USAAF aircraft losses

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Why are you challenging and not give any back on those words.

I didn't post anything or get into details because I've pointed this out before with this same person.

I'm not sure what Greg means by 'kills' here. But for victory claims, I think this is a much more accurate chart:

Warbirds and Airshows- WWII US Aircraft Victories

I've personally been through the unit histories for all the US P-40 units and I know that his numbers in the chart above are very close to the aggregate of their numbers (within 3%). There are also Allied victories with that type which aren't counted here.

The numbers for several of the other types match the numbers in other secondary sources I have, for example for the F4U and F4F.

This chart doesn't include most of the multi-engined bombers though.

 

[Snautzer01]

Thank you for giving a bit more info.

 

[Escuadrilla Azul]

Here's a list I put together some years back. It's still the best I have found, and comes from two sources noted at the top of the list. Doesn't have everything you asked about, but I could add bombers when I get time. Cheers.

View attachment 683359

Nice!

One thing that caught my attention is the low number of combat sorties of PBY and PBM. I would expect many more as sub hunters

 

[GregP]

The numbers posted are from the sources listed.

Here is the thing. It doesn't matter WHAT sources you quote, somebody doesn't agree. And they say things like Wild Bill above, who quoted an internet source completely devoid of any primary source references. The David Jackson page LOOKS good and may BE good, but you can't tell that from the references, which total zero.

It's OK, the war is still over, and my numbers come from references you can check.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Well, the David Jackson page has been posted and debated / discussed / checked into on this forum numerous times in the past. If there are major errors there I don't know of them. Do you know of any? Numerous other sources (by which I mean, printed books not random internet pages0 also quote similar or the same numbers. That alone isn't proof of anything but neither are your sources.

I can quote sources / references for the P-40 stats per above, which basically match those compiled by aviation author Carl Molesworth for each given Theater, and I have the unit histories of all the P-40 FG active in the CBI, Pacific, and MTO and the Jackson and Molesworth's numbers, which as I said, are within 3% of what I added up based on the individual unit (fighter group and squadron) histories.

osprey-5

Welcome to the Osprey Members website. Visit our image collection and explore our database of Planes,Maps,Machinery,Uniforms and Battlescenes.

ospreypublishing.com

Now claims aren't the same as actual verified victories based on Axis records. That is a much harder nut to crack.

Generally your claim numbers for all types seem to be lower to much lower than other sources I've found. Needless to say, one can never be certain about all this but this looks way off to me.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

American Victory Roll, which basically just focuses on Aces, lists the following numbers of confirmed air to air victory claims by type, for Aces only. Obviously this is a much smaller number than the total claims by type. But it's higher than your numbers for some aircraft:

Victory Roll / William Wolf (aces only)-----Greg (all US pilots*)--------Jackson (all US pilots)
P-38---------1247---------------------------1758------------------------3785
P-40---------604------------------------------481------------------------2225
P-39---------???--------------------------------14-------------------------320
P-36---------???------------------------------????----------------------------5
P-47---------905----------------------------3082-------------------------3661
P-51--------2078---------------------------4950-------------------------5954
P-61----------20-------------------------------58--------------------------127
Spitfire-------71------------------------------256--------------------------379
F4F/FM2----461-----------------------------1327**----------------------1012 / 422 (1434)
F6F---------2301-----------------------------5163**---------------------5954
F4U---------????-----------------------------2140**----------------------2140
F2A---------????------------------------------???----------------------------10

This is on page 449. He does not list any Aces for the P-39, though I think there were a couple, and he omits Beaufighter and bomber types etc.

* unless I'm missing something?
** If I understand correctly, these are combined air/ground victories

I mention these because even though William Wolf's data isn't complete, the data for confirmed victory claims by aces is easier to verify sources for, in my opinion. If there are 1247 claims made by P-38 Aces, 1758 claims for all pilots sounds a bit low. If there are 604 victory claims for P-40 aces, 481 is definitely low.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Now claims aren't the same as actual verified victories based on Axis records.

I think most of the contributing membership on this forum have been well aware of this for many, many years. You're not dealing with new-bees here, some of this forum's membership been chasing this subject matter for decades.

Just sayin...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

This is on page 449. He does not list any Aces for the P-39, though I think there were a couple

There was only one P-39 ace in the USAAF.

