# Luftwaffe Aerial Victory Claims from 1939 - 1945



## GregP (Jul 23, 2014)

I finished my list in Excel of the combined Luftwaffe aerial victory claims from 1939 through 1945. The results surprise me a great deal. I got the files in almost non-useful form as locked, non-searchable .pdf files. I subsequently unlocked them and imported them into Excel and used Excel to parse the records. The records have the Date, Rank, First Name, Last Name, Staffel, Unit, Victim Type, and Comments that are usually a location and altitude.

The file accounts for 63,324 aerial victory claims and runs from 1 Sep 1939 through 8 May 1945, with Erich Hartmann having the second to the last victory over a Yak-9. Some of the victories are recorded without a name and, in some case, a last name but no first name. In fact, no first name (nf) and no last name (nn) accounts for 1,187 claimed victories, which could easily include the victories missing from Hartmann, Barkhorn, and Rall plus quite a few others. Some have no rank (nr). Sometimes the “crew” of a flak battery was credited with the victory, and sometimes the victim was “unidentified” or “unknown.” Since they amount to the same thing, I changed the “unknown” group to “unidentified” (50 such claims) so they would all be in one group. Some of the victim types were “4 engine aircraft, fighter, tethered balloon, biplane, 4 engine torpedo plane, single engine, passenger plane, Twun engine, “BSch” (whatever that is), and a few others. 

Sometimes there is no Staffel but there is a unit. Occasionally there is no rank for the person identified as the victorious pilot.

We know that the German tracking of victories broke down at some point.

Despite the above, the list gives a great deal of insight. Top 10 were as follows:

1) The most claimed aircraft of WWII by the Germans was the Spitfire, with 4,997 claimed. That tends to throw a wrench in the “best fighter” thread. There were some 20,367 Spitfires made and 4,997 were claimed. That is 24.5% of production.
2) Number 2 was the Il-2 with 4,850 claimed. I expected that one. There were some 36,183 built so about 13.4% were claimed as downed. It really WAS hard to shoot down!
3) Number 3 was the B-17 with 4,296 claimed. There were 12,731 built so 33.7% of production was claimed as downed, mostly in daylight, mostly over Europe.
4) Number 4 was the LaGG-3 with 3,381 claimed. I expected that one, too. There were some 100 LaGG-1’s built and about 6,528 LaGG-3’s built. So about half of the LaGG-1/3’s were claimed as shot down.
5) Number 5 was the B-24 with 2,192 claimed. There were about 18,482 built so about 11.9% of production was claimed as downed. Seems to be significantly safer than either the B-17 or the Lancaster.
6) The Lancaster was number 6 with 2,038 claims. There were some 7,377 built so 27.6% of production was claimed as downed, mostly at night.
7) The Hurricane was number 7 with 2,033 claims. There were about 14,533 built so about 14% of production were claimed. It was apparently safer to fly a Hurricane than a Spitfire if you were fighting Germans.
8) The I-16 was number 8 with 1,975 claimed.
9) The Pe-2 was number 9 with 1,918 claimed.
10) The Yak-1 was number 10 with 1,892 claimed.

The P-51 Mustang had 1,034 claimed, making it 21st on the list. There were about 15,586 P-51’s built so 6.6% were claimed. It was MUCH safer to fly a P-51 than a Spitfire against the Germans.

The Martin B-26 suffered 203 claims and the Mosquito suffered 194 claims. There were 5,288 B-26’s built and 7,777 Mosquitoes built. They were close but the Mossie was a bit safer than the B-26, but not significantly ... 2.5% versus 3.4%. So both were VERY safe most of the time. The Germans claimed 3 F6F Hellcats. Seems like it was a pretty safe thing to go flying in an F6F against the Germans, overall. Of course not many sorties were flown. I can't find how many as yet.

There are still a few records to clean up ... mostly of the variety of a the last name being repeated in the first name, such as "Zien Zein" instead of "nf Zein" (nf being my abbreviation for no first name). It doesn't affect analysis of counts or types.

I have asked and if I receive no objections from the staff of this site, I'll post the file in zip format ... but I need to wait and hear first whether or not it is OK to post it. They know where I obtained the data. We'll see.

Meanwhile if there are questions I can answer from the list that are reasonable, and if the number of them isn't too many, I'll do the analysis and answer in here.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jul 23, 2014)

GregP said:


> 7) The Hurricane was number 7 with 2,033 claims. There were about 14,533 built so about 14% of production were claimed. It was apparently safer to fly a Hurricane than a Spitfire if you were fighting Germans.



It is known that some Luftwaffe pilots would claim Hurricanes as Spitfires. Hurricanes also were relegated to secondary duties from 1941/42, so weren't in harms way as often after then.




GregP said:


> The P-51 Mustang had 1,034 claimed, making it 21st on the list. There were about 15,586 P-51’s built so 6.6% were claimed. It was MUCH safer to fly a P-51 than a Spitfire against the Germans.



Mustangs didn't see service for 2-1/2 to 3 years after the Spitfire. Merlin Mustangs some 4 years after the Spitfire began fighting the war.

Much of that time that the Merlin Mustangs were flying the Germans had weakened defences - for which the Mustang can take some credit. And there was also the directive to avoid the escorts and target the bombers. So less threat to the fighters than might have been.

Spitfires had, on occasion, been subject to poor tactics - like sweeps over France in 1941.


