Author Topic: Dunkirk and the BoB (Read 2257 times)

Angus · « **on:** February 25, 2005, 04:25:11 AM »

Well, As promised, for the 109 thread had practically been hijacked into this.

Dunkirk was the first time where 109's started clashing with Spitfires in some quantity, so basically the first proper encounter of an equally matched aircraft.
The BoB was the second time, and also the first time the LW clashed with something in their own strength group.

Izzy posted some numbers of the Dunkirk campaign losses and kills, showing as a contrary to what I have read in many places, that it was a massive LW victory.

Well, the LW managed to harass Dunkirk quite a bit, and the soldiers on the ground did not see much of RAF in the skies.

But....I finally found some numbers, and needless to say, they do not match the ones of Izzy.

Neither will my BoB ones, hehe

Anyway, here goes, little odds and ends...

27th of may, the LW loses more aircraft than the previous ten days combined.
RAF sorties total on the 9 days of fighting: 2793
RAF losses 177
LW losses 240

Any of you have some numbers on this? Will try to dig up Izzy's numbers later today.

Now the BoB keeps coming back at me with 4 months of fighting, LW loses nearly 1700 aircraft in BoB related action, RAF loses 800 or so. I have a quite good article on this actually.
Anyway, dump some numbers in plz.

Angus · « **Reply #1 on:** March 23, 2005, 01:12:17 PM »

Related to another thread asking for numbers, so....
PUNT

Guppy35 · « **Reply #2 on:** March 23, 2005, 01:57:49 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus
Related to another thread asking for numbers, so....
PUNT

Get a copy of After The Battle's "The Battle of Britain-Then and Now".

It lists losses for each day with serial numbers, pilot names, causes etc for both sides from beginning to end of the B of B. This includes accidents as well.

It's as comprehensive a break down of the B of B casualties as I've ever seen, covering July 10, 1940 -October 31, 1940

Dan

Angus · « **Reply #3 on:** March 23, 2005, 02:14:16 PM »

TY Guppy.
By glancing at it, - if you have it, - how does it correspond to the numbers I promoted?

Guppy35 · « **Reply #4 on:** March 23, 2005, 02:18:27 PM »

Couldn't find them at first, but another glance turned up the totals in the book. I was fearful I'd be counting em day to day

Royal Air Force airmen killed: 537
Luftwaffe Airmen killed: 2,662
Me109 and 110 airmen killed: 549

Royal Air Force aircraft lost: 1,017
Luftwaffe aircraft lost: 1,882
Me109 and 110 aircraft lost: 871

The 109 and 110 numbers are included in the first Luftwaffe totals, but then broken down to seperate them from bomber losses.

Looks like if you compare just fighter numbers it's about even, as you'd have to take out Blenheims etc from the RAF totals, and obviously there were losses to return fire from LW bombers.

Dan

Angus · « **Reply #5 on:** March 23, 2005, 03:15:50 PM »

Lovely, lovely.
I think I have a second copy of that artice I mentioned (uh, in another thread, - the Hurricane IIB thread). Anyway, I could mail it to you, - by snailmail.
If you want it, plonk an email on info@gardsauki.is, and we'll be in touch.

Best regards

Tilt · « **Reply #6 on:** March 25, 2005, 08:16:05 AM »

After stripping the numbers in most Bob articles I come to the conclusion that fighter losses to both sides were pretty even.

Many RAF fighters were intercepting bombers and some LW fighters were lost to AA.

The key historical point was who won..........?

In fact from June thru to december the RAF recieved more new fighters and trained more pilots than the LW by some pretty margin.

The LW had no inkling of this and added to their belief in their own propaganda the sight of 12 group massing over London at the end of Eagle day was something of a shock!

The LW failed to destroy the RAF either on the ground or in the air and "success" could only be so defined for the LW.

So who won the BoB?...........it was Lord Beaverbrook;)

Kurfürst · « **Reply #7 on:** March 25, 2005, 09:07:21 AM »

Well after reading the stuff from angus (no reference again, 'I read it everywhere'), here`s what Mike Spick states on the losses of the LW/RAF over dunkirk :

97 Spits/Hurris were lost vs. 29 Bf 109s.

In addition, some 6000 troops, 250 ships (inc 50 warships, 10 destroyers) were lost at see according the 'Burning Bridgehead'.

