Ford built Liberators in 55 minutes

[Wmaker]

however, in total the Luftwaffe claimed fewer Soviet aircraft destroyed in air combat than the Soviets reportedly lost.

Well, since you repeated this claim, could you give me an exact quote from that source of yours? I'd like to know whether it was Mr.Krivosheyev who made the claim in a published book or if it was you who pieced it together from figures in his book.

EDIT/I googled the book. So the book is "Losses in the Armed Forces"? So does it directly compare Luftwaffe claims to Soviet losses or do the Luftwaffe claims-figure you mentioned come from a different source?/EDIT

[Wmaker]

The Soviets claim they lost a total of 106,400 aircraft to all causes, including 46 000 lost in air combat. (Krivosheyev, Grif sekretnosti sniat, 1993). The Germans claimed fewer soviet aircraft destroyed in air combat than what the Soviet records show they lost in air combat. The Germans were under-claiming.

After cross-checking from Geust & Petrov's excellent Red Stars 4, even without reading Krivosheyev's book, I'm sure that ~46,000 -figure entails all combat losses, not just air combat losses. So the 46000-figure includes combat losses of all causes like, AAA, weather, getting lost and so on.

Also it is good to remember that Soviet losses also include the aerial/AAA victories of other nations which fought alongside of Germany.

[GScholz]

Are you suggesting the Soviets lost the other 60.000 aircraft to accidents? That's absurd. The Soviets lost 106,000 aircraft to all causes. At most 20-25% might have been destroyed in accidents leaving some 80,000 aircraft to the Germans with about half lost in air combat. The Germans claimed 77.000 soviet aircraft destroyed, including 45.000 in air combat. This distribution of losses is also close to what the Western Allies suffered.

[Oldman731]

Are you suggesting the Soviets lost the other 60.000 aircraft to accidents? That's absurd.

One never knows.  People often underestimate how many aircraft were lost to accidents.  For the US, by way of example:

276,000 aircraft manufactured in the US .
43,000 planes lost overseas, including 23,000 in combat.
14,000 lost in the continental U.S.

Source:  http://www.wwiifoundation.org/our-mission/wwii-facts-figures/wwii-aircraft-facts/

So of 57,000 planes lost, well over half of them were lost in non-combat circumstances.

And that's the good old U.S. of A., where the kids flying these contraptions generally had at least an automotive background.

- oldman

[GScholz]

I may have gotten the German claims from "Hitler's Luftwaffe", Tony Woods, Bill Gunston, 1997. I don't quite remember.

[MiloMorai]

A better source Oldman  is http://www.usaaf.net/digest/index.htm

[Oldman731]

A better source Oldman  is http://www.usaaf.net/digest/index.htm

Agreed, although the numbers appear to be the same.

15,000 guys killed in continental US training accidents.  That's the equivalent of a standard US Army division in that war.

http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t213.htm

- oldman

[GScholz]

That sounds excessive considering the RAF lost 70,253 airmen killed or missing on operations. Out of these 47,268 were lost by Bomber Command who also lost a further 8,305 in accidents (about 20%), according to http://www.amazon.co.uk/Right-Line-Role-RAF-World/dp/1848841922.

[GScholz]

This is an interesting statistic from your source Oldman:

"Almost 1,000 Army planes disappeared en route from the US to foreign climes. But an eye-watering 43,581 aircraft were lost overseas including 22,948 on combat missions (18,418 against the Western Axis) and 20,633 attributed to non-combat causesoverseas."

Out of 22,948 combat losses 18,418 was in Europe. I wonder how many of those "non-combat causes" were in the Pacific.



On a carrier these damaged aircraft would be dumped overboard. Marine aircraft would be bulldozed off the runway to make way for the others. In Germany, Russia or Britain these aircraft would have been repaired and put back into service.

[Wmaker]

Are you suggesting the Soviets lost the other 60.000 aircraft to accidents? That's absurd.

Well you still didn't tell me exactly what your source says. Does it mention the 46000-figure as only air combat or all losses? Per Red Stars 4 I'm positive it means all losses.

Here posts someone who seems to have read the book:

BTW Soviet combat losses were 46,100 aircrafts, not 75,400-82,200 (G.F. Krivosheyev, ‘Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the twentieth century’, London, Greenhill Books, 1997)
- 20,000 aprox. in air combats
- 26,100 aprox. because of flak and other causes related in combat
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=1437751

So yes, I'm suggesting that the 46000 means all combat losses.

[GScholz]

You may be right that I've misunderstood the scope of that number. I don't have time to dig through the books right now, but I will at some point.

[earl1937]

You may be right that I've misunderstood the scope of that number. I don't have time to dig through the books right now, but I will at some point.

  Not trying to get in this discussion, because honestly, I don't know, except that we lost as many aircraft in training and mechanical problems as we did in combat. I know that when crew members were "debriefed" after missions, many times, 3 or 4 gunners on 17's and other bombers would all claim a kill on the same aircraft. Those were honest mistakes as I don't think any those guys would purposely lie just to get a kill. I would think that everyone would be surprised if they knew the actual number of aircraft shot down and those lost to problems to and from the targets. Either way you look at it, those young men were a brave bunch, knowing that most would not live to fly 25 missions, until early 45.

[Scherf]

Hi Earl,

Here's a couple of attachments I used on this BBS once before - first one shows the chances of surviving a tour of X mission based on an overall loss rate of Y, second shows actual loss rates month by month during WWII for the bombers of the 8th Air Force and of RAF Bomber Command.

With the table, the number of missions is down the left, the % loss rate is across the top (it actually goes from high rates to low rates, I should really re-do it so the losses are low at the left and high to the right), and the % chance of survival is what appears in the cell.

Bottom line is, a majority of crews can expect to survive a 25-mission tour if loss rates are below 2.5%. (This is only of course operational losses, so with training accidents and the like one would want it to be a little lower.)

Fairly stark stuff for the 8th Air Force in 1943.

[Wmaker]

You may be right that I've misunderstood the scope of that number. I don't have time to dig through the books right now, but I will at some point.

Well when you casually make as big claim as this (We are talking about all Luftwaffe kills of the whole big eastern front after all.) and considering that there isn't a shred of truth in it, I most certainly want to make it crystal clear to everyone who is reading this thread that such a claim has nothing to do with reality before it becomes another "well established WWII-fact".

[GScholz]

That remains to be determined...