----------



## Juha (Jul 23, 2014)

Greg, they are only claims, confirmed or not, and it's fairly useless to make too far reaching conclusion from claims. E.g it is known from the real loss data that it was safer to fly Spitfire than Hurri during the BoB, I'm pretty sure that if one based his oppinion to LW claims it was other way around. One writer, was that Staphfer, wrote that because Soviet fighter pilots claimed, was that 68 000 LW planes, the history of the WWII air war in Europe must be rewritten because there was not much left from LW to be shot down by the Western Allies pilots.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jul 23, 2014)

Hi Juha,

Since there is no list of officially awarded victories for the Luftwaffe in WWII, we are left with speculation or using claims that I have been very hard to find over 5+ years of effort at such things. I choose to use the claims. In the USA, the government funded studies of WWII after the war and we have the list of officially awarded victories for both the USAAF and the US Navy / Maries. Germany never funded such research post-war.

What I do would is take the lists of officially recognized losses for each indivuidual type and see what that gets me. For instance, the Germans claimed 2,038 Lancasters shot down. I don't know how many were admitted by the UK, but I will be looking at those data going forward.

Hey guys, I don't want a thread full of excuses in here or never-ending arguments; it's not why I started on this list. I have seen pages and pages of threads saying that such and such a plane was the best or worst or so many were lost on missions. We didn't have any data to bounce such figures off of, so I started on the German claims list some 5 years ago. Any and all of you can make of it what you will, but the claims are the claims.

I didn't make the claims and I don't know who did (I suspect the pilot's unit turned in the official claims), so I feel no desire to defend or argue them one way or the other ... they are what they are. All I know is these data show up in a list of German claims that I think were VERY well researched. You can bet I'll go forward and do some comparison of published losses versus claims, and put the information in here. You can dismiss it, like it, or argue until the sky turns yellow and it's OK. 

I have no dog in this hunt and don't care either way. I'm presenting numeric data with a basis in combat claims submitted to German authorities only.

I strongly suspected the first thing that would be said was defense of the Spitfire and excuses for the low Mustang losses and it was. Everyone in here KNOWS when Mustangs first showed up in the fray. Use the data or don't. 

I'd be happy to discuss with anyone, but I won't argue about it for or against any individual type. The best or ideal discussion for ME would be how to make the best use of such claim data since that is what I am looking at doing going forward ... how can this be made useful? So if you have an idea of how best to male use of the claim data, please chime in.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 23, 2014)

then there are flak victories to consider, and shared victories. This is useful data, and Greg needs to be thanked for the obvious great effort that hes put into this. but its claims only.

During the war, the US admitted 20000 or so combat losses, of which about 5000 were in the PTO. The British admitted slightly higher, with about 2000 lost in the PTO. The Russians lost 120000 in total. US total losses were about 60000. By extrapolation, that puts Russian combat losses in the ballpark of 40000. All the rest, combined, might account for 5000, maximum. if you add all that up, you get a figure of 78000 allied a/c lost in combat, however a good proportion if these will be listed as "lost" some will be flak losses, others will be landing or take off accidents. 

63000 aerial victories starts to look difficult to reconcile to these more or less known constants. But doesnt mean they are wrong, it means they are inconsistent with other data, but that other data might just as likely be wrong as well.

Overclaiming is a world wide phenomena and the germans are not immune to this. like all these things, you gotta be prepred top take a hard dose of scepticism when discussing these sorts of issues.


----------



## Milosh (Jul 23, 2014)

This has been available for at least 10 years.
http://lesliesawyer.com/claims/tonywood.htm


----------



## Njaco (Jul 23, 2014)

Greg, is your research available? I would love to have a copy or .pdf. Thanks.


----------



## Juha (Jul 23, 2014)

Hello Greg
All I am saying that claims, officially accepted or not aren't a good base to begin, because claim accuracy fluctated wildy, even between different Geschwadern fighting in same area at same time as can be seen from Luftwaffe Kills in Tunisia Compared to Recorded USAAF P-38 losses, which is a good type to study because the only type it could have been confused were the recon variants (F-5 and F-5), the claim accuracy varied from JG 51's 76.0% (very good) to JG 2's 22.7%. The problem is to find out reliable loss data. You can find RAF losses per command and year, but not by type, at least from Captain Norman MacMillan's Royal Air Force in the World War Volume IV (1950) Appendix III which gives year, sorties, tonnage (of bombs dropped) and a/c lost. The MTO info is in the Vol III (1949) App. I. So if you can collect the losses per type you can cross-check it with the info MacMillan gives. RAF BC heavy bomber losses are fairly easy to find from Middlebrook's books but I'm not so sure on Spits and Hurries but at least sums of those serving in the FC can be found from Foreman's Fighter Command War Diaries even if I have seen fairly harsh critic on Foreman's earlier Over the Beaches book. And then it is the question of AA claims. In German side there was LW's, Heer's (Army's) and Navy's AA units. British had AA-artillery and Naval AA plus RAF Regiment. Usually the AA claims are much harder to find. In the NA one must remember the Italian claims etc


----------



## bobbysocks (Jul 23, 2014)

wow...that is a lot of work you put in there....nice job.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 23, 2014)

GregP said:


> Hey guys, I don't want a thread full of excuses in here or never-ending arguments; it's not why I started on this list. I have seen pages and pages of threads saying that such and such a plane was the best or worst or so many were lost on missions. We didn't have any data to bounce such figures off of, so I started on the German claims list some 5 years ago. Any and all of you can make of it what you will, but the claims are the claims.
> 
> I didn't make the claims and I don't know who did (I suspect the pilot's unit turned in the official claims), so I feel no desire to defend or argue them one way or the other ... they are what they are. All I know is these data show up in a list of German claims that I think were VERY well researched. You can bet I'll go forward and do some comparison of published losses versus claims, and put the information in here. You can dismiss it, like it, or argue until the sky turns yellow and it's OK.



