How many pilots and aircraft where lost to V1s?

[Pongo]

100s?
10s?
how about..
"Although the v1 could not shoot back there was danger in attacking it. Its explosion was leathal in the air within 200 yards. Five pilots and one navigator/radio operator were killed in the first six weeks by bursting bombs and eighteen fighters were badly damaged"
The Royal Air Force in the World War
Cpt Norman Macmillan

I have never seen any quote that was not in aggreement with this one. I bet you never have either.

Nashwan it is time for you to desist and apologize for wasting our time with your fantasy. Admit you spouted off without thinking.

I know it was combat, I know those men died for my freedom and it is a terrible loss. I know they are all together more admirable than even the most successful Nazi pilot.
But the diver campaign was a video game compared to any of the campaigns you mentioned. How many books do I have to quote you befor you desist.
 I once said that the losses to non operational reasons would be equivelent to the loses to v1 intercepting. I was very close to right.

However. In the total campaign against V1s losses were much higher. over 2900 aircrew and 450 aircraft  were lost atacking the launch sites. (they shoot back)
6214 people were killed by the bombs, 18000 seriosly injured.

Btw the book says the p59 Aircomet was tested against the v1 so I guess we will be seeing it some day.

Nashwan
Just Im sorry will do.

edit..
I had flamed Karnak instead of Nashwan..
why capital punishment was banned in Canada.
Jurors like me.


[This message has been edited by Pongo (edited 07-14-2000).]

[Nashwan]

It wasn't Karnak it was me.
Pongo, you now list 6 dead in six weeks, that is 1 man for every 2 squadrons deployed. As I have previously stated, I have found 3 dead from 486 squadron, and at least 2 each from 91 and 322 sqd.
I am still looking for complete figures. Yours state deaths caused when the V-1 exploded, not deaths of pilots killed when tipping V-1s, not pilots lost when flying into friendly AA, not pilots lost from any other cause such as accidents etc. The losses I have given for the Germans during the Polish campaign are losses from all causes.
 

I once said that the losses to non operational reasons would be equivelent to the loses to v1 intercepting. I was very close to right.

This bit puzzles me. Are you saying that the losses from 12 squadrons would be so great that an extra 6 deaths wouldn't even be noticeable, or that 12 fighter squadrons in 6 weeks would lose about 6 men, therefore the losses are double normal training? (Remember the normal losses from non operational losses will continue)
I will assume the latter, although if you want to give me an average you think would be closer I would gladly accept it.
Let me see. 1 fatal plane crash for every 2 squadrons. The Germans deployed about 120 squadrons in Poland. 60 fatal crashes, average of 3.5 crew per plane (they had a higfh proportion of Do17 and He111) that's 210 dead in accidents. Then the Poles killed only 10 German aircrew?
The other way of looking at it, is those 12 squadrons lost six men to exploding V-1s. Presumably they also lost another 6 men to accidents. That's 1 death per squadron. In planes that have an average of 1.3 crewmen each. (8 sqd single seat, 4 Sqd Mosquitos)
Thats 9 planes per 12 squadrons.
The Germans 120 squadrons should have lost 90 planes with 3.5 crewmen each, which equals 315 men, considerably more that the 220 odd they did lose. See, even the figures you have come up with confirm my original statement.  
I have already admitted that my orignal remarks were not meant to be taken seriously, like your remarks about the Spitfires only flying landing patterns until the V-1s showed up. My remarks were met with comments like "rabid" from the Luft fans, while yours are treated as the hyperbole they so obviously are. This wouldn't have started if the Luftwaffles weren't so touchy.
 

However. In the total campaign against V1s losses were much higher. over 2900 aircrew and 450 aircraft were lost atacking the launch sites. (they shoot back)

The raids on the V-1 launch sites involved most of the allied airforces, thousands of fighters, medium bombers even 4 engined heavies. The anti-diver patrols involved 12 squadrons for a much shorter period.

Give me figures for all losses, and if they show a lower death rate for the RAF pilots engaged in this "video game" I will desist, though I'd like to point out I have only wasted your time by replying to the posts in which you keep returning to the subject.


[This message has been edited by Nashwan (edited 07-14-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Nashwan (edited 07-14-2000).]

[jmccaul]

How many lives were saved by intercepting V1's ?

[juzz]

I thought most of the V-1's were actually shot down by radar-guided, computer-aimed AAA? How many ancestors of the modern desktop computer lost their lives fighting the V-1's to protect the ungrateful humans?

[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 07-15-2000).]

