Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Thanks. I will read this 600+ pages stuff.
As the one guilty of the original article, I thought I'd add some more comment.
As I made pains to point out, I wasn't attacking anyone, it was the system that was at fault. Maybe HJM got a lot of mention, he flew in a theatre which I had a lot of interest in.
I also brought up numbers from 18 Dec 1939, The BoB, Dieppe, Schweinfurt and of the RAF over France.
I only saw this today, on the 12 O'clock High Forum
The most notable example of the Luftwaffe ace culture's impact in North Africa was the falsification of victory claims by a small group of 4./J.G. 27 pilots in mid-1942. Few Axis aerial victories were claimed in August, with the exception of these 4./J.G. 27 pilots, who claimed numerous victories almost daily. Other J.G. 27 pilots had their suspicions, and these were confirmed on 16 August when a 2./J.G. 27 pilot came across five 4./J.G. 27 pilots shooting off their ammunition in the desert in a mock combat. Slipping away unnoticed, the 2./J.G. 27 pilot landed at base. When the 4./J.G. 27 pilots returned, they claimed twelve victories between them. Some 58 false victory claims were submitted between 20 June and 12 October 1942, along with others that were suspicious. Most of these occurred in August. As if to confirm their guilt, on the day after they were discovered, one member of the Staffel committed suicide in his Bf 109.[1] This series of events was never reported to the Luftwaffe high command, and one of these pilots later received the Ritterkreuz (Knight's Cross). This was the only known case of Axis falsification of victory claims in North Africa in 1942, but it is a stark example of how much the ace culture affected German fighter pilots in North Africa.
[1] Luftwaffe Victory Claims Microfilm Material; Shores Ring, Fighters Over the Desert, p.160]
In first days of August 1942 four pilots from the same Schwarm of 4./JG 27 begun to claim big number of victories. Very soon it was called "Experten-Schwarm". Pilots, who had their successes very rarely earlier, suddenly started to win air combats every day and their accounts started to grow very fast. And so it was :
3 August: 2; Bendert 1, Sawallisch 1,
4 August: 4; Bendert 2, Sawallisch 2,
5 August: 1; Bendert 1,
6 August: 3; Bendert 2, Stiegler 1,
7 August: 9; Bendert 3, Sawallisch 2, Stiegler 2, Vögl 2,
10 August: 8; Bendert 2, Sawallisch 2, Stiegler 2, Vögl 2,
11 August: 5; Sawallisch 2, Vögl 2, Stiegler 1,
12 August: 12; Bendert 5 !, Sawallisch 4, Stiegler 3,
14 August: 2; Sawallisch 2.
Some other, very experienced pilots like Stahlschmidt, Sinner, Börngen – knew, that air combat wasn't a play and getting so much successes by unexperienced pilots was very suspected.
The pressure in JG 27 was growing till 16 August.
On that day Lt. Hans-Arnold Stahlschmidt from 2./JG 27 with his wingman started from Fuka and shot down 2 P-40 on 8.15 and 8.25 hours. After landing in the base he came to kommodore JG 27, Maj. Edu Neumann, claimed 2 victories and reported that during his second fight saw 5 Bf 109 shooting into sand!
There was only Expereten-Schwarm in the air in that time.
When these pilots landed, they claimed 12 victories ! (Bendert 3, Sawallisch 3, Vögl 3, Stiegler 2, Just 1).
Pilots denied to Stahlschmidt's report, confirming victories to each other.
Maj. Neumann decided not to inform High Command, because he didn't want Jagdgeschwader to lose good opinion. All their victories were cancelled, but after official confirmation by OKL in Berlin they have stayed on their accounts. Experten-Schwarm was unformed and the pilots were moved to other staffels. The new Rommel's offensive was to come and every pilot was valuable.
It supposed to be end of the conflict, but final came very soon. On 19 August Ofw. Erwin Sawallisch started in his Bf 109 after technical check-up, but didn't come back. It is unknown, if he killed himself or if it was a revenge of angry mechanics, whose hard work was wasted.
His body was found the next day on the beach of Mediterranean Sea.
Ten days later, on 29 August, Uffz. Just was taken PoW. His account has stayed on 1.
The rest survived the war, everybody in officer's ranks.
As I made pains to point out, I wasn't attacking anyone, it was the system that was at fault. Maybe HJM got a lot of mention, he flew in a theatre which I had a lot of interest in.
I also brought up numbers from 18 Dec 1939, The BoB, Dieppe, Schweinfurt and of the RAF over France.
