FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Hmmm, any validation of those numbers aside from a site that that seems to just post random data?
Kill Ratios
- Thread starter ricardo
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Agree with FlyboyJ, without the source(s) the figures are rather meaningless.
Here is one set of loss the BoB loss figures, the link to the main source doesn't work any more, but I suppose it is the The Battle of Britain Then and Now Mk V, the last updated impression published of the The Battle of Britain Then and Now book.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11029903
One can download the full data in Excel form.
Ps. There is still a typo in the German losses on 10 July 40, should be 14 a/c lost not 41.
Juha
Here is one set of loss the BoB loss figures, the link to the main source doesn't work any more, but I suppose it is the The Battle of Britain Then and Now Mk V, the last updated impression published of the The Battle of Britain Then and Now book.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11029903
One can download the full data in Excel form.
Ps. There is still a typo in the German losses on 10 July 40, should be 14 a/c lost not 41.
Juha
Last edited:
MycroftHolmes
Airman
- 25
- Jun 1, 2015
There is a massive problem with discussing claims that rarely gets mentioned. Consider the following breakdown of losses (figures for illustrative purposes only):
Definitely lost in air combat: 40%
Definitely lost to non-air-combat reasons: 30%
Lost to unknown causes: 30%
Now consider two air-forces, A and B.
A says:
Losses in air combat = 40% + 30% = 70%
Losses to non-air-combat reasons = 30%
B says:
Losses in air combat = 40%
Losses to non-air-combat reasons = 30% + 30% = 60%
Now for air-force A read 'RAF', and for air-force B read 'Luftwaffe' or 'USAAF' or 'USN'. The truth of this is simply beyond dispute, as a glance at the figures will confirm. In the second half of 1941 the RAF lost over 400 fighters in operations over France, of which about 140 were attributed to flak or non-combat reasons. In the same period JG2 and JG26 lost 235 fighters - but allegedly only 103 in air combat. So, to put it simply, either the Spitfire was vastly more reliable than the Bf109, or there was something seriously wrong with the way these figures were calculated. For the Hellcat you have 815 losses, but allegedly only 245 in air combat, and for the P38 1752 losses but only 451 in air combat. I believe the estimable Hop pointed out that according to German records their bombers allegedly suffered a higher accident-rate in daylight operations than during the night, which makes absolutely no sense.
Another point regarding alleged German losses is that we know from other sources that many lost aircraft never found their way into the official lists. Besides statistical analysis we have Ultra intercepts, other German records (eg diaries) and the reports made by the RAF's crash-investigation teams, though unfortunately these teams only began operation in October 1940 when the BoB was winding down. I find it difficult to understand the reasoning that a signal from a Luftwaffe unit saying "We lost 6 aircraft today" is less accurate than figures compiled by some pen-pusher in Berlin claiming only 2 were lost. For what it's worth, my estimate is that the Luftwaffe lost 500-550 Bf109's shot down by RAF fighters during the BoB, while destroying about 450-500 Spitfires and Hurricanes in return.
Definitely lost in air combat: 40%
Definitely lost to non-air-combat reasons: 30%
Lost to unknown causes: 30%
Now consider two air-forces, A and B.
A says:
Losses in air combat = 40% + 30% = 70%
Losses to non-air-combat reasons = 30%
B says:
Losses in air combat = 40%
Losses to non-air-combat reasons = 30% + 30% = 60%
Now for air-force A read 'RAF', and for air-force B read 'Luftwaffe' or 'USAAF' or 'USN'. The truth of this is simply beyond dispute, as a glance at the figures will confirm. In the second half of 1941 the RAF lost over 400 fighters in operations over France, of which about 140 were attributed to flak or non-combat reasons. In the same period JG2 and JG26 lost 235 fighters - but allegedly only 103 in air combat. So, to put it simply, either the Spitfire was vastly more reliable than the Bf109, or there was something seriously wrong with the way these figures were calculated. For the Hellcat you have 815 losses, but allegedly only 245 in air combat, and for the P38 1752 losses but only 451 in air combat. I believe the estimable Hop pointed out that according to German records their bombers allegedly suffered a higher accident-rate in daylight operations than during the night, which makes absolutely no sense.
Another point regarding alleged German losses is that we know from other sources that many lost aircraft never found their way into the official lists. Besides statistical analysis we have Ultra intercepts, other German records (eg diaries) and the reports made by the RAF's crash-investigation teams, though unfortunately these teams only began operation in October 1940 when the BoB was winding down. I find it difficult to understand the reasoning that a signal from a Luftwaffe unit saying "We lost 6 aircraft today" is less accurate than figures compiled by some pen-pusher in Berlin claiming only 2 were lost. For what it's worth, my estimate is that the Luftwaffe lost 500-550 Bf109's shot down by RAF fighters during the BoB, while destroying about 450-500 Spitfires and Hurricanes in return.
