# Messerschmitt Me 109 Victories and Losses



## GregP (Oct 21, 2011)

I have been a fan of the Me 109 for years. Though it certainly has its faults, it is a strong candidate for best overall fighter of the war. Certainly not the ONLY candidate, but a strong one based on actual wartime performance.

In the course of acquiring data about the Me 109, I can find no definitive number built. People claim anywhere from 29,000 to 36,000 were built, including post-war Czech Avias, but the complete records were lost in the war, apparently. The people who claim to know the exact total have only RLM orders, not the production records of aircraft acceptance by model. The exact number is relatively unimportant to me in reality because it is “a lot.”

Of more importance, at least to me, are the victory and loss records. I have said and have seen it said that the Me 109 shot down more enemy aircraft than all the other fighters in the war all put together. But I have never seen any list of Luftwaffe victories that tells me by aircraft type how many enemy aircraft were shot down by Me 109’s, Fw 190’s, etc., nor a list of how many were lost in air-to-air combat and operational losses.

All are important. By way of example, the American Grumman Hellcat, in U.S. service, shot down 5,163 enemy aircraft and had 270 combat losses for a kill ratio of 19 : 1 (the best in WWII). What is usually not said is that the Hellcat also had 553 losses to AA and 340 operational losses on combat sorties not related to combat with the enemy. That adds up to 1,163 losses on combat sorties, with only 270 being related to enemy aircraft. Additionally, there were 1,298 operational losses on non-combat-related sorties, such as training or normal missions where no enemy was encountered, but the engine quit or two planes collided, ran out of gas, etc. . So, the total losses are 2,461.

Of course, all OTHER aircraft types are calculated the same, so the “kill-to-loss” ratios we all quote are only for losses to enemy aircraft in combat. They have nothing whatsoever to do with operational and other combat losses unrelated to direct combat with enemy aircraft. The basic assumption seems to be that fighter pilot could fight another pilot, but was powerless to dodge or otherwise affect loss due to AA since nobody can dodge an incoming AA shell that he cannot see. The assumptioon is that AA losses were due to good AA gunners, not to any fault attributable to the aircraft, and that seems valid.

Whether or not we all concur is another post, but I really want to get the Me 109 data including ALL victories and losses. Somewhere in there will be operational losses and there will be some corroboration as to takeoff and landing accidents, which have been blown out of proportion by several sources in the past.

Does anyone know where I can find Me 109 kills and losses, Fw 190 kills and losses, etc?

Certainly I have, say, Erich Hartmann’s kill list and I assume the bulk, if not all, were in Me 109’s. I’m looking for the victories and losses for the type, not for a particular person, though that information would be welcome, too, if it gives me more data than I already have.

Thanks in advance if you know where these data may be found!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 21, 2011)

An American, Frank Tinker is thought to be the first person to shoot down a Bf 109, that happening over Spain July 13, 1937


----------



## Crimea_River (Oct 21, 2011)

That's one!


----------



## Milosh (Oct 21, 2011)

Greg, for losses, combat and non combat, you can start compiling the data from this site, The Luftwaffe, 1933-45

Is only from 1942 - 45 though.

durch Feindeinw - loss due to enemy action

ohne Feindeinw - loss not due to enemy action

The BAL (Bauaufsicht Luft**) records are fairly complete and more are coming to light every day, so not all records were lost.

** This was an RLM organization which had personnel stationed at the manufacturer’s plants and in addition to the inspection and approval for delivery of aircraft, might also be involved in obtaining the supply of critical materials or even becoming directly involved in the company’s production methods.


----------



## GregP (Oct 21, 2011)

Thanks! I apperciate the link and I can find units, equipment, personnell assigned ... but no victory or loss list.

Still, it's good information. Again, thanks!


