Victory Claims Versus Actual Recorded Losses

[MIflyer]

Everyone knows that both sides in WWII tended to overclaim kills, sometimes to an absurd degree.

In a new book I just got, "They Flew Hurricanes" there is an example of how confusing the situation can be.

On 11 May 1940 five Hurricanes of No. 1 Sqdrn RAF intercepted thirty Do17's escorted by 15 BF-110's over France. The Do-17's ran for home but the BF-110's stayed to fight. In the resultant combat one Hurricane was lost during a head on pass with a BF-110; the RAF pilot bailed out and survived,

French villagers reported seeing six BF-110's fall nearby and the remains of four more were located as well. This total of 10 wrecks exactly matched the RAF pilot's claims of nine definite kills and one probable.

Postwar Luftwaffe records showed they only lost two BF-110's. That kind of discrepancy was not unusual.

It seems that the Luftwaffe accounted for their losses so that "War Flights" was one category, "War Support Flights" was another category, and "Non-combat losses" was a third. War Support Flights would be missions such as air-sea rescue missions, but postwar analysts tended to conclude those were not actual combat losses even though the aircraft really were shot down.

The Germans also tended to not simply count losses but do so on a percentage basis. An aircraft shot down into the sea or over enemy territory was a 100% loss. A Luftwaffe airplane shot down over German occupied territory was was counted as salvageable and might be only a 20% loss. Postwar researchers only counted a loss if the Germans had said it was an 80% loss. Obviously if a German airplane had been hit and bellied in on a German airfield the fighter pilot who saw it go down would have called it a kill, while the Germans might have had it flying in a few days and called it only a 20% loss.

All that does not explain the huge difference between RAF and German versions of the "facts" on the battle on 11 May 1940, and such cases were not unusual.

 

[GregP]

This subject has been beaten to death in here and elsewhere in other forums.

To me, the task of the fighter pilot is to protect the bombers he is escorting so they can deliver the bomb load or to shoot down such enemy fighters (and other aircraft) that he encounters on his missions if possible. If he shoots a Bf 109 out of the fight and it bellies in and is recovered, I count that as a victory. The fighter pilot did his job.

I have gotten some grief over this, but it isn't coming from fighter pilots. Seems some want each victory to match up with an enemy reported loss. That isn't EVER going to happen. The reports of over-claiming are WAY over stated in many cases, given the rules at the time. If a plane was seen on fire, spinning out of control or diving out of control into a cloud bank, it was reported as specified by the service at the time.

Strict accounting of losses as only for total destruction would result in fighter pilots abandoning their mission to pursue victims to the ground, and that could not and cannot be allowed to be common practice.

Looks like this one will stay a hot argument for many years.

I use the scores awarded during the conflict, without any regard to post-war revisionists. If a score was good enough for the service at the time, it is good enough ... assuming good, honest intentions that are largely, but not always, there.

If we want to discuss something that probably matters to many, we could discuss whether or not ground victories should be awarded with the same credit as air victories. I say no way, but the data to eliminate them entirely probably do not exist, so we are left with what we have, less than wonderful though it may be.

I'd bet this will NEVER be a solved to everyone's satisfaction. Discussing it is fun, but seems to wind up in emotional fights a lot of the time. Perhaps it is age; I find the discussion fun but do not wish to get ugly about it at all or ever again. The war is so long decided that argument over the subject is rather absurd to me. Better to find the existing data and make up our own minds, with our own justifications.

All I can say is that if I shot down a plane that bellied in, I'd claim it as a victory forever, and would consider a ground victory as destroying a ground target, not a victory over an aircraft. While it IS an aircraft, if it is on the ground it is not being operated by a pilot. Ergo, not an airborne victory for credit.

 

[Stig1207]

It seems that the Luftwaffe accounted for their losses so that "War Flights" was one category, "War Support Flights" was another category, and "Non-combat losses" was a third. War Support Flights would be missions such as air-sea rescue missions, but postwar analysts tended to conclude those were not actual combat losses even though the aircraft really were shot down.

I don't believe this is a correct interpretation; as I understand it, there were operational and non-operational missions or 'flights' as you call them. Operational missions may or may not have resulted in engaging the enemy, and losses may or may not have been due to enemy action, but they were reported as operational losses. Accidents on training or ferrying flights and so forth were reported as non-operational losses.
There doesn't really seem to be much difference in the way Luftwaffe accounted for their losses compared to other airforces.

 

[special ed]

There is a commonly seen video of air combat in which an arado 195 unarmed trainer is shot down. Did the LW report it as non-operational? The shooter certainly reported a kill.

 

[special ed]

Brain fart. The aircraft was actually an Arado 96.

 

[MIflyer]

I recall reading that in the year 1944 the Luftwaffe lost something like 50,000 airplanes while they were in the process of being delivered to the operational units.

I don't know if such losses were called War Flights, War Support Flights, or Non-Operational. Any of those definitions would make sense. In addition I would guess that the majority of such losses did not occur in the air. The units they were to be delivered to certainly did not report them as a loss, and if not, who did?

I read of a case in which some RAF Mustang Mk I's made a long range flight in 1943, got into the traffic pattern at a German training base and shot down number of aircraft, including a Bf-109E. Were those considered to be non-operational losses? A training airplane that crashed would not have been an operational loss.

I also read that some F6F's did some similar in 1945 and shot down a huge number of Japanese trainers one day. After they got home they were told they could not count them as kills because they were only trainers.

The second aviation magazine article I wrote was about F-4's, recon P-38's. I pointed out that recon Lightnings actually got into combat much earlier than the P-38 fighters in the Pacific, when one was on a mission in 1942, was intercepted by a Japanese fighter, and had one engine shot out, but still managed to outrun the interceptor. The editor of the magazine, Aviation History, sent the article back to me, saying that the F-4 could not engage in combat because it had no guns. If getting an engine shot out while on a recon mission over enemy territory is not combat, then I don't know what is. I sent the article on to Air Classics, and they published it right away (while forgetting to pay me).

 

[special ed]

Air Classics was like that. My friend had to keep on them till he finally got paid.

 

[MIflyer]

Actually I did not care that much if I got paid for the article. I wrote it as a way of thanking a friend for helping me with another much larger article (for Airpower/Wings) by writing about his exploits in WWII, "Duncan's Hot Rod." I was very pleased at the treatment Air Classics gave it; my friend and his fellow vets bought up every copy they could find.

But write for them again? I don't think so.

 

[Dimlee]

French villagers reported seeing six BF-110's fall nearby

I'd take such evidence with a grain of salt. Villagers reported...

 

[Stig1207]

I recall reading that in the year 1944 the Luftwaffe lost something like 50,000 airplanes while they were in the process of being delivered to the operational units.

50000?!? And the operational units were still flying and fighting? Come on, think about it.

As to trainers being shot down, yes I do believe they would count as an operational loss.