New Poll

[Barrett]

Just noted the new poll regarding the most important component of becoming an ace: flying skill, marksmanship, luck, attitude, none of the above. I voted for attitude in that it was essential to become a high-scoring ace, whereas many fighter pilots became aces in the course of doing their jobs. Not all great aces were great fliers, and some weren't even great shooters. But it's unlikely that many pilots destroyed 20-30 airplanes strictly in the line of duty: those folks wanted to do well, and some downright enjoyed their work.
Luck also is a feature, especially as it bears on opportunity, but there were squadrons full of pilots who never exploited the opportunities that came their way, either because they lacked the attitude or the aptitude.
However, score is not the sole indicator of the Ace Attitude. Some of THE most motivated, ambitious, and skillful fighter pilots I've ever known shot down 100% of the airborne bandits they engaged, but never made double digits.
As Frank Olynyk has noted, we don't study all poets--we study those enshrined in Westminster Abbey.

I voted for marksmanship, you gotta be able to hit what you're going after. If you're up there spraying bullets around and punching holes through the air, it doesn't mean squat unless you bring down the foe. I agree that aggressiveness (attitude) has much to do with it, but they needed to be marksmen otherwise they wouldn't have been able to make a fight of it against multiple bogeys. just my take on it.
Regards,
Jim 'ACE' - NNWA 'KEEPERS OF THE DRAGON'

[Shooter]

Hah!

Jim, the greatest aerial marksman shoots nothing if he sees nothing.

Particularly in the case of the Western Allies (ETO/WWII), and the US drivers in the Pacific (WWII), as well as the Korean War USAF drivers over MiG Alley, one cannot shoot at enemy a/c that one does not encounter.

To a lesser extent, this rule also applies to the Jagdflieger who flew on the Eastern Front.

Luck is the overriding element in all aerial combat. Those who are exceptional drivers who also encounter no enemy a/c are also lost in obscurity. Nobody knows.

Shooter sends

I chose none of the above, thinking that situational awareness is the best answer. Of the answers listed, luck aint bad either, as long as its good.

Shooter,
If you CAN see them, then you damn well better be able to hit them ... don't you think? Granted what you can't see can kill you ... but if you see them first then the tables can be turned, and once again, you better be able to hit what you're shooting at or you might as well haul ass while still sucking enough air to do so. ; )
Regards,
Jim 'ACE'

[stevedrew]

I voted for marksmanship, also in the absence of the most vital component of the fighter pilot's weaponry, Situational Awareness. (Well picked Mark!).

Granted, a pilot must be able to see before he can hit, and he also must hunger for the fight, to wish to take the fight to the enemy.

Most aces had extraordinary eyesight, giving them the ability to spot the opponent first, and to manoeuvre into a position of great advantage.

Being able to "point your aircraft" at the enemy to shoot him down, that's all the "flying skills" part of the victory entailed (the skills necessary to evade several attackers was different).

Richthofen was not a good pilot. He did not like to fly (especially after receiving his head wound, from which time on he became nauseated every time he flew). He never looped an aircraft, except in the heat of combat; he never "stunted" for the pure joy of flying.

To him, an aircraft was the means of relieving the terrible burden of the German Infantry, constantly harrassed by British machines. The aircraft was merely a means for the hunter to hunt in the sky. Flying skills meant nothing.

Both Robert Little and Billy Bishop were "clumsy" landers, probably wrecking as many of their own side's aircraft in landing accidents as they did of their mortal enemy, the dreaded Hun.

Luck has a part to play as well. The luck of having a good Flying Instructor in the first place, and a good CO at the front that would ease his rookie pilots into combat gently. The luck of simply being in the right area... there have to be enemy aircraft flying in your vicinity for you to become an ace. Not many pilots were killed by "archie", but he DID kill, you just had to be lucky. You had to be lucky to get a good "bus", and good mechanics that kept it going just the way you desired. You had to be lucky not to be hit in some of the night raids on aerodromes. Many pilots, simply too exhausted and annoyed at the inconvenience to rise from their bunks to go to a shelter, were killed there. Their reasoning being that many air raid shelters would be destroyed in a single hit from these bombers in any case, killing all inside, and that they were fatalistic: if they were going to get it, they were going to get it. No point running to a shelter, may get killed on the way there.

Steve Drew

[Richard_Schrader]

This was a tough one, but I picked marksmanship. All the others just don't matter if you can hit anything. A study of WW2 aces showed that almost all of them grew up hunting and shooting.
Richard

[Barrett]

Ref. WW II aces growing up shooting or hunting: it may be an accurate generalization for many of the top guns, but doesn't hold up across the board. I know LOTS of 1930s city kids who'd never fired as much as a .22 before joining the service, and in fact I recall a wartime Life Magazine article stating that barely 2% of total draftees had any prior experience with firearms.
That said, it's indisputable that some really fine fighter pilots grew up with rifles or shotguns. Off the top of my head, they include Bong, Carl, Foss, Yeager, Thach, Vejtasa, and a bunch of aces who aren't well known.
As for GIs, there were very few Audie Murphies of WW II, and it isn't broadly realized how marginal much training was. I know one D-Day vet who'd never fired his issue M-1 until he hit Utah beach. Another, a replacement rifleman, zeroed his Garand in the front lines.
OTOH, there definitely were a lot of Yorks and Woodfills of the previous generation. Those were the guys who carried the load in combat because they were completely comfortable with their weapons and could concentrate on the mental/tactical aspects of the job rather than the nuts & bolts.
Personally, I'd much rather teach a complete tyro to shoot (especially women, who have little ego and usually no bad habits to unlearn) than someone who thinks he already knows how to shoot. It's not limited to Americans: my professional hunter in Zimbabwe says that all Russians and most Spaniards believe they were born with the ability to shoot!

[Shooter]

Barrett:

That pro from Rhodesia would not be Peter Hathaway Capstick, would it?


Shooter sends

[Barrett]

Shooter: Nope, sad to relate, Capstick went to The Happy Hunting Ground a year or more before I got there. For you Forumites who don't know about him, Peter C was an enormously entertaining writer, a master of self deprecation. Once questioned whether the episodes in his books actually happened, he said, "Absolutely. It's just that most of them didn't happen to ME."