----------



## Vincenzo (Oct 21, 2011)

you don't look enough, see at example Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen, I./JG27 there are only the loss

on F6F victory, the 5163 number is claims not the true number of enemy planes shot down


----------



## drgondog (Oct 21, 2011)

Greg - there is another statistic that will never be reconciled - namely the number of badly damage 109s restored to service. A signifivant % of allied claims involve 109s that crash landed and credited as 'destroyed' when in fact many were repaired and restored to service. In my view it does in many case count the same because of the effort required to restore the 50% damaged ship... but difficult to argue the claim.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Oct 21, 2011)

Not sure that is true Vincenzo - I have seen very few 'probable' awards for USN in contrast with USAAF ETO/MTO credits


----------



## Vincenzo (Oct 21, 2011)

is very true, that they are not probable awards for their air force is not same that they are true enemy loss


----------



## vanir (Oct 22, 2011)

The take off accident rate of the 109 is misleading, the very high accident rate of the type is within 1km of home airfield, it had atrocious low speed handling Marsielle and others remarked on. It wasn't unforgiving, it gave plenty of warning before a stall, but just didn't handle very nicely until you got your speed up, above 300km/h they were fantastic to fly, under 250km/h not so good.

The accident rate during the take off/landing run itself wasn't particularly high for a slim track gear (plenty of fighters had that in the thirties), it only became unusually high in the later models. Seyringer says 109s skyrocketed in field fatalities as soon as the 605 engine and heavy bomber intercept gear was put on them. He characterises a tiny, lightweight frame, with very heavy euipment and a monster engine with too much torque for inexperienced pilots to handle. He says the combination as an unstable aircraft, that the "Gustav did not suffer fools gladly."

But earlier high accident rate claims are conflusing. They're not particularly atrocious overall, not a widowmaker, but the unusual thing about them is the vast majority within 1km of home base, if not on the runway. IIRC the clash of wings writer puts it at something like two thirds of all 109 losses through the war accidents, 90% of those within 1km of home field.


one should also point out the better you make a fighter, the higher your accident rate proportionate to losses by enemy action are going to be no matter how awesome it is to fly and land and do pirouettes.

hey I remembered listening to some comments by a warbird operator of a flying Gustav, he also commented on its frightening low speed habits near the field. It might give plenty of warning before a stall, but if at low speed/altitude doesn't mean there's anything you can do about it.


----------



## me109ster (Jan 17, 2012)

Hi, like Greg, i was also curious about actual losses incurred by the Luftwaffe fighter groups. I have been trying to find a book which might outline actual combat and operational losses by unit in each theatre of war but can't find anything....particular interest for me is the defence of the Reich 43-45.

Apart from the link outlined further above is there anything else to go on?
It would be great to see an easy guide table....?

Me109ster...


----------



## davebender (Jan 17, 2012)

Doesn't the same thing apply for most late WWII era fighter aircraft? When I read first person accounts of pilot training (regardless of nation) they are full of aircraft accidents.


----------



## Njaco (Jan 17, 2012)

If somebody has a few years to compile stats, here is a good place to start...

Jan J. Safarik: Aces; Germany - Wartime Aerial Victory Credits


I'm curious how the claims over Yugoslavia in April 41 would show up as?


----------



## iron man (Jan 17, 2012)

me109ster said:


> Hi, like Greg, i was also curious about actual losses incurred by the Luftwaffe fighter groups. I have been trying to find a book which might outline actual combat and operational losses by unit in each theatre of war but can't find anything....particular interest for me is the defence of the Reich 43-45.
> 
> Apart from the link outlined further above is there anything else to go on?
> It would be great to see an easy guide table....?
> ...



While it is far from the definitive "Luftwaffe losses for Dummies" (TM), THIS site has a mountain of information on the period you're asking about. You just have to dig through it all to find what you're looking for. If used in conjunction with the tables at Micheal Holm's site (linked above in the thread) then a fair estimate should be within reason...but that would be _a boatload _of work to do...
As far as the Nachtjagd story is concerned...Dr Theo Boiten has released a two volume set which is receiving very high praise for it's thorough treatment of claims/losses. It is _mega_ spendy though. Dr. Theo Boiten: "The Nachtjagd War Diaries"; Volumes 1 2. Published Nov 2008 by Red Kite. 

Hope this helps,
Ron

Edit: The info at the site Njaco just posted is primarily compiled from the lists that I have linked to, here in this post!


----------



## Erich (Jan 17, 2012)

truthfully friends the only actual remedy is to purchase the newer versions of the older Dr. J. Prien LW histories which are now in multi-volume's covering each theater of ops and multi- fighter units. claims/losses included. and yet and Prien knows full well about the gaps of lost documentation during 1945.


