Talk:List of aviators who became ace in a day

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Creation[edit]

Below is transcribed from Discussion page of Flying ace as basis for establishing this separate article.

Georgejdorner (talk) 05:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added a navigation link to the Flying Ace article on the top of this article. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aces in a day[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

M. M. Alam[edit]

According to http://www.defencejournal.com/2001/september/alam.htm, which is one of the references for Alam's listing in the article, Alam shot down Kacker with a missile, killed Bhagwat and Brar with .50 calibre machine gun fire, and damaged Jog and Choudry's planes with machine gun fire. The latter two returned to base in their damaged craft; strictly speaking, they were not shot down. Therefore, in the interests of accuracy, I am editing the article entry to reflect that Alam was credited with five victories, not that he shot down five enemy planes.

A page listing for the book you cited would complete that citation. I am taking it on faith that this text describes the victories as having occurred in less than a minute.

As Wikipedia standards call for three or fewer citations at a time for a listing, I am deleting the others. Because they are repeats of the first two cites, their deletion really won't matter.

Georgejdorner (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I guess its better to have less citations and more of them at the biography article. I put them here as I (rightly) expected contentious reverts(as seen on the flying ace article). I'll quote this from the book by fricker:
"before we had completed more than of about 270 degree of the turn, at around 12 degree per second, all four hunters had been shot down."
Those planes were shot down I think. Would you elaborate? --lTopGunl (talk) 07:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the article cover those who made ace in a day or anyone who made ace? If just ace in a day then the source used for this says, 6 Sept, 1 Hunter, Sqn Ldr Ajeet Kumar Rawlley, No 7 Sqn, KIA, near Taran Taran. 7 Sept, 3 Hunters, Sqn Ldr Onkar Nath Kacker, No 27 Sqn, POW, Burjlal; Sqn Ldr Suresh B Bhagwat and Flg Off Jagdev Singh Brar, No 7 Sqn, KIA, near Sangla Hill. 16 Sept, 1 Hunter, Flg Off Farokh Dara Bunsha, No 7 Sqn, KIA, near Amritsar. None of those are 5 kills in one day. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There were a total 9 to 11 of his kills. The five I've given are quoted in the source. I don't know about the specific pilot names in those kills and since I didn't mention any names here I don't need give a source for that. Also.. this has already been reviewed by neutral editors and discussed over. On a side note the article needs to be expanded (even if there are no more aces to put here), some prose would do in general introduction. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But the source say he only shot down 4, not 5. I have looked in the usual aviation books and am unable to find a source which says this chap got 5 kills in one day. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the book and I've quoted the part for first four... if you read the full page (better if the full event), you'll know. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's four in the quote, not five. Were is the source which says he got five kills in one day? I have looked but am unable to find one. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See my last comment again. Because the quote is just till "four" means the fifth is mentioned earlier or later in the prose. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me the full quote, is it earlier or later? It appears you are not to sure. Or a link to your source instead? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source is linked. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The academic source you removed mentions other people confirming his kills. So it is not his own claim only. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The source I removed mentions four kills only. Please provide the page number in which kill number five is mentioned. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Polmar, Norman (2003). One hundred years of world military aircraft. Naval Institute Press. p. 354. ISBN 978-1591146865. Mohammed Mahmood Alam claimed five victories against Indian Air Force Hawker Hunters, four of them in less than one minute! Alam, who ended the conflict with 1 1 kills, became history's only jet "ace-in-a-day." {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Factual accuracy[edit]

We have three sources for the section on Muhammad Mahmood Alam. Two sources say he claims to have shot down five in a day.[1][2] The third [3] appears to be a recounting by Alam of the dogfight in question, and as such is a primary source. The article needs to be amended to [4] this version as it is still unknown if Alam is an "ace in a day" It is just a claim. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a primary source, it is an international publication and is not a recounting by Alam. There are quotations by different people in it. You are commenting here without even reading those pages. The claim is well backed by other formation members as well as the other two reliable sources. There's no question of dispute here. This has also been discussed in detail before on the main article... you are just going in circles. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is of course a primary source as it is directly quoting Alam. Unlike the source from Naval Institute Press which says he "claims" your source is from Ian Allen. Not an academic source and was published in 1979. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it does not only quote Alam. You haven't read it. Only the new quote I added has the first person usage. The source is confirming the kills along with all the others. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is a primary source and you may not use it. From WP:PRIMARY Primary sources are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. An account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment. Historical documents such as diaries are primary source Per policy you may not use it. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The book is written by an Independent writer. The claims are given from all perspectives in the book. And further the text is backed up by other sources. Don't drag it. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, the other sources do not back it at all. They say he claims 5 kills, they do not verify it. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was a note on this left by a neutral editor (the creator of the article) that the kills are awarded by the ace's airforce intelligence. This is usually done by reviewing gun camera footage or by confirmations from formation members/ other airborne officials. This source confirms that in that perspective and is an RS. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the article is simply critical in its essence, there is at least some evidence of all these aces and successes, Soviet pilots are not given at all, so they didn’t have such a tradition of aces at all, therefore the article is not historically useful in any way 37.54.230.242 (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Air Cdre M Kaiser Tufail. "Alam's Speed-shooting Classic". Defencejournal.com. Retrieved 2011-11-15.
  2. ^ Polmar, Norman (2003). One hundred years of world military aircraft. Naval Institute Press. p. 354. ISBN 978-1591146865. Mohammed Mahmood Alam claimed five victories against Indian Air Force Hawker Hunters, four of them in less than one minute! Alam, who ended the conflict with 1 1 kills, became history's only jet "ace-in-a-day." {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ Fricker, John (1979). Battle for Pakistan: the air war of 1965. p. 15–17. ISBN 9780711009295. before we had completed more than of about 270 degree of the turn, at around 12 degree per second, all four hunters had been shot down." -- "My fifth victim of this sortie started spewing smoke and then rolled on to his back at about 1000 feet.

American Aces in a Day[edit]

Lt. Frank Luke was the first, in September 1918. About 100 Army, Navy, and Marine pilots were credited with the feat in WW II. The number of Luftwaffe aces in a day probably would run into the hundreds, many of whom logged repeat performances. However, what was claimed & credited frequently differed from reality, so the true number of aces in a day is unknowable.

B Tillman68.2.61.17 (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC) 30 Jan 13[reply]

I'm curious as to why Chuck Yeager has not been included on this page, as much is made about the fact that ace in a day was one of his accomplishments. Is this claim disputed, or merely overlooked? The reason I haven't added it myself is I have no source other than his Wikipedia article. - Enigmatick 06:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_aviators_who_became_ace_in_a_day&oldid=1208207414"