Anyone want to clarify Chuck Yeagers' first claim to a jet, which he strafed while it was landing? Smith and Creeks' book cast some doubt on it, as the plane ran off the runway, and ended up in a barn. Yeager broke off the attack prior to witnessing this due to AA fire. It's just that the cover painting on one of Hess's book depicts a crashed Me 262, with Yeagers P51 overhead. I've often wondered if planes destroyed/damaged on the ground are used in these tallies?
Why not? Some very reputable authors and researchers have spent years trawling through the records of both sides to arrive at the most accurate assessments of losses on both sides. These can then be compared with claims. None of them would claim that the numbers are absolutely accurate but they are definitely in the ball park.
It is not these authors who make sweeping statements about ratios of claims to actual losses but others reading their data. It is not unreasonable to take a particular campaign or even individual battle and make such statements. To make such a sweeping statement regarding the entire war and all air forces on all fronts is far too broad a generalisation and a little unwise.
The data is available covering long periods of the conflict between the RAF/USAAF and Luftwaffe. It takes a determined person to try and decipher these records, particularly the often barely legible and error strewn German loss reports. I've done it myself to a limited extent and will be forever grateful and indebted to those who spend more time, effort and money doing it for me.
Cheers
Steve
Last edited by a moderator:
drgondog
Major
No to ground credits counting as air credits. However, for the 8th AF Doolittle ordered ground and air credits to be caounted toward Ace status. When the USAF compiled the victory credits in USAF Study 85 they stripped ground credits from counting toward Ace status.
It also helps when there is a giant fireball lighting up the sky.
Hello Glider
the topic of claim accuracy was acute already earlier, W.C. was very interested in this during the BoB, see. The main thing isn't the numbers presented but the fact that WC put RAF top brass to probe into it:
View attachment 243352
the topic of claim accuracy was acute already earlier, W.C. was very interested in this during the BoB, see. The main thing isn't the numbers presented but the fact that WC put RAF top brass to probe into it:
Attachments
Last edited:
Thanks for posting that Juha - rather a breathtaking gymnastic exercise there...
"The numbers work if we accept that 80% of them can't be verified, and even though we're then still 25% off there might be reasons for that and so all the numbers have been very carefully checked."
I may have to go and lie down to recover from the whole thing.
"The numbers work if we accept that 80% of them can't be verified, and even though we're then still 25% off there might be reasons for that and so all the numbers have been very carefully checked."
I may have to go and lie down to recover from the whole thing.
Hello mhuxt
the crux of the matter, the calculation. I also doubt the 80% because FC prefer combat over land or at least at the gliding distance from land because its search and rescue system was rather rudimentary at the time of the BoB
the crux of the matter, the calculation. I also doubt the 80% because FC prefer combat over land or at least at the gliding distance from land because its search and rescue system was rather rudimentary at the time of the BoB
Last edited:
I one week (August 13-19) which falls in the middle of the period the Luftwaffe lost 284 aircraft to all causes (not just combat). For the entire month of August the number was 774.
It is not likely that 743 aircraft were destroyed by the British in the period August 11-24. Newall has done some very creative accounting based on little more than a wild arsed guess as to what percentage of Luftwaffe aircraft fell into the sea.
Cheers
Steve
It is not likely that 743 aircraft were destroyed by the British in the period August 11-24. Newall has done some very creative accounting based on little more than a wild arsed guess as to what percentage of Luftwaffe aircraft fell into the sea.
Cheers
Steve
drgondog
Major
Glider or Stona - OT but which RAF agency is the repository for the LW KE reports, and how does one research them?
Thanks in advance
Bill
Thanks in advance
Bill
He has got a point there..........
drgondog
Major
Not with you, probably being dimWhich reports are you looking for?
Steve
Steve, the LW made a distinction between reporting on RAF crashes and site reports by prefacing the report number with "KE" whereas the USAAF crash site reports were "KJ" or "KU".
NARA was the physical site for the latter combined as attachments to our MACRs, and I believe the Brits have a similar place for such Luftwaffe records on RAF crash sites.
GregP
Major
Hey Udet,
With reference to your point # 3 above, I think you are exaggerating quite a bit. The top German jet ace was
Kurt Welter with 20 jet victories. He had 63 total but only 20 in jets, perhaps 21 depending on who you believe. The second leading jet ace was Heinrich Bar with 16 victories in jets. He had 220 total but only 16 in jets.
So if you are talking kills while flying just jets, you are way off base.
If you are talking total kills, the top German aces shot down a lot more than we did but were flying in a very target-rich sky against largely poor opposition, as most people know. They also flew until they won, lost or died and didn't rotate home. The top three German aces didn't fly against the British or Americans at all ... they flew against the Soviets only.