What you did was to draw conclusions from the numbers ("It was apparently safer to fly a Hurricane than a Spitfire if you were fighting Germans", " It was MUCH safer to fly a P-51 than a Spitfire against the Germans".). But these numbers need to have some perspective.

A type that was in the front line is surely more likely to have more claims against it than one that was at the front line for 2?


----------



## GregP (Jul 23, 2014)

Well, Wuzak, I can draw this conclusion easily.

The Spitfire was the type most often claimed by the Germans. They weren't particularly after Spitfires, they were out to bomb the UK. Spitfies didn't escort the daylight or night bomber streams, they were basically defensive versus the Germans and STILL they were the most claimed aircraft the Germans downed.

Don't know what that tells you specifically, but Spitfires were in the war for five years fighting defensively. The Germans claimed 4,997 ... call it 5,000, or 1,000 per year on average.

The P-51 Mustang got into the fray in mid 1943. So the Mustang was at war for 2 years ... or maybe 1.75 years, depending on your take on it. The Germans claimed 1,034. That's between 517 and 590 claimed per year.

In my book, about half the losses flying in combat against the same enemy in the same theater of war is significant. If it isn't in your book, then what is? I can guarantee you that escort missions were not safe catwalks. The B-17's being escorted were the third most claimed aircraft in the German files, and that doesn't happen without attacks by both flak and fighters ... which the P-51's were assigned to prevent (the fighter portion anyway).

So, I have a tenative new take on the ETO fighter debate from these data, even though I still have yet to correlate the admitted losses with German claims.

I see that Tony Wood's site was named above. I have been asking about aerial victories in here since 2002 and this is the first time anyone has mentioned it to me. Go figure. Makes me want to scream.


----------



## Crimea_River (Jul 23, 2014)

I'd love a copy of the list if it can be made available. Sounds like a major accomplishment Greg.


----------



## BiffF15 (Jul 23, 2014)

Greg,
I concour with Crimea! I salute the fact you took the time to actually assimilate that much!
Cheers,
Biff


----------



## GregP (Jul 23, 2014)

If I don't receive any objections from a moderator or moderators within a couple of days, I'll post it here as a zip file.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 23, 2014)

GregP said:


> Well, Wuzak, I can draw this conclusion easily.
> 
> The Spitfire was the type most often claimed by the Germans. They weren't arpticularly after Spitfires, they were out to bomb the UK. Spitfies didn't escort the daylight or night bomber streams, they were basically defensive versus the Germans and STILL they were the most claimed aircraft the Germans downed.
> 
> ...



Greg, you draw your conclusion too easily.

Spitfires did not spend all their time fighting defensively, though that is what they were famous for.

They did do offensive operations over France and in North Africa. They were used on bomber escort missions - short range missions or as part of the fighter relay. RAF Spitfires, for example, escorted the Schweinfurt-Regensburg raid into France. 8th AF Spitfires escorted the raid on the St-Nazaire submarine pens. etc.


----------



## GregP (Jul 23, 2014)

I don't think half the losses in the same theater of oerpations is insignificant, Wayne. 

If nothing else, it tells me the Spitfire was probably a bit more delicate than the P-51 since they were facing the same enemy at the same time in the same theater.

I have no real conclusions as yet but will be looking for them in areas I would not have previously looked as a result of higher losses over equivalent timeframes. It might well amount to nothing, but it brings up a point of interest.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 23, 2014)

I think you would have to do a month-by-month analysis to support that.

And you are still talking claims - not necessarily losses.


----------



## GregP (Jul 23, 2014)

Wayne,

Theer is NO official victory list for the Germans in WWII.

Erich Hartmann's 352 victories are claims because the Nazi government collapsed at the end of the war and the subsequent post-war German government did not fuind statistical studies of WWII at a later date. For the Nazi government, claims are all we have.

Would you rather speculate vaguely or have at least the claims to look at?

There IS no "vetted" victory list.


----------



## Milosh (Jul 23, 2014)

Greg, the 2TAF, composed mostly of Spitfire squadrons, was certainly *not* fighting a defensive war.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jul 23, 2014)

GregP said:


> Wayne,
> 
> Theer is NO official victory list for the Germans in WWII.
> 
> ...



Greg, there must be a list of Spitfires lost to enemy action somewhere?


----------



## GregP (Jul 24, 2014)

I sure hope so, Wayne. I have the sorties and losses and bomb tonnage for Bomber Command, but have not been able ... so far ... to find the same for Fighter Command.

Of couse I looked for some years for claims and only found them in ONE place until another one was posted above by Milosh. Where was he 10 years ago? Thanks, Milosh! Most of the rest of the kill lists were top aces only or a "selected list." Ah well, good information is where and when you find it, sort of likie finding an antique. If you see it and want it, better get it because you may never find it again.

For the Brits, all I see around are selected lists for some battle or another, and no confidence they cover all the battles. I can't even find a good, reliable list of the supposed battles. If I did, what about the odd combat air patrol that suddenly finds three or four Spitfire pilots chancing uopn a small enemy attack ... that has no "battle name? There doesn't seem to be a complete list for the entire war, for all units combined, for Fighter Command. I'm sure it is around somewhere. 

I hope I can find it before I croak, at least in time to enjoy it.