Boiling the conflict down to an exchange of front line fighters ignores completely what the conflict was based on and how it was decided. When the conflict was ended both Germany and the UK had as many single engine fighters as they needed. The British were running short of very good pilots and the Germans were running short of serviceable bombers and crews.
David Fred
Airman
- 46
- Feb 7, 2018
Very nice. I doubt you know who said ie, and statistics are al we have for these battles.
Most of the men who fought them are dead
David Fred
Airman
- 46
- Feb 7, 2018
Just the U.K. National Archives, recording day by day results at the time. Not the speculation you lot play in.
Go back to your forum. I'll find primary source data.
It is part of English language idiom, Mark Twain attributed it to Disraeli but it is hard to say who said or even wrote it first. My point was the bare statistics can be presented in a way that completely miss represents the conflict. For example, bomber command losses are usually excluded. The fight wasn't between RAF Hurricanes/Spitfires and LW Bf 109s, it was the RAF trying to stop bombers and the LW trying to get bombers to their target. When single engine fighter sweeps by the LW were noted they were avoided by Park/Dowding.
The only results that could possibly be recorded at the time were claims, of course a web site concerned with WW2 art work must be considered the most trustworthy.
take one day 15 September 1940 all similar but not exactly the same and nothing like your quoted site and also nothing like the claims published at the time
www.telegraph.co.uk/history/battle-of-britain/11865303/The-Battle-of-Britain-as-it-happened-on-September-15-1940-live.html
Battle of Britain Day - Wikipedia
Warfare - Featured Articles - Battle of Britain Day – 15 September 1940
buffnut453
Captain
So what about German archives? And how do you ensure that you're counting losses correctly? For example, what about losses where the cause is unknown which, given the proportion of non-combat losses, could seriously skew the data.
I'd also recommend dialing back the snark just a wee bit. Many members of this forum are VERY familiar with primary sources, including the errors and gaps that they inevitably contain.
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Well the way it was posted, it looked like it was picked up from a cartoon source.
Please do as I wait patiently in the forum for your data.
Come on now. Knock it off with the personal attacks.
GregP
Major
Did we ever arrive at a general consensus of losses from both sides by aircraft type? If so, I can't seem to locate it. I've seen 1,652 German losses against 1,087 British losses, but the losses have very uncertain sources. They'll say "single engine fighters and twin-engine fighters, but not aircraft types, and the British number includes Bomber Command and Coastal Command losses, but not aircraft types, either.
Seems the Germans don't recognize 31 Oct 1940 as the end of the BOB ... only the British side does, and Googling it doesn't bring up much. When I try the British National Archives, I can't seem to wade through it to find losses and claims, either.
With all the stuff written about it, you'd think we could come up with some good numbers for the event! But it doesn't seem so, does it?
Makes being a WWII buff not the easiest hobby when there is so much dissent about exactly what took place in a one of the turning-point battles.
Seems the Germans don't recognize 31 Oct 1940 as the end of the BOB ... only the British side does, and Googling it doesn't bring up much. When I try the British National Archives, I can't seem to wade through it to find losses and claims, either.
With all the stuff written about it, you'd think we could come up with some good numbers for the event! But it doesn't seem so, does it?
Makes being a WWII buff not the easiest hobby when there is so much dissent about exactly what took place in a one of the turning-point battles.
The Germans have no reason to recognise dates for the start or end of the BoB it is purely arbitrary. As an arial assault it sort of petered out, the daytime and night time raids overlapped. I have seen numbers similar to those you have posted but they don't matter. As soon as you have a number for losses then someone asks the following.
How many were:-
Training losses
Accidental losses
Friendly fire
To further complicate things there are losses which weren't losses, how many downed aircraft were put back in the air?
Others will use the losses to establish the superiority of one type over the other which ignores that fact that all fighters were modified during the conflict, and that the majority of victories were against an enemy that didn't see you at all. The Dowding system of detection, interception and control of forces was a massive "force multiplyer" which doesn't show up in the statistics of Hurricane/Spitfire v Bf 109. Similarly German fighters and bombers having different radio frequencies and poor coordination doesn't show up in the fighters performance.
Greg Boeser
2nd Lieutenant
Look. It doesn't really matter. The Battle of Britain was won by a handful of adventurous American barnstormer pilots, who snuck over to England, evading the Gestapo-like US G-men intent on enforcing our neutrality laws, and taught the Brits how to fly. I read it in a book once.
buffnut453
Captain
A book? Can't be true, then!!! Now...if you told me you'd read it on the internet, I'd have believed you!
Shortround6
Major General
or seen it in a movie 