Pacific Wrecks - 1st Lt. William F. Fiedler, Jr. - 347th Fighter Group, 70th Fighter Squadron and 68th Fighter Squadron P-39 Airacobra Pilot and Ace

Fiedler was the only American fighter pilot credited with five victories in the Airacobra and was one of the first ace pilots in the 13th Air Force.

pacificwrecks.com

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I think most of the contributing membership on this forum have been well aware of this for many, many years. You're not dealing with new-bees here, some of this forum's membership been chasing this subject matter for decades.

Just sayin...

I wasn't suggesting otherwise, in fact I think I acknowledged that already in this thread. I've read the forum for years before I ever posted. And as I mentioned, I've seen those David Jackson numbers discussed on here in many other threads in the past, so I don't think they are new either.

I'm just specifying to be clear what my numbers mean here, I am not certain what the other numbers mean.

 

[GregP]

Well, the David Jackson page has been posted and debated / discussed / checked into on this forum numerous times in the past. If there are major errors there I don't know of them. Do you know of any? Numerous other sources (by which I mean, printed books not random internet pages0 also quote similar or the same numbers. That alone isn't proof of anything but neither are your sources.

I can quote sources / references for the P-40 stats per above, which basically match those compiled by aviation author Carl Molesworth for each given Theater, and I have the unit histories of all the P-40 FG active in the CBI, Pacific, and MTO and the Jackson and Molesworth's numbers, which as I said, are within 3% of what I added up based on the individual unit (fighter group and squadron) histories.

osprey-5

Welcome to the Osprey Members website. Visit our image collection and explore our database of Planes,Maps,Machinery,Uniforms and Battlescenes.

ospreypublishing.com

Now claims aren't the same as actual verified victories based on Axis records. That is a much harder nut to crack.

Generally your claim numbers for all types seem to be lower to much lower than other sources I've found. Needless to say, one can never be certain about all this but this looks way off to me.

My sources are incorrect?

1) Naval Aviation Combat Statistics is a primary source, guy.

2) Ray Wagner's American Combat Planes is a very well-respected source. I'm not too sure he is 100% correct, but I would take Ray over an unnamed source any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

You can believe unreferenced numbers if you want. I'll take numbers with references I can check.

Also, you talk about verified claims above. From what source? The only country I know of that funded a post-war study of victory claims was the U.S.A. . And that study is available as Report # 85, which is NOT AVAILABLE in electronically-readable format other than as pages of dot matrix printout. Have YOU entered all 6,548 records from the ETO and done an analysis?

If so, care to post it? If not, what did you check David Jackson's data against?

No other country spent money on looking at the war aerial victory claims, so the only available data are CLAIMS for every country except the U.S.A., and that assumes you have entered and analyzed Report #85, which is only for the USAAF. For Naval claims, the reference I used above is the primary reference other than individual claims from mission reports.

You mention Axis records above, but there is no set of completer Axis records since some were lost during the war. What are you using to check Axis records? I have a claims file with 67,000+ records, and they are likely not all the claims. There is no study of German claims that I have found that is published. There have been several people who say they checked some claims against Soviet records, but they are extremely vague when you ask about references other than to say, "Soviet archives." I have my doubts about people visiting Moscow to visit the archive and being granted access, especially since we weren't even allowed to visit grocery stores when we went to trade shows in Moscow. Let's say I'm skeptical about accurate checking of Soviet aerial victory and loss archives by Western researchers.

Pray tell, how did YOU check your numbers? I hope you didn't check with other internet people and verify in Wiki!

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

My sources are incorrect?

1) Naval Aviation Combat Statistics is a primary source, guy.

2) Ray Wagner's American Combat Planes is a very well-respected source. I'm not too sure he is 100% correct, but I would take Ray over an unnamed source any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

You can believe unreferenced numbers if you want. I'll take numbers with references I can check.

I did name a source. How is Ray Wagner any better than Carl Molesworth?

Also, you talk about verified claims above. From what source? The only country I know of that funded a post-war study of victory claims was the U.S.A. . And that study is available as Report # 85, which is NOT AVAILABLE in electronically-readable format other than as pages of dot matrix printout. Have YOU entered all 6,548 records from the ETO and done an analysis?

If so, care to post it? If not, what did you check David Jackson's data against?

I checked it against the unit histories of over thirty fighter groups and individual squadrons which I tracked down and acquired over the years. I guess that is the same thing that Molesworth and various others did. All I know about David Jackson is that his numbers are close to these. Definnitely closer than Ray Wagner's 1982 book.

No other country spent money on looking at the war aerial victory claims, so the only available data are CLAIMS for every country except the U.S.A., and that assumes you have entered and analyzed Report #85, which is only for the USAAF. For Naval claims, the reference I used above is the primary reference other than individual claims from mission reports.