On the BoB, there was an interesting and revealing discussion on the axishistory forums, some post that worth re-posting :

Most authors have based the "Losses on both sides during the Battle of Britain" on the official history..."The Defence of the United Kingdom" printed in London UK 1957. The records of the RAF and the Luftwaffe quartermaster General were used. Authors have been using the figures in different ways: in the book "Battle of Britain" by Richard Hough(1989) he states 915 fighters were lost, in "Fighter" by Len Deighton(1977) the number is 934, and the "Narrow Margin" by Derek Wood(1969) states 1,140 destroyed and 710 damaged. The reason that the numbers are different, is that most authors show the number of Spitfires & Hurricanes that were shot "down", then compare them to the Luftwaffe Quartermaster General's official numbers. The Luftwaffe numbers show "All" losses. The total number of losses for Bf109's was 663, yet if you want to show this figure as "915 Spitfires & Hurricanes lost", the Bf-109's lost are now only 502!(502 due to combat, 98 on operations, 63 not on operations. This was from July 10th to October 31) similar are the Bf-110's, 252 were lost,
224 from combat, 11 on operations, and 17 not on operations. and finally 395 He-111's are listed as losses, out of this number 160 of them(40%) were not to combat, but to taxiing accidents, collisions on take-off and landings, improper maintenance. The Narrow Margin gives the most realistic losses on both sides during July 10 to October 31 Luftwaffe: 1733 destroyed and 643 damaged, the RAF 1603 destroyed and 876 damaged. Out of the above stated losses, Luftwaffe lost 873 fighters and the RAF 1140. The Duxford Big Wing was credited with the destruction of 105 Luftwaffe aircraft and 40 probables from Sept. 7-15. This "official" score was the most exaggerated of the war, and led to the dismissal of Dowding and Park, the two men who won the "Battle" for Britain.

I might add that "Fighter" by Len Deighton notes that altough 915 fighter RAF was destroyed, a total of 1960 was written down during the Battle.

What is of matter of interest here is the number of s-e fighters lost in combat on both sides, 915 Hurricanes and Spitfires vs. 502 Bf 109s.

Certainly an improvement over Dunkirk, there the RAF lost 4 fighters for every 109, by BoB it lost 'only' twice as many.

Angus · « **Reply #8 on:** March 25, 2005, 09:32:14 AM »

tsk tsk, not so hasty

Part 1. the BoB
John Alcorn's "Top guns of the BoB" article
Looks like very well compiled data, and he put a lot of work into it, starting in 1970.
Ok, some conclusions.
Period: July to and with October, so 4 months (AFAIK)
LW battle related losses:
1.609
To RAF fighters:
Between 1197 and 1231
Top scoring sqn is 603 with 57 kills, there off 47 109's.
(based on LW losses, not RAF claims)
Actually, the Hurricane equipped 501 has 40 kills, there off 30 109's!

He breaks it down sqn to sqn, claims vs LW losses he could allocate. It's probably about the best piece of work I have seen yet.

Then Dunkirk, from Christopher Shore's "10 cruicial air battles of WW2"

RAF sorties total on the 9 days of fighting: 2793
RAF losses 177
LW losses 240

Angus · « **Reply #9 on:** March 25, 2005, 09:34:51 AM »

Oh, and I'd take Shores over Spick any day

Glasses · « **Reply #10 on:** March 26, 2005, 01:57:39 PM »

It's my understanding that the Atrition was in favour of the LW fighters and the LW in general since the RAF couldn't replenish the losses the LW was putting it was just a miscalculation of what Hitler thought would take to defeat the RAF that he postponed sealowe indefenetly.

GScholz · « **Reply #11 on:** March 26, 2005, 03:00:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus
Oh, and I'd take Shores over Spick any day

Why?

Tony Williams · « **Reply #12 on:** March 27, 2005, 02:27:28 AM »

On the BoB, I would expect the British fighter losses to exceed the German fighter ones, even if everything else was equal. The reason is simple: the RAF was trying to get at the bombers and only engaged the escort fighters when they had to. The escort fighters were solely focused on getting the RAF fighters.

A similar situation occurred over Germany later in the war, when the Luftwaffe fighters attacking US bomber fleets suffered severe losses to the USAAF escort fighters.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum

Karnak · « **Reply #13 on:** March 27, 2005, 04:14:08 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Tony Williams
On the BoB, I would expect the British fighter losses to exceed the German fighter ones, even if everything else was equal. The reason is simple: the RAF was trying to get at the bombers and only engaged the escort fighters when they had to. The escort fighters were solely focused on getting the RAF fighters.

A similar situation occurred over Germany later in the war, when the Luftwaffe fighters attacking US bomber fleets suffered severe losses to the USAAF escort fighters.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum

I am deepy afraid that such logic has no effect on Barbi here. Certainly the lack of enemy aircraft Allied fighter pilots encountered failed to move him as an explanation of why no Allied fighter pilot approached 100 kills, let alone 350 kills. No, his take was that the Germans were that much better.

GScholz · « **Reply #14 on:** March 27, 2005, 10:43:43 AM »

Well Karnak, Marseilles had 150 kills in 1941, and he was not the first German pilot to make 100 kills. Skill definitively had a part in it.