----------



## Juha (Jan 17, 2012)

Finnish Bf 109G pilots got 663 accepted claims 24 March 43 – 9 Aug 44 and lost 34 109s because of enemy actions (27 in aerial combats, 5 to AA and 2 on ground). Notice that this is comparing apples and oranges, ie the accepted claims to the true losses.

Juha


----------



## Njaco (Jan 18, 2012)

"Spitfire vs Bf 109: Battle of Britain" by Tony Holmes claims that in the 4 months of the BoB, the LW lost 610 Bf 109Es.


----------



## davebender (Jan 18, 2012)

4 months = ~120 days.
If that claim is correct Germany lost an average of 5 Me-109s per day.

Even if correct those aren't particularly heavy losses for a period of intense combat.


----------



## Njaco (Jan 18, 2012)

Except that - according to the book - the RAF during that same time period lost 1,023 Spits and Hurris. Ouch.


----------



## Kryten (Jan 18, 2012)

Now add in the Luftwaffe bomber losses to get a clearer picture, after all it was the bombers the RAF had to stop!


----------



## claidemore (Jan 18, 2012)

Yup, but don't forget all the other aircraft the Luftwaffe lost during those months. He111s, Ju87s and 88s, Dorniers, Me110s. 
Jon Lakes book, "The Battle of Britain" lists 900-925 Spit and Hurricane combat losses, vs 1590-1740 Luftwaffe combat losses. Interestingly, Fighter command had 2698 'claims' vs 3058 Luftwaffe 'claims'. 1.6 to 1 overclaim by FC, 3.3 to 1 overclaim by LW. Makes sense given the battle was over British ground where verification was easier for RAF. 
Of course this thread is about 109 losses, not Heinkell and Junker.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 18, 2012)

luftwaffe combat loss are not all from FC

and luftwaffe claims are only that for Spit and Hurri or for all types?


----------



## stona (Jan 18, 2012)

Gentlemen I hate to appear a damp squib but the original question is almost certainly unanswerable today. To be honest it was unanswerable in 1945. With many,many hours of research and collation you might get a very approximate answer but as far as I know noone has done that work.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## davebender (Jan 18, 2012)

Plus RAF Bomber Command losses since they conducted operations throughout the BoB period.


----------



## Kryten (Jan 18, 2012)

not really as they were not involved in the actual battle for air supremacy over the UK unlike the German air fleets, thats like saying you need to add in the middle east losses too!


----------



## davebender (Jan 18, 2012)

A sizable portion of Luftwaffe fighter aircraft including most of the long range Me-110s were occupied fighting RAF Bomber Command. Remove RAF Bomber Command from the equation and the BoB becomes a lot more difficult for RAF Fighter Command.

The 1940 Middle East involved Britain vs Iraq, Iran, Italy and France. Those battles had no direct impact on the BoB.


----------



## Kryten (Jan 18, 2012)

define a sizeable portion and also bomber command operations during this period?

you see the german forces engaged in the BOB campaign were directly involved in the air battles that raged over the channel and UK, you can make exactly the same argument for the rest of the RAF who were not involved directly but had other roles, if were taking into consideration any aircraft that could have had an impact on the battle, then we need to add in all UK and german losses in the entire theater, and that includes coastal command, recon etc, all gets a bit silly then!


----------



## davebender (Jan 18, 2012)

NJG1 was created during the spring of 1940. By the summer of 1940 it contained three Gruppe (i.e. full strength).
NJG2 was created during the summer of 1940. Until October 1941 it included a Gruppe of night intruder aircraft that destroyed about 100 RAF aircraft over Britain.
NJG3 was created before the end of 1940.
By January 1941 the Luftwaffe had sixteen Staffeln (i.e. squadrons) assigned to the night fighter force. The bulk were Me-110 formations formerly assigned to day fighter missions.

During May to December 1940 RAF Bomber Command flew over 17,000 sorties at night, losing about 340 aircraft.