You mention Axis records above, but there is no set of completer Axis records since some were lost during the war. What are you using to check Axis records?

I haven't directly checked any Axis records myself, and I wasn't attacking you for listing claims vs actual victories, I just wasn't sure if that was what you were listing since your numbers were lower than what I have seen for claims, and you used a different term ("kills") so I wasn't sure what you meant.

However, that said a lot of people have been checking Axis records lately and numerous books have been published on this basis, including the Bloody Shambles and Mediterranean Air War series, the Black Cross Red Star series, the Pacific Air War series and others. I have a bunch of these. Victory claims are interesting in their own right, and it helps us compare like with like to a point, but cross-verified victories are certainly more interesting. The problem is the data is still incomplete on those. At the rate things are going, probably in another five or ten years we will have enough to start compiling totals by aircraft type.

I have a claims file with 67,000+ records, and they are likely not all the claims. There is no study of German claims that I have found that is published.

well German, Italian and Japanese records are apparently available, though maybe not in English yet. I know some Soviet records were available for a while, but with the deterioration of relations between the Russians and the US, British and Europeans that window is probably closed again.

There have been several people who say they checked some claims against Soviet records, but they are extremely vague when you ask about references other than to say, "Soviet archives." I have my doubts about people visiting Moscow to visit the archive and being granted access, especially since we weren't even allowed to visit grocery stores when we went to trade shows in Moscow. Let's say I'm skeptical about accurate checking of Soviet aerial victory and loss archives by Western researchers.

Pray tell, how did YOU check your numbers? I hope you didn't check with other internet people and verify in Wiki!

You are pretty defensive about this. I pointed out two or three times what my sources are. Do you want to get into the weeds on it?

 

[GregP]

In the weeds?

Not really, unless you really want to. I might join in an might not. If you still want to discuss this, stop talking to me and post YOUR numbers and the references where you got them. Include USAAF and USN / USMC. Maybe we can get a decent list yet.

But, posting a link to an unreferenced list that has been hanging around for 15+ years without ever having the references added doesn't seem like a very good justification for disagreeing with anyone, me included. At minimum, if you want to disagree, present your own numbers as alternatives to mine.

It's like basic career strategy. When I was an engineering manager, I told my guys, "Don't complain to me about anything I do unless you have a suggestion for something that might be better. If so, suggest away." Sometimes I wasn't happy with something, but I put up with it and didn't really rock the boat unless I had an idea to improve on it. Worked out well in my career, anyway.

 

[Stig1207]

Ray Wagner's numbers are for the ETO/ MTO only which is why they don't match with the other sources that include figures from the CBI, FEAF and PTO.

 

[drgondog]

Ray Wagner's numbers are for the ETO/ MTO only which is why they don't match with the other sources that include figures from the CBI, FEAF and PTO.

Ray's 'number' for ETO/MTO is unsourced and off signicantly. The ultimate 'go to' authority for US Fighters was Frank Olynyk, The close second is USAF Study 85. I have both but only Olynyk includes type a/c detroyed. As Frank passed recently , I suspect that only Chrisopher Shores and I have his latest US data. I will publish the totals in my next book.

 

[drgondog]

Well, the David Jackson page has been posted and debated / discussed / checked into on this forum numerous times in the past. If there are major errors there I don't know of them. Do you know of any? Numerous other sources (by which I mean, printed books not random internet pages0 also quote similar or the same numbers. That alone isn't proof of anything but neither are your sources.

I can quote sources / references for the P-40 stats per above, which basically match those compiled by aviation author Carl Molesworth for each given Theater, and I have the unit histories of all the P-40 FG active in the CBI, Pacific, and MTO and the Jackson and Molesworth's numbers, which as I said, are within 3% of what I added up based on the individual unit (fighter group and squadron) histories.

osprey-5

Welcome to the Osprey Members website. Visit our image collection and explore our database of Planes,Maps,Machinery,Uniforms and Battlescenes.

ospreypublishing.com

So, do your unit histories match USAF Study 85? If not, there is no basis of any type to claim accurate and validated reporting by the recorded credits in the books. USAF Study 85 as gently tweaked at USAFHRC by folks like Olynyk, Jack Cook, myself and a couple of other folks with proof matching the credit to the a/c destroyed. That number is far less than 1% (+) over Study 85.

Now claims aren't the same as actual verified victories based on Axis records. That is a much harder nut to crack.