I only saw this today, on the 12 O'clock High Forum
The most notable example of the Luftwaffe ace culture's impact in North Africa was the falsification of victory claims by a small group of 4./J.G. 27 pilots in mid-1942. Few Axis aerial victories were claimed in August, with the exception of these 4./J.G. 27 pilots, who claimed numerous victories almost daily. Other J.G. 27 pilots had their suspicions, and these were confirmed on 16 August when a 2./J.G. 27 pilot came across five 4./J.G. 27 pilots shooting off their ammunition in the desert in a mock combat. Slipping away unnoticed, the 2./J.G. 27 pilot landed at base. When the 4./J.G. 27 pilots returned, they claimed twelve victories between them. Some 58 false victory claims were submitted between 20 June and 12 October 1942, along with others that were suspicious. Most of these occurred in August. As if to confirm their guilt, on the day after they were discovered, one member of the Staffel committed suicide in his Bf 109.[1] This series of events was never reported to the Luftwaffe high command, and one of these pilots later received the Ritterkreuz (Knight's Cross). This was the only known case of Axis falsification of victory claims in North Africa in 1942, but it is a stark example of how much the ace culture affected German fighter pilots in North Africa.
[1] Luftwaffe Victory Claims Microfilm Material; Shores Ring, Fighters Over the Desert, p.160]
In first days of August 1942 four pilots from the same Schwarm of 4./JG 27 begun to claim big number of victories. Very soon it was called "Experten-Schwarm". Pilots, who had their successes very rarely earlier, suddenly started to win air combats every day and their accounts started to grow very fast. And so it was :
3 August: 2; Bendert 1, Sawallisch 1,
4 August: 4; Bendert 2, Sawallisch 2,
5 August: 1; Bendert 1,
6 August: 3; Bendert 2, Stiegler 1,
7 August: 9; Bendert 3, Sawallisch 2, Stiegler 2, Vögl 2,
10 August: 8; Bendert 2, Sawallisch 2, Stiegler 2, Vögl 2,
11 August: 5; Sawallisch 2, Vögl 2, Stiegler 1,
12 August: 12; Bendert 5 !, Sawallisch 4, Stiegler 3,
14 August: 2; Sawallisch 2.
Some other, very experienced pilots like Stahlschmidt, Sinner, Börngen – knew, that air combat wasn't a play and getting so much successes by unexperienced pilots was very suspected.
The pressure in JG 27 was growing till 16 August.
On that day Lt. Hans-Arnold Stahlschmidt from 2./JG 27 with his wingman started from Fuka and shot down 2 P-40 on 8.15 and 8.25 hours. After landing in the base he came to kommodore JG 27, Maj. Edu Neumann, claimed 2 victories and reported that during his second fight saw 5 Bf 109 shooting into sand!
There was only Expereten-Schwarm in the air in that time.
When these pilots landed, they claimed 12 victories ! (Bendert 3, Sawallisch 3, Vögl 3, Stiegler 2, Just 1).
Pilots denied to Stahlschmidt's report, confirming victories to each other.
Maj. Neumann decided not to inform High Command, because he didn't want Jagdgeschwader to lose good opinion. All their victories were cancelled, but after official confirmation by OKL in Berlin they have stayed on their accounts. Experten-Schwarm was unformed and the pilots were moved to other staffels. The new Rommel's offensive was to come and every pilot was valuable.
It supposed to be end of the conflict, but final came very soon. On 19 August Ofw. Erwin Sawallisch started in his Bf 109 after technical check-up, but didn't come back. It is unknown, if he killed himself or if it was a revenge of angry mechanics, whose hard work was wasted.
His body was found the next day on the beach of Mediterranean Sea.
Ten days later, on 29 August, Uffz. Just was taken PoW. His account has stayed on 1.
The rest survived the war, everybody in officer's ranks.
Plus later bits
I only yesterday read this , from "Four Aces" by Lex McAulay.(Page 62)
"The German fighters of JG2 and JG 26 claimed 13 Swordfish, 10 being confirmed by the official Luftwaffe system and a victory credit given to the relevant pilots. The German ships also were credited with the destruction of 6 Swordfish. It is acknowledged by all concerned and accepted by historians and enthusiasts that almost all victory claims for intense combats were exaggerated, but to the author of this book there seems to have been a disproportionate effort at disparaging Allied claims, while Luftwaffe claims have been accepted, partly due to the thorough verification into each claim by relevant Luftwaffe authorities, and the issue of a confirmatory document for an individual claim. These documents appear to have taken on the halo of irrefutable fact. Events such as the Channel Dash call into question the accuracy of the Luftwaffe system. only 6 Swordfish took part and Ted Hall of 129 Sqn saw 3 shot down by ships' fire; but 10 were officially credited to fighter pilots by the Luftwaffe system.
"Luftwaffe Fighter Aces" by Mike Spick (about 30 books published) which is an excellent story of the Experten and their Tactics
He has an interesting slant on this, almost an apology for the over claiming.
He implies the Luftwaffe claims are multiplied by 2 or 3 times the actual figures.
