History of Jagde Gruppe 52

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


The Bergstorm numbers are pretty good, but they are taken from published GHQ statistics (Krivosheïev), not is own estimations.*
But not very useful.

Mikhail Morozov gives 14 300 VVS losses until the end of november 41 and some other 2 200 ones lost by fleet, Long range bombers, AAfighters and "non entered in the acounts" ones...

From the 14 300: 3473 lost in air combats, 1340 by Flak, 3904 for unknown reasons 3352 on ground and approx 2200 by accidents.

From Isaev works on guenine front line war diaries, this is a very biaised and embellish truth. In fact most planes were just abandonated with sabotage or not on the airfields, during first mounths of retreat. Later some homeric fights against Luft and ground destruction retrospectivly invented.
Well, logical i would say. Nobody wanted to be executed by Stalin!
Some criticism was made on Isaev work since he was not bringing enough proofs, but it's seems just a matter of time now.

OK, just to say it's decreases the direct Jagdaffe part on VVS destruction. How much? Difficult to say but no more than 5 000 shooted down soviet planes within 5 months. That's still an impressive result.

Regards

*The soviet air foce VVS statistical digest is little different
VVS Statistical Digest - Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum
 
Last edited:
VG-33 said:
The Bergstorm numbers are pretty good, but it's from published GHQ statistics (Krivosheïev), not estimations.*
But not very useful.
Click to expand...

Thx for the link. Always interesting to compare different statistical digests. I'll politely disagree on the "not very useful" comment. Bergstrom's work comes highly recommended and his work seems solid. I was not expecting Shores like detail in the breakdowns given the size of the conflict, the loss of records during the chaotic periods and Soviet secreacy....not to mention the ongoing issue of revisionism and claims of bias based on source etc etc.

It is not unusual for different sources/works to differ and it would appear that for the Great Patriotic War in particular, one is never going to fully know all the actual losses in numbers much less by type and specific cause. I note that in the thread you linked itself there's some hot disputing of some of the aspects of the online archive. Also it appears to be in Russian...which alone makes Bergstrom's work more "useful" to a bloke like me.

In the end individuals each end up ranking their sources by how much they value them.
 
I don't think we understand each other well.

Bergstorm works are solid, the used GHQ (Krivosheiev) numbers that are complete and coherent.

The soviet AF had 32,1 (20)* thousand planes of all kind in june 41, the 22th.
64.2 (47.3)* on may 1945, the 10th. 138.5 (115,6)* thousand planes were recieved in the meantime, both from allies and soviet production.

Ressources in total : 32.1 + 138.5 = 170,6 (135.6)*

Acount losses: 170,6 - 64.2 = 106,4 (88,3)* of them 46.1 (43.1)* in combat
The acount balance is totally equilibrated = 0

* military planes: bombers, fighters, attackers...

So nothing is to be hidden or lost during chaotic periods and soviet secreacy...Moreover in internal documents, there is no way to hide losses from the authorities.

But, once again theese Bergstorm numbers are not giving the proportion of soviet planes losses due to the Luftwaffe. It's why it's still useless for what we are looking for...
There is a lot of job to do on russian archives war diaries for that. I don't see any reasons to not make Shore quality publications on the subjet. Furthermore they are done since a lot of time from some particular battles, times and places. Don't understand why Karlenko, Morozov, Rybine,Kisselev, Kondratiev etc...had never been published in english until now?
The big job is to be done, of course...

Is it clear, like that?

regards




It is not unusual for different sources/works to differ and it would appear that for the Great Patriotic War in particular, one is never going to fully know all the actual losses in numbers much less by type and specific cause.
Click to expand...
Of course not, be we can make at least a reliable statistical approach...
 
Last edited:
Good afternoon (in UK) Erich,

With respect to 'victories', what/where is the new evidence?

My 'generation' was brought up on the books by Constable Toliver etc. all of which quote the 200-300 victories for various pilots.

I have no axe to grind either way. In my opinion all the young men of all the nations were brave and fought for their nation as best they could.

My interest is purley 'historical'. Aftera more than 30 year 'lay off' from this hobby I'm starting to collect various data.

Regards and thanks,

weinace
 
VG-33 said:
Is it clear, like that?
Click to expand...