Generally your claim numbers for all types seem to be lower to much lower than other sources I've found. Needless to say, one can never be certain about all this but this looks way off to me.

The USAF Study 85 body of work included both major sources (8th AF and 9th AF Victory Credits Board) and a multitude of drill downs to operational mission summaries as well a details from unit histories. Of all, the ETO data is the most accurate Victory Credit process to establish Destruction vs Probable vs Damaged vs No Award based on combat film or Witness. Other theatres that did not establish a Victory Credits Board but required Witness/Combat film were more lenient as the Encounte Report Claim with witness was rarely overturned.

The 8th/9th VCB are also the source for ground destruction in ETO, as well as type a/c destroyed. The source for all are the enconter Reports matched to Victory Credit Board award and issued Reports to the units and pilots.

So, in your terminology, Victory Credit vs actual proof of aircraft destroyed is the bridge you wish to cross. Good luck with that. There will never be an intersection of Credit to proof of destruction, even when destruction (Out of control fireball crashing into sea or lake for example) is beyond contest.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Ray Wagner's numbers are for the ETO/ MTO only which is why they don't match with the other sources that include figures from the CBI, FEAF and PTO.

That explains a lot, but even on that basis they are off, IMO

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

So, do your unit histories match USAF Study 85? If not, there is no basis of any type to claim accurate and validated reporting by the recorded credits in the books. USAF Study 85 as gently tweaked at USAFHRC by folks like Olynyk, Jack Cook, myself and a couple of other folks with proof matching the credit to the a/c destroyed. That number is far less than 1% (+) over Study 85.

I don't have "USAF Study 85" - I was referring to GregPs sources i.e. Ray Wagner and I guess "Naval Aviation Combat Statistics".

I have just gone by verified claims, which come ultimately from the pilots log books and the unit (squadron and fighter group) records. That is where the Air Force gets them too I'm pretty sure.

The USAF Study 85 body of work included both major sources (8th AF and 9th AF Victory Credits Board) and a multitude of drill downs to operational mission summaries as well a details from unit histories. Of all, the ETO data is the most accurate Victory Credit process to establish Destruction vs Probable vs Damaged vs No Award based on combat film or Witness. Other theatres that did not establish a Victory Credits Board but required Witness/Combat film were more lenient as the Encounte Report Claim with witness was rarely overturned.

The 8th/9th VCB are also the source for ground destruction in ETO, as well as type a/c destroyed. The source for all are the enconter Reports matched to Victory Credit Board award and issued Reports to the units and pilots.

So, in your terminology, Victory Credit vs actual proof of aircraft destroyed is the bridge you wish to cross. Good luck with that. There will never be an intersection of Credit to proof of destruction, even when destruction (Out of control fireball crashing into sea or lake for example) is beyond contest.

With all due respect, you seem to be confusing a couple of issues here. And I think you misunderstood some of what I wrote earlier which is probably my fault.

When I say "Claim" or "Confirmed Claim" or "Victory Credit", I mean that the armed forces hierarchy for the US or whichever nation "confirmed" a shoot down, whether by gun camera or corroborating witnesses or whatever, during the war. As a "destroyed" not as a "probable" or a "damaged" credit. That is what I call a claim. Claims are always overclaimed in aggregate, no matter what methods of verification were used. Sometimes just a little, 10 or 20%, sometimes by a lot 300-500% or more.

With the Soviets and some others there is a secondary issue of "shared credits" which complicates matters somewhat.

During WW2 (and other wars) there were periods and Theaters where victory claim process was more or less accurate (for a variety of reasons, often honest mistakes - multiple aircraft shooting at the same opponent and not realizing it, enemy aircraft recovering from what seemed like certain doom, enemy aircraft faking damage or appearing to be crippled such as due to emitting thick black smoke, etc.), but very generally speaking, across the whole war, they were usually around 2-3 times the actual number of victories.

All the numbers I posted links to are just lists of "Destroyed Claims" - "Victory Credits" as approved by the command structure of USAAF, USMC, or USN.

All I was saying is that my numbers for "Victory Credits" didn't match Gregs.

Postwar analysis, while also interesting, is not relevant to me for this purpose because it has not been done for all sides with similar criteria, and I think if we do go to the trouble of a postwar analysis, it's much more interesting to look at "Cross Verified" victories, though that is not possible just yet as we don't have all the data easily available.