So what is your point? That they shot down more? We know that but don't know how many since there is no vetted list of Luftwaffe victories. We KNOW they claimed about 68,000 planes destroyed in WWII, but we also know about overclaiming and don't know the real number. I would not suspect the Luftwaffe of either more or less overclaiming that anyone else, so their victories can be estimated about like the rest of the counties claims can be.
For reference, from the USAAF Statistical Digest and from the US Navy OpNav—P-23V report, we had a total of 49,730 aircraft losses in WWII counting both the USAAF and US Navy/Marines. 26,362 of those losses were combat losses and 23,.068 were operational losses. That is for the entire war, not the ETO. It includes the PTO, FEAF, CBI, Alaska, and 20th AF. I seriously doubt more than about 15,000 were in the ETO alone.
On our side, the P-51 is credited with 9,081 kills and the P-47m the bulk of which were in the ETO was credited with 6,284 kills. So we weren't all that far apart. The vast bulk of the German claims were on the Soviet Front and were largely scored early in the war. By mid 1944, the German fighter pilot on the Soviet Front wasn't doing even half as well as the German fighter pilot on the Soviet Front did in 1941.
That says nothing about the courage and training of the German fighter pilot. It says more about the training and new equipment of the Soviet Air Force relative to the Soviet pilots and planes in the early war years. It might also say a lot about the weather and who knew how to operate in it.
I don't know of ANY US veterans who claim the war in the Pacific was anything like the war in Europe. Where do you come up with this? There were very few battles in the Pacific over land and relatively few planes destroyed on the ground when compared with Europe or other non-ocean theaters. There were relatively few land battles at all. Can't think of one, single tank battle.
About your point that the undertrained youngsters learned to digest heavy US bombers, maybe the facts will help out. From Jane's Fighting Aircraft of WWII, 1946/1947 and 1989, the highest bomber losses on a loss per sortie basis were in were in 1939 (.068), 1942 (.043), 1943 (.038), and 1941 (.031). The lowest loss per sorties rates were in 1944 (.017) and 1945 (.010), with 1940 sliding in at (.023). The average loss per sorties rate for the war for allied bombers was .023, and 1945 / 1945 were the safest years of the war for bomber crews.
Sure we had 2,904 bomber losses in 1944, the highest losses of any year, but we also flew 166,844 sorties that year (252,518 long tons of bombs dropped), with the next highest yearly sortie rate being 1944 with 67,483 sorties flown and 708 losses (181,740 long tons of bombs dropped). Flying 100,000 more sorties usually guarantees more losses but, statistically speaking, it was a safe year relative to other war years. In fact, we dropped more tons of bombs in 1944 than in any other three years combined, so I'd expect some losses.
So, I don't get your point … 1944 and 1945 saw the lowest loss rates of the war. The numbers come from the amount of sorties flown, not from higher danger per sortie. And a LARGE portion were from flak.
The numbers above are for the Allies, not specifically the USA or the UK. For the USA alone, the loss rate per sortie for the B-17 and B-24 were almost identical at .0161 and .0160 respectively, but I don't have a year breakout.
For the entire war, the loss rate for the B-29 was .0132, a significant portion of which were operational losses. That is from the USAAF Statistical Digest. They weren't fond of the early R-3350 engines.
With reference to your point # 3 above, I think you are exaggerating quite a bit. The top German jet ace was
Kurt Welter with 20 jet victories. He had 63 total but only 20 in jets, perhaps 21 depending on who you believe. The second leading jet ace was Heinrich Bar with 16 victories in jets. He had 220 total but only 16 in jets.
So if you are talking kills while flying just jets, you are way off base.
If you are talking total kills, the top German aces shot down a lot more than we did but were flying in a very target-rich sky against largely poor opposition, as most people know. They also flew until they won, lost or died and didn't rotate home. The top three German aces didn't fly against the British or Americans at all ... they flew against the Soviets only.
So what is your point? That they shot down more? We know that but don't know how many since there is no vetted list of Luftwaffe victories. We KNOW they claimed about 68,000 planes destroyed in WWII, but we also know about overclaiming and don't know the real number. I would not suspect the Luftwaffe of either more or less overclaiming that anyone else, so their victories can be estimated about like the rest of the counties claims can be.
For reference, from the USAAF Statistical Digest and from the US Navy OpNav—P-23V report, we had a total of 49,730 aircraft losses in WWII counting both the USAAF and US Navy/Marines. 26,362 of those losses were combat losses and 23,.068 were operational losses. That is for the entire war, not the ETO. It includes the PTO, FEAF, CBI, Alaska, and 20th AF. I seriously doubt more than about 15,000 were in the ETO alone.
