P-47 in the ETO

[special ed]

That's funny. In USAF reserve whenever I left the Propshop I carried a clipboard for the same reason, however some sergeants had seen the same movies.

 

[GrauGeist]

That's funny. In USAF reserve whenever I left the Propshop I carried a clipboard for the same reason, however some sergeants had seen the same movies.

My Uncle was pretty laid back (unless he was terrorizing boots at Lackland AFB).

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

I am done with this daft discussion, and all the other discussions which stem from your obsession with numbers over context.

So a man of his word.
Correction: Ju87 losses table should have begun on 8 August, 11, 0, 0, 2, 0, 7, 1, 6, 9, 0, 19.

I think the loss of 11 and 19 in a single day would count as a "party".

So your definition of frequently is more than once.

It is relevant because they were bombers. The LW sent a lot of bombers in October, they were called Bf109s.

And to note again, the 3 to 1 loss is over the course of the battle, not every engagement. Ju87 are bombers, the loss lists note losses to bombers, rarely to a given type of bomber. If the Ju87 were as hopeless in defending themselves as you are claiming it increases the effectiveness of the other bombers. The lists also count losses to Bf109s as fighter, even if the Bf109 started out carrying a bomb. It is so interesting you decide the Bf109 carrying bombs need to be counted as bombers. Does the same apply to all allied fighter bombers? So there needs to be a similar rewrite about allied bomber effectiveness in shooting down enemy aircraft?

dont compare me to a block of granite.

Easy, the geologists are complaining it is unfair to the granite.

Overwhelming, forces the opposition to give up because they are overwhelmed.

I can see how your unique conclusions are reached, by unique definitions of words.

15 August raids, KG30 lost 5 Ju88C (the fighter version) and 2 Ju88A, including write offs.

18 August, list has 19 Ju87 losses, including 2 that crashed, and 1 that crashed after taking battle damage, not quite 21% combat losses.

27 (not 25) September Luftwaffe lost 1 Ju88 reconnaissance machine and 17 bombers, including 1 not on operations, 2 to a collision, 1 to AA fire.

Now all you have to do is complete any other raids made on the 3 dates you have given plus deal with the fact the Battle of Britain lasted 114 days according to the RAF, and you have access to the diary, so count away, come up with the average over the course of the entire battle, not three days when the RAF did well.

Here is a list of LW aces from the BoB who were all flying fighters, apart from 1 in Erp 210 who will have been in a "Bf110 or 109 bomber" Do you have a similar but much bigger list of LW BoB bomber aces, to support your argument of "bombers shooting down fighters"?

I prefer the loss lists drawn up with access to both side's records as the most accurate, not the kill claims list. Why are the Luftwaffe bomber gunner kill lists needed? They are wartime good faith ideas about what happened, they are also far from accurate.

So far we have had announcements on the loss list I am using is supposed to contain and count, sight unseen,
The idea given friendly pilot survival rates you can halve the associated aircraft losses.
You cannot evaluate operations in one time period because none of the type were flown in another.
Overwhelming is overwhelming.
Similarly frequently is more than once.
If a fighter takes off carrying a bomb it must be counted as a bomber, both if lost and if it shoots down anything.
Wartime kill claim lists are needed for some reason when counting actual losses.

 

[pbehn]

18 August, list has 19 Ju87 losses, including 2 that crashed, and 1 that crashed after taking battle damage, not quite 21% combat losses.

I prefer the loss lists drawn up with access to both side's records as the most accurate,

Frequently is frequent enough to cause the LW to stop hitting their head against a wall. The 21% was from the account linked, it is rare for everyones numbers to tally, however a plane that crashes with battle damage has been shot down in my opinion, thats what happens they get hit, damaged and crash. The fact is, from your figures on the 18 August 19 Ju87s were lost to the RAF, 6 RAF fighters were lost to the 150 LW escorts. The Ju 87 was withdrawn because the losses were too high and they didnt shoot down any RAF fighters that day.

I do not care what you prefer, you need to demonstrate LW bombers shooting down RAF fighters, not produce a snowstorm list to overwhelm the discussion with irrelevant distractions.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Just like in the other thread.

Everyone needs to knock it off with the snarky comments and veil insults. Debate in a civil manner or keep scrolling.

The Mod Team us getting sick of this real quick.

Last and final warning!

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

I am working off the Battle of Britain Then and Now loss lists, which have had a basic cross check against lists put together in a US Government funded study, covering 10 July to 31 October 1940. For air to air combat the cause of RAF loss tends to be simple categories, no separating out the different Luftwaffe bombers. Result is around a 3 to 1 loss ratio Luftwaffe bombers to RAF fighters.