----------



## asma18 (Jul 24, 2014)

My friend your analysis is flawed The Spitfire made its combat debut in October 39. The P51 in Dec 43. Therefore the Spitfires were in combat 4 years longer than the P51 Your figures should show the Spitfire losses up to Dec 43 and then the losses after Dec 43. You will then get a more accurate figure.
The analysis should also include sorties conducted by both planes, how many contacts there were, how many planes were involved.


----------



## Milosh (Jul 24, 2014)

RAF squadron stats are available at the National Archives, KEW.


----------



## GregP (Jul 24, 2014)

Thanks again, Milosh! 

Next time I have a question about WWII stats, I'll PM you first!


----------



## Hop (Jul 24, 2014)

> Well, Wuzak, I can draw this conclusion easily.
> 
> The Spitfire was the type most often claimed by the Germans. They weren't arpticularly after Spitfires, they were out to bomb the UK. Spitfies didn't escort the daylight or night bomber streams, they were basically defensive versus the Germans and STILL they were the most claimed aircraft the Germans downed.
> 
> Don't know what that tells you specifically, but Spitfires were in the war for five years fighting defensively. The Germans claimed 4,997 ... call it 5,000, or 1,000 per year on average.



What it tells you is the Luftwaffe suffered from what's been called "Spitfire snobbery". The Luftwaffe respected the Spitfire, so it featured highly in both their claims and attributed losses.

During the Battle of Britain the Luftwaffe fighters claimed 720 Hurricanes, 1,228 Spitfires. 

The RAF lost 603 Hurricanes and 394 Spitfires according to Wood and Dempster.

The Luftwaffe claimed 1.2 Hurricanes for every 1 lost. They claimed 3.1 Spitfires for every 1 lost. 

And its wrong to claim the Spitfire was "defensive". In 1940, yes, from then on the Spitfire fought mainly over enemy held territory.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hop (Jul 24, 2014)

I've just done a spreadsheet from Tony Wood's allied list for 1943.

UK based Spitfire losses on operations, 1943:

Bomber Return Fire - 3
Unknown - 11
Mechanical failure - 25
Crashes - 35
Flak - 46
Enemy Fighters - 287
Total - 407

Of the losses to enemy fighters, 11 were over the UK or off the UK coast, about 270 over enemy territory or off the coast. 

The RAF wasn't doing a lot of "defending" (edit: on the channel front) versus the Luftwaffe from the end of 1940 onwards.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha (Jul 24, 2014)

Hello Hop
Interesting info. Surprisingly few losses to the feared Flak. But by 43 Typhoons had taken over most of the low level work, I think. And probably fewer ineffective and costly Rhubarbs were flown by Spits in 43 than in 42.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jul 24, 2014)

Not to belabour this point, but one must also consider what percent of the 15000ish Mustangs built ever made it to the combat theater, let alone actual combat. I would suspect that of the 22000 spitfires built, a significantly larger percentage would have seen action.,In some cases, aircraft being lost before even making it to their operational unit.


----------



## Njaco (Jul 24, 2014)

Wow.


----------



## GregP (Jul 24, 2014)

Well, I haven't received any "don't post this drivel" from the moderators, so here is the file.

I still have a few issues with first names and may have gotten a few staffles and units slightly wrong ... maybe a few hundred out of 63,000+, but the date, last name, victim, and location are correct.

Any feedback is ok.

- Greg

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Crimea_River (Jul 24, 2014)

Saved! Thanks Greg!


----------



## GregP (Jul 24, 2014)

You are all welcome. 

I hope it stimulates some discussion and I shall continue to make the file better until I am satisfied. The dates, victims, and comments won't change ... only a few Staffels and units and maybe a few ranks.

Now I want to find the awarded victories / claims for the UK, Soviet Union and Japan at a minimum. If anyone has any ideas, please let me know. The objective is to have the aerial victories available on the website for anyone to look at on their own. It IS public information, but is VERY hard to come by in a useful form!


----------



## parsifal (Jul 24, 2014)

about 60% of US aircraft produced did not leave the US. a significant proportion of british aircraft did the same, and after 1944, this meant they were out of the fighting effectively


----------



## Juha (Jul 25, 2014)

GregP said:


> ...
> 
> Now I want to find the awarded victories / claims for the UK, Soviet Union and Japan at a minimum. If anyone has any ideas, please let me know. The objective is to have the aerial victories available on the website for anyone to look at on their own. It IS public information, but is VERY hard to come by in a useful form!



For UK and Commonwealth incl Free French, Polish etc, Christopher Shores' Aces High, Aces High Vol 2 (corrections and additions to the first one) and Those other Eagles (those with 2 - 4 aerial kills)

For Finns, Suomen Ilmavoimien Historia 26 27, Kalevi Keskinen Kari Stenman Ilmavoitot/Aerial Victories osa/vol 1 (Lentäjät A-M) and Ilmavoitot/Aerial Victories osa/vol 2 (Lentäjät N-Y). Finnish/English texts all Finnish victories should be there.

For USSR, try Wiki or if you find Bykov's ace book, I'm not sure on its status, use it. And http://wio.ru/aces/ace2.htm , don't spend your money on the older in west published books, Polak's Stalin's Falcons and Hans D. Seidl's Stalin's Eagles, they are rather useless.


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 25, 2014)

Thanks for the Zip File Greg.

Geo


----------



## mhuxt (Jul 25, 2014)

Thanks Greg.


----------



## BiffF15 (Jul 25, 2014)

Thanks Greg!


