Renamed user U1krw4txwPvuEp3lqV382vOcqa7 (talk | contribs) |
|||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 371: | Line 371: | ||
::Alam notched up several kills during the war. In this particular case he was fortunate that the Hunters set themselves up for him - more or less flying through his sights. [[User:GraemeLeggett|GraemeLeggett]] ([[User talk:GraemeLeggett|talk]]) 20:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC) |
::Alam notched up several kills during the war. In this particular case he was fortunate that the Hunters set themselves up for him - more or less flying through his sights. [[User:GraemeLeggett|GraemeLeggett]] ([[User talk:GraemeLeggett|talk]]) 20:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::Yes, he had some luck obviously as the article and his own comments have conveyed. What I aimed to say here was, if you remove the mention of this ace in a day feat from the top section in the article (he doesn't have much kills other wise although his score is still the highest in the region, but is that enough for a mention in that heading?). --[[User:Hassanhn5|lTopGunl]] ([[User talk:Hassanhn5|talk]]) 21:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC) |
:::Yes, he had some luck obviously as the article and his own comments have conveyed. What I aimed to say here was, if you remove the mention of this ace in a day feat from the top section in the article (he doesn't have much kills other wise although his score is still the highest in the region, but is that enough for a mention in that heading?). --[[User:Hassanhn5|lTopGunl]] ([[User talk:Hassanhn5|talk]]) 21:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
*[http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1965War/Chapter5.html This link might be of interest to Editors Discussing MM ALAM ] do have a look regards --[[User:DBigXray|<font color="indigo">Ð</font><font color="maroon">ℬig</font>]][[User talk:DBigXray|<font color="lime">XЯaɣ</font>]] 21:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:28, 17 November 2011
Aviation: Biography C‑class | ||||||||||||
|
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Rephrase proposal
Since the discussion isn't giving any fruits, i propose the following rephrase and will do it if you agree:
Original sentence
"Most aerial fighting was on the German side of the lines, so this quite rigorous system worked reasonably well for the Germans themselves, but would have been totally impractical for the Allies, especially the British, who fought mostly in enemy airspace."
Proposed sentence:
"Most aerial fighting was on the German side of the lines, so this quite rigorous system worked reasonably well for the Germans themselves, but the British considered it would have been totally impractical for the RFC and RNAS, who, like most allied air forces at that time, fought mostly in enemy airspace. However other allies (Belgian, Italian, French) still used a system very close to the German one (see Aerial victory standards of World War I )"
What do you think? Is everyone OK?79.89.217.113 (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- No. I do think that we probably need to describe the German system in greater detail in the article you keep quoting at us, to make it clear how different it was from anything any of the allies used - but your proposed change is totally unecessary, and adds nothing constructive to this article. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- "and adds nothing constructive to this article." Yes it does. It adds objectivity and truth. I cannot believe i am debating here on if it is a good thing or a bad thing to make people reading "flying ace" article on WP aware that British and other allies crediting system was totally different. We probably should let the lie that it was the same, however another WP article says exactly the contrary.
- You are not bothered by the credibility of wikipedia?79.89.217.113 (talk) 07:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
WW.1 British scoring
For a long time it was assumed (in English speaking countries at least) that first world war allied pilots' scores were more accurate than those of the central powers. There was never any real reason for this, and inevitably there was a backlash, sometimes going to the extreme of treating British claims the same way German ones used to be! A lot of our sources are in fact pretty partisan (OK in a certain type of publication, but not in an encyclopedia!) Real historical evidence, like the quote from Gould-Lee's 1918 letter, which bears quite directly on questions like "shared victories" is very rare indeed, and - in view of the contradictory assertions of many of our secondary sources - extremely relevant. If we are including fashionable generalisations for which there is in fact little direct evidence, then this really needs to be balanced by what real evidence is available. Just mentioning this, as this passage seems to be under attack from several directions. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- "For a long time it was assumed (in English speaking countries at least) that first world war allied pilots' scores were more accurate than those of the central powers"
- I don't know where you take that from. Belgium, French, and American ratached to french standards of confirming victories were totally different from the British, similar to german standards. Only independantly witnessed DESTRUCTION of aircraft counted, as opposed to british "out of control" and other non-destructed that count as a kill, or worse, the Billy bishop non witnessed but still awarded 3 kills + VICTORIA CROSS.
- Check it out there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_victory_standards_of_World_War_I
- So don't generalise british claming accuracy to "allies". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.89.217.113 (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- I think you might not understand exactly what I was getting at here - It WAS assumed (by English speaking authors at least) for many years after the war that German claims were inflated while Allied ones (especially British, of course) were accurate. This was, of course, not so - in fact later, more impartial historical research revealed that as a rule the opposite was usually the case. There has been a bit of an over-reaction, and what may even be excess cycnicism about Britsh claims - most of which we assume here to have been honest, if occasionally mistaken - and incidentally - they normally needed to be witnessed. Incidentally some American claims - like a certain U.S. ace's "Dived East" would have been "probables" at best in later wars.
