Kill Ratios

[Hiromachi]

At face value your initial statement is logical, and certainly there was less opportunity for pilots from different units to claim the same enemy aircraft. However, positive confirmation of a victory over the ocean isn't any easier because all aircraft shot down disappear into the depths. Did the Navy study review Japanese loss records in formulating its assessment? If not, then the study is still flawed. Of course loss records aren't always available, particularly Japanese records of which many were destroyed during WWII. This means that any kill/loss ratio will have considerable margin of error.

As far as I remember Japanese Navy Kodachosho or Japanese Army Sento shoho were never a subject of review and were never taken into account by US post war reports.
In case of the first ones its not that hard to find them, many of them are not only existing but are available in the internet - jacar.go.jp - one just has to browse the archives and download the desired file. I have only been unable to find a unit records a few times, mostly for late 1945 which leads to assumption that possibly some units destroyed their latest reports.

In case of Sento shoho its a bit harder, I think you have to go to Japan since they are not in the internet yet and might not be there any time soon.

If there are vetted lists of German, Japanese, and Soviet losses and/or victories ... I'd surely like to see them or purchase a copy for myself. Heck, I'd like to see an authoritative list of losses and victories from France, Finland, Poland ... any country other than the U.S.A.

There is a very comprehensive study of Japanese Zero losses and combats printed in 5 tomes, I cant recall the title unfortunately. Anyway, that book still is in Japanese so one would have to learn the language

Also some of the newest positions on book market are written by the authors who put more effort than just to quote US sources and try to compare them with Japanese sources to obtain some perspective. After few of the books like "Soleil Levant sur l'Australie" and "Guadalcanal, Cactus Air Force contre Marine Impériale" by Bernard Baeza or "Eagles of the Southern Sky" by Michael John Claringbould Luca Ruffato I'm changing perspective over the claims of the Allied pilots, as they often as flawed as Japanese claims.
The confirmed claims are also flawed as the books like the mentioned above present, as older positions did not try to make a more extensive use of Japanese records.

 

[GregP]

I've never seen a vetted list of Japanese victories, but would certainly be interested in these volumes you speak of.

 

[Hiromachi]

I tried to search for it in my memory, hell, I even remember how cover looked like. Just cant find in my memory the title.
If it will come back to my mind I will just write it here

 

[GregP]

Drink some beer and think!

 

[mhuxt]

As noted on page 2 of the USAF report awarded credits if the claim had been previously accepted by an issuing agency or a claim board. It is not a comparison to German losses.

 

[GregP]

I don't think there is a record of German losses that was complete. The numbers from the MTO should be better than the PTO, but where is the proof of that? For the Pacific, the Navy flew recon flights and determined the BDA as often as was feasible and the number of aircraft involved was MUCH smaller, making keeping track much easier.

I'm not sure we'll ever have a complete, accurate record of the ETO and MTO, but the numbers from the PTO after some slight hicups in the beginning, are very good. I confess I don't have a good feeling for the accuracy of numbers from the CBI, but there surely weren't too many really big fights. It was over land, but not nearly as congested as over Europe.

 

[fastmongrel]

The RAF did do very extensive research on claims postwar and downgraded its own overall claims from iirc 16,000 approx to around 9,000. It didnt downgrade claims of individuals partly because the RAF didnt believe in giving pilots scores and partly because it might be a bit embarrasing for a still serving decorated officer to be told his 5 kills is now 1 confirmed, 1 probable and 1 damaged, oh and by the way you should give that nice shiny medal back and have this slightly less shiny one instead.

Personally it doesnt really interest me all this numbers, going by overall losses in combat all claims can be cut by around 50%. Take the Battle of Britain I think the RAF shot down the entire Luftwaffe in Western Europe at least twice and the LW shot down every single Spitfire about 3 times.

 

[GregP]

I don't believe it that way all the time, just when there are a lot of planes in the sky.

 

[Greyman]

There were small scale actions all the time between the Japanese, British and Americans over South-East Asia - and a quick look through any of Christopher Shores' works (Bloody Shambles) shows very quickly that overclaiming is a reliable constant of air combat.