He says the claims were made in "good faith", and examined as rigourously "as the circumstances allowed"
He also states "That an aerial Victory occurs when an enemy is DEFEATED in combat in circumstances where the victor believes that it will be a total loss. (I think this is a personal view)
In another chapter he mentions this phrase but ends with "the enemy aircraft can no longer take part in the battle"
Location: Galland's home in Remagen, Germany
Date: 1 October 1991
Interviewer: Don Caldwell
Also Present: Josef Buerschgens, a pilot in JG 26 1938-1940
Caldwell: During the course of the Battle of Britain Reichsmarschall Goering lost confidence in the Jagdwaffe - completely and permanently. The conventional explanations for this are well known, but seem inadequate. Could Goering's bitter feelings toward his fighter pilots have been the result of a suspicion that victory claims were being deliberately overstated?
Galland: Your theory is almost correct, but incomplete. I must defend the really overstated claims of the fighters by telling you that there was an enormous difference between the first claims, right after the mission, and finally confirmed victories. Goering and most of his staff, however, calculated and assumed always the worst for the enemy and the most optimistic facts for our side.
Chris Shores on AVG combat claims
Recently there's been a heated discussion on the AVG veterans' message board about what the British aviation historian Christopher Shores wrote about over-claiming in the Battle of Burma. Soon the argument spread to the Twelve O'clock High forum. In the end, Mr. Shores added his tuppennys' worth, which appears below:
* * * *
Firstly, those who seek to attack what I have written on the subject should be made aware that I found AVG claims no more or less unreliable than those of most other air forces I have researched. Always the circumstances of each engagement needs to be looked at carefully. In fighter-v-fighter combats the claim:loss ratio always seems to climb rapidly, multiplied by the numbers of aircraft/units involved. In Burma the AVG were often fighting over jungle and attacked in steep dives before climbing back for altitude. Good tactics, but fraught with opportunities for double claiming - or triple claiming for that matter.
When I wrote ' Fighters over the Desert' way back in the 1960s, I could not understand why I kept finding claims that I could not verify when I seemed to have all the available records to hand. It was only years later, and after I had been attacked by apologists for just about every air force in the world, that I found in the official British war histories published in the early/mid 1950s a clear warning that claim totals were likelty to be inflated and could not be relied upon - and that was admitted within ten years of the end of WWII !!
Indeed, overclaiming, albeit in the best of good faith in most cases, certainly seems to have been endemic in aerial combat. It happened on every front and with every air force. Some (though not all) Luftwaffe units and Finnish units were considerably more accurate than most, most of the time. Fighter pilots by and large were young, aggressive and optimistic men who knew what they should be seeing and wanted to see. Even now, some still get very upset when it is pointed out that something they were quite certain had happened (and wanted to have happened) had not in fact occurred just as they recalled it. Others are much more pragmatic and realistic - and strangely, it is usually the latter whose claims prove to be easier to verify as having been accurate (or at least reasonably so).
I always remind myself of the little verse Barrett Tillman recited once - "You can tell a bomber pilot by the spread across his rear, and by the ring around his eye, you can tell a bombardier; you can tell a navigator by his maps and charts and such, and you can tell a fighter pilot - but you can't tell him much !"
Just for the record, I love it when I can find a loss that fits a claim so that I can properly confirm what actually happened at the time. It gives me no joy at all to have to point out that there was not a loss for a particular claim. I love the world of fighter pilots and have spent more than 40 years of my life researching and recording their exploits. But in doing so if one is to retain credibility as a historian, one must look at the full picture, not just one side.
In ' Bill; a Pilot's Story' by Brooklyn Harris, the author records how day after day Japanese formations kept returning to targets in the Solomons despite the losses apparently being inflicted on them by the 13th Air Force. It never once occurred to the author that perhaps the reason for the apparently inexhaustible supply of aircraft the Japanese seemed to have available to them - something to which he specifically referred - might have indicated that at least in part the losses they were actually suffering were not as severe as those being claimed.
To research matters from as wide a perspective as possible and to report the results as accurately as one can, should reflect no shame on those participating except in the occasional and thankfully rare occasions when some individual is deliberately falsifying their contribution. (The latter did happen now and again, but fortunately [sic] not often). From my own researches I can certainly state that the vast majority of fighter pilots (and aircrew generally) of all nations did their duty in an exemplary fashion. If anyone has done them a disservice I would suggest that it was more likely to be those who wrote about them carelessly for sensational and propaganda purposes - not those who have tried to be objective and honest in recording history to the best of their abilities. Personally, I am always pleased to be able to update and correct any statement I have recorded in the past where further or more reliable evidence becomes available.
If you should feel it appropriate to include these words on the Forum I would be grateful. If you feel it is too long, then fine.