A "Cross-Verified" victory, which refers to a comparison of the victory claims by both sides with the actual losses on both sides, takes it to another level but is not quite in reach yet. This process has been started however and the results, on a day for day basis, are available in some of the works of guys like Christer Bergström, Christopher Shores, Michael Clarinbould et al which I already alluded to up-thread.

Seeing that in an engagement, one side claimed ten enemy aircraft but the enemy only really lost three is quite helpful to understanding the reality and getting a clearer picture of the war. But there is still another problem. You have to define what qualifies as a 'loss'. If an aircraft takes one bullet to the radiator and force lands near the battlefield, but it repaired the next morning and flown back to base, is that a loss? If an aircraft takes 1000 bullets and struggles back to base, manages to land on the airfield but is immediately written off and scrapped for parts, is that a loss? Is 60% damaged a loss? 80%?

This can be very tricky. IMO, ultimately it doesn't matter that much so long as you use the same criteria for all sides. When I have made such comparisons I followed the rule that any time an aircraft was forced out of the sky, unable to make it back to base, it was a 'loss' (and therefore a 'victory' for the other side). If it landed on it's own airfield, it was 'damaged'.

For me, you can't go by the ultimate fate of the aircraft because it's too random and variable. A lightly damaged aircraft might still be sitting on the field waiting for a repair when the field is overrun by the enemy ground forces. From the perspective of the fighter pilot or defensive aircraft gunner, they are trying to make the enemy plane go down, no longer able to carry out it's mission. Except in obvious cases like if the aircraft explodes or they see it smash into the ground, they can't possibly know what happened internally, whether the crew was wounded or the engine destroyed. If the pilot bails out or it force lands or crashes or disappears, for me it's a loss.

But anyway like I said, it just has to be done in a manner that whatever the criteria are, they are consistent. That way you can compare like with like.

And I think we are still 5-10 years away from even really starting that process. This data is still being compiled. I personally don't have any totals of cross-verified victories available except in specific engagements or relatively short periods, like one month in a particular Theater or battle area.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

One other comment, I usually use the term 'victory' rather than 'kill' because some WW2 aces and other pilots I met said they preferred the former over the latter.

 

[DarrenW]

USN definition of ACTION SORTIES Number of planes taking off on a mission which eventuated in an attack on an enemy target or in aerial combat, or both. This basis of tabulation was the number of planes of one squadron taking off on the mission. If any of these planes had action, the entire squadron's planes on the mission were counted as action sorties, including abortive planes, planes which reached the target but did not attack, and planes which escorted or patrolled but did not engage in combat. Thus if 16 VP took off as escort, 2 returned early, 2 engaged in combat, and 4 strafed, all 16 were counted as action sorties. Likewise if 8 planes took off for CAP, and only 2 engaged in combat, all 8 were action sorties. On the other hand, if 8 VF took off for escort, and none engaged in any sort of attack or combat, then none were counted as action sorties, even though they reached the target, and even though escorted bombers attacked the target. Likewise, CAP planes missions, none of whose planes engaged in combat were not counted as action sorties.

In table 16 of NAVAL AVIATION COMBAT STATISTICS—WORLD WAR II in 1944 and 1945 the Pacific Theatre land based Marine F4U and FG units that were considered to be in action flew a total of 201,352 sorties, lost 131 aircraft on 50,118 action sorties, a rate of 0.26138 per 100 sorties, they also lost 372 aircraft on 151,234 other flights at a rate of 0.24598 per 100 sorties. (the table loss rates are 0.26 and 0.25) the land based navy squadrons added another 2,123 sorties, 742 of which were action. There were another 349 F4U action sorties not in the above as the branch of service could not be identified.

Using table 1 the F4U and FG flew 64,501 action sorties.

For the same conditions as above the PBJ units flew 20,770 sorties, of which 8,390 were action, losing 12 on action sorties, 23 on other sorties, 2 on the ground, which totals 37 but the "total including enemy action" in the table is 55, a difference of 18.

While the USAAF definitions were

Sortie: A sortie is an aircraft airborne on a mission against the enemy (synonymous with terms 'aircraft dispatched", "aircraft airborne", and "aircraft taking off", previously used.

Aircraft Credit Sortie: An aircraft credit sortie is deemed to have taken place when an airplane, ordered on an operational mission and in the performance of that mission, has entered an area where enemy anti-aircraft fire may be effective, or where usual enemy fighter patrols occur, or when the airplane is in any way subjected to entry attack. (Definition previously used for sortie to the ETO)

Non-Effective Sortie: A non-effective sortie is a sortie which for any reason fails to carry out the purpose of the mission. (Synonymous with the term "abortive".)