- This is an encyclopedia - and we try hard to be fair, and not to draw too many firm conclusions about facts that must forever be highly debatable. Many of the accusations of "bias" come from people with an obvious partisan attitude. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, you talk about Rickenbaker, and you are right. Actually as stated in the link i gave, some american squadrons took British standards, other took the french.
- I don't doubt about most British/commonwealth pilots honesty. All pilots from all countries are prone to overclaiming.
- The difference being that to the difference of other allied countries (less part of american) that did not allow INDEPENDANTLY unwitnessed destruction, British standards was to consider most of the offensive action against the ennemy as a "victory", and as such, out of controls and other which may not have resulted in actual death, capture or difficult landing. As a result most of what would have been counted as "probable" for an Italian Belgian French, Amercican under french colors, would be counted as a victory for a commonwealth pilot. Most of english pilots had very few probables, and great numbers of "confirmed" unconfirmed victories. I just randomly took Mannock (i have nothing against him) and i could count not less than 15 out of control awarded kills, of his 61.
- What i mean by all that is that i have difficulty to believe part of what you said in first quote, that "english speaking countries" people would consider(in the past) ALL ALLIES kills to be more reliable than GERMAN, when actually kill crediting system of 3/4 of the allies was more similar to German crediting system than British one. Do you understand the nuanciation?
- No flamewar intended. I say this because i'm feeling more and more that you must be a British guy.79.89.217.113 (talk) 01:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- No, I'm not British really (British Commonwealth I suppose). If you read older English language sources, you very quickly pick up the (incorrect of course) prejudice most of them had that Allied (and especially British of course) victory totals were much more reliable than those 'horrible huns" - who naturally exaggerated everything. This probably had its roots in wartime propaganda. Nowadays we know better of course - but it WAS a very common impression you'd get from reading most English language sources when I was young (wheeze wheeze :-) ). Modern research, as we all know, tends on the other hand to confirm what you'd in fact expect - that most aces on both sides were quite honest (not our job here to attempts to identify, much less vilify, any exceptions)and in fact sometimes surprisingly modest, and that most overclaiming is certainly not due to intentional fraud. What I actually said was that in this new fairer atmosphere is that there is sometimes a tendency to denigrate Allied (especially British) victory scores. This is as silly and prejudiced as the old anti-German one.
- For what it is worth - the RFC/RAF simply didn't make anything like as much fuss about fighter pilots' victory claims as other nations did. It was felt that the French and German "ace" systems were unfair to the many brave pilots who had little or no opportunity to become aces in terms of aircraft shot down - especially in bomber and reconaissance squadrons. As a result the Brits didn't actually have a centralised "system" in the sense that the French and German air services did - at different times, and in different units, the likelihood of combat reports getting endorsed as "decisive" varied - which is very frustrating for aviation historians, but something we have to live with. "Shared" scores were another thing about which unlikely generalisations are often made. In practice most shared scores (in the RFC/RAF) seem to have been credited as fractions - or to the pilot who "got in the nearest shot" or just to the unit. Most pilots probably wouldn't have claimed an "out of control" as a victory unless he (and his witnesses) were pretty sure the aircraft WAS at least "forced to (crash) land". When OOC claims got rather high, late in the war - they were no longer tallied as victories at all - apparently more to save the clerical effort involved than anything else.
- I did have a feeling that your reaction was to something I didn't actually say - the point of the above comments is just to make things clearer. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- What we need to keep in mind is that this is after all a general encyclopedia. We record known facts ("X" pilot was officially credited with "Y" vicroies) without going into details about how likely it was that his total was inflated. Above all we avoid contoversy, and making generalisations that don't stack up - that sort of thing belongs to a different class of literature than an encyclopedia.
Poor old Brits again (WWI victory claims)
Rearranged and consolodated this yet again - removing irrelevancies (we're talking about acehood/victory claims, so casualties from groundfire are not very much to the point! and paring the infamous "sentence" around which such distortion and strange interpretations have been put forward down to its very barest essentials. I only hope that the next batch of one-issue "editors" don't attack this one again down the track, pushing it even further towards the level of a "Boy's Own Stories" type magazine.
Frankly - to me this whole section now reeks of childish chauvinism and retrospective rewriting of history - but it DOES reflect the current "fashion". We are after all not writing a definitive book on the subject here, replete with our own research, but gathering readily available and generally accepted "information" (albeit much is after all just someones personal take on what remains very thin and incomplete evidence) and presenting this in as succinct a way as possible.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
The flip side of WP's freedom to edit is dealing with anonymous ignorant bozos with access to a computer; cripes, they may be anyone dialing in from a cyber-cafe or public library. Heck, they can be a rotating cast of jokesters gaming WP. They all too often are single-issue crackpots who are totally clueless about standards of proof.
Hang on, my tuneful buddy; we'll thresh out a good article yet. It can be as simple as editing out the junk and bracing up the facts with some reliable citations.
Perseverance furthers.