----------



## Andrew Arthy (Jul 25, 2014)

Hi Greg,

RAF and USAAF victories and losses on the Channel Front are available from 1 November 1940 to 31 December 1943. Visit this page: http://lesliesawyer.com/claims/tonywood.htm, and they are the first available downloads.

Are you aware of Frank Olynyk's excellent USAAF victory claims books from the 1980s? He has plans to re-publish these at some point. I've attached a page from December 1944.

Cheers,
Andrew A.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 25, 2014)

Thanks Greg.

That looks like a lot of work.


----------



## GregP (Jul 25, 2014)

Thanks for the replies guys, I appreciate it. Hopefully was can add to it.

It was said above that the Spitfires were in combat longer than the P-51. I was waiting for that with baited breath and knew it was coming ... so ...

In my claims file, the first P-51 claim shows up on 19 Aug 1942. In fact, the first three P-51 claims show up on 19 Aug 1942.

The reason I put the data into Excel is for easy analysis. 

An advanced filter tells me that from 19 Aug 1942 through the end of the war the Germans claimed 1,034 P-51’s. During that same timeframe the Germans claimed 1,752 Spitfires. That’s 69% more Spitfires claimed shot down over Europe, against the same air force, in the timeframe from when the P-51 first made an appearance in German claims through the end of the war. That's 35% of all the Spitfire claims (4,997) happening from when the P-51 showed up in claims through the end of the war, so we're backing out 65% of the Spitfire claims to make the comparison fair to the immortal Spitfire. 

I don’t care who is looking at the data or how they look at it, 69% more losses, rather claimed losses, over the same time period is significant. If it isn't, someone needs remndial math. Even if the losses are … say … 80% accurate (you pick the number), that difference is not insignificant. That's the beautry of having the data in Excel, it is easy to investigate these things without taking years.

I suppose it could be insiginficant if someone thinks the Germans overclaimed 3 to 1 for the Spitfire but somehow were 100% accurate for the P-51. That's a scenario I strongly doubt.

It wouldn't take much to look at the breakout of units claiming the P-51's versus units claiming the Spits, either ... just a few filters and pivot tables.

This at least gives me some good food for thought about the investigation of losses.

Now if was could get a good file of Allied losses in theaters versus Germany admitted by type, we'd have some real opportunities for investigation. Personally I KNOW the Germans overcalimed, everyone did, so they aren't alone there and it's no knock against German pilots ... it was war. However, I also doubt very much that the admitted losses were 100% accurate. Again, this was war. Lying aboyut one's losses was standard procedure everywhere to keep up morale and deceive the enemy.

So two good questions might be what % overcaliming is about fair and what percent under-admiting of losses is about fair? 

If we can answer these two questions, we are 75% of the way toward having a reasonable tool for looking at victories and losses in theaters versus Germany during WWII ... which was a large part of my goal when I started. That's 2 questions answered (hopefully) and the fact that we have the German claim data, or at least one version of it. What we're missing is admitted Allied losses by type in the ETO and theatrers versus Germany.


----------



## mhuxt (Jul 25, 2014)

Andrew Arthy said:


> Hi Greg,
> 
> RAF and USAAF victories and losses on the Channel Front are available from 1 November 1940 to 31 December 1943. Visit this page: http://lesliesawyer.com/claims/tonywood.htm, and they are the first available downloads.
> 
> ...



Hi Andrew,

Those Olynyk books are rarer than hen's teeth, you're the only person I know who has one.

If I flicked you a small spreadsheet, would you be willing to look up some details for me? I'm trying (among other things) to identify any Mossie friendly-fire incidents, but don't have time of day, place and type claimed for US fighters. There's maybe 30 or 40 claims for which I have some but not all info - could you fill in the missing data if I batted my eyes at you? (Or something more appropriate...)


----------



## wuzak (Jul 25, 2014)

GregP said:


> In my claims file, the first P-51 claim shows up on 19 Aug 1942. In fact, the first three P-51 claims show up on 19 Aug 1942.



That would be the Dieppe raid.

Dieppe Raid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to wiki there were:
64 Spitfires
20 Hurricanes
6 Douglas Bostons
10 Mustang Is

lost that day.


RAF Strength wast listed as:
74 Squadrons
~10,500 men

There were 48 squadrons of Spitfires, 8 squadrons of Hurricanes and 4 squadrons of Mustangs.

There were 6.4 Spitfires lost for every Mustang, but 16 times the number of squadrons.
There were 3.2 times as many Spitfires lost as Hurricanes, but 8 times the squadrons.

Of course these losses were to all causes - not just losses to fighters.

On the other side, the Luftwaffe lost:
23 Fw 190
25 Dornier Do 217


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 25, 2014)

In Jan 1943 15 RAF squadrons are using Allison powered Mustangs. The US orders 2000 Merlin powered P-51Bs the same month. North American is in the middle of the A-36 production run. 

April 1943 sees A-36s in Tunisia.

I could be wrong but I don't think the US used Mustangs in the European theater ( as opposed to the Med or Italy) until Dec 1943. 

Middle to end of Feb 1944 sees 2 fighter groups with P-51s in the 8th air Force. The only US Mustangs IN England? 

British were _supposed_ to get 944 P-51B&C's but some were repo-ed by the USAAF. British don't start operations until Feb 1944 with the Merlin powered versions. 

Claims over time (or admitted losses over time) only are a useful comparison for trying to figure out which plane was "safer" IF you know the numbers of aircraft _in service_ for the time periods in question. 

