Air forces losses in WWII

[GregP]

Thanks Njaco!

I appreciate it. Now if I can only get the USAAC PTO data it would be complete, but it is at least a good cross section of performance, being composed of all theaters for the Navy and 3 4f 5 for the USAAC (ETO. Med, CBO .... missing PTO). What I have been trying to do for years is find the data to fairly compare the aircraft. I have a good start for USA aircraft, but would love to get data for UK, Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union ... and the rest if available. The question is whether or not is even in existence. I suppose we'll see, won't we?

Thanks again.

 

[drgondog]

Hey Drgondog, a question for you after a brief explanation.

The USAAF data I got came from the US Army Air forces Statistical Digest online. Looking at the data, it strikes me that the sorties for the P-39 are quite low compared with when the P-39 went into service. Now the Statistical Digest doesn't SAY so, but from the sortie total, I surmise the data I got are probably a subset only since I believe that not all P-39 sorties or victories are accounted for, especially when I look at your table. From your table, it looks like the statistical digest includes victories for ETO, MTO, and CBI but excludes the PTO.

My close Guestimate for the P-39 has 288 for PTO which should be close - but only for AAF. AFAIK the RAAF or RNZAF did not get the Iron Dog inflicted on them in PTO. I think the P-40 was primary Lend Lease everywhere except USSR.

The Statistical Digest is nearly worthless for air victories. You must work with Olynyk and USAF VCB totals from USAFHRC. Frank's research has picked up claims that probably deserve inclusion in USAF VCB - as do I - both submitted and awaiting review. For example I have a JU report for September 11 that confirms Cpt Walter Morgan had a mid air that killed him and a JG 53 Ltn Baer - but no VC submitted by 355th because they didn't know how he was KIA until after the war.

I don't supose the P-39 in the Pacific was operated by other than the USAAC was it? Were they issued to Navy / Marines or were perhaps an interservice loan?

Definitely Not by USN, probably not by RAAF, etc

Also, I note your table says ground credits not included but the F6F / F4U totals would indicate they are for Navy data since it agrees within 3 of US Navy reports I used that DOES include ground victories.

What do you think? I don't believe the USN a.) had any 'official' VCB and that the USN/USMC credits were extracted from review of Squadron histories Post WWII. To my knowledge they didn't include ground credits but I am Not certain of this. I am certain that no ground scores are contained in USAF VCB - from which my tables derived by squadron and cross checked against dates of transition from one fighter type to another (i.e 31st FG Spit IX to P-51B in 1944 MTO)

What I'm looking for is data from which I can construct a table fairly comparing some set of aircraft in combat by combat results. It says nothing of how the aircrfaft were employed, the quality of the attackers or defenders ... just results as they happened in real life.

Good Luck.

The Statistical Digest does not mention sources, nor have I been able to obtain them or even obtain where the sortie build up resides - other than individual Group histories, many of which were terrible about recording daily statistics.

 

[Wildcat]

The RAAF did receive P-39's however they were only used in the home defence role and therefore never saw combat.

 

[alejandro_]

Some data on Soviet losses. It's in Spanish but can be easily translated.

Soviet losses in 1944 to all causes, note that many aircraft are written-off due to wear and obsolescence:

1

The next table shows the combat losses in main operations. The losses for aircraft can be seen in the last 2 columns. The first one means "total" and the second "daily average).

1

Finally, some German losses to all causes. The data seems to include aircraft lost to all causes between September 1939 and January 1945.

Historia y tecnología militar: Pérdidas de la Luftwaffe en la SGM, 1939-1945

The source is German aircraft industry and production, by Ferenc A.Vajda and Peter Dance (pag 143).

 

[GregP]

Thanks Alejandro!

 

[TheArtOfFlight]

I can tell you that despite an initially high loss rate, the DeHavilland Mosquito ended the war with the lowest losses of any aircraft in RAF bomber command service. Post war, the RAF found that when finally applied to bombing, in terms of useful damage done, the Mosquito had proven itself 4.95 times more cost-efficient than the Lancaster.

 

[stona]

the Mosquito had proven itself 4.95 times more cost-efficient than the Lancaster.

I don't know where that figure comes from off the top of my head, nor how it was calculated.

In terms of the man power cost of bombing, A Lancaster consumed 9.5 man months per 1000 lbs of bombs delivered, compared to 16 man months for the Mosquito. This was the measure used by the BBSU and, by it, the Lancaster was a far more cost effective delivery system.

The strategic bombing campaign could not have been carried out by the Mosquito, which generally carried 2,000 lbs of bombs over typical ranges (until the introduction of types capable of carrying 4,000 lbs). It would have required thousands of aircraft.
In 1943 the weight in short tons dropped by the Lancaster and Mosquito respectively were 112,600 and 1,736.
In 1944 the weight in short tons dropped by the Lancaster and Mosquito respectively were 404,300 and 16,980.
In 1945 the weight in short tons dropped by the Lancaster and Mosquito respectively were 152,00 and 11,120.

The most destructive munitions carried by any aircraft of Bomber Command were incendiary. The Mosquito could and did carry incendiary loads, but it was not specialised in or noted for this role.

Bowyer probably summed up the effect of Mosquitoes of the Light Night Striking Force when he wrote of its first year of operations.

"Losses during autumn 1943 on nuisance attacks represented 1.75% of sorties flown. Set against this was the fact that not much material damage resulted from Mosquito raids, but clearly they confused defences and were valuable because the interruption they caused was out of all proportion to the expenditure of effort."

These raids, sometimes dropping target indicators rather than high explosives or other incendiaries were something the Mosquito was really good for. Despite the low losses, in the period around the end of 1943 and into 1944 nearly 50% of Mosquito sorties received some damage from flak, thankfully usually light, and this is rarely factored into calculations of cost and efficiency.

Cheers

Steve

 

[GregP]

Hello Bill Marshall. First, Merry Christmas.

With regard to your table from Report 85, I entered the numbers and the total for the P-51, P-38, and P-47 do add uo to the entered numbers. They aren't off by a lot, but don't quite add up. When I add up your numbers I get 5884 for the P-51, 2740 for the F6F, and 3633.7 for the P-47. The rest match fine.

I find it funny that the USAAF uses these theaters and the Navy has others, like Central Pacific, FEAF, etc. Seems like they couldn't cooperate on anything! But ... not as bad as the IJN and IJA at least.

Not complaining, just FYI. Great list and offers a good picture of the aircraft involved. Thanks, again!

 

[drgondog]

Greg - please send a detailed email describing what you are doing and I'll try to review the USAF 85 spread sheet. I did a pretty thorough scrubbing when I noticed that VCs were awarded to a squadron correctly - but as in example of 4th FG during their Shuttle Mission participation in 15th AF escort, the VCs were awarded to MTO and 4th - not ETO and 4th. Some minor changes to the ETO totals you have.

Merry Christmas

Bill