Asia/Pacific ww2 air war: how many Japanese A/C were destroyed by Allies?

[R Leonard]

A post-war Japanese Navy source reports just the IJN aircraft losses as 10,370 in combat and 16,750 as operational. This with the caveat that if one bothers to double check the math in the columns the operational loss total changes to 16590.

Point being that if these are only IJN losses as reported by an IJN source, then who has the IJA loss figures? And if these are just IJN losses, could we not presume that the total Japanese losses might be somewhat higher?

See USSBS: Interrogations of Japanese Officials -- 50/202

 

[parsifal]

The current estimates for total losses for both japanese air services are 38000, but 17000 of them are due to non-operational reasons. 38000 minus 17000 is 21000. another source quoted by Ellis is as high as 50000, but with no breakdown of losses. Im not sure of Ellis' sources, and thats a huge problem with his statisitcal digest....we just dont know where he gets this stuff from.

In 1941 the Japanese retained a significant proportion of the JAAF in Manchuria, built around their 2nd air Div

2nd Army Air Force Division, Imperial Japanese Army, 8.12.1941

In 1945, SL Mayer repports that the Japanese Kwantung Army had 1500 A/C under its command, just prior to the Soviet offensive. There may have been many others in the reserve parks, but he says nothing in that regard. The Soviets attacked with about 2800 a/c. Fighting lasted about a month, no more. Less than 100 of the original strength survived according to Mayer, but I dont know the extent of reinforcement. Probably not a lot. My best estimate about losses to Soviet action is pretty loose therefore, but should be around 1400 a/c

If that is accepted then our running otal of claims is at this point 26900. We still need RAF in total, NEAF in total, Chuinese AF in total and RAAF and RNZAF ground and AA losses

 

[Jabberwocky]

What are we defining as WW2 for Japan?

The IJA/IJN air arms were in combat well before the outbreak of war in Europe. There's the Nohoman/Khalkin Gol battles, where there were around 160-170 losses, and the more generalised 1937-1939 Sino-Japanese conflicts, where there were at least another 300 aircraft lost.

 

[parsifal]

maybe thats why we have a range of loss numbers from 35-50000....

Ive assumed Ellis more detailed loss fiures of 38000 apply to 1939-45. But cannot even assume that, the quote loss figures might apply 1941-5

At the moment the claims we have been able to add suggest the 38000 probably only applies to 42-5. If not then we have an even bigger hole to consider. If the admitted losses for Japan relate to 1937-45, or even 1931-45, boy, do we have a problem.....

 

[Wildcat]

Parsifal, from my own research I have at the moment counted 151 claims for aircraft destroyed on the ground by the RAAF. This is a work in progress though, so not all squadrons have been analysed.

 

[parsifal]

Thats terific information. In order to help me use it though , can I ask what your guesstimate might be for the remainder? were they heavily involved,, what percentage of the squadrons do youy think you may have assessed.

For the purposes of this discussion, I would accept some extrapolation. At this point Id be happy to even arrive at an educated guess. once we get a ballpark figure then maybe we can start to put some polish on the thing.

It would be great to hear from JoeB right now, or even Shinpachi. Dont see either of those guys around much these days

 

[Wildcat]

Thats terific information. In order to help me use it though , can I ask what your guesstimate might be for the remainder? were they heavily involved,, what percentage of the squadrons do youy think you may have assessed.

I've compiled lists for most of the squadrons normally associated with aerial combat and ground strafing missions (P40's,Beaufighter, Spitfire etc) however I'm yet to look at some of the bomber/strike squadrons. Units like 11and 20 sqaudron who flew many night time raids against the airfields at Rabaul and some of the early Hudson squadrons, particularly in the NEI's for example. These squadrons normally managed to rack up a few claims, take 43 squadron (Catalina!) for instance, they claimed 3 destroyed and 4 probably destroyed on the ground - small fry yes, but interesting nonetheless. So far I have 16 pages of all claims for RAAF pacific squadrons, I would estimate they make up probably 98% of our claims.
BTW for 18 (NEI) squadron in air to air I have claims for 3/6/3. HTH

 

[parsifal]

Thankyou Wildcat . That enables some of the claims puzzle to be refined. With Wildcats information added, and those estimates of Soviet claims from Mayer that ive added, the matrix looks as follows
USAAC
Air:3960
Ground:6830
USArmy Flak??