P-40 might show up rather well in the last few years of the war (1943-44) when you compare the number built to the number "claimed" by the Luftwaffe. The fact that the P-40 was being phased out of operational squadrons with a lot of the new production planes being used in the US as advanced trainers might be responsible for a skewed result. A bit like the Hurricane, Used in combat but not without being escorted by other fighters. Were Hurricanes being used as fighter trainers in the RAF in 1943/44/45? Pilots got 10-20 hours in Hurricanes before switching to Spitfires/Typhoons/Tempests? 

I think Greg has put a lot of work into this and the information is undoubtedly useful and interesting. It may not be enough to support some of the conclusions however.


----------



## GregP (Jul 25, 2014)

I actually have no conclusions ... I have questions. I have just started a new job, have little time now, and completed the claims file after midnight a few days ago.

My intent was and is to provide some data that is easily analyzed, not to draw premature conclusions.

Down load the file, extract it, and do some investigation and let's talk about it. Should provide soime good discussion.

However, the simple fact is the same air force claimed 69% more Spitfires than Mustangs in the same timeframe from when both were in service. I can understand easily that fewer P-51's were available at the start of the time interval, but that is where reasonable discussion comes in.

What use of the claims makes sense?

We have NO German awarded victories file. What would you have us use? Not specifically you, Shortround, everyone ... though I'd listen to your opinion, it's usually a good one.

I'm trying very hard to get a way to loook at the data and find trends in the data.

Any ideas? 

Post 'em!


----------



## Andrew Arthy (Jul 26, 2014)

Hi Mark,

I'll send you an email to discuss the Mossie claims. I have Frank's ETO and MTO lists. I should be meeting up with him in early September, so will see if he has plans to make his work available in a new format. I know that he's been continually working on his Allied victory lists since the old ones were published. Anyhow, will contact you offboard.

Cheers,
Andrew A.


----------



## stona (Jul 26, 2014)

GregP said:


> So two good questions might be what % overcaliming is about fair



That's an impossible question I'm afraid. It is impossible to generalise. For a variety of reasons claims in different theatres and different times are more or less accurate. For example British claims in the BoB were wildly inaccurate, whereas German claims in North Africa usually tally remarkably well with allied losses.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## mhuxt (Jul 26, 2014)

Andrew Arthy said:


> Hi Mark,
> 
> I'll send you an email to discuss the Mossie claims. I have Frank's ETO and MTO lists. I should be meeting up with him in early September, so will see if he has plans to make his work available in a new format. I know that he's been continually working on his Allied victory lists since the old ones were published. Anyhow, will contact you offboard.
> 
> ...



Many thanks Andrew.


----------



## Milosh (Jul 26, 2014)

stona said:


> That's an impossible question I'm afraid. It is impossible to generalise. For a variety of reasons claims in different theatres and different times are more or less accurate. For example British claims in the BoB were wildly inaccurate, whereas German claims in North Africa usually tally remarkably well with allied losses.
> Cheers
> Steve



The German claims during the BoB weren't much better. They thought the Brits were down to only a few fighters left.


----------



## stona (Jul 26, 2014)

Milosh said:


> The German claims during the BoB weren't much better. They thought the Brits were down to only a few fighters left.



Indeed. There are many reasons why this should be, maybe for another thread. The propensity for the British to make up the numbers with estimated losses which were judged to have gone into the sea, and for the Germans to have no way of checking British losses over what was, for them, hostile territory being the most obvious.

In the desert excellent weather and visibility, crash sites or burning wrecks being visible for many miles, probably contributed to the relative accuracy of claims.

In WW1 the RFC had a category for aircraft downed 'out of control'. In WW2 such an aircraft, disappearing into cloud seemingly out of control would usually be claimed as 'probable' or even 'destroyed' particularly if smoking or on fire. 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Milosh (Jul 26, 2014)

There was also the numbers released to the British public for propaganda purposes which were totally at odds with actual RAF claims.


----------



## stona (Jul 26, 2014)

Milosh said:


> There was also the numbers released to the British public for propaganda purposes which were totally at odds with actual RAF claims.



That's not how I understand it. The government 'propaganda' claims ran at about 2.5 : 1 (claimed : actual loss) which tallies well with the RAF's claims.

The famous '176 destroyed' reported by the BBC for September 15th matches exactly the figures in the RAF's official history _("Our fighters destroyed 176 enemy aircraft (124 bombers and 53 fighters) plus 41 probable and 72 damaged.") _

We now know the number was more like 60, but neither Fighter Command, nor the BBC thought so at the time

Cheers

Steve


----------



## parsifal (Jul 26, 2014)

In regard to the disparity of Mustang losses to Spit losses August 1942 to May 1945, one explanation would be that the RAF utlised may times more spits than they used Mustangs. in 1944, they took delivery of something like 800 Mustangs, whilst taking delivery thousands of Spitfires. In North africa, or rather Tunisia, there were if I remember correctly 40 something squadrons of Spitfires to about 4 Mustangs.

Another issue is that the early marks of Mustang were not worked that hard, because the RAF didnt really like them. The p-51A was found to be disappointing in many respects, and the Mustang II, or P-51B didnt arrive until the middle of 1943, with combat debut in November, from memory.

The war experiences of the two aircraft , in RAF service at least, are not comparable.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 26, 2014)

wuzak said:


> That would be the Dieppe raid.
> 
> Dieppe Raid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...




Just did a quick search on Greg's database - found 111 claims for Spitfires on 19 August 1942 (the day of the Dieppe landings), 1 Hurricane claimed and 4 Mustangs.