Kind regards,
Chris
I only yesterday read this , from "Four Aces" by Lex McAulay.(Page 62)
"The German fighters of JG2 and JG 26 claimed 13 Swordfish, 10 being confirmed by the official Luftwaffe system and a victory credit given to the relevant pilots. The German ships also were credited with the destruction of 6 Swordfish. It is acknowledged by all concerned and accepted by historians and enthusiasts that almost all victory claims for intense combats were exaggerated, but to the author of this book there seems to have been a disproportionate effort at disparaging Allied claims, while Luftwaffe claims have been accepted, partly due to the thorough verification into each claim by relevant Luftwaffe authorities, and the issue of a confirmatory document for an individual claim. These documents appear to have taken on the halo of irrefutable fact. Events such as the Channel Dash call into question the accuracy of the Luftwaffe system. only 6 Swordfish took part and Ted Hall of 129 Sqn saw 3 shot down by ships' fire; but 10 were officially credited to fighter pilots by the Luftwaffe system.
"Luftwaffe Fighter Aces" by Mike Spick (about 30 books published) which is an excellent story of the Experten and their Tactics
He has an interesting slant on this, almost an apology for the over claiming.
He implies the Luftwaffe claims are multiplied by 2 or 3 times the actual figures.
He says the claims were made in "good faith", and examined as rigourously "as the circumstances allowed"
He also states "That an aerial Victory occurs when an enemy is DEFEATED in combat in circumstances where the victor believes that it will be a total loss. (I think this is a personal view)
In another chapter he mentions this phrase but ends with "the enemy aircraft can no longer take part in the battle"
Location: Galland's home in Remagen, Germany
Date: 1 October 1991
Interviewer: Don Caldwell
Also Present: Josef Buerschgens, a pilot in JG 26 1938-1940
Caldwell: During the course of the Battle of Britain Reichsmarschall Goering lost confidence in the Jagdwaffe - completely and permanently. The conventional explanations for this are well known, but seem inadequate. Could Goering's bitter feelings toward his fighter pilots have been the result of a suspicion that victory claims were being deliberately overstated?
Galland: Your theory is almost correct, but incomplete. I must defend the really overstated claims of the fighters by telling you that there was an enormous difference between the first claims, right after the mission, and finally confirmed victories. Goering and most of his staff, however, calculated and assumed always the worst for the enemy and the most optimistic facts for our side.
Chris Shores on AVG combat claims
Recently there's been a heated discussion on the AVG veterans' message board about what the British aviation historian Christopher Shores wrote about over-claiming in the Battle of Burma. Soon the argument spread to the Twelve O'clock High forum. In the end, Mr. Shores added his tuppennys' worth, which appears below:
* * * *
Firstly, those who seek to attack what I have written on the subject should be made aware that I found AVG claims no more or less unreliable than those of most other air forces I have researched. Always the circumstances of each engagement needs to be looked at carefully. In fighter-v-fighter combats the claim:loss ratio always seems to climb rapidly, multiplied by the numbers of aircraft/units involved. In Burma the AVG were often fighting over jungle and attacked in steep dives before climbing back for altitude. Good tactics, but fraught with opportunities for double claiming - or triple claiming for that matter.
When I wrote ' Fighters over the Desert' way back in the 1960s, I could not understand why I kept finding claims that I could not verify when I seemed to have all the available records to hand. It was only years later, and after I had been attacked by apologists for just about every air force in the world, that I found in the official British war histories published in the early/mid 1950s a clear warning that claim totals were likelty to be inflated and could not be relied upon - and that was admitted within ten years of the end of WWII !!
Indeed, overclaiming, albeit in the best of good faith in most cases, certainly seems to have been endemic in aerial combat. It happened on every front and with every air force. Some (though not all) Luftwaffe units and Finnish units were considerably more accurate than most, most of the time. Fighter pilots by and large were young, aggressive and optimistic men who knew what they should be seeing and wanted to see. Even now, some still get very upset when it is pointed out that something they were quite certain had happened (and wanted to have happened) had not in fact occurred just as they recalled it. Others are much more pragmatic and realistic - and strangely, it is usually the latter whose claims prove to be easier to verify as having been accurate (or at least reasonably so).
I always remind myself of the little verse Barrett Tillman recited once - "You can tell a bomber pilot by the spread across his rear, and by the ring around his eye, you can tell a bombardier; you can tell a navigator by his maps and charts and such, and you can tell a fighter pilot - but you can't tell him much !"
Just for the record, I love it when I can find a loss that fits a claim so that I can properly confirm what actually happened at the time. It gives me no joy at all to have to point out that there was not a loss for a particular claim. I love the world of fighter pilots and have spent more than 40 years of my life researching and recording their exploits. But in doing so if one is to retain credibility as a historian, one must look at the full picture, not just one side.
In ' Bill; a Pilot's Story' by Brooklyn Harris, the author records how day after day Japanese formations kept returning to targets in the Solomons despite the losses apparently being inflicted on them by the 13th Air Force. It never once occurred to the author that perhaps the reason for the apparently inexhaustible supply of aircraft the Japanese seemed to have available to them - something to which he specifically referred - might have indicated that at least in part the losses they were actually suffering were not as severe as those being claimed.