Which loss list are you working from, where can people obtain a copy and what does it indicate the various loss ratios were?

 

[pbehn]

I am working off the Battle of Britain Then and Now loss lists, which have had a basic cross check against lists put together in a US Government funded study, covering 10 July to 31 October 1940. For air to air combat the cause of RAF loss tends to be simple categories, no separating out the different Luftwaffe bombers. Result is around a 3 to 1 loss ratio Luftwaffe bombers to RAF fighters.

Which loss list are you working from, where can people obtain a copy and what does it indicate the various loss ratios were?

I am not working from loss lists, I was just establishing that a loss ratio of fighters on one side and bombers on the other does not mean "bombers were shooting down fighters" at that ratio. You are now using the correct term of loss ratio, so I am happy.

People have speculated that production of the V1 and V2 weapons killed the same more captive and slave workers than enemy civilians were killed by the weapons themselves , that is a loss ratio of 1:1 or greater, it doesnt mean that civilians on one side and slave workers on the other were involved in combat with each other.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

To be explicit, 3 to 1 is the average loss ratio when RAF fighters fought Luftwaffe bombers, that is over the course of the Battle of Britain the bombers shot down 1 fighter for every 3 bombers the fighters shot down, where bombers are the Luftwaffe twins and Ju87. So say the causes of loss in the loss lists. Similar to what Bungay says when he has the ratio of Bf109 shot down by RAF fighters versus RAF fighters shot down by Bf109.

 

[pbehn]

To be explicit, 3 to 1 is the average loss ratio when RAF fighters fought Luftwaffe bombers, that is over the course of the Battle of Britain the bombers shot down 1 fighter for every 3 bombers the fighters shot down, where bombers are the Luftwaffe twins and Ju87. So say the causes of loss in the loss lists. Similar to what Bungay says when he has the ratio of Bf109 shot down by RAF fighters versus RAF fighters shot down by Bf109.

What part did the Bf 109 and Bf 110 play then?

 

[GrauGeist]

What part did the Bf 109 and Bf 110 play then?

Aparently, they weren't needed...

 

[Howard Gibson]

To be explicit, 3 to 1 is the average loss ratio when RAF fighters fought Luftwaffe bombers, that is over the course of the Battle of Britain the bombers shot down 1 fighter for every 3 bombers the fighters shot down, where bombers are the Luftwaffe twins and Ju87. So say the causes of loss in the loss lists. Similar to what Bungay says when he has the ratio of Bf109 shot down by RAF fighters versus RAF fighters shot down by Bf109.

Given that the Luftwaffe shot down something like 3600 of the 900 planes the RAF actually lost, how much confidence do we have in their air gunners claims? The least accurate documented kills claims in WWII were the gunners in the American four engined bombers before escort fighters arrived. For every Bf109 or Fw190 that blew up, there twenty or thirty gunners shooting.

 

[pbehn]

Given that the Luftwaffe shot down something like 3600 of the 900 planes the RAF actually lost, how much confidence do we have in their air gunners claims? The least accurate documented kills claims in WWII were the gunners in the American four engined bombers before escort fighters arrived. For every Bf109 or Fw190 that blew up, there twenty or thirty gunners shooting.

That doesnt answer the question, what were the LW fighters doing while the bombers were shooting down the RAF fighters.

 

[SaparotRob]

Keeping score?

 

[Howard Gibson]

That doesnt answer the question, what were the LW fighters doing while the bombers were shooting down the RAF fighters.

Actually shooting down the RAF fighters?

 

[pbehn]

Actually shooting down the RAF fighters?

That is what I am trying to establish, it is claimed that the bombers did that.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Paging John Vasco , clean-up on aisle 9.

 

[John Vasco]

I am working off the Battle of Britain Then and Now loss lists, which have had a basic cross check against lists put together in a US Government funded study, covering 10 July to 31 October 1940. For air to air combat the cause of RAF loss tends to be simple categories, no separating out the different Luftwaffe bombers. Result is around a 3 to 1 loss ratio Luftwaffe bombers to RAF fighters.

Which loss list are you working from, where can people obtain a copy and what does it indicate the various loss ratios were?

Information: That book came out in 1980. Having worked with Peter Cornwell for decades, and seeing his copy, I know that every page, both RAF and Luftwaffe had extensive red ink entries updating or adding to what was originally published. It is over 40 years since it was published. Does it deserve an updated re-print? I think so, yes. Is there likely to be an updated re-print? Ask me no questions, tell you no lies...