----------



## GregP (Jul 26, 2014)

I expected better but ... use the data or don't.

It's all up to the person who downloads it and decides what to do with it. A potential good use might be to compare the claims with any known losses over a time period. The location may or may not help as some towns or designated areas may well have changed names. I haven't dealved into it mush as yet. I'm still fighting a computer as of last night ...


----------



## wuzak (Jul 27, 2014)

GregP said:


> A potential good use might be to compare the claims with any known losses over a time period. The location may or may not help as some towns or designated areas may well have changed names.



I thought that's what I was doing - comparing losses and claims for the 19th August, 1942. 

There were 199 claims that day. 87 identified Dieppe. 83 identified Dieppe and has a Spitfire as the victim.

The other 4 victims with Dieppe as the location were:
1 x Hurricane
1 x Blenheim
1 x Mustang
1 x P-39

There are also a number of Spitfire claims without location, and others with locations of towns in the Dieppe area.

KG 40 claimed 5 Spitfire on the 19th August 1942 too.

This has a similar list to the spreadhseet - perhaps from the same source?
German Victories At Dieppe

The P-39 is interesting, since the RAF stopped using them months earlier. Mistaken identity, most probably.


----------



## GregP (Jul 27, 2014)

Sorry Wayne,

it wasn't aimed at you and I haven't seen that list before despite looking very hard for such lists.

I'll get on the next list when I get the time. I'm now out at Chino airport 6 days a week and it's getting pretty darned hot over here. I don't have a lot of "go get 'em" left when I get home ... hopefully I'll get used to it and move on with regular energy.

Just ordered vol 1 of the RAF Fighter Command Losses online. It's a start.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 27, 2014)

wuzak said:


> The P-39 is interesting, since the RAF stopped using them months earlier. Mistaken identity, most probably.



Well, the RAF 'claimed' a number of He 113s during the BoB. 

I guess turnabout is fair


----------



## stona (Jul 27, 2014)

When the Fw 190 first appeared RAF pilots identified it as the Curtiss Hawk, presumably knowing that the Germans might have acquired some from the French. Misidentification was commonplace. 

Keith Park sent an official signal to Hornchurch on 20th August 1940 to commend

_"..the fine offensive spirit of the single pilot of No.54 Squadron who chased nine He 113s across to France this afternoon."_

The He113s were of course Bf 109s.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## parsifal (Jul 27, 2014)

stona said:


> When the Fw 190 first appeared RAF pilots identified it as the Curtiss Hawk, presumably knowing that the Germans might have acquired some from the French. Misidentification was commonplace.
> 
> Keith Park sent an official signal to Hornchurch on 20th August 1940 to commend
> 
> ...



or captured french mohawks.......hehe


----------



## Milosh (Jul 27, 2014)

Still not as bad as claiming Spitfires when they were Hurricanes.


----------



## GregP (Jul 27, 2014)

The first Mustang claimed by the Luftwaffe was claimed on 19 Aug 1942. Between then and the end of the war the Luftwaffe claimed 1,034 P-51’s and 1,752 Spitfires, as I said above. Of the Spitfires, 943 of them (54%) were claimed by the combined units of JG 2 (349), JG 26 (378) and JG 54 (219). For P-51 claims, these same units accounted for 122 (JG 26), 69 (JG 2), and 52 (JG 53). That is 23.5% of all the P-51 claims.

So they DID, in fact, fight the same units in the same areas at least part of the time. If you add JG 3 and JG 11, these combined 5 units account for 46% of all P-51 claims from the time the P-51 was first claimed until the end of the war.

I submit they were fighting somewhat in the same areas (same units claiming a lot of planes), probably because the areas they were attacking the areas where the most German resistance was being encountered.

If I take some of the comments from above and decide to run that analysis again from 1 Oct 1943 through the end of the war, we find a swap. There were 957 P-51’s claimed and 563 Spitfires claimed. In the case of the P-51, 50.5% of them were claimed by JG 11, JG 3, JG 26. FG 27, and JG 1. In the case of the Spitfires, 55% of them were claimed by JG 26, JG 1, JG 2, and JG 77.

I thiunk the P-51’s were escorting raids and the Spitfires, though gainfully engaged, were not flying escort duty. Since the bulk of the damage was caused by bomber streams, I’d imagine that is where the bulk of the fighters were concentrated while ground attack planes were concentrated where the ground troops were advancing, but would have to check these premises somehow.

I’m trying to get Allied admitted losses from somewhere to bounce these numbers against, and will continue to pursue the numbers. Unless and until I can get the admitted losses by type designation, the claims make for some interesting speculation, but few conclusions.

Someplace online I have seen the US and British aircraft on hand by month and year, and will try to find that again to make more sense of the claims.

No big findings, but interesting numbers nonetheless, especially the swap in which plane had higher numeric losses. I wonder what the loss rate per sorties was and whether or not the Spirfiures were flying more sorties in the first case while the P-51's were flying more sorties in the second case. Again, some data aren't in hand yet.

Having the Germans claims, or at least one version of them, in hand is not very satrisfying for data analysis, is it?


----------



## Juha (Jul 28, 2014)

GregP said:


> T...
> I thiunk the P-51’s were escorting raids and the Spitfires, though gainfully engaged, were not flying escort duty...



In fact Spits often flew escort sorties, mostly escorting fighter bombers or medium bombers but they also escorted heavy bombers, but because of their limited range (all longer range Mk VIIIs went to MTO or to CBI/SW Pacific and only VIIs (IIRC only appr. 100 built) operated in ETO) they were only employed in penetration and egress phases.