Great stuff so far. So is it correct to say then that it be wrong in most cases to directly compare operational statistics between USAAF and USN aircraft, as the definition for what constitutes a "sortie" is different for each branch of the service?

 

[GregP]

I don't have "USAF Study 85" - I was referring to GregPs sources i.e. Ray Wagner and I guess "Naval Aviation Combat Statistics".

I have just gone by verified claims, which come ultimately from the pilots log books and the unit (squadron and fighter group) records. That is where the Air Force gets them too I'm pretty sure.



With all due respect, you seem to be confusing a couple of issues here. And I think you misunderstood some of what I wrote earlier which is probably my fault.

When I say "Claim" or "Confirmed Claim" or "Victory Credit", I mean that the armed forces hierarchy for the US or whichever nation "confirmed" a shoot down, whether by gun camera or corroborating witnesses or whatever, during the war. As a "destroyed" not as a "probable" or a "damaged" credit. That is what I call a claim. Claims are always overclaimed in aggregate, no matter what methods of verification were used. Sometimes just a little, 10 or 20%, sometimes by a lot 300-500% or more.

With the Soviets and some others there is a secondary issue of "shared credits" which complicates matters somewhat.

During WW2 (and other wars) there were periods and Theaters where victory claim process was more or less accurate (for a variety of reasons, often honest mistakes - multiple aircraft shooting at the same opponent and not realizing it, enemy aircraft recovering from what seemed like certain doom, enemy aircraft faking damage or appearing to be crippled such as due to emitting thick black smoke, etc.), but very generally speaking, across the whole war, they were usually around 2-3 times the actual number of victories.

All the numbers I posted links to are just lists of "Destroyed Claims" - "Victory Credits" as approved by the command structure of USAAF, USMC, or USN.

All I was saying is that my numbers for "Victory Credits" didn't match Gregs.

Postwar analysis, while also interesting, is not relevant to me for this purpose because it has not been done for all sides with similar criteria, and I think if we do go to the trouble of a postwar analysis, it's much more interesting to look at "Cross Verified" victories, though that is not possible just yet as we don't have all the data easily available.

A "Cross-Verified" victory, which refers to a comparison of the victory claims by both sides with the actual losses on both sides, takes it to another level but is not quite in reach yet. This process has been started however and the results, on a day for day basis, are available in some of the works of guys like Christer Bergström, Christopher Shores, Michael Clarinbould et al which I already alluded to up-thread.

Seeing that in an engagement, one side claimed ten enemy aircraft but the enemy only really lost three is quite helpful to understanding the reality and getting a clearer picture of the war. But there is still another problem. You have to define what qualifies as a 'loss'. If an aircraft takes one bullet to the radiator and force lands near the battlefield, but it repaired the next morning and flown back to base, is that a loss? If an aircraft takes 1000 bullets and struggles back to base, manages to land on the airfield but is immediately written off and scrapped for parts, is that a loss? Is 60% damaged a loss? 80%?

This can be very tricky. IMO, ultimately it doesn't matter that much so long as you use the same criteria for all sides. When I have made such comparisons I followed the rule that any time an aircraft was forced out of the sky, unable to make it back to base, it was a 'loss' (and therefore a 'victory' for the other side). If it landed on it's own airfield, it was 'damaged'.

For me, you can't go by the ultimate fate of the aircraft because it's too random and variable. A lightly damaged aircraft might still be sitting on the field waiting for a repair when the field is overrun by the enemy ground forces. From the perspective of the fighter pilot or defensive aircraft gunner, they are trying to make the enemy plane go down, no longer able to carry out it's mission. Except in obvious cases like if the aircraft explodes or they see it smash into the ground, they can't possibly know what happened internally, whether the crew was wounded or the engine destroyed. If the pilot bails out or it force lands or crashes or disappears, for me it's a loss.

But anyway like I said, it just has to be done in a manner that whatever the criteria are, they are consistent. That way you can compare like with like.

And I think we are still 5-10 years away from even really starting that process. This data is still being compiled. I personally don't have any totals of cross-verified victories available except in specific engagements or relatively short periods, like one month in a particular Theater or battle area.

So, where did you get your verified claims? Pilot's log books? Where did you find them? Squadron records? Where did you find THEM? How do know they were verified and by whom? Squadron records will be claims only, as approved after the first vetting at squadron level, usually conducted by the squadron S2 (intelligence) or S3 (operations) officers or, sometimes, both. So, they are very definitely "claims."