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

As already stated the main list I am working from is the Battle of Britain Then and Now, supplemented by other sources including a quick check against a US study done around 20 years later than the fifth (1989) edition I am using.

I have not used any of the kill claims on either side, so why are they relevant? And why when discussing the aircraft shot down by Luftwaffe bombers is there a need to mention the aircraft shot down by Luftwaffe fighters? Does the reverse apply?

I have already listed the number of Do17, Do215, He111, Ju87 and Ju88 lost and the mathematics are quite simple. Over 900 Luftwaffe bombers lost to all causes, a third of that is 300, versus over 1,000 all cause Fighter Command aircraft losses. Is the idea people did not know 1,000 minus 300 equals 700 losses mostly caused by Luftwaffe fighters?

A more detailed breakdown, deducting all the Luftwaffe bomber losses not on operations, and losses on operations NOT due to enemy aircraft, you end up something over 500 bombers lost to RAF fighters, a third of that is around 170. It is well known Fighter Command lost over 1,000 aircraft during the battle, take away the non air combat losses and that drops to over 800 versus over 700 Bf109 and 110, so around 1.5 Luftwaffe losses in air combat to 1 RAF Fighter Command loss. The Luftwaffe fighters were quite busy and effective, mostly the Bf109.

 

[pbehn]

As already stated the main list I am working from is the Battle of Britain Then and Now, supplemented by other sources including a quick check against a US study done around 20 years later than the fifth (1989) edition I am using.

I have not used any of the kill claims on either side, so why are they relevant? And why when discussing the aircraft shot down by Luftwaffe bombers is there a need to mention the aircraft shot down by Luftwaffe fighters? Does the reverse apply?

I have already listed the number of Do17, Do215, He111, Ju87 and Ju88 lost and the mathematics are quite simple. Over 900 Luftwaffe bombers lost to all causes, a third of that is 300, versus over 1,000 all cause Fighter Command aircraft losses. Is the idea people did not know 1,000 minus 300 equals 700 losses mostly caused by Luftwaffe fighters?

A more detailed breakdown, deducting all the Luftwaffe bomber losses not on operations, and losses on operations NOT due to enemy aircraft, you end up something over 500 bombers lost to RAF fighters, a third of that is around 170. It is well known Fighter Command lost over 1,000 aircraft during the battle, take away the non air combat losses and that drops to over 800 versus over 700 Bf109 and 110, so around 1.5 Luftwaffe losses in air combat to 1 RAF Fighter Command loss. The Luftwaffe fighters were quite busy and effective, mostly the Bf109.

Where is your proof of LW bombers shooting down RAF fighters at your stated ratio? The mathematics is simple but it is the mathematics of a loss ratio, not a ratio of bombers shooting down fighters. It is well known that UK fighter production was running at 500 aircraft per month with another 500 returned to service from damage by all causes. Losing fighter aircraft as not an issue to Park, Dowding or Churchill, the monthly production of aircraft and those returned to service per month was more than the RAF frontline strength. Aircraft didn't matter, only good pilots mattered to the RAF and only serviceable bombers with crews mattered to the LW. You cannot take any part of the BoB and apply it to the bomber offensive of the USA towards Germany without context, it isn't just "ratios"

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Where is your proof of LW bombers shooting down RAF fighters at your stated ratio?

The proof is the loss lists and the checking that went into them to determine the causes of loss. Like the way Stephen Bungay comes up with a ratio of Bf109 inflicted losses on RAF fighters to RAF fighter inflicted losses on Bf109s, that ratio clearly shows RAF fighters were lost to non Bf109 causes.

The mathematics is simple but it is the mathematics of a loss ratio, not a ratio of bombers shooting down fighters.

Please provide a translation of the above sentence. The ratio is the number of Luftwaffe bombers reported shot down by RAF fighters to the number of RAF fighters reported shot down by Luftwaffe bombers.

It is well known that UK fighter production was running at 500 aircraft per month with another 500 returned to service from damage by all causes.

How about explaining why the number of aircraft being produced and repaired is relevant to how the aircraft were being lost. Next if this is so important supply the Luftwaffe figures as well. What is the source of the RAF figures? Ignoring Canadian production of Hurricanes and using the Battle of Britain Then and Now loss listing

July 1940 496 RAF fighters built, of which 432 were Hurricanes and Spitfires, versus 82 Hurricanes and Spitfires lost by Fighter Command and another 116 damaged.

