Number of Allied Plane losses against Germany in May 1944

[GregP]

Hi Greg - for you and Barrett Tillman

The USAF Study 85 was very specific about criteria for aerial victory credit awards. Most conspicuous was 'destruction calim shall be accompanied by either combat film or attested witness report." A higher command authority than the squadron/group was inserted for review and awards.

What was comparable USN/USMC written process? How about Carrier ops?

The process of vetting is described in "Naval Aviation Combat Statistics World War Two," but not exactly in great detail.

The method used in compiling these data deserves brief description. The basic source material for most actions was the squadron ACA-1 report for each mission, or the individual
squadron or mission action report for actions prior to adoption of the ACA-1 form. Where no action reports were available, carrier battle narratives or squadron monthly war diaries were used. A check list of all carriers and squadrons in combat areas was maintained, and the war diaries of all such squadrons, and battle narratives of all such ships, were checked for possible actions in the event that no action reports had been received from any of these units.

Naval Air Anti-submarine data is omitted.
Also excluded are complete data for flights not involving contact with the enemy. Things like search, recon, defensive flights not in action, etc. So, losses sustained on such flights are excluded, too.
Operations of VO-VS aircraft are excluded.
Data in losses of flying personnel are excluded.
In the case of planes destroyed on ground by carrier-based aircraft, the final evaluations of the carrier task force commanders were used in lieu of the claims advanced in squadron
action reports. Squadron claims have been used, however, for grounded planes destroyed by our land-based aircraft, in view of the small n!xibers involved, and the general lack of final evaluations . (Squadron claims have been used consistently for enemy aircraft destroyed in air combat, since in few instances have higher commands reduced these claims).

Enemy aircraft destroyed in combat:
Airborne enemy aircraft claimed destroyed by naval aircraft, In aerial combat only. Planes destroyed by own anti-aircraft fire or in suicide crashes are not included. Enemy aircraft reported as "probably destroyed" are not included. Squadron claims, as made in ACA-1 or other action reports, are the basis for these figures. They thus represent the evaluations only of the squadron intelligence officer, squadron commander, and in some cases the air group commander. However, rarely was there any further evaluation by higher authority
of squadron claims with respect to airborne enemy aircraft.

There's more, but it is a longer read.

It is worth remembering that most Naval air actions involved 2 to 8 of our aircraft against 2 to 8 enemy aircraft since both sets were from carriers. That makes it WAY easier to keep track of victories and losses since there is no giant, swirling dogfight. Yes, there were a few, but not very many relative to the ETO or MTO.

By way of example. the very important mission to shoot down Yamamoto involved only eighteen P-38s (2 of which malfunctioned) versus two Betty Bombers and an escort of six A6M fighters. Seems like, with the value of Yamamoto to Japan, he would have had a more impressive escort, but nobody thought there was much danger. So, keeping track of things was WAY easier than 100 fighters escorting 200 bombers over Europe.

Despite that, they still fought about who exactly got Yamamoto! The questions is still debated! That may mean nobody is very sure of anything or one pilot or the other simply craved the credit.

I bet they didn't tell anyone else WHO was on a target aircraft from that mission forward!

 

[drgondog]

The process of vetting is described in "Naval Aviation Combat Statistics World War Two," but not exactly in great detail.

The method used in compiling these data deserves brief description. The basic source material for most actions was the squadron ACA-1 report for each mission, or the individual
squadron or mission action report for actions prior to adoption of the ACA-1 form. Where no action reports were available, carrier battle narratives or squadron monthly war diaries were used. A check list of all carriers and squadrons in combat areas was maintained, and the war diaries of all such squadrons, and battle narratives of all such ships, were checked for possible actions in the event that no action reports had been received from any of these units.

Naval Air Anti-submarine data is omitted.
Also excluded are complete data for flights not involving contact with the enemy. Things like search, recon, defensive flights not in action, etc. So, losses sustained on such flights are excluded, too.
Operations of VO-VS aircraft are excluded.
Data in losses of flying personnel are excluded.
In the case of planes destroyed on ground by carrier-based aircraft, the final evaluations of the carrier task force commanders were used in lieu of the claims advanced in squadron
action reports. Squadron claims have been used, however, for grounded planes destroyed by our land-based aircraft, in view of the small n!xibers involved, and the general lack of final evaluations . (Squadron claims have been used consistently for enemy aircraft destroyed in air combat, since in few instances have higher commands reduced these claims).

