fighter pilot had a very good chance of encountering an opponent every time he took off. Many US fighter pilots never even saw an opponent much less got a shot at one.

[alecsandros]

There is no question that German fighters pilots put up some prodigious victory scores. However, there are factors which must be taken into account when comparing their achievements to those of pilots from other nations. As as rule, the high-scoring German pilots flew hugely greater numbers of sorties over their much lengthier careers. And, in many cases (Eastern Front for example), they were operating in much closer proximity to their enemy than (for example) US 8th Fighter Command.

The only reasonably fair way to make a comparison is to examine victories per sortie. When approached from this point of view, it becomes clear that there were respectable numbers of pilots of other nationalities who were as equally efficient in aerial fighting as the German experten.
Byron

Germany was preoccupied with quality, not quantity. They didn't have as many planes or pilots as the Allies, but they sure were very good.
As for saying that "they were operating in much closer proximity to their enemy than (for example) US 8th Fighter Command" or, as lwd wrote, "Many US fighter pilots never even saw an opponent much less got a shot at one" seem to me more like shameless excuses for the true problem: Allied pilot's inefficiency against German ones.

We're talking about people with 100+,200+, 300+ confirmed kills in 4-5-6 years, and you're pointing only at the external favorable conditions that allowed them to achieve this.

But, if you're willing to blame it on the combat situation, why don't you go all the way, and admit that there were also Unfavorable combat conditions, that hindered their achievements:
- air superiority of the Allies (Eastern Front 1943-1945, North Africa and Mediteranean 1942-1945, Western Europe 1943-1945)
- significant amount of AA guns (especially on the Eastern front)
- Allied fighters tendency to focus precisely on the "aces"

And still, the German pilots overcame those obstacles and won again and again and again.

And, if you're willing to stick with victories/sortie, check out Hans Joachim Marseille, Gordon Gollob or Walter Nowotny on the internet. You might be surprised.