August 1940 476 RAF fighters built, of which 414 were Hurricanes and Spitfires, versus 350 Hurricanes and Spitfires lost by Fighter Command and another 280 damaged.

September 1940 468 RAF fighters built, of which 408 were Hurricanes and Spitfires, versus 344 Hurricanes and Spitfires lost by Fighter Command and another 324 damaged.

October 1940 469 RAF fighters built, of which 399 were Hurricanes and Spitfires, versus 174 Hurricanes and Spitfires lost by Fighter Command and another 171 damaged.

The Whirlwind line began production in June, the Beaufighter similarly (though 1 was officially built in April), Boulton Paul made 183 Defiants in the 4 months. And as noted before losing fighters did matter, given the intensity of the activity many were needing routine inspections etc. over and above the losses. Also add to the above the losses in training units etc., if the RAF really was repairing 500 fighters a month July to October there were over 1,000 fighters damaged by non Fighter Command units in the time period. Meantime according to AIR 20/2037 output from repair (Works) was June (3 weeks) 58 Hurricane and 27 Spitfire, July (4 weeks) 94 Hurricane and 27 Spitfire, August (5 weeks) 88 Hurricane and 58 Spitfire, September (4 weeks) 95 Hurricane and 71 Spitfire, October (4 weeks) 162 Hurricane and 93 Spitfire.

In 1939 Hurricanes had 1 fatal accident per 2,700 hours flown, Spitfires 1 per 2,500. Hurricanes were 4.5% of total hours flown but 8.5% of fatal accidents, Spitfires, 2.5% and 4.5%. Fighter Command's flying hours were 10,100 in March 1940 and jumped from 9,180 in June to 18,320 in July, 20,500 in August , 20,700 hours in September and 18,700 hours in October. The home training units had 39 fatal accidents, 70 killed in July, 58 fatal accidents, 108 killed in August, September 55 and 110, October 47 and 102 before talking about operational units accidents. See Air 20/12269

Aircraft didn't matter

Aircraft did matter. AIR 20/2037 Spitfire and Hurricane situation in squadrons. ASU is ready for issue only, not those ready within 4 days or under repair. The repairing column is for CRC holdings. No notes on why strength increases by 89 but number issued is 413 more than wastage.

w/end	UE	On Str	ASU	Repairing	Wastage	Issued	Note
7-Jul​	918​	895​	337​	235​	26​	23​	UE 18 per squadron and strength is as of 4 July.
14-Jul​	1092​	1020​	228​	246​	63​	128​	Hurri 33 sqns to 22 aircraft each, Spit 13 sqn at 18 a/c, 6 at 22 a/c
21-Jul​	1089​	1025​	267​	233​	49​	131​	Hurri 30@22, 3@18, 1@9, Spit 13@18, 6@22
28-Jul​	1089​	1068​	220​	231​	58​	98​
4-Aug​	1089​	1092​	234​	234​	32​	81​
11-Aug​	1089​	1095​	301​	227​	87​	61​
18-Aug​	1089​	1030​	226​	274​	206​	160​
25-Aug​	1089​	1096​	173​	362​	62​	208​
1-Sep​	1143​	1056​	127​	348​	220​	137​	Hurri 30@22, 6@18, 1@9, Spit 13@18, 6@22
8-Sep​	1143​	970​	109​	424​	213​	231​
15-Sep​	999​	960​	85​	467​	138​	171​	Spitfire squadrons to 18 aircraft each, Hurri 36@18, 1@9
22-Sep​	972​	985​	108​	478​	61​	123​	Hurri 33@18, 4@9
29-Sep​	972​	949​	107​	480​	158​	107​
6-Oct​	972​	960​	128​	477​	84​	133​
13-Oct​	981​	976​	116​	478​	95​	114​	Hurri 34@18, 3@9
20-Oct​	981​	968​	155​	464​	94​	103​
27-Oct​	981​	976​	173​	468​	78​	77​
3-Nov​	990​	984​	153​	471​	70​	121​	Hurri 34@18, 4@9

You cannot take any part of the BoB and apply it to the bomber offensive of the USA towards Germany without context, it isn't just "ratios"

People have noticed how you continually add things, like "what did the fighters do" or jump to 1943 or later, or the people killed making V-1 and V-2, or RAF fighter production and repair and so on but never any data on the results of the Battle of Britain air combats.

In the end, averaged out over all the combats it does become a ratio, 1 RAF fighter shot down by the Luftwaffe bombers to 3 Luftwaffe bombers shot down by RAF fighters during the Battle of Britain.