To research matters from as wide a perspective as possible and to report the results as accurately as one can, should reflect no shame on those participating except in the occasional and thankfully rare occasions when some individual is deliberately falsifying their contribution. (The latter did happen now and again, but fortunately [sic] not often). From my own researches I can certainly state that the vast majority of fighter pilots (and aircrew generally) of all nations did their duty in an exemplary fashion. If anyone has done them a disservice I would suggest that it was more likely to be those who wrote about them carelessly for sensational and propaganda purposes - not those who have tried to be objective and honest in recording history to the best of their abilities. Personally, I am always pleased to be able to update and correct any statement I have recorded in the past where further or more reliable evidence becomes available.
If you should feel it appropriate to include these words on the Forum I would be grateful. If you feel it is too long, then fine.
Kind regards,
Chris
Plus later bits
I only yesterday read this , from "Four Aces" by Lex McAulay.(Page 62)
"The German fighters of JG2 and JG 26 claimed 13 Swordfish, 10 being confirmed by the official Luftwaffe system and a victory credit given to the relevant pilots. The German ships also were credited with the destruction of 6 Swordfish. It is acknowledged by all concerned and accepted by historians and enthusiasts that almost all victory claims for intense combats were exaggerated, but to the author of this book there seems to have been a disproportionate effort at disparaging Allied claims, while Luftwaffe claims have been accepted, partly due to the thorough verification into each claim by relevant Luftwaffe authorities, and the issue of a confirmatory document for an individual claim. These documents appear to have taken on the halo of irrefutable fact. Events such as the Channel Dash call into question the accuracy of the Luftwaffe system. only 6 Swordfish took part and Ted Hall of 129 Sqn saw 3 shot down by ships' fire; but 10 were officially credited to fighter pilots by the Luftwaffe system.
"Luftwaffe Fighter Aces" by Mike Spick (about 30 books published) which is an excellent story of the Experten and their Tactics
He has an interesting slant on this, almost an apology for the over claiming.
He implies the Luftwaffe claims are multiplied by 2 or 3 times the actual figures.
He says the claims were made in "good faith", and examined as rigourously "as the circumstances allowed"
He also states "That an aerial Victory occurs when an enemy is DEFEATED in combat in circumstances where the victor believes that it will be a total loss. (I think this is a personal view)
In another chapter he mentions this phrase but ends with "the enemy aircraft can no longer take part in the battle"
Location: Galland's home in Remagen, Germany
Date: 1 October 1991
Interviewer: Don Caldwell
Also Present: Josef Buerschgens, a pilot in JG 26 1938-1940
Caldwell: During the course of the Battle of Britain Reichsmarschall Goering lost confidence in the Jagdwaffe - completely and permanently. The conventional explanations for this are well known, but seem inadequate. Could Goering's bitter feelings toward his fighter pilots have been the result of a suspicion that victory claims were being deliberately overstated?
Galland: Your theory is almost correct, but incomplete. I must defend the really overstated claims of the fighters by telling you that there was an enormous difference between the first claims, right after the mission, and finally confirmed victories. Goering and most of his staff, however, calculated and assumed always the worst for the enemy and the most optimistic facts for our side.
Chris Shores on AVG combat claims
Recently there's been a heated discussion on the AVG veterans' message board about what the British aviation historian Christopher Shores wrote about over-claiming in the Battle of Burma. Soon the argument spread to the Twelve O'clock High forum. In the end, Mr. Shores added his tuppennys' worth, which appears below:
* * * *
Firstly, those who seek to attack what I have written on the subject should be made aware that I found AVG claims no more or less unreliable than those of most other air forces I have researched. Always the circumstances of each engagement needs to be looked at carefully. In fighter-v-fighter combats the claim:loss ratio always seems to climb rapidly, multiplied by the numbers of aircraft/units involved. In Burma the AVG were often fighting over jungle and attacked in steep dives before climbing back for altitude. Good tactics, but fraught with opportunities for double claiming - or triple claiming for that matter.
When I wrote ' Fighters over the Desert' way back in the 1960s, I could not understand why I kept finding claims that I could not verify when I seemed to have all the available records to hand. It was only years later, and after I had been attacked by apologists for just about every air force in the world, that I found in the official British war histories published in the early/mid 1950s a clear warning that claim totals were likelty to be inflated and could not be relied upon - and that was admitted within ten years of the end of WWII !!
Indeed, overclaiming, albeit in the best of good faith in most cases, certainly seems to have been endemic in aerial combat. It happened on every front and with every air force. Some (though not all) Luftwaffe units and Finnish units were considerably more accurate than most, most of the time. Fighter pilots by and large were young, aggressive and optimistic men who knew what they should be seeing and wanted to see. Even now, some still get very upset when it is pointed out that something they were quite certain had happened (and wanted to have happened) had not in fact occurred just as they recalled it. Others are much more pragmatic and realistic - and strangely, it is usually the latter whose claims prove to be easier to verify as having been accurate (or at least reasonably so).