USN report
Air: 9235
Ground:2807 a/c
AA (from another USN summary):2048

RAAF
Air: 206 (from Wildcats links)
Ground: 154 (estimated courtesy Wildcat)
AA: Unknown

RNZAF
Air: 123 (source as above)
Ground: ?
AA

BPF (from my book)
Air: 42 in the air
Ground: 50 on the ground
AA: 20 (rough guess really)

RAF and NeAF
Air
Gnd
AA
(Japanese lost between 100 and 250 in the conquest of Malaya NEI and Burma)

Soviet (1945)
Allcauses : 1500 (approx from Mayers information)

Japanese non-operational
17000

We still have some significant information gaps in our claims estimate, but the current loss figure is 44425 for the 41-45 period

 

[RCAFson]

A post-war Japanese Navy source reports just the IJN aircraft losses as 10,370 in combat and 16,750 as operational. This with the caveat that if one bothers to double check the math in the columns the operational loss total changes to 16590.

Point being that if these are only IJN losses as reported by an IJN source, then who has the IJA loss figures? And if these are just IJN losses, could we not presume that the total Japanese losses might be somewhat higher?

See USSBS: Interrogations of Japanese Officials -- 50/202

Thanks. That fills in the illegible data from the Japanese Airpower Report. Total IJN combat losses were 10,370 but this doesn't break down losses to aerial combat, AA or aircraft lost on the ground or on CVs. I would guesstimate that the breakdown would be similar to army losses where 47% of combat losses occured on the ground.

 

[VBF-13]

Thanks. That fills in the illegible data from the Japanese Airpower Report. Total IJN combat losses were 10,370 but this doesn't break down losses to aerial combat, AA or aircraft lost on the ground or on CVs. I would guesstimate that the breakdown would be similar to army losses where 47% of combat losses occured on the ground.

Let me just suggest this whole thread is terribly out of focus by now. We were given some scope in the original question and now we're totally outside of that. Now we have numbers that for the most part are meaningless and we don't even know where we're going with them. Let me suggest we regroup and start by limiting our scope as this is quickly getting way out of hand. We were given a focus in the original question on the F6F and F4F relative to how well the claims on same comport with the actual or corroborated kills within the scope of the War in the PTO (which I take as our entry into the War in the PTO to the end). My starting point for that is in the claims right here (credits to Greg for the citation in the thread from which this thread sprung):

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/at...tly-built-carrier-aircraft-us_navy_losses.jpg.

If we just focus on these claims on the F6F and the F4F (throw in the FM), top chart, Navy, I'm noticing some of this actually doesn't make too much sense. Take the A/C line on the F6F, 245, and divide it into the fighters destroyed, 3568, and you get, rounded to the whole, 15:1. The Hellcats killed a lot of Zekes; many of us here can accept that as somewhere in the ballpark. But now look at the lines on the FM and F4F. Total A/C of 50 into total fighters destroyed of 440 gives up 9:1. Really? The Wildcats were really doing that good as against the Zekes? I have to say, I don't know about that. Does anybody think that? I aways thought given the exception of a few aces our Wildcats were creamed by the Zekes. Somebody tell me my arithmetic is wrong or I'm just plum misconstruing this data!

Let's start with the original question and see if we can figure this out in a way that makes sense. Let's bring in other data going specifically to these narrow issues and see if we can nail them down. Then if you want to go off on your unfocused frolic of your own. But do this one for the sake of the original question, as I have the sneaking suspicion these claims may be on the wild side, too, now. And that kind of does bother me, some, I have to say.

 

[GregP]

I see that many are assuming the admitted losses by a country are the real, true losses.

I seriously doubt that in all cases, if only from loss of records. Many German records were simply lost due to war damage. There are people who claim to know how many Bf 109's were built during the war ... but the Germsn themselves don't know. These people usually have a record of werks numbers, but there is nothing to indicate all intended units were ever built or delivered. Even the most ardent guy can probably admit that some werk number was destroyed on the production line since the production lines were the subject of years of bombing. Who can claim the werk number that was destroyed was replaced with another unit and delivered?

Ditto many Japanese records.

Is anyone out there attempting to "fill in" the missing losses? Who says Japan, Germany, the USA, or anyone else, for that matter, was 100% accurate in admitting losses? The Japanese would readily omit losses to save face in WWII, according to their own soldiers. Anyone have any records from the Soviet Union that are complete? If so, how do you know they're complete? Soviet records are tough to get and I doubt they have a complete set stored in any one place ... but I also don't really know since I haven't been to the former Soviet Union and tried to find out. Maybe they HAVE a complete record set and are willing to let visitors look at it and maybe make copies to take home? right ... Anyone have a complete record of British losses? Where did you get it? Can we get copies?