27 September 1940.
23 Me-110 day fighter aircraft were available to escort a Luftwaffe bombing raid to the London area. They were massively outnumbered by defending RAF fighter aircraft so the bombers accomplished nothing. Perhaps it would have turned out differently if the 200 or so Me-110s assigned to night fighter units had been added to the Luftwaffe bomber escort force.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 18, 2012)

is a bit silly also compare all luftwaffe combat loss whit the alone spit and hurri combat loss

if you are interessed to a comparison 109 e Spit and or Hurri, you need take loss only in their combats.

if you are interessed at the german air offensive alone you see only a partial view, in same time there were the british offensive over europe. but if you want need take out lw los in defence operation, add to british loss that of other planes loss in defence operations and in claims account take in consideration british AAA


----------



## Kryten (Jan 18, 2012)

davebender said:


> NJG1 was created during the spring of 1940. By the summer of 1940 it contained three Gruppe (i.e. full strength).
> NJG2 was created during the summer of 1940. Until October 1941 it included a Gruppe of night intruder aircraft that destroyed about 100 RAF aircraft over Britain.
> NJG3 was created before the end of 1940.
> By January 1941 the Luftwaffe had sixteen Staffeln (i.e. squadrons) assigned to the night fighter force. The bulk were Me-110 formations formerly assigned to day fighter missions.
> ...



but then you can counter that argument by saying if the RAF had deployed all of its N/E squadrons from Ireland, Wales etc then the 200 me110's would heve been outnumbered and back in the same boat!
its a pointless argument, the battle was fought by the aircraft involved and the result is recorded in history.


----------



## Kryten (Jan 18, 2012)

Vincenzo said:


> is a bit silly also compare all luftwaffe combat loss whit the alone spit and hurri combat loss
> 
> if you are interessed to a comparison 109 e Spit and or Hurri, you need take loss only in their combats.
> 
> if you are interessed at the german air offensive alone you see only a partial view, in same time there were the british offensive over europe. but if you want need take out lw los in defence operation, add to british loss that of other planes loss in defence operations and in claims account take in consideration british AAA



this is where comparing individual aircraft types is pure folly, unless an aircraft has a considerable advantage over it's opponents, thinking FW190 in early 42 as an example, then they are only ever going to be contemporaries, the 109 was only ever a comparable plane, it never made the impact the 190 made on it's debut.


----------



## Juha (Jan 18, 2012)

davebender said:


> NJG1 was created during the spring of 1940. By the summer of 1940 it contained three Gruppe (i.e. full strength).
> NJG2 was created during the summer of 1940. Until October 1941 it included a Gruppe of night intruder aircraft that destroyed about 100 RAF aircraft over Britain.
> NJG3 was created before the end of 1940.
> By January 1941 the Luftwaffe had sixteen Staffeln (i.e. squadrons) assigned to the night fighter force. The bulk were Me-110 formations formerly assigned to day fighter missions.
> ...



Hello Dave
IMHO You overestimate the size of NJ-arm, even on 24 June 41 LW had only 148 night-fighters and on 4 Jan 41 the 16 NJ Staffeln had an averange of only 3.7 combat ready crews, so I doubt that they had full complement of a/c either.

Juha


----------



## iron man (Jan 18, 2012)

Juha said:


> Hello Dave
> IMHO You overestimate the size of NJ-arm, even on 24 June 41 LW had only 148 night-fighters and on 4 Jan 41 the 16 NJ Staffeln had an averange of only 3.7 combat ready crews, so I doubt that they had full complement of a/c either.
> 
> Juha


Like I already mentioned (way, way upthread) if anyone wants the "scoop" on the entire _Nachtjagd _effort (from one end to the other), then pick up Dr. Theo Boiten's work on the subject. The numbers provided by our fellow poster are likely derived from stale dated information, accepted as truths back in the "Willam Green" era of "understanding". 

No disrespect intended.

Cheers, Ron


----------



## stona (Jan 19, 2012)

Kryten said:


> the 109 was only ever a comparable plane, it never made the impact the 190 made on it's debut.



I expect you'd find airmen in Spain,Poland and France who would beg to differ,on all three of those debuts.

Cheers
Steve


----------



## Njaco (Jan 19, 2012)

Kryten said:


> define a sizeable portion and also bomber command operations during this period?
> 
> you see the german forces engaged in the BOB campaign were directly involved in the air battles that raged over the channel and UK, you can make exactly the same argument for the rest of the RAF who were not involved directly but had other roles, if were taking into consideration any aircraft that could have had an impact on the battle, then we need to add in all UK and german losses in the entire theater, and that includes coastal command, recon etc, all gets a bit silly then!



Except we are dealing specifically with Bf 109 losses for the war. Not other aircraft or services. I gave what I had for BoB.


----------