Enemy aircraft destroyed in combat:
Airborne enemy aircraft claimed destroyed by naval aircraft, In aerial combat only. Planes destroyed by own anti-aircraft fire or in suicide crashes are not included. Enemy aircraft reported as "probably destroyed" are not included. Squadron claims, as made in ACA-1 or other action reports, are the basis for these figures. They thus represent the evaluations only of the squadron intelligence officer, squadron commander, and in some cases the air group commander. However, rarely was there any further evaluation by higher authority
of squadron claims with respect to airborne enemy aircraft.

There's more, but it is a longer read.

It is worth remembering that most Naval air actions involved 2 to 8 of our aircraft against 2 to 8 enemy aircraft since both sets were from carriers. That makes it WAY easier to keep track of victories and losses since there is no giant, swirling dogfight. Yes, there were a few, but not very many relative to the ETO or MTO.

By way of example. the very important mission to shoot down Yamamoto involved only eighteen P-38s (2 of which malfunctioned) versus two Betty Bombers and an escort of six A6M fighters. Seems like, with the values of Yamamoto to Japan, he would have had a more impressive escort, but nobody thought there was much danger. So, keeping track of things was WAY easier than 100 fighters escorting 200 bombers over Europe.

Despite that, they still fought about who exactly got Yamamoto! The questions is still debated! That may mean nobody is very sure of anything or one pilot or the other simply craved the credit.

I bet they didn't tell anyone else WHO was on a target aircraft from that mission forward!

If I read what you wrote - there is no standard for 'proof' in context of either an eye witness or gun camera flm?

 

[GregP]

The standard was the ACA-1 combat report written and accepted by the squadron during the war. The thinking was that keeping track of aerial combat of small groups (mostly 4-8 vs. 4-8) from a carrier is MUCH easier than for large formations of airplanes as seen in the ETO. That thinking has merit, but it doesn't mean there weren't errors in the smaller-scale Naval Aviation fights just as there inevitably were in the numerically larger ETO USAAF / RAF fights.

I concur that it is MUCH easier, as claimed, but make no assertion about the actual accuracy of the claims. What I CAN say is that the Naval report "Naval Aviation Combat Statistics World War Two" contains the generally-accepted numbers for the USN / USMC for WWII. That said, the report does not show the names credited with the aerial victories. I'g guess you would have to look through the ACA-1 forms.

So, at minimum, we HAVE the USAAF Statistical Digest World War Two and the Navy document above to peruse.

I wish we had the same for the other combatants of WWII, but we don't appear to have anything like them available that I can find for other nations.

The Magnus website (Air Aces Homepage ) and Jan Safarik (Jan J. Safarik: Air Aces) have a lot of data, including other nations, but where did they GET that data? And why isn't it in a more digital-friendly form?

Actually, I have these data sets in Excel form, but it took a LONG TIME to parse correctly, and I still do not know the sources for the data. Still, if you want them, I will happily supply them.

Of course, YOU created the definitive 8th AF victory tallies in your book on it. I am waiting for you to finish the MTO book and an looking forward to your Pacific version as well as the obviously upcoming British, German, Japanese, and Soviet victory compilations!

Frustrating ...the data should NOT be so hard to find but, as you know better than almost anyone else in the world, it IS.

As for me, I'm still not too sure we all agree on what comprises an aerial victory. If I shot down a German fighter, I'd claim it whether or not they ever recovered and flew it again. A shoot-down is a shoot-down to me.

The eventual fate of the shot-down airplane is not of all that much interest to me. If I were German and I could get needed parts from a crashed or force-landed aircraft, I would. That does not change the fact that it was shot down and out of the fight where it became an unfortunate victim.

Yet there are people who would say that if the enemy recovered parts from a crashmor the entire crashed aircraft itself, that wasn't really a victory. Poppcock. It was, even if the crash or parts of it subsequently flew again somewhere.

 

[Snautzer01]

I think:
Pilots view on kill. It went down didnt get up have camera pictures.
Brass view on kill. It must be be totally destroyed and never able to be repaired. Pieces may be used again but only a a cost. You can paint a symbol on your kite but untill all our boxes are ticked it is not really a said "kill"

 

[GregP]

To me, the only important view is from the viewpoint of the pilots involved.

The brass have a different agenda from the mission objectives.

Mission objectives are generally to escort some set of airplanes to and from a target with minimum losses possible, to shoot down enemy attackers, to strafe enemy targets, to hit a precision target, to break up an incoming enemy attack, etc.