I'm afraid not. You say on the one hand that Bergstrom's numbers (which are derived from multiple sources depending on the snapshot being viewed) are solid, then turn around and say they are "useless for our purposes." (what purposes?) I glean that you are suggesting that the estimates-'slash'-figures in his first three volumes are incomplete. This is certainly probable and given the size of the confict and the chaos of the initial months of the campaign in particular, inevitable as many records were lost and/or are incomplete....or conflict with each other. To dismiss figures based on this criteria in the hopes of an inevitable and eventual 'complete' accounting for is neither realistic or fair. Further....the BC/RS series are far more than summaries listed at the end of each volume and IMO after study of them, do in fact give a good idea of the exchange rate between the two airforces during the periods so far covered.


I believe a reliable effort has been made up to this point. Future works may indeed improve and/or correct aspects of what is available. It may also further cloud the issue. Either way, i doubt we'll see such a work within our lifetimes. Bergstrom himself along with his collaborators have yet to finish what they started
 
Last edited:
Nikademus said:
I'm afraid not. You say on the one hand that Bergstrom's numbers (which are derived from multiple sources depending on the snapshot being viewed) are solid, then turn around and say they are "useless for our purposes." (what purposes?)
Click to expand...
I think I see his point. It's that the total loss numbers are probably accurate and complete, but the attribution of them among causes is not clear or complete. If we want to assess German claim accuracy, we need to know Soviet losses to LW air action. It's hard to accurately estimate Soviet losses to fighters from the high level numbers as they include a large % of losses to 'didn't return' type cause. This is even true once we get beyond the ridiculous type of comparison which compares Soviet losses to *all* causes to LW claim.

Another way to look at it, besides manipulating abiguous totals or throwing up our hands altogether, is to look for examples of relatively isolated areas where the units involved and their records are well known. So for example the Finnish book "Pohjoinen Ilmasota" by Valtonen covers the air war on norther Finland/north Norway front in period September-October 1944, Petsamo-Kirkenes offensive by the Sovietis.

A Finnish friend counted it up as, actual Soviet fighter losses to German fighters: 17 Yak-9, 29 P-39, 12 P-40, 7 Yak-7B, oAne Yak-1, 3 LaGG-3, 4 La-5, total=73
German fighter losses to Soviet fighters were: 39 Bf109G and 5 Fw190A/F, total 34.

The claims can't be tabulated as completely but each side claimed a multiple of the other's losses; some typical daily results for LW claims v actual Soviet losses were: 7 claims, 2 actual losses, 7/2, 12/3, 9/3, 4/4, 21/3. Tight claim verfication procedure for LW fighters, on paper? yes, followed in practice? early-mid war in many though not all cases yes, late war usually not. This is also often seen in West as well, and seems to confuse a lot of people, who assume some single level of LW claim accuracy (high or low) across the whole war when in fact it varied wildly.

By the same token, we couldn't assume the claim accuracy in the norther case (the German unit was JG 5) was exactly the same as JG 52, but it gives a general idea; and again episodes in West in same period also tend to show relatively poor German claim accuracy by that time.

OTOH it also indicates how German fighters could still achieve favorable kill ratio v Soviet fighters even quite late in the war. The Sovet units in north had some relatively old types for late '44 alongside more modern ones, but that was also true in some other areas.

Joe
 
Being able to break down the losses by model type would be interesting, (and wonderful though going into this project I had no expectations of such given the size of the confict) but I remain skeptical that such a work will ever be published anytime soon. Even if it is, disputes and disagreements will abound. To use an example, in Vol 1 of Bergstrom's series, he speculated on a probable cause (at times) of large discrepencies between Soviet claims against German fighters by various units and the official German loss records as having to do with the VVS preference for head on attacks for I-16 vs. 109 engagements in 1941. These attack patterns were favored because of the ultra tight turning ability of the Ishak coupled with the 109's liquid cooled engine which was more vulnerable to damage by having it's radiator punctured (resulting in a quick forced landing if severe enough) vs. the air cooled radial engine of the I-16. It was often possible for the wounded 109 to force land, have field repairs conducted and then take off again and return to base, hence no lost aircraft, no lost pilot. The Soviet pilot naturally would claim this plane and he'd be technically correct....but it won't jive with any official German loss data. It's unresolvable if comparing loss records of the two sides, with the common wisdom being that the loss data for the owning side is the most accurate means.

What confused me about his posts was the assertation that we dont really know the overall exchange and hence the actual performance of the two sides. (initially there was no mention of desired specific breakdowns by model type) I feel that the research done up to this point does give a good idea even if we don't have such exact estimates broken down. Such data would be nice for the typical plane vs plane comparison though ultimately it too is subject to large interpetations as numerous other threads on this (and other) boards will attest.
 