On our side, the P-51 is credited with 9,081 kills and the P-47m the bulk of which were in the ETO was credited with 6,284 kills. So we weren't all that far apart. The vast bulk of the German claims were on the Soviet Front and were largely scored early in the war. By mid 1944, the German fighter pilot on the Soviet Front wasn't doing even half as well as the German fighter pilot on the Soviet Front did in 1941.
That says nothing about the courage and training of the German fighter pilot. It says more about the training and new equipment of the Soviet Air Force relative to the Soviet pilots and planes in the early war years. It might also say a lot about the weather and who knew how to operate in it.
I don't know of ANY US veterans who claim the war in the Pacific was anything like the war in Europe. Where do you come up with this? There were very few battles in the Pacific over land and relatively few planes destroyed on the ground when compared with Europe or other non-ocean theaters. There were relatively few land battles at all. Can't think of one, single tank battle.
About your point that the undertrained youngsters learned to digest heavy US bombers, maybe the facts will help out. From Jane's Fighting Aircraft of WWII, 1946/1947 and 1989, the highest bomber losses on a loss per sortie basis were in were in 1939 (.068), 1942 (.043), 1943 (.038), and 1941 (.031). The lowest loss per sorties rates were in 1944 (.017) and 1945 (.010), with 1940 sliding in at (.023). The average loss per sorties rate for the war for allied bombers was .023, and 1945 / 1945 were the safest years of the war for bomber crews.
Sure we had 2,904 bomber losses in 1944, the highest losses of any year, but we also flew 166,844 sorties that year (252,518 long tons of bombs dropped), with the next highest yearly sortie rate being 1944 with 67,483 sorties flown and 708 losses (181,740 long tons of bombs dropped). Flying 100,000 more sorties usually guarantees more losses but, statistically speaking, it was a safe year relative to other war years. In fact, we dropped more tons of bombs in 1944 than in any other three years combined, so I'd expect some losses.
So, I don't get your point … 1944 and 1945 saw the lowest loss rates of the war. The numbers come from the amount of sorties flown, not from higher danger per sortie. And a LARGE portion were from flak.
The numbers above are for the Allies, not specifically the USA or the UK. For the USA alone, the loss rate per sortie for the B-17 and B-24 were almost identical at .0161 and .0160 respectively, but I don't have a year breakout.
For the entire war, the loss rate for the B-29 was .0132, a significant portion of which were operational losses. That is from the USAAF Statistical Digest. They weren't fond of the early R-3350 engines.
I'm with you now. I've not looked at primary sources for RAF losses reported by the Luftwaffe but rather at Luftwaffe losses reported by their system which you will know are available from the BA Freiburg, at least those that survive.
I'm not sure that we reconciled the losses and German reports like that, I've not seen such or even reference to them. The Public Records Office at Kew, which is a very rough equivalent of your NARA, or possibly the RAF museum would be the best bet.
Cheers
Steve
He won't respond to you. He has not been around for many years now...
Erich
the old Sage
actually Heinz Bär was the top scoring jet killer, Welters kills for the jet against Mossies are incomplete and not totally confirmed, I'll give him maybe 10 with my research that can be associated with also his merry band had their claims given to Welter, sounds strange but it isn't this happened for day fighter aces as well........
GregP
Major
Sorry Deradler, I looked at the last page and joined the discussion.
OK, it's not all that important anyway. I WOULD like to see a vetted victory list for the Luftwaffe, but don't expect it anytime soon and in reality, I expect kill claims are about as accurate in Germany as around the globe as anywahere. I don't know of an Air Force of liars or cowards.
Though I tend to think there was some overcaliming, I'll support 352 for Erich Hartmann, 301 for Barhhorn and 275 for Rall ... until conclusively proven otherwise by unassailable facts. They were masters of the trade, to be sure, even if they scored HALF their awarded totals. It wasn't for glory for them, it was a fight for their country.
OK, it's not all that important anyway. I WOULD like to see a vetted victory list for the Luftwaffe, but don't expect it anytime soon and in reality, I expect kill claims are about as accurate in Germany as around the globe as anywahere. I don't know of an Air Force of liars or cowards.
Though I tend to think there was some overcaliming, I'll support 352 for Erich Hartmann, 301 for Barhhorn and 275 for Rall ... until conclusively proven otherwise by unassailable facts. They were masters of the trade, to be sure, even if they scored HALF their awarded totals. It wasn't for glory for them, it was a fight for their country.
drgondog
Major
I don't know what your point was supposed to be but you have thrown a lot of statistics, particularly fro 1943 and first half of 1944 which do Not reflect the strain on US resources and Will to persevere.
Kurt Welters status as the supposed ace of aces Jet-wise is still very much a matter of debate. I've read the 20+ thing myself in a number of publications and forums over the years, (for and against) so I'm wondering if it will ever be verified. My main reason for responding to Udets post was I was hoping he would reply with some more info: I had no idea he was not around still. he did seem rather passionate about the subject.......