Georgejdorner (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Some things I'm VERY unhappy with still. Our last "ignorant bozo" was obsessed with a notion that Trenchard's (often very much criticised) policy of continuous offensive applied to the other Allies. It didn't of course, even when they did act offensively it was much less singlemindedly than the Trenchard doctrine (and, according to many, not necessarily the worse for that!!).
It was in fact perfectly in order (although perhaps a little OR) for this article in its "pre-flame attack state" to point out that the Germans (and to a lesser also extent the "non-British" allies) simply had better opportunities for physical confirmation of their victories. (It's NOT just a matter of locating wrecked aircraft - they were also far more likely to get "independant" witnesses). I think we have caved in far to much to the "Bozo's" obsessive ignorance - he may have had a minor point or two when it came to O.R. and references (they very often do - in spite of themselves) but the bit in this article now duplicates to far too great an extent your "Confirmation standards" article, while losing the main point in a lot of murky detail. Since the great majority of fighter-to-fighter combat was in fact between the British and the Germans (contentious statement I realise, but broadly TRUE) details about the allies' different standards of victory confirmation should perhaps be kept for that article.
I think we need:
A minor rewrite of the German bit - this needs to state (with suitable references if at all possible)
- That the Jastas (which were the single seat fighter units to which virtually all the aces belonged to) fought defensively - especially against the highly agressive British - generally speaking intercepting enemy formations only when they were well over the lines.
- That as a direct result of the above it was much easier for them to confirm victories conclusively. (Wrecks, and more witnesses hanging around.) An allied aircraft "forced to land" was captured or reduced to wreckage, and hence a legitimate kill.
The "British" bit needs to be cleaned up a little. The relevant points are:
- British usage of their fighters was very highly agressive - they routinely flew deep over German held territory (NOT "Germany", as our Bozo would have) - and sought out German aircraft (including fighters) flying on their own side of the lines. This was due to a deliberate policy by Trenchard (the field commander of the RFC, and later the RAF). It was NOT an overall allied policy really - although the other allies may have been moved at times to emulate it, they also criticised it a lot as foolhardy.
- As a result it was harder for them to get conclusive evidence of the destruction of their victims. Hence the infamous "moral victory" categories ("forced to land", "out of control" etc.) - and also the crediting of at least some kills that may not have been considered properly "witnessed" by the standards of other combatants. Over German held territory many British victories did not in fact represent an aircraft "lost" pernamently to the Germans, since it could be salvaged or repaired.
The "other allies" bit needs one very short, simple summary paragraph - keep details for the other article. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- OK - I'VE DONE IT. Sorry for the shout but I'm quite pleased with myself. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
(Sound of applause) GOOD SHOW!
Are you also going to rewrite WWII?
Georgejdorner (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Answer to soundofmusicals
Keep insulting me as much as you want, if it makes you feel better, i will consider that the lack of evidence or source provided for the part of sentence implicated is a proof of what i had been suspecting since the beginning: It had been written by a WP user (of dubious neutrality btw) and not a serious writter or historian.
Now if it makes you feel better to use offensive language when my sole purpose was to have a discussion on what should appear on the (probably) most viewed page of wikipedia about aerial pilot and aces (which is what WPdiscussion is for), feel free to do it. I'm happy with it as long as it keeps you away from adding more unsourced material and personal convictions in main article, obviously.
-" Since the great majority of fighter-to-fighter combat was in fact between the British and the Germans (contentious statement I realise, but broadly TRUE)"
I always love when you make such statements that look to be directly taken from a fanboy forum troll. No flame intended, but what i just said is " broadly TRUE" as i am going to prove:
during 14-18, western front
- Built aircraft
French + US: 68000 + 15000
British: 58144
- Operational aircraft in 1914:
France + US: 138 + 55
British: 113
- Operational aircraft in 1918:
French + USA: 4511 + 711
British: 3300
Most produced single seat fighters:
French spad7 and 13: 6000 and 8400
British Camel and SE5: 5500 and 5200
All this without counting the fact that part of British stuff satyed in UK for home defence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.89.217.113 (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Total aircraft losses due to war
French: 52640
British: 35973
sources: History of aviation by Editions ATLAS and Aerospace publishing LTD p94; World Encyclopedia of military Aircraft by enzo angelucci p29; Wikipedia
I won't lower myself to debate on a "who's got the biggest" type argument, however your statement seems to be wrong in regard to these statistics.
-"British usage of their fighters was very highly agressive - they routinely flew deep over German held territory"
This is wrong or badly phrased. If you look at Trenchard biography you will notice that he was an unconditional partisan of ground troops support doctrine, offensive sure, but still ground troops support. Long range bombings or anything that wasn't a direct help of ground units wasn't his objective. And if you have some knowledge about the Battle of the Somme (for which his policy would be either acclaimed or criticized depending on who). I suggest you read Trenchard article on wikipedia.
Which makes me think that even in that aspect you are wrong. Following Trenchard doctrine, Most aerial fights would have occured near british troops, even in "German held territory", large ammount on ground witnesses, Artillery or balloon observers would have been available to confirm British "offensive" kills. Belgian got rewarded many kills this way, even though the wrecks wouldn't fall in allied territory.