I agree it's very difficult to publish a book giving the results of every air combt on the Eastern Front (as has been done, more or less, for many smaller air campaigns). Even assuming you could compile this info, who would publish this huge book? You and I would like to read it, but commercial potential might be doubtful.

Still, I think one can get an idea of typical real kill ratio's and claim accuracies on East Front. The example I gave above is one; and I think others could be compiled. In all frankness based on reading lots of Christer Bergstrom's posts on 12 O'C forum I view his research with a bit more skepticism than many people seem to be. It's just my opinion, not trying to trash anybody, but I don't view it as given that because Bergstrom's books give such limited info on real ratio's and claim accuracies that it's impossible to do it. I've studied claims and losses in the Korean War quite a bit in original records on various sides, a smaller more contained theater (but then again so were certain episodes of WWII East) but in that case it's quite easy to match up combats in many cases (almost all cases actually, before the Chinese were actively involved) once you have the info, and the real rate of exchange and overclaims are quite clear (showing very high overclaim rate by the Soviets). I find it puzzling Bergstrom has not reached a clearer conclusion on this issue for WWII in all his research. I've found his answers on that forum to the question 'how much did the Soviets overclaim on East Front'? evasive, frankly. Maybe this is an artefact of the internet era, where you often get to discuss and debate with authors and perhaps find them more human (and biased, though Bergstrom's most obvious biases aren't directly relevant to East Front) and trust them less than if you just read their books (there are people on 12 O'C who know Chris Shores and say 'Chris Shores just said' this or that, but he doesn't post there AFAIK). My only point is that Bergstrom's books are best broad coverage ones in English language for East air war, but I don't think they are the last word or particularly close to being so.

Joe
 

I agree on the commercial angle. The Eastern Front to this day seems to not garner as much interest in the West as it deserves though the opening up of sealed Soviet archives after the fall of the Soviet Union spurred it somewhat for a time. In regards internet threads, the majority involve aircraft from Germany, Britian and the US followed distantly by Japan. The USSR is oft forgotten (and Italy). Simply not alot of interest. My own lack of in depth knowledge on the air war (specifically....i was well familiar with the ground war) was what motivated me to aquire his volumes after having studied most of the other air Theaters. Bergstrom's work was the most highly recommended hence i went with it. Overall i was not disapointed though i did wish the structuring was a little more orderly. The books are rich with details, way too much to quickly post as were the summaries at the ends of the volumes. (including score card estimates)

Certainly i don't consider them the last word any more than any other piece. In the end any and all figures are estimates and are not above question. Frankly i'm suprised Mr Bergstrom subjected himself to the nitpicking and cross examination inherent in an internet forum. (Certainly i've never heard nor read Shores or Lundstrom doing such any more than I'd expect Gary Grigsby to submit himself to the tender mercies of my fellow computer wargamers) If he seemed "evasive" i'm not hardly suprised given the size of the subject matter and the difficulty involved in resolving all the various data sources, especially in areas where they are incomplete or contradict each other. In the end however, i don't feel that there is anything "easy" about reaching a clear conclusion even when one has data on both sides. (re: the example i posted previously) and these authors are the ones who had to do the digging, and make the decisions regarding what to go with. Human? yes indeed. I hope he hasn't been too discouraged by the challenge as i'd really like to see vol 4 of his series. I've learned alot of interesting things about the air war thus far on the Eastern Front.
 
John Lundstrom posts on J-aircraft sometimes and occasionally elsewhere. He's a quite different personality, from what I can tell, than Bergstrom, who is not 'subjecting himself to nitpicking' but is highly opionated and not only on topics on which he has published. And he's free to be, of course, just like anyone else. It's just to give the context of where such discussions have arisen, which is not people spontaneously 'cross examining' him about his books but where he puts forwards strong opinions (for example, that USAAF fighters in WWII were really no more successful v LW than the Soviets, which is true in some examples, but a poorly supported thesis overall IMO) that tend to come back around to the question, OK well what *was* actual Soviet success v LW fighters? and the typical overclaim rate. Not well answered, IMHO.

Obtaining all the existing info in all aspects (far beyond just who got shot down) and turning it into a book is never easy, obviously. But the question here is not about 'easy' overall, but whether the available data gives a more or less clear two sided picture, at the 'score' level, and counting claims v counting losses. In some cases it's not clear, in other cases it's pretty clear. Korea again is an example of pretty clear (US v Soviet combats, at least), and Pacific 1942 is another: the IJN air unit records are available online and almost entirely complete for '42 and into '43, and generally clear as to losses, as long as English language books have at least the complete Allied side of things (since Allied air records are generally *not* online ), stuff like overclaim and kill ratio's are pretty clear. Also it seems pretty clear for the northern theater Soviet v German example I gave from book by another author. But, topics like that are also sensitive, and Bergstrom works with Russian researchers/co-authors to do the research on that side. It might have some impact on how that topic is approached in that series of books.