I always remind myself of the little verse Barrett Tillman recited once - "You can tell a bomber pilot by the spread across his rear, and by the ring around his eye, you can tell a bombardier; you can tell a navigator by his maps and charts and such, and you can tell a fighter pilot - but you can't tell him much !"
Just for the record, I love it when I can find a loss that fits a claim so that I can properly confirm what actually happened at the time. It gives me no joy at all to have to point out that there was not a loss for a particular claim. I love the world of fighter pilots and have spent more than 40 years of my life researching and recording their exploits. But in doing so if one is to retain credibility as a historian, one must look at the full picture, not just one side.
In ' Bill; a Pilot's Story' by Brooklyn Harris, the author records how day after day Japanese formations kept returning to targets in the Solomons despite the losses apparently being inflicted on them by the 13th Air Force. It never once occurred to the author that perhaps the reason for the apparently inexhaustible supply of aircraft the Japanese seemed to have available to them - something to which he specifically referred - might have indicated that at least in part the losses they were actually suffering were not as severe as those being claimed.
To research matters from as wide a perspective as possible and to report the results as accurately as one can, should reflect no shame on those participating except in the occasional and thankfully rare occasions when some individual is deliberately falsifying their contribution. (The latter did happen now and again, but fortunately [sic] not often). From my own researches I can certainly state that the vast majority of fighter pilots (and aircrew generally) of all nations did their duty in an exemplary fashion. If anyone has done them a disservice I would suggest that it was more likely to be those who wrote about them carelessly for sensational and propaganda purposes - not those who have tried to be objective and honest in recording history to the best of their abilities. Personally, I am always pleased to be able to update and correct any statement I have recorded in the past where further or more reliable evidence becomes available.
If you should feel it appropriate to include these words on the Forum I would be grateful. If you feel it is too long, then fine.
Kind regards,
Chris
I only yesterday read this , from "Four Aces" by Lex McAulay.(Page 62)
"The German fighters of JG2 and JG 26 claimed 13 Swordfish, 10 being confirmed by the official Luftwaffe system and a victory credit given to the relevant pilots. The German ships also were credited with the destruction of 6 Swordfish. It is acknowledged by all concerned and accepted by historians and enthusiasts that almost all victory claims for intense combats were exaggerated, but to the author of this book there seems to have been a disproportionate effort at disparaging Allied claims, while Luftwaffe claims have been accepted, partly due to the thorough verification into each claim by relevant Luftwaffe authorities, and the issue of a confirmatory document for an individual claim. These documents appear to have taken on the halo of irrefutable fact. Events such as the Channel Dash call into question the accuracy of the Luftwaffe system. only 6 Swordfish took part and Ted Hall of 129 Sqn saw 3 shot down by ships' fire; but 10 were officially credited to fighter pilots by the Luftwaffe system.
"Luftwaffe Fighter Aces" by Mike Spick (about 30 books published) which is an excellent story of the Experten and their Tactics
He has an interesting slant on this, almost an apology for the over claiming.
He implies the Luftwaffe claims are multiplied by 2 or 3 times the actual figures.
He says the claims were made in "good faith", and examined as rigourously "as the circumstances allowed"
He also states "That an aerial Victory occurs when an enemy is DEFEATED in combat in circumstances where the victor believes that it will be a total loss. (I think this is a personal view)
In another chapter he mentions this phrase but ends with "the enemy aircraft can no longer take part in the battle"
Location: Galland's home in Remagen, Germany
Date: 1 October 1991
Interviewer: Don Caldwell
Also Present: Josef Buerschgens, a pilot in JG 26 1938-1940
Caldwell: During the course of the Battle of Britain Reichsmarschall Goering lost confidence in the Jagdwaffe - completely and permanently. The conventional explanations for this are well known, but seem inadequate. Could Goering's bitter feelings toward his fighter pilots have been the result of a suspicion that victory claims were being deliberately overstated?
Galland: Your theory is almost correct, but incomplete. I must defend the really overstated claims of the fighters by telling you that there was an enormous difference between the first claims, right after the mission, and finally confirmed victories. Goering and most of his staff, however, calculated and assumed always the worst for the enemy and the most optimistic facts for our side.