 

[Hiromachi]

And it happened regardless of the scale. Notoriously USAF, RAAF and IJN in 1942 overclaimed by a ratio 3-7 to 1. It did not matter if there were 50-80 aircraft in the air or just 15.
The summarized campaign of Tainan Kokutai in New Guinea (1st April to 10th November 1942) against the Allies gives a following results - Tainan killed 148 Allied aircrew in aerial combat, and downed a total of 81 aircraft ( 17 P-40E, 5 B-17E/F, 38 P-39/P-400, 5 A-24 Banshee, 10 B-25C/D, 1 Lockheed Hudson and 5 B-26) for the loss of 24 aircraft in aerial combat (18 Zeros were lost due to enemy fighters and only 6 were direct losses caused by bomber gunners). This are actual losses, much lower than claimed ...

The overall claims are not even counted for the campaign as they were so high, if Allied claims would be taken than most likely Tainan Kokutai would be wiped 2-3 times, if Japanese would be taken than there would be little to nothing left over Port Moresby.

So its not really matter if there were hundreds of aircraft or dozens, the overclaiming was normal situation for both sides regardless of the numbers.

 

[stona]

Don't lose sight of what claims were originally intended for, and the effect that huge over claiming had early in the war. Correlation of claims was an intelligence gathering exercise, at least until it was shown to be deeply flawed.

Between 12th and 19th August 1940 German pilots claimed 624 RAF aircraft destroyed. This sort of huge over inflation contributed to a disastrous intelligence failure. At the end of August the Luftwaffe estimated the RAF to be down to less than 300 fighters when in fact it still disposed of more than 700.

Other factors were underestimation of production (the British produced 450 fighters in August against a German estimate of 280) and an overestimation of the effects of bombing. The Luftwaffe thought it had permanently disabled 18 of Fighter Commands airfields when in fact none had been out of action for more than a few days.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Hiromachi]

Hey Steve,
Pacific was a bit different in this regard. For instance Japanese did not provide individual claims (although each pilot kept the record in his memory or diary) in official combat reports, there were always unit claims which adds to the mess.

But in fact there are many reasons behind this state of affairs, mostly honorable. Combat was usually fleeting, there were some instances that G3M and G4M crews were unaware of being attacked !
Whilst longer combats such as occurred in chases did occur, the norm was an ephemeral encounter with a few hundred rounds fired. Tainan Kokutai Zeros if were hit were either removed from the sky or sustained a minimal damage of a few .50 caliber bullets, with some exceptions when were a bit more damaged. But generally few casualties fell between these two extremes. The account underlines the turht that it was much harder to place hits upon an enemy aircraft that might be supposed by pilot claims. In such a dangerous setting, with complex and speedy movements, it is easy to see how several different pilots could claim against the same aircraft.

There were many instances were Allied pilots are positive of a kill, only for the record to confirm that their alleged victim happily cruised back to Lae or Rabaul unscathed.

But in my opinion its just a nature of the combat of that time. And that is why I dont really take the kill ratios so seriously as there is a high chance that they might be flawed.

 

[stona]

I don't put much weight on victory tallies or claims either which means inevitably kill ratios are also flawed. Some attempt to make assessments of the relative abilities of aircraft based on kill ratios which are therefore not only based on a deeply flawed set of statistics, but also fail to take into account the myriad of other factors which can effect the outcomes of aerial combats.

In the early stages of the war pilot claims were taken very seriously and used as a basis for intelligence assessments. By late 1940 both the British and the Germans, who both also had fairly rigorous systems, were realising just how unreliable the data were.

When the USAAF entered the fray in Europe the different systems for verifying claims caused some friction between the allies. Here's an interesting correspondence to illustrate how:

A reassuring result, emphasising that the Americans had mended their ways and adopted a more rigorous system:

Cheers

Steve

 

[EKB]

I don't put much weight on victory tallies or claims either which means inevitably kill ratios are also flawed. Some attempt to make assessments of the relative abilities of aircraft based on kill ratios which are therefore not only based on a deeply flawed set of statistics, but also fail to take into account the myriad of other factors which can effect the outcomes of aerial combats.

In the early stages of the war pilot claims were taken very seriously and used as a basis for intelligence assessments. By late 1940 both the British and the Germans, who both also had fairly rigorous systems, were realising just how unreliable the data were.