-"German held territory (NOT "Germany", as our Bozo would have[said?])"
Sure. With the same idea when i said "British territory" i actually meant "British airspace in French territory". I didn't think it was necessary to precise in such intellectual talkings between "experts", looks like i was wrong.
Also i want to precise that i don't think Brits SHOULD have used this system over this system. I don't say this one is best this one is worse. What i say is that they COULD (potential) have used such a system and still have lots of aces.
Yes, i do think German Belgian or French systems have some unfair aspects. This being said it is not the matter of the discussion to know "which was best". And that should be the aim of wikipedia users, giving neutral impersonal information, try to have a critical view/interpretation of information, nomatter what your culture of origin is. Also trying to have sources from different countries may help. Regards79.89.217.113 (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Anonymous,
First, I am the one who used the pejorative "bozo" in a general sense above, so don't blame Sound of Musicals.
I am glad to see you finally can quote a source for some of your information; however, aircraft production figures are irrelevant to the historical process of the origin of flying aces. You see, you may ignore my relevant cites above concerning British military policy, but I acknowledge even your flawed attempt to justify yourself by quoting data for an entirely different subject.
As for the validity of various nations' victory confirmation rules...there are plenty of aviation history forums where you can go bicker with other contenders about opinions all you want. However, this is an encyclopedia. We record the aerial victory rules used at the time. We record the reported results. We give the sources of our information.
We don't report unsubstantiated opinions from casual dropins. And you are the latest in a seemingly endless succession of clueless dropins for this article, so if s.o.m and I, who have put so much work into WP, seem grouchy, it is because we are frustrated by the disruptions.
If you are serious about Wikipedia, then register and get a user name. Lose the pushy attitude so you don't come across as a nuisance, come up with some reliable information with good sources, and you will find that we will welcome you. I have mentored a couple of non-English speakers in their debut, and edited their text to improve it and make them look good. Why not? I am a retired writing instructor.
However, if that process is not happening, then I am not wasting any more time and energy discussing this with you. I have fully cited reputable articles to write instead.
Georgejdorner (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Dear anonymous friend
- George has actually answered you very well - but just to reiterate:
- We are talking here about FIGHTER aviation - like ACES. Is that beyond you? that's like, the article we're discussing, right?
- A good deal of aircraft production, losses etc. on both sides were bomber and reconaissance aircraft. In fact the bulk of most aces' victories were over these airraft rather than other fighters.
- If you want to look at some relevant statistics, just look at Richthoven's victory table - virtually ALL British - wonder why?? like most crack units his spent almost all its time on the British part of the front (wonder why?) many of his victories were over two-seaters rather than other fighters (any relevance do you suppose to the above).
- Talking about "agression" HERE (this is after all the aces article) we are talking of fighters. Even the notoriously "defensive" Germans used aircraft other than fighters (close support, bombers, high altiude recon.) quite offensively. Trenchard was indeed not an especially enthusiastic proponent of strategic bombing - the French did rather more of that than the Brits (and suffered many casualties as a result). But Trenchard DID have his fighters range many miles over over German lines - far away from any chance of independent corroberation of their claims; they were only anywhere near British ground troops during offensives (either their own or German ones) when the troops actually required close support. Neither side had their fighters dawdle near the trenches themselves very much at any other time (escorting photo recon and gun spotters an obvious exception) - they would be risking being shot down by groundfire for no reason.
- And all this over a statement that didn't get even into the article - for the very good reason that it IS contentious!
- Have you read the section we have been bickering over recently? I hate to have to say this - but I think it is now clearer and more focused, mainly becasue of the fuss you have been making. Remember this IS an encyclopedia - we are intersted primarily in facts, and perhaps the immediate reasons for those facts rather than endless speculation. That someone COULD or SHOULD have done things differently is by no means totally futile - but this is just not the place for it.
- Finally - an unreserved apology for the "Bozo" bit - insulting each other is NOT what good wiki editors do. Have to say I was provoked - among other things by some of your own remarks that at least border on personal attacks - but that of course is rather less than no excuse. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
answer to SOM:
Hi. I'm happy to see we can now discuss and behave. I admit that my overreactive tone in first posts was probably the reason all this childlish attitude begun. You don't need to apologize. I knew you were not this type of guy anyways. Furthermore, it looks like you are the only one to carefully and entirely read my posts, IDE a good argumentation without repeating oneself over and over is possible.
I want to THANK you for the edits that makes the article better than what it was before. The sentence that looked like a personal thought isn't anymore, now the only material there looks to be nearly all sourced.
In your last post you said somehing very important:
"Remember this IS an encyclopedia - we are intersted primarily in facts, and perhaps the immediate reasons for those facts rather than endless speculation."
EXACTLY!! This is an encyclopedia!! So anything else than PURE SOURCED FACTS shouldn't appear there. SPECULATION SHOULD NEVER appear there. The kind of sentence like "Since the great majority of fighter-to-fighter combat was in fact between the British and the Germans (contentious statement I realise, but broadly TRUE)" (i know you had the diligence to not add it to main article, thanks to god) hasn't its place there.