Too much missing information to say anyone has a complete record of the air war from a loss standlpoint. The officially awarded victories by the countires involved are good enough for me. If not for you, then go in peace and please include your assumptions about the accuracy of loss records when you publish just so we who doubt know your accumptions and aren't making wild claims later about inaccuracies.

Maybe there are those who are claiming to know more than the people who fought the war claim to know, even about their own side of the conflict.

 

[tomo pauk]

This thread is more in focus than 90% of threads one can read in this sub-forum. People are trying to nail down the number of claims, and then to see how accurate the claims are in relation to real Japanese losses, and we've moved from starting point quite a bit now.

Take the A/C line on the F6F, 245, and divide it into the fighters destroyed, 3568, and you get, rounded to the whole, 15:1. The Hellcats killed a lot of Zekes; many of us here can accept that as somewhere in the ballpark.

Destroyed, or claimed as such?

Let's start with the original question and see if we can figure this out in a way that makes sense.

The thread so far makes perfect sense, and you can do number crunching for yourself if you want. We've moved on.

Let's bring in other data going specifically to these narrow issues and see if we can nail them down.

The thread is started few days ago. Any contribution from you so far?

Then if you want to go off on your unfocused frolic of your own.

But do this one for the sake of the original question, as I have the sneaking suspicion these claims may be on the wild side, too, now. And that kind of does bother me, some, I have to say.

Claims were always on a wide side, hopefully we'll arrive into a ballpark number of bot claims and kills.

 

[VBF-13]

Good luck. I'll credit you originally for at least something resembling a manageable scope. Now, you're all over the place, you don't even agree on what period you're talking about. With all due respect, count me out of this meaningless, scatter-brained nonsense.

 

[parsifal]

As far as I know a comprehensive estimate of Japanese losses versus claims has never been atempted. We have assessments by TO and/or campaign and/or nationality, but Ive never seen a comprehensive assessment for the whole PTO. This is difficult, and maybe it cannot be done, but i still think it worth trying. We have some data on overall estimated losses, at 38-50000 a/c, and a useful start to ground truthing those numbers is to try and put together as comprehensively as we can, a list of claimed losses.

Another thing we should and probably can do is to ground truth the losses side of the equation. that is, to use other sources to confirm (or disprove) the admitted losses that we are working with. Thats where R Leonards figures might be useful. We will have figures for the IJN we now need figures for the JAAF.

At the moment, I dont see too much difficulty in what we have. The combined total for the Claims side is not yet complete.....the big gaps being losses achieved in the CBI (and I just dont have anything to work with here), but at this stage the really big players, and most of the little ones have a combined claims of 44425, which is right smack bang in the middle of the range of 38-50000 quoted by Ellis. Im actually surprised at the lack of conflict between claims and currently "known losses"

But we need figures for the CBI.....

 

[parsifal]

With regard to CBI claims, I found this, from a quotation by Mountbatten:


"Parallel with the developments on land we have gained a major victory in the air. In December special measures were taken to co-ordinate the Allied air operations under Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Peirse through Eastern Air Command, which is under the direction of Maj-General Stratemeyer USAAF, who is also Second ¬In-Command of all Allied Air Forces in South East Asia. We have practically swept the Japa¬nese air force from the Burma skies. Between the formation of South East Asia Command in November. 1943, and the middle of August. 1944, American and British forces operating in Burma destroyed or damaged more than 700 Japa¬nese aircraft with a further 100 'probables.' These simple statistics mean that the Japanese air force in Burma is greatly depleted and rarely ventures out either for at¬tack or defence".

Of those 700 enemy aircraft claimed as destroyed, the US forces accounted for 419, meaning the RAF (and the Indian AF, accounted for 281.

I have another source at home that assesses Japanese losses in the CBI for 1942 as 260 a/c of which 53 were by the Americans (I think the AVG). In 1943 the USAAC claimed 635 destroyed. If RAF claims maintained the same proportionality as they did in 1944, the RAF claims for 1943 would be in the order of 425. For the remainder of 1944 not covered by Mountbattens claims, and 1945, the USAAC claimed a further 714 Japanese A/C destroyed. Again if the RAF and CW AFs maintain proportionality in their claims, they should have shot down 478 enemy aircraft.

This is extremely rough, and a very poor way of estimating loses, but I dont know that anything better is available. I will stand corrected by the first person able to come up with something more accurate. But my guesstimate for non-US claims in the CBI TO 1941-5 is 1434 A/C.

On the (very big) assumption that figure is anywhere near right, that puts the finla claim total for the entire Pacific war conflict at 45859.

Theres not a lot that can be concluded from this, but it does suggest that the claims reports that we are basing our analysis are likley to be more accurate than I had assumed. remember, losses for the Japanese by Ellis are either 38 or 50000. We have qa figure that is at least between those two numbers.