When the USAAF entered the fray in Europe the different systems for verifying claims caused some friction between the allies. Here's an interesting correspondence to illustrate how:

A reassuring result, emphasising that the Americans had mended their ways and adopted a more rigorous system:

Cheers

Steve

Those documents neglect to mention that the RAF was every bit as guilty.


31st December 1941
" At year's end, the JG 26 scoreboard for the war to date heavily favored the Schlageter pilots: 916 victory claims had been confirmed (out of about 1,000 submitted) in exchange for ninety-five pilots killed in combat, twenty-two killed in flying accidents, and thirty-four taken prisoner.
Across the Channel, the end of 1941 found Fighter Command at a new peak in strength, controlling an even one hundred squadrons. But the new war in the Pacific, and the galling fact that the true victory/loss ratio for the previous six months was well in the Luftwaffe's favor, compelled the war cabinet to warn that a more defensive policy was now a "disagreeable necessity". The brakes were applied to the non-stop offensive.
The Schlageter fighters, and the Richtofen Geschwader to their west, had totally disrupted the British air strategy for 1941. Between 14 June and 31 December, Fighter Command lost 411 fighters over the Channel and the Continent, while claiming the destruction of 731 Luftwaffe fighters. The true loss to the Germans was only 103 fighters.
In all of 1941, JG 26 lost forty-seven pilots killed in combat, seventeen killed in accidents, and three taken prisoner. These casualties, while serious, were certainly sustainable. FW 190A-2s were now beginning to arrive for the re-equipment of the Geschwaderstab and the First Gruppe. The experienced fighter pilots of the Schlageter Geschwader were confident that in the new year their Focke-Wulfs would further increase the German margin of superiority."


31st May 1942
" A Fighter Command intelligence appreciation dated 19 June claimed that 205 Luftwaffe fighters had been destroyed between 1 January and 31 May for the loss of 242 Royal Air Force fighters. The true picture was much bleaker for the Allies. During this period the combat losses of the two Kanalgeschwader totalled only sixty-seven fighters and forty-seven pilots; the fighter loss ratio was 3.6:1 in the Germans' favor."


See Don Caldwell, The JG 26 War Diary: 1939-1942, p.198-199, p.244


What happened on 9th August 1941 is a shining example. The box score in John Foreman's Fighter Command War Diaries shows an outrageous number of victory claims by the RAF: 22 German aircraft destroyed, 11 probably destroyed, and 7 damaged. The majority were claimed during the main event, Circus No. 68. Such big names as Victor Beamish, Jamie Rankin, Alan Deere, Johnnie Johnson, Bluey Truscott, and Paddy Finucane inflated their scores. When Douglas Bader returned from the German PoW camps, he claimed to have shot down two Me 109s on his last mission. At the time, all of this was accepted at face value.

In his book Bader's Last Flight, Andy Saunders finds that the Luftwaffe lost just one aircraft in these combats. The author concluded that Messerschmitt Bf-109F, Works Number 8350, was probably shot down by Nip Heppell of No. 616 Squadron, who noted correctly that the German pilot suffered a parachute failure.

Saunders also points to convincing testimony in the after-action reports that three Spitfires were shot down in error by RAF pilots, due to faulty aircraft identification. The victims were Christopher Chapman, Justin O'Byrne, and Douglas Bader.

Likewise on 13th October 1941, John Foreman's Fighter Command War Diaries records that RAF fighters claimed 22 German aircraft destroyed, 3 probably destroyed, and 18 damaged. The only known German loss is one Bf-109F, Works Number 8288, that was shot down by return fire from a Blenheim bomber.

 

[stona]

Those documents neglect to mention that the RAF was every bit as guilty.

You really need to read all posts properly. I wrote earlier,

In the early stages of the war pilot claims were taken very seriously and used as a basis for intelligence assessments. By late 1940 both the British and the Germans, who both also had fairly rigorous systems, were realising just how unreliable the data were.

The data for the RAF was just as flawed as that for the Luftwaffe. The RAF even attempted to explain a lack of Luftwaffe wrecks and crash sites by assuming most aircraft destroyed had fallen into the sea.

Endlessly quoting records of individual combats or original combat/encounter reports (and I've got hundreds of those) is inevitably selective and not always representative of larger trends anyway. For that the raw data requires analysis.