However i'm hinted that even if it didn't make it to the main article, it still influenced you, by what you said there: "The "other allies" bit needs one very short, simple summary paragraph " and by the fact that there are 3 paragraphs dedicated only to British, one about an anecdotic letter that (IMO) shouldn't be there, and because you still think British fighters did most of the work, the overall section looks kind of unfairly attaching more importance to the British.
I WON'T EDIT ANYTHING MYSELF. However you raised some points that looks like your personnal thinking that British fought more than other allies. I will just answer (with source) to your points that this statement is, for the least, UNVERIFIABLE, for the most, wrong.
After that i hope that this will convince you and, in the future, that you will see WW1 aerial dogfights not just through a British perspective.79.89.217.113 (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
answer to SOM:
ARGUMENTATION:
- You said: "If you want to look at some relevant statistics, just look at Richthoven's victory table - virtually ALL British - wonder why??"
That's partially true! It's just a pity you didn't went downwards on the list of German aces.(no offense)
- Richthofen (80) has 7 French fighters victories, 16 british fighters
- Ernst UDET (62) has 19 french fighters victories, 22 british fighters
- Erich Löwenhardt(54) 18 French fighters victories, 16 British fighters
- Josef Jacobs (48) 13 French fighters victories, 20 british fighters
- Rudolf Berthold(44) 13 French fighters vitories, 3 british
- Oswald Boelcke (40) 20 french aircraft victories 20 British aircraft (fighters?)
- Franz Büchner (40) 19 French fighter victories, 5 british fighters
- Karl Menckhoff (39) 17 French fighter victories, 11 british fighters
source: Theaerodrome http://www.theaerodrome.com/aces/germany/udet.php see the note below
Some others have nearly French only victories, Arthur Laumann(28), others have mostly british only victories Karl Bolle (36).
(note: Since french aircraft were exported in relative low numbers to UK,US,Bel and british aircraft were exported in relative low numbers France US belg, i'm counting a french aircraft as french, and a british aircraft as british for comparation puposes-unless there's proof of contrary in the record. *exception: Since there were 3 french strutters for 1 british strutter, in the case of Boelcke i'm counting 3french and 1 brit)
As you can see the percent of victories depended often of the sector where the jastas were located, which fluctuated over the time. After seeing the statistics we honestly can't say there is a huge difference between British (&commonwealth) and other allies fighter-to-fighter victories from the highest german aces.
Which negates your following argument:
"like most crack units his spent almost all its time on the British part of the front (wonder why?)."
Boelcke Udet and Lowhenhardt statistics tend to show you are not exactly right. It fluctuated over time, all countries squadrons often moved. And the airspace wasn't delimited to either french or british.
- About TRENCHARD: SInce you said speculation is futile, and it looks like talking about this is annoying you, i won't continue with the Trenchard topic.
However i let you know that i have one source that tend to say that "they would be risking being shot down by groundfire for no reason." was actually part of Trenchard doctrine. He didn't consider it was for "no reason" though, for many reason, either strategical or psychological.
If you want me to post the text concerned out of my source (History of aviation by Editions ATLAS and Aerospace publishing LTD p82-83) just say it. Otherwise let's forget this speculative topic.
Kind regards 79.89.217.113 (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- This is NOT to prolong this argument - in fact as an "argument" (in the negative sense of the word) the argument is over as far as I am concerned. But do be careful of statistics. The French built far more aircraft than they could use - while the RFC/RAF (like most other air services involved in the war, including the Germans!) suffered from chronic shortages, especially of up-to-date operational types. This is one reason for the widespread use of French aircraft by other allies (the other being that on the whole they were rather good, of course). SPADs and Nieuports (and in the early days of the war Moranes) were used quite a lot by the RFC - I think (off-hand) for instance, that all the SPADs and Nieuports Richthoven shot down were RFC rather than Aviation Militaire - with the exception of one SPAD that they think might have been Belgian. The British used the Sopwith "Strutter" as a two seat fighter and as a light bomber - by the time the French built examples reached the front (mostly as general reconaissance aircraft) the British had largely discarded theirs, at least as front line aircraft. So you could actually tell with a pretty high degree of accuracy if a victory over a "Strutter" was French or German - by the date.
- The figures for the other aces might turn out to be a little skewed by this "French aircraft in British service" factor as well. All the same, you've probably got a point. As I made that particular comment, I was very much aware that it was "off the top of my head" - and far too contentious and generalised to get into the article. If you have a look at the discussion pages for a few articles you will see that we quite often work that way - the discussion page contains information (much of it accurate enough) that we would NOT put into the article itself without further research and/or bouncing about between us, and that even then wouldn't get in without a reference. Another thing is reference quality. There are a lot of aviation history books that are poorly researched, and certain authors who are frankly best avoided as references. If you've done a fair bit of reading you probably know just what I am talking about. Websites are also poor references - an authoritative book by a well known and respected air historian is generally to be preferred.