Juha


----------



## wuzak (Jul 28, 2014)

GregP said:


> The first Mustang claimed by the Luftwaffe was claimed on 19 Aug 1942. Between then and the end of the war the Luftwaffe claimed 1,034 P-51’s and 1,752 Spitfires, as I said above. Of the Spitfires, 943 of them (54%) were claimed by the combined units of JG 2 (349), JG 26 (378) and JG 54 (219). For P-51 claims, these same units accounted for 122 (JG 26), 69 (JG 2), and 52 (JG 53). That is 23.5% of all the P-51 claims.



Between August 1942 and December 1943 the Mustang was operated in relatively small numbers, especially compared to the Spitfire.




GregP said:


> If I take some of the comments from above and decide to run that analysis again from 1 Oct 1943 through the end of the war, we find a swap. There were 957 P-51’s claimed and 563 Spitfires claimed. In the case of the P-51, 50.5% of them were claimed by JG 11, JG 3, JG 26. FG 27, and JG 1. In the case of the Spitfires, 55% of them were claimed by JG 26, JG 1, JG 2, and JG 77.
> 
> I thiunk the P-51’s were escorting raids and the Spitfires, though gainfully engaged, were not flying escort duty. Since the bulk of the damage was caused by bomber streams, I’d imagine that is where the bulk of the fighters were concentrated while ground attack planes were concentrated where the ground troops were advancing, but would have to check these premises somehow.



Indeed, Mustangs were escorting the bombers on long range missions. As Juha mentioned, Spitfires would often be part of the relay of fighter escorts - the last leg of which (going to target) would be taken by the P-51.

There were also a lot of Spitfires in the 2TAF, performing, largely, ground attack roles. A lot of them were the older Mk V.

Several Spitfire squdrons were involved in chasing down V-1 bombers. I think there was one Mustang squadron doing the same (from the RAF).


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 28, 2014)

The Mustang is a particularly out of the ordinary aircraft to try to "evaluate" by enemy claims compared to total production.

According to one source 15,567 Mustangs (not including A-36s) were built by the end of 1945. And that is a big part of the problem. 6103 of them were built in 1945 and most of those did not see service against Germany. Since just about all, if not all, Mustangs were delivered by ship the Inglewood Mustangs had two choices. 1, Load the preserved for shipment aircraft aboard ships in southern California ports and send them through the Panama canal to an east coast port where the ship will marshaled into a convoy for the voyage across the Atlantic. 2, preserve aircraft and it's engine and take off the wing and crate the wing and fuselage for rail shipment to the east coast or gulf coast to be placed on a ship. The Dallas Mustangs can be placed aboard ship in Texas ports. 

In any case it is very unlikely that any Mustang built after Feb 1945 showed up in time to fly against Germany. 

Then you have the fact that while the numbers were not huge, Mustangs were being used in the China, Burma, India theater Starting around Sept 1943 with Allison powered versions. First P-51Bs show up in this Theater April 1944. 

Going back to the production numbers, 6982 Mustangs were built in 1944 with production increasing from 370 per month in Jan to 720 in Dec.

Going back to 1943 a bit under 3000 Mustangs had been built by Dec 1943 since start of production and that includes the 500 A-36 aircraft. 

Granted Spitfires were used around the world too and production continued post war but trying to draw any conclusions based off of claims vs numbers built seems to have a lot of potential problem areas.

Comparing even the B-24 to the B-17 gets difficult because the B-17 was primarily a European bomber with the B-24 seeing much more use in the Pacific, the CBI, for anti-sub patrols and cargo use. Actual numbers used against Germany might be much closer if not favoring the B-17 rather than in proportion to the numbers built. 

The claims list is a very good piece of work and a valuable tool but it doesn't seem it can be used on it's own to draw conclusions unless the use of the compared planes is fairly close to begin with, like Lancaster vs Halifax. Somebody will probably point out that I am wrong about that


----------



## Milosh (Jul 28, 2014)

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a542518.pdf

The AAF had 4,833 P-51s on hand at the end of April 1945 of which 923 were in ConUS. 2455 vs Germany.


----------



## Erich (Jul 28, 2014)

Gregg you will not find a complete list of LW claims this is plain and simple to draw from the cross check either US or Soviets. the stuff just is not there, too much is lost or in private ownership; I tried in vain back in the 80's and gave up. again guys I point this very important matter out the OkL did not confirm any more claims as of the end of October into November 1944.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Jul 28, 2014)

absolutely


----------



## drgondog (Jul 29, 2014)

wuzak said:


> Mustangs didn't see service for 2-1/2 to 3 years after the Spitfire. Merlin Mustangs some 4 years after the Spitfire began fighting the war.
> 
> *Wayne - I suspect this is an apple to a petunia comparison for many reasons. The number of sorties and the location of sorties should certainly be considered. Certainly the quality of JG 26 and 2 in the west was very high wrt JG 27 and 77 in the south during epic LW vs Spit battles from 1939 through 1943. Post 1943 the epic battles were largely Mustangs against everything, everywhere in the West and South. Tactics as you say had a lot to do with tempering the aggressive nature of LW responses to bomber escorts.*
> 
> ...



The 8th AF, the dominant Mustang antagonist against LuftFlotte Reich and Sud in 1944-1945 lost about 324 Mustangs in air to air, 569 air to ground, have to dig for the operational losses '"other"


----------