Brass objectives tend to be strategic and mission objectives are almost all tactical.

The brass who plan it all deserve credit for planning the eventual victory or loss (strategic) and participation in it if they did so. If the planners tell the troops to kill POWs, they deserve to hang with the people who did it.

The guys who actually fly it deserve credit for making the plans happen (tactics and execution). If they kill POWs on their own, they deserve to hang. If they follow the rules of warfare, they deserve to go home unhindered, with recognition for honorable combat, on both sides.

The above assumes a declared war. If no declared war, there is a lot of gray area open to interpretation. Unfortunately for all involved, the press get involved in after-action interpretations, and they get a LOT of things exactly wrong when it comes to the military and war. Heck, they get it wrong when there IS no war. They'd get it wrong publishing a recipe for hot water soup.

The press can't seem to figure out that the LAST people who want war are the soldiers who have to fight it. War happens when politicians fail to do their jobs. War comes to a halt when the military of one side makes it so hard for the other side that they return to the negotiation table to end it.

Maybe it would be better to elect warriors as politicians and let THEM fight it out when negotiations break down. If it were that way, I bet they'd talk it out longer with better intentions to avoid the battle in the first place.

 

[Engineman]

The standard was the ACA-1 combat report written and accepted by the squadron during the war. The thinking was that keeping track of aerial combat of small groups (mostly 4-8 vs. 4-8) from a carrier is MUCH easier than for large formations of airplanes as seen in the ETO. That thinking has merit, but it doesn't mean there weren't errors in the smaller-scale Naval Aviation fights just as there inevitably were in the numerically larger ETO USAAF / RAF fights.

I concur that it is MUCH easier, as claimed, but make no assertion about the actual accuracy of the claims. What I CAN say is that the Naval report "Naval Aviation Combat Statistics World War Two" contains the generally-accepted numbers for the USN / USMC for WWII. That said, the report does not show the names credited with the aerial victories. I'g guess you would have to look through the ACA-1 forms.

So, at minimum, we HAVE the USAAF Statistical Digest World War Two and the Navy document above to peruse.

I wish we had the same for the other combatants of WWII, but we don't appear to have anything like them available that I can find for other nations.

The Magnus website (Air Aces Homepage ) and Jan Safarik (Jan J. Safarik: Air Aces) have a lot of data, including other nations, but where did they GET that data? And why isn't it in a more digital-friendly form?

Actually, I have these data sets in Excel form, but it took a LONG TIME to parse correctly, and I still do not know the sources for the data. Still, if you want them, I will happily supply them.

Of course, YOU created the definitive 8th AF victory tallies in your book on it. I am waiting for you to finish the MTO book and an looking forward to your Pacific version as well as the obviously upcoming British, German, Japanese, and Soviet victory compilations!

Frustrating ...the data should NOT be so hard to find but, as you know better than almost anyone else in the world, it IS.

As for me, I'm still not too sure we all agree on what comprises an aerial victory. If I shot down a German fighter, I'd claim it whether or not they ever recovered and flew it again. A shoot-down is a shoot-down to me.

The eventual fate of the shot-down airplane is not of all that much interest to me. If I were German and I could get needed parts from a crashed or force-landed aircraft, I would. That does not change the fact that it was shot down and out of the fight where it became an unfortunate victim.

Yet there are people who would say that if the enemy recovered parts from a crashmor the entire crashed aircraft itself, that wasn't really a victory. Poppcock. It was, even if the crash or parts of it subsequently flew again somewhere.

Howabout U-Boat kills? On 11 March 1940 a Blenheim sank the U-31 with 2 bomb hits. Boat sank with loss of all 58 crew. Boat was salvaged by Germans, repaired and recommissioned, again as U-31 on 30 July 1940. U-31 was sunk again by HMS Antelope 2 November 1940, NW of Ireland. 43 or 44 of 46 on board were rescued.
I guess that both sinkings count?

Eng

 

[drgondog]

Howabout U-Boat kills? On 11 March 1940 a Blenheim sank the U-31 with 2 bomb hits. Boat sank with loss of all 58 crew. Boat was salvaged by Germans, repaired and recommissioned, again as U-31 on 30 July 1940. U-31 was sunk again by HMS Antelope 2 November 1940, NW of Ireland. 43 or 44 of 46 on board were rescued.
I guess that both sinkings count?

Eng

should - it was. While 'sunk' and credit for such isn't the same as 'destroyed', it seems that credit for both sinkings is appropriate.