- --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, just one more thought - the para about Gould-Lee is NOT anecdotal - it is referenced to a book that largely consists of his letters home, as they were written at the time - and it is there NOT as waffle, but because it makes the important point that the Brits were casual, rather off-hand, and not at all consistent about victory claims. If we just made that statement, with no explanation or reference, I think you'd be one of the first people to object! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- I said that because at the time i added my own edit, i added an anecdotic reference to french pilot Georges Madon (105 victories claimed 41 credited) as a "proof" of the fact that either witnesses or wrecks were needed for a kill to be confirmed, and soon after someone erased it. So i considered that this kind of one pilot experience/example wasn't to be added in that section.
- But it doesn't matter anyways.79.89.217.113 (talk) 00:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Aces who weren't in World Wars
I have added some new sections so that this article can round into an overview of acedom. I didn't do a very good job of it because I am not expert in any era past WWI, but I realized that the new sections were a necessity.
So this note is a nudge to those who are expert in aviation during eras besides the World Wars. How about fleshing out my feeble attempts into something usefully informative?
Georgejdorner (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Aces in a day
Hello, all,
The "Aces in a day" section is burgeoning to the point where it is becoming an undue portion of the overall article. The focus of the "Flying ace" article should be the history of acedom and its impact upon aerial warfare. The impact upon aerial warfare of the act of becoming an ace in a single day seems negligible, and a bit of a parlor trick; yet the list of aces in a day burgeons. I suspect that if some enthusiast delves into the victory lists of the WWII Luftwaffe, the resulting "Aces in a day" list will overwhelm the article. And "Flying ace" is an article–not a list.
If the actual act of downing five or more enemy airplanes in a single day is notable (I have my doubts), then an actual list of "Aces in a day" should be broken out from this article and established separately.
Comments, please. I am seeking a consensus on this matter.
Georgejdorner (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's definitely a feat people consider notable.[1][2][3] Just split it off if it becomes too long. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- It isn't as big a deal as sometimes made out in pop media (which treats it as virtually unique from what I've seen), but definitely worth including. Agree, break it out as needed. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- A small section here and perhaps a new article if its gets too long.But the dispute in this case seems to be about the inclusion of a guy called Bishop. --Sam 14:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- How do I put this without upsetting anyone!! There are a (very) few fighter pilots in history who were regarded by at least some of their contemporaries as being blowhards, and who have been suspected by people who knew them as being guilty (at least occasionally) of extravagant claims. Without getting into controversy here - Bishop is perhaps the most outstanding example - several historians have in fact expressed doubt in some degree about at least some of his alleged "feats". Without us getting into any speculation that Bishop may occasionally have been guilty of hyperbole (not our job here - speculation, especially of the "talking ill of the dead" variety, is simply not encyclopedic) - I still don't think he is necessarily a terribly good example. And I think any "list of instances" in the main article at this point needs to be just that - a mention of of a small number of examples rather than an attempt at a comprehensive "list". While the number of "ace in a day" merchants might be reasonably manageable compared with some other lists - doing anything like this (in any article) is frightfully fraught as casual editors are always dropping in to add someone (or something, depending on the nature of the "example list"). Maybe we should replace this section with a brief para about what an "ace-in-a-day" is with a few examples that are famous in their own right, and NOT in our "perhaps/maybe naughty boy list". If it IS decided to leave Bishop in here he (and any other WWI "aces-in-a-day") need to come first, and his final (honourary) rank is inappropriate in this context - best in fact not to mention any rank at all, even the one he held at the time. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- It is in no small measure because Bishop's famous (or notorious) mission appears to have been fabricated whole cloth I oppose its inclusion. It appears there's no evidence of any German losses that day (from their somewhat chaotic records, to be sure, but those same records are relied upon to substantiate less extravagant claims), quite aside any at the place & time he claims. I also agree entirely, naming him by his final (rather than contemporary) rank is inappropriate. I would mildly disagree with omission of rank entire, but not enough to complain if it was removed. If we are including examples, which I believe is both desirable & necessary, surely there are clear, unequivocal, & uncontroversial examples we could rely on. I would venture to say we could, perhaps should, select a number (one or two from each World War, Korea, Vietnam, & Arab-Israeli conflicts, presuming the IAF even releases figures) & stop, adding no more; otherwise, as Soundofmusicals correctly says, it will likely turn into the same kind laundry list as the guest stars on Rockford. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- How do I put this without upsetting anyone!! There are a (very) few fighter pilots in history who were regarded by at least some of their contemporaries as being blowhards, and who have been suspected by people who knew them as being guilty (at least occasionally) of extravagant claims. Without getting into controversy here - Bishop is perhaps the most outstanding example - several historians have in fact expressed doubt in some degree about at least some of his alleged "feats". Without us getting into any speculation that Bishop may occasionally have been guilty of hyperbole (not our job here - speculation, especially of the "talking ill of the dead" variety, is simply not encyclopedic) - I still don't think he is necessarily a terribly good example. And I think any "list of instances" in the main article at this point needs to be just that - a mention of of a small number of examples rather than an attempt at a comprehensive "list". While the number of "ace in a day" merchants might be reasonably manageable compared with some other lists - doing anything like this (in any article) is frightfully fraught as casual editors are always dropping in to add someone (or something, depending on the nature of the "example list"). Maybe we should replace this section with a brief para about what an "ace-in-a-day" is with a few examples that are famous in their own right, and NOT in our "perhaps/maybe naughty boy list". If it IS decided to leave Bishop in here he (and any other WWI "aces-in-a-day") need to come first, and his final (honourary) rank is inappropriate in this context - best in fact not to mention any rank at all, even the one he held at the time. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Aces in a minute
Does anyone find this probable?? --Sam 15:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- No, & it smells of the usual Pakistani overclaiming. How reliable are these sources? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 15:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Review the international source included. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- And you can stop claiming there are any "personal attacks" & making threats of blocks on my talk page. You've reverted just as often, & the only content removed has been off-topic for the page. You're the only one thinking it's personal, the one adding irrelevancies about decorations, & defending improbable claims. I frankly don't give a damn if he did it or not. I do want better than a source liable to be biased. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 17:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- You should read WP:BRD. When you are reverted you need to discuss here and not keep on reverting. It is your responsibility to come to talk and stop reverting since you are the one being reverted. It doesn't matter if you are discussing here along with your reverts, your reverts are still counted towards WP:3RR. As for the topic, Have you read the edit summaries at all? I did not revert you for removing export details and origin of the Hunter fighter. You were reverted for moving content out of the reference tag. Adding awards for the scores is normal practice, you can refer to the whole lists of pilots in the very same article. And I don't think you even looked at the sources I gave. The book by John Fricker is a reliable source as per wikipedia policy. I'm not bound to provide you sources to your personal satisfaction. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- And you can stop claiming there are any "personal attacks" & making threats of blocks on my talk page. You've reverted just as often, & the only content removed has been off-topic for the page. You're the only one thinking it's personal, the one adding irrelevancies about decorations, & defending improbable claims. I frankly don't give a damn if he did it or not. I do want better than a source liable to be biased. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 17:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Review the international source included. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Calm down, folks
Documenting the actions of flying aces is an uncertain and potentially contentious task. It is real easy for the adrenalin and verbal bile to flow, and very difficult to mend relationships later. If you find your choler arising, it's best to take a break until you are calm. It's easier on your blood pressure, and on your fellow Wikipedians.
Aviators–especially fighter pilots–are not lacking in ego. Some of them arouse passionate responses that give rise to flame wars. Rene Fonck, Pappy Boyington, and Duke Cunningham come readily to mind. Debate about Billy Bishop's record has become a cottage industry, with books and websites pro and con, and has even sparked a government inquiry. It seems that the feat(s) of M. M. Alam arouse the same response.
The arena for these debates is the Discussion pages of their respective biographies. There is no need for that contention to spill over into this article. This article's focus is the definition and explication of the phenomenon of flying aces. Reputable aviation historians have covered this phenomenon extensively. We contributors should be cherry picking sources to find the absolutely most reliable for inclusion in this article, because so many other articles are dependent upon it.
Neutral Point of View is difficult to achieve; we all have our pride in our heritage. Non-NPOV usually creeps in in several ways:
1) A contributor's insistence on listing rank and/or position, especially that which postdates the feat in question. This is irrelevant. A private can be just as daring and courageous as a general. Puffing up an entry with a rank which is later achieved is doubly irrelevant, for obvious reasons.
2) Our personal disbelief in certain improbable events. The improbable does happen–occassionally. However, the achievement of the ordinary and expected is not the basis for heroic deeds. On the other hand, the accomplishment of the well-nigh impossible often is.
3) National and/or ethnic pride intervenes. If it does, try considering if the feat in question would be noteworthy if achieved by someone of a differing national or ethnic background.
4) The converse of this is denigrating the deeds of someone of a national or ethnic background toward whom you feel grudgeful.
5) Fanboyism. Term says it all.
This is a call to damp down the tempers, be a bit introspective, avoid personal attacks and extend good faith to one another. We have a vital task here.