We need to work on this and refine it for better accuracy and reliability.

 

[Vincenzo]

the USAAF claimed in CBI (or CI-B as was called on statistical digest): 53, 636, 772, 361 for 1942, 43, 44, 45 (Table 171 statistical digest) this are already included in the total in my previous post
air/ground 53/0, 582/54, 452/320, 89/272
only fighters air 52, 288, 418, 89

 

[parsifal]

Yes, thanks Vincenzo, and I have not double counted US CBI claims in my estimate. In that 8 month period 1-8/44, mountbatten claimed 700 Japanese aircraft destroyed. In that same period the USAAC statisitcal digest indicates 416 claims for the US air force in the CBI. That means that for non-US forces in that period, they must have shot down about 284 a/c.

ive extrapolated (ie guessed) from that for the remainder of 1944, 1945 and 1943 (ie that non US forces in the CBI destroyed a proportionally similar number, and used the USAAC forces in the theatre as the guide on which to estimate overall losses) . For 1942 I could be slightly more sure, because Ive read from some Japanese source that they lost 250 a/c in the CBI in 1942. We know the USAAC in 1942 claimed 52 in the CBI. We know that that the Japanese claimed 17000 out of their total losses as non-operational. Calculating that out, I arrive at a gusstimate of a little over 100 claims by the non US air forces in the CBI in 1942.

The estimates for the japanese losses are really rough. I admit that, and the first person who comes along with a better model, I will happily acquiesce. We still need a better source for Japanese losses in the CBI, but for now, all we have got is my estimate.

 

[parsifal]

I see that many are assuming the admitted losses by a country are the real, true losses.

I seriously doubt that in all cases

,


Quite possibly, but if you think about it its a seriously flawed assumption, For one thing how do you know that US admitted allied losses are always spot on. we have to rely on the accuracy of admitted losses where we can over claims reports, because admitted losses will always be inherently far morelikley to be aaccurate.

Japanese operational loss records are still far more reliable than US claims records. not because I trust the Japanese more than the US, but claims records are based on combat reports, and combat reports are based on the observations made in the heat of battle. Own losses are based on the comparison of what goes out and what fails to return. If a unit is destroyed, or destroys its records, there is the unit above and below, and adjacent units that can be used to reconstruct the losses for that section of the front. Not a great situation, it has to be admitted, but still far more reliable than enemy best guesses, which is all that a claims report can be. Exactly that is prefaced into the USN Navy report of 1946 incidentally, so I am disrespecting no-one by stating what they have already included in their final report.


The biggest barrier to unravelling the Japanese records is not so much a lacck of information, or misinformation, its simply that many Japanese records even today remain untranslated. Many of them were uplifted carried away to the US and other foreign countries and promptly archived (exceptions being the losses in China and those losses in Manchuria. In those TOs, records were destroyed enmasse, and in the case of the manchurian army, so few Japanese survived Soviet incarceration, that it is not possible to construct an accurate model there at all).

 

[parsifal]

This is an extract of a PM I received from Senior member Shinpachi concerning estimated Japanese losses

"

Japanese aircraft losses during WWII by the TO is also my big concern but I am not successful to find it out yet.

Japanese Government only confirmed her actual aircraft losses in the 88th Imperial Parliament dated September 4, 1945 like follows.

*********************** Army ******** Navy ******
Possession in Dec 1941 ** approx. 3,000 ** approx. 1,200
Production during the war approx. 32,500 ******* 30,295
Loss during the war **** approx. 25,500 ******* 25,609
Possession in Aug 1945 ** approx 10,000 ******** 5,886

For your future information, Japanese Ministry of Defense published 102 volumes of "戦史叢書(sensisohsyo = military history series)" taking long time from 1966 to 1980. I guess these volumes may contain more details by the TO

".

I dont know if this is separate or independant information to those other primary sources that we have used, such as the USN 1946 report. However on the basis of the above total Japanese losses were 51100. I am actually beginning to think that the claims reports are under-estimating loss rates for the Japanese. I have excluded probables, as have the USN and AAC digest reports.

 

[Vincenzo]

i don't think so is relative common that most of losses are not combat relate
USAAF
delivery 42-45 (august): 128,663 (only combat airplanes, all 209,373)
on hand 1/1/42 12,297 (all) 4,477 (combat)
on hand 31/8/45 63,715 (all) 41,163 combat
so "losses" 157,955 (all) 91,977 combat planes
losses in combat mission 22,948 (only combat type) so around 25% were on combat mission and not all this are enemy related