Chris Shores on AVG combat claims
Recently there's been a heated discussion on the AVG veterans' message board about what the British aviation historian Christopher Shores wrote about over-claiming in the Battle of Burma. Soon the argument spread to the Twelve O'clock High forum. In the end, Mr. Shores added his tuppennys' worth, which appears below:
* * * *
Firstly, those who seek to attack what I have written on the subject should be made aware that I found AVG claims no more or less unreliable than those of most other air forces I have researched. Always the circumstances of each engagement needs to be looked at carefully. In fighter-v-fighter combats the claim:loss ratio always seems to climb rapidly, multiplied by the numbers of aircraft/units involved. In Burma the AVG were often fighting over jungle and attacked in steep dives before climbing back for altitude. Good tactics, but fraught with opportunities for double claiming - or triple claiming for that matter.
When I wrote ' Fighters over the Desert' way back in the 1960s, I could not understand why I kept finding claims that I could not verify when I seemed to have all the available records to hand. It was only years later, and after I had been attacked by apologists for just about every air force in the world, that I found in the official British war histories published in the early/mid 1950s a clear warning that claim totals were likelty to be inflated and could not be relied upon - and that was admitted within ten years of the end of WWII !!
Indeed, overclaiming, albeit in the best of good faith in most cases, certainly seems to have been endemic in aerial combat. It happened on every front and with every air force. Some (though not all) Luftwaffe units and Finnish units were considerably more accurate than most, most of the time. Fighter pilots by and large were young, aggressive and optimistic men who knew what they should be seeing and wanted to see. Even now, some still get very upset when it is pointed out that something they were quite certain had happened (and wanted to have happened) had not in fact occurred just as they recalled it. Others are much more pragmatic and realistic - and strangely, it is usually the latter whose claims prove to be easier to verify as having been accurate (or at least reasonably so).
I always remind myself of the little verse Barrett Tillman recited once - "You can tell a bomber pilot by the spread across his rear, and by the ring around his eye, you can tell a bombardier; you can tell a navigator by his maps and charts and such, and you can tell a fighter pilot - but you can't tell him much !"
Just for the record, I love it when I can find a loss that fits a claim so that I can properly confirm what actually happened at the time. It gives me no joy at all to have to point out that there was not a loss for a particular claim. I love the world of fighter pilots and have spent more than 40 years of my life researching and recording their exploits. But in doing so if one is to retain credibility as a historian, one must look at the full picture, not just one side.
In ' Bill; a Pilot's Story' by Brooklyn Harris, the author records how day after day Japanese formations kept returning to targets in the Solomons despite the losses apparently being inflicted on them by the 13th Air Force. It never once occurred to the author that perhaps the reason for the apparently inexhaustible supply of aircraft the Japanese seemed to have available to them - something to which he specifically referred - might have indicated that at least in part the losses they were actually suffering were not as severe as those being claimed.
To research matters from as wide a perspective as possible and to report the results as accurately as one can, should reflect no shame on those participating except in the occasional and thankfully rare occasions when some individual is deliberately falsifying their contribution. (The latter did happen now and again, but fortunately [sic] not often). From my own researches I can certainly state that the vast majority of fighter pilots (and aircrew generally) of all nations did their duty in an exemplary fashion. If anyone has done them a disservice I would suggest that it was more likely to be those who wrote about them carelessly for sensational and propaganda purposes - not those who have tried to be objective and honest in recording history to the best of their abilities. Personally, I am always pleased to be able to update and correct any statement I have recorded in the past where further or more reliable evidence becomes available.
If you should feel it appropriate to include these words on the Forum I would be grateful. If you feel it is too long, then fine.
Kind regards,
Chris
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
Excellent reply by Mr. Shores.
drgondog
Major
I have found Mr. Shores research to be extremely thorough and compliment him for not falling back to 'accepted dogma'.
Research to match claims to credits, particularly when so many records have been lost, is always a difficult proposition.
Thank you Chris for the meticulous efforts and contributions you have made in fighter aviation research over the years.
Regards,
Bill Marshall
Research to match claims to credits, particularly when so many records have been lost, is always a difficult proposition.
Thank you Chris for the meticulous efforts and contributions you have made in fighter aviation research over the years.
Regards,
Bill Marshall
"Look at US fighter kills credited, it's far more accurate than Luftwaffe' figures..."
After reading the great article about USAF huge over claims tank killings during Normandy operation i have became very skeptical about their air battle claims too. However there is no doubt that biggest liars were surely those in Soviet Union.
Read article here about "air craft destroying tanks" in Normandy.
Opeartion Barbarossa: Aircraft vs Armour WWII
"During Operation Goodwood (18th to 21st July) the 2nd Tactical Air Force and 9th USAAF claimed 257 and 134 tanks, respectively, as destroyed. Of these, 222 were claimed by Typhoon pilots using RPs (Rocket Projectiles). "
...
"They found that the air force's claims did not match the reality at all. In the Goodwood area a total of 456 German heavily armoured vehicles were counted, and 301 were examined in detail. They found only 10 could be attributed to Typhoons using RPs (less than 3% of those claimed).(5) Even worse, only 3 out of 87 APC examined could be attributed to air lunched RPs. "
Of course this is painful for those believing how "honest" pilots of western allies were. The truth is the opposite. There were many reasons why it was better to lie and tell the truth. Our losses were hidden, enemy losses were exaggerated. And the sky wasn't even the limit of fantasies.