Georgejdorner (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, Georgejdorner. You said it all. Thanks for pouring in!! --lTopGunl (talk) 17:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Notice, I deleted nothing based on my disbelief. My disbelief isn't fact. The rv's were on irrelevancies & deleted links or other format or content issues. Somebody chose to take my disbelief personally. I disclaim any responsibility for that. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 18:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- And I quote your edit summary:
- & in your defense of Pakistani nationionalism, you've buggered the Hunter link, easter egged the IAF link, & added trivia that belongs on Alam's page, not this one
- Read WP:Civil, WP:NPA & WP:GOODFAITH. I don't mind your disbelief, but we follow civility here. Also see the comments you used on my talk page. Block warnings are not to be taken as threats, I reminded you for WP:3RR for your own good. There is a reason these templates are created, there are written in a polite tone and you need to follow the same. My reverts to you were not on your disbelief but on the content you moved to the end of the paragraph leaving the references in the middle as if it was not as per the references which was not the case. The info you deleted was not an issue as I explained before. I'd prefer if you don't reply to this comment since there's no use of talking about this anymore. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- ""Read WP:Civil, WP:NPA & WP:GOODFAITH." Seriously? This from somebody who deleted a perfectly good link to Hawker Hunter, piped a link to Indian Air Force with "Hawker Hunter Mark 56", complained about me deleting both the Hunter info & the decoration (both OT), implying I'm somehow on a crusade against Alam. Where's the "good faith"? And what part of that edit summary is uncivil or personal attack? Moreover, when you slap a warning of a block after a content dispute, I take that as a threat, & I don't take kindly to it. I'm even less impressed with warnings about "abuse" of the warnings. Or do you think you're specially entitled somehow? Finally, you've made this about me, instead of about the content, because none of what was deleted is on topic. So what happened to the AGF there? Oh, wait, I'm not entitled to it, right? Just you. But then, you've already said you aren't even listening... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:26 & 20:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- I don't care anymore about what you have to say. I guess we should stop wasting time. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- "I don't care anymore about what you have to say." You never have, have gone out of your way to keep my view from appearing on the page, & you accuse me of lack of good faith?
- And after all that, after you rv me when I leave the feat in & change the details, & somebody else removes it, you don't bat an eye. "Personal attack"? Who's attacking whom? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 10:24 & 10:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- One, this page is to improve the article and not discuss user behavior (for which user talkpages are present). and two, the other did not revert me and infact adjusted the content. Lets see what you are doing right now, I'm willing to not respond to you any more and you are still flame-warring. This discussion is over. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Alright,lets take it down a notch.@Topgun posting warnings on people's pages just because they reverted you is not acceptable.That aside,can we actually get to the subject at hand? I say that the notion that he shot down 5 aircraft in a minute is outright absurd.Also,from the stuff i read,i did not find anything about it being done in a minute.That said,I haven't gone through all of it.Can someone look into it? --Sam 19:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Go through the publication by John Fricker (for which I've a quote as well). Hope that answers you. As for it being absurd, so many of feats here come into that category but I guess that's the reason they are listed here. In anycase I have given the references to point it out and for you calling it absurd comes under your original research, which does not matter as per WP:OR. Cheers. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Alright,lets take it down a notch.@Topgun posting warnings on people's pages just because they reverted you is not acceptable.That aside,can we actually get to the subject at hand? I say that the notion that he shot down 5 aircraft in a minute is outright absurd.Also,from the stuff i read,i did not find anything about it being done in a minute.That said,I haven't gone through all of it.Can someone look into it? --Sam 19:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- One, this page is to improve the article and not discuss user behavior (for which user talkpages are present). and two, the other did not revert me and infact adjusted the content. Lets see what you are doing right now, I'm willing to not respond to you any more and you are still flame-warring. This discussion is over. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- I don't care anymore about what you have to say. I guess we should stop wasting time. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- ""Read WP:Civil, WP:NPA & WP:GOODFAITH." Seriously? This from somebody who deleted a perfectly good link to Hawker Hunter, piped a link to Indian Air Force with "Hawker Hunter Mark 56", complained about me deleting both the Hunter info & the decoration (both OT), implying I'm somehow on a crusade against Alam. Where's the "good faith"? And what part of that edit summary is uncivil or personal attack? Moreover, when you slap a warning of a block after a content dispute, I take that as a threat, & I don't take kindly to it. I'm even less impressed with warnings about "abuse" of the warnings. Or do you think you're specially entitled somehow? Finally, you've made this about me, instead of about the content, because none of what was deleted is on topic. So what happened to the AGF there? Oh, wait, I'm not entitled to it, right? Just you. But then, you've already said you aren't even listening... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:26 & 20:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- And I quote your edit summary:
- Notice, I deleted nothing based on my disbelief. My disbelief isn't fact. The rv's were on irrelevancies & deleted links or other format or content issues. Somebody chose to take my disbelief personally. I disclaim any responsibility for that. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 18:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
To whom it may concern,
I am a neutral party to this disagreement. I have edited the M M Alam sections of this article that were the bones of contention. I checked all given references in the process.
Georgejdorner (talk) 01:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. But I think the reason he became an ace was the speed shooting and not the total no of kills. Wouldn't it be better to keep that in the first mention as well (probably with minimal redundancy)? --lTopGunl (talk) 07:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Alam notched up several kills during the war. In this particular case he was fortunate that the Hunters set themselves up for him - more or less flying through his sights. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, he had some luck obviously as the article and his own comments have conveyed. What I aimed to say here was, if you remove the mention of this ace in a day feat from the top section in the article (he doesn't have much kills other wise although his score is still the highest in the region, but is that enough for a mention in that heading?). --lTopGunl (talk) 21:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Alam notched up several kills during the war. In this particular case he was fortunate that the Hunters set themselves up for him - more or less flying through his sights. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- This link might be of interest to Editors Discussing MM ALAM do have a look regards --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 21:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)