Cheers

Steve

 

[GregP]

I don't believe any of the above applies to the pacific over ocean areas after a few initial instances of overclaim. After that, that dat are quite relaible. I think I already mentioned that PTO theater in that regard.

 

[Hiromachi]

Greg, its not a matter of belief but matter or verification. If data were not verified and compared with Japanese records than they are flawed, and even as I can agree that since 1944 the reports can be more accurate than before as chances of the pilots to escape the superior enemy flying Hellcat or Corsair or Lighting or Thunderbolt were much lower than chances of decently trained and experienced pilot ... they are still flawed.

I also dont understand what you mean by initial instances. What I presented was a combat through almost 9 months. The over-claiming happened on daily bases for both sides.
And here are results of few major combats involving more than few dozens of aircraft over the Solomon Islands in 1943 :
April 1 - Claims - Japanese 40 and Allies 18;
Actual losses - Japanese 9 and Allies 6

May 13 - Claims - Japanese 28 and Allies 16;
Actual loss - Japanese 4 and Allies 5

June 7 - Claims - Japanese 33 and Allies 23;
Actual loss - Japanese 9 and Allies 9

June 12 - Claims - Japanese 25 and Allies 31
Actual loss - Japanese 7 and Allies 6

From a completely different theater (Burma and China) in June 27 1943 when 308th BS flew to Samah Bay, where 16
B-24s ran into 20 to 30 Japanese fighters, most likely from the 33rd Sentai. None of the B-24s in this instance was lost and they claimed 13 Japanese fighters shot down and another four probables, this tally being revised to 14 destroyed and six probables.
In this and previous encounters B-24s had claimed 37 Japanese fighters shot down without loss - thats more than unit could bring in the air.
In fact only few fighters were lost, some sustained a damage but overall the claims were highly inflated ... which later had a terrible consequences but that's not a matter of the discussion.

 

[GregP]

Hi Hiromacci,

We'll just have to diagree about this. One letter of dubious origin means about zippo to me, and I spent some time with people who were working on verifying Pacific victories. They didn't find many errors in the time I spent with them ... and they went through a significant percent of the war.

I don't really believe anything any person of the "press" has to say about any war, either. I was there when reporters were taken through the lines in Vietnam, and none of them wrote anything close to what was really happening. They didn't understand the war, the service, the mission, or what was going on at any trime unless they were told specifically. When they WERE told, they chose not to believe it. Made me into a liftime disbeliever of the combat press. I have no use for any of them.

So you can think all threaters were the same if you want. It's all the same to me.

I also don't particularly wish to get into a pissing contest over it. Like I said, we'll have to disagree and let it go at that.

For every book that purports to tell "the truth," there are several key elements that seem to refer to very dubious sources. Getting to the bottom of the claims hasn't happened since 1945. I don't think either you or I will change that in this forum post. If we do, I'll buy a copy of the results. I don't believe a lot of things that were reported ... but some were at least decently accurate. The trick is to differientiate among them. And before you ask, no, I don't claim to have done so myself for everything or even most things.

Cheers.

 

[Hiromachi]

Hello Greg,
well I can absolutely respect that someone has different opinion. You have a right to have it and its fine

All I wanted to add is that its usually not one letter of dubious origin but selective research over years. I have no reason not to believe them when the amount of material they have reviewed :

It just speaks for itself.

I also dont think that all theaters were same, but I think that all pilots as human beings were prone to making mistakes. And as such can make mistakes regardless of nationality or race.

Peace,
Hiro

 

[Juha]

Combat reports are claims, not vetted, real victories. Typhoon and Tempest story is probably pretty good about the planes, but the kills are claims from the British side. And since there are NO studies done of Germany's REAL losses, how can John Foreman's volumes be anything but claims?

Because we know surprisingly much on the LW losses. And on LW strenght and plane status etc, look e.g. The Luftwaffe, 1933-45. Thomas, Shores and Foreman sometives give the info on the real LW losses, Foreman even sometimes underestimates the real LW losses because he seems to have been unware of the operational schwarme of the fighter training units (alarm units flying ops manned by flying instructors or even by best pupils) and generally the combat losses suffered by the training units in France.

... For instance, I can verify most of Erich Hartmann's claims, but not all from the claims list...

Out of curiosity, what exactly you mean and based on what sources?