Joe
 
it's good to bend folk out of shape as it gets us out of our presumption thinking boxes.

not having the Bergstrom works does he cover anything on the LW night time activities with NJG 100 and 200 out of interest ?

Weinace I jut find Constable/Tolover to me was just a bunch of Lw hero worship with nothing cross checked what so ever.

the space covering the interior of the Russian landscape was more than anything in the west and really must be taken into consideration with the group or singular actions. I remember a comment that the "count Krump" said while flying in the west with II./JG 11 he could not beleeive that amount of US targets in comparison to the lack there of on the Eastern front.
 
JoeB said:
It's just to give the context of where such discussions have arisen, which is not people spontaneously 'cross examining' him about his books but where he puts forwards strong opinions
Click to expand...

Sounds good. My own experiences in some of the more 'spirited' debates based on the works of himself, Shores and others has made me appreciative of the discretion that these authors tend to apply towards joining Internet discussions.

Obtaining all the existing info in all aspects (far beyond just who got shot down) and turning it into a book is never easy, obviously.
Click to expand...

We are in agreement then. . My primary concern was that Bergstrom and his co-author's work should not be discounted simply because they cannot provide breakdowns to the model vs. enemy models for all situations. (some, but not overall at this point). I will welcome such a work when and if it arrives though as mentioned, i remain skeptical that such will ever appear anytime soon. In the meantime, the estimates provided have proven detailed enough for some of the questions I wished to explore. I think they are a worthwhile investment though for the more frugal minded, there are his more abreviated works.

. But, topics like that are also sensitive, and Bergstrom works with Russian researchers/co-authors to do the research on that side. It might have some impact on how that topic is approached in that series of books.
Click to expand...

A peril of many other works as well.
 
Erich said:
not having the Bergstrom works does he cover anything on the LW night time activities with NJG 100 and 200 out of interest ?
Click to expand...

According to his volumes, there was a virtual absence of a dedicated night time fighter force, at least from the period 6/22/41 through end 1942. (the period covered by vol's 1-3). This included Bf-110F-4's transferred to the Eastern Front. They were used as Ground Attack aircraft.
 
Hi, I have been on a search for a picture of Leutnant Friedrich Haas of 5/JG 52, looking for a family resemblance if he could be the grandfather I was named after, and/or his aircraft so I could build a model and do a painting even if he is not. At 74 victories with a Knights Cross, if this Nico Fast book has pictures of 100+ aces of JG 52, I am really interested! Attach me any photo to WyrdCreations@juno.com if you can. I will look for the book, but what is the title? Danke

Fritz
 
I found the title and that the books are hard to get. If anyone having them sees any pic of Friedrich Haas or his aircraft that they could send along? Fritz
 
Hi Fritz
my books are at home in Milan and I'm away from there until early September.
If you don't get anything in the mean time, give me a reminder by then, and I will be pleased to do a search for you.
Alberto
 


If Tony Woods records of Luftwaffe Awards, with corresponding award references from LW records, are the accepted Strict recognition then the sampling I have taken of very deep dives into actual USAAF losses versus the LW Awards have resulted in about 2+:1 overclaims.

Interestingly the proportions seem about the same for both bombers and fighters. The sampling I took were for 1944 missions in which large numbers of fighter claims existed for both sides, and include but not limited to Big Week, March 6, 8, 16, 29; April 8, 13, 19, 24 and 29; May 8, 12, 13, 15, 27, 30;
June 7, 8, 20, 29; July 7; Aug 4; Sept 11, 12, 18, 27; Nov 2, 21, 26, 27; Dec 5, 23-27, 30, 31

If those represent 'proof' and you accept Woods compilation, the ratio of LW awards to USAAF fighter losses range from 2:1 to approximately 2.5:1.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Bravest of the Brave book series - USAF MoH recipients
Replies
2
Views
2K
zeamerseagerbeavers
Battle of Britain Then and Now - Completely updated edition
Replies
5
Views
2K
Delft
D
N
The Bombing of Nuremburg
Replies
5
Views
2K
mikemike
M
Recommendations on Books Covering the History of the FW-190
Replies
12
Views
3K
TedJ
T
Schiffer Military History Books on WW2 German jet aircraft
Replies
1
Views
1K
Capt. Vick
Menu
Log in
Register