After reading the great article about USAF huge over claims tank killings during Normandy operation i have became very skeptical about their air battle claims too. However there is no doubt that biggest liars were surely those in Soviet Union.
Read article here about "air craft destroying tanks" in Normandy.
Opeartion Barbarossa: Aircraft vs Armour WWII
"During Operation Goodwood (18th to 21st July) the 2nd Tactical Air Force and 9th USAAF claimed 257 and 134 tanks, respectively, as destroyed. Of these, 222 were claimed by Typhoon pilots using RPs (Rocket Projectiles). "
...
"They found that the air force's claims did not match the reality at all. In the Goodwood area a total of 456 German heavily armoured vehicles were counted, and 301 were examined in detail. They found only 10 could be attributed to Typhoons using RPs (less than 3% of those claimed).(5) Even worse, only 3 out of 87 APC examined could be attributed to air lunched RPs. "
Of course this is painful for those believing how "honest" pilots of western allies were. The truth is the opposite. There were many reasons why it was better to lie and tell the truth. Our losses were hidden, enemy losses were exaggerated. And the sky wasn't even the limit of fantasies.
I'd refer you back to Chris Shores excellent post from a few years back. His observations apply to air to ground attacks too.
Close Air Support in Normandy is something I have looked at in some detail myself. I can't comment on Soviet claims.
It is quite wrong to suggest that the pilots of RAF 2nd TAF and US 9th AF were lying in their claims. A far more sober appraisal and attempt at explanation is required. Those pilots would have believed that their rockets were causing the carnage that they claimed. I don't have time to go through my notes at the moment to give you a specific reference, but it was established by testing back in the UK that a rocket exploding within feet of an armoured vehicle did no significant damage. That's obviously not how it looked to pilots zooming past at 250 mph.
A fraudulent claim is not the same as a mistaken claim. The latter was very common, the former extremely rare and even more difficult to prove.
Cheers
Steve
Kryten
Senior Airman
I have always taken claims with a pinch of salt, not because I believe the pilots to be falsifying their efforts but because I don't think enough emphasis is placed on the ability to actually see what is happening around you whilst in a combat inside a aluminium tube with a small often obstructed canopy!
The true picture of air combat is displayed clearly for all in the result of the campaign they are involved in rather than individual combats.
The true picture of air combat is displayed clearly for all in the result of the campaign they are involved in rather than individual combats.
That is so, and it was usually a nasty surprise for both sides of a conflict when compared to the intelligence gathered from the pilots during the conflict.
Cheers
Steve
This is an unbalanced and unfair appraisal of 2 TAF's Typhoon pilots and their objectivity, and this website is clearly pushing an agenda - unless there is obvious evidence that pilots and aircrew were deliberately lying it is not up to any armchair experts, who have most likely never been involved in combat, to claim that they were. What is "painful" is to read this type of nonsense about these guys who put their lives on the line every time they flew on an operation.
As it is a far more balanced appraisal of the Mortain claims can be found here;
Last edited:
Unless its about Luftwaffe pilots, then its okay...
There's no 100% kill confirmation from the air unless you see a tank exploding or an aircraft go straight down into the ground and/or explode.
It's especially hard to confirm ground kills from fast aircraft like the usual fighter-bombers, easier to confirm from slower a/c like Ju 87 because they don't overshoot their target that fast and mayhave time to see some devastating effect (or not).
It's especially hard to confirm ground kills from fast aircraft like the usual fighter-bombers, easier to confirm from slower a/c like Ju 87 because they don't overshoot their target that fast and mayhave time to see some devastating effect (or not).
Kryten
Senior Airman
I think you grossly underestimate the amount of dust and smoke obscuring the impact point, it's probably almost impossible to reliably gauge any effect until minutes after, that's my own experience with artillery!
It's not okay to claim pilots and aircrew were lying, no matter what nationality, and if you look through my posts I have never said that about any of them. About as bad is claiming that all Luftwaffe pilots and crews were dedicated/fanatical Nazis...to requote Chris Shores:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Using the term "liar" is a bit harsh. Those fighting under the Soviet flag were hard pressed to show results and lack of performance could be just as deadly as the enemy. Across the board I don't believe for the most part anyone intentionally "lied" about combat claims. As been stated many, many times on this forum, it was recognized the confusion and stresses experienced during combat breeds a natural bowl of confusion so it would be a natural situation for ALL combatants to over-claim. Not to say that it is possible (and probable) that some individual combatants "padded" their claims, using the word "liar" as a broad brush is a bid narrow (and unfair) within the greater picture of WW2 aerial combat.
Oh I am just going off of this forum's trend...
Hi TJ.