[Torque]

Wasn't until yanks brought their AAA guns and had those new proximity fuses plus radar guided.V1s were fish in  barrel after that.

[qts]

My father had an encounter with a V1. He was on a hill, and it passed *under the branches* of a nearby tree. Had it hit the tree, I wouldn't be typing this. The engine cut out shortly thereafter and it went on to destroy a church.

[Nashwan]

9200 V-1s fired at England.
1000 crashed shortly after takeoff.
1847 shot down by fighters
1878 shot down by AAA
232 destroyed by barage balloons
12,000 hit cities in Belgium, over 8000 on Antwerp alone.

[Pongo]

Nashwan
Your statement was not a joke. Your accusations against me after my hot but accurate response was not a joke. I am trying to show who is really rewritting history. You have made statments about how dangourous it is to rewrite history, and about the type of things that are possible when it happens. I am showing you a mirror.

This argument is carring on because you insist on posting misleading "evidence" to suppport you statement which now you state you retracted long ago.

That number was 5 (1 navigator) pilots lost intercepting V1s in the first 6 weeks of the attack. That would be end of June to mid august. That is most of the attack right?
The number of squadrons is in that book, I worked it out to more than 12 but I will look again.I think it was more like 22-24 squadrons. But the number I presented only needs the heavy interpretation you are doing if you are trying to evaluate the argument of V1 intercepting = landing accidents.  A reasonable man would not go there but it is a far more interesting argument then V1 intercepting (1 death per week) Vs Invasion of Poland (100s per week)
but oh well put your blinders on.

Lets assume that the number of planes used to defend England from this menace is more like 500. 1 pilot lost per week to landing (esp tempest pilots flying mostly at night which they were not really trained for)
that is 1/5th of 1 percent casualties.......
If you saw a quote in a history book that stated landing accidents caused  .2 % casualties in ww2 would you even bat an eye?
.
.
.
.
.
are you really gona carry this on?
are you trying to "rewrite" history?
you cant even read simple numbers without trying to twist them.

You can find all this out yourself. All the reading is in agreement, but not all of it has numbers. They didn’t think it was worth it to post numbers I guess, only a zealot would think that you could compare shooting down maned aircraft with shooting down non maneuvering robot aircraft. And a zealot won’t believe the numbers anyway

[Nashwan]

Pongo, every source I have states 12 squadrons were placed on anti-diver patrols. 12 squadrons does not sound like 500 fighters to me.
6 weeks, as you state in your original post, takes you from the middle of June to the last week of July, not the middle of August.
The problem with landing accidents is you seem to want to say that many of the casualties suffered by these squadrons were landing accidents, but you don't want to accept that a similar rate must apply to the Germans in Poland. Either landing accidents etc are very common, enough to account for the pilot deaths in these squadrons or they are not. Or were German pilots so good they never had accidents? Everything I have read says the 109 was had a very bad accident rate. Many German aircraft operated from forward airfields without proper facilities, which would also tend to produce more accidents. AFAIK the Tempests were used mainly on day operations, and 4 squadrons of Mosquito night fighters were used at night. I have seen the figure of 600+ V-1s downed by Mosquitos (though I can't find the source now so I may be wrong), which shows that most of the night attacks were carried out by Mosquitos.
Pongo, my "accusations" against you were that amongst others you seem to have too great a love of the Luftwaffe. My original statement was written as an off the cuff remark, not meant to be taken very seriously. Rather like typical Luftwaffle statements about RAF planes doing nothing but fly landing patterns for the first half of 1944. My outburst was sparked because any critisim of the Luftwaffe is met with outrage. In particular, people didn't seem to like me pointing out that the Luftwaffe weren't a small band of heroes bravely defending Germany against overwhelming odds. For the early part of the war they were the best trained, best equipped, and largest airforce in the world, and they used that superiority ruthlessly against their opponents. That doesn't fit in with some people romantic notions I suppose.
As I have repeatedly stated, if it came across that I was accusing Luftwaffles of being Nazi I am sorry, that wasn't my intention. Liking German aircraft or the Luftwaffe doesn't make you a Nazi. Loving the Luftwaffe to such a great extent may show bad judgement but it still doesn't make anyone a Nazi.
Pongo, I have not posted misleading evidence, merely the number of pilots killed in three squadrons that I was able to find. If I ever find full figures I will come back and tell you, whoever's point of view they support.
My zealot's point of view is this. Shooting down 1 V-1 is fairly easy. Shooting down 1 manned enemy aircraft is hard, even if it is 100mph slower than your state of the art fighter. In Poland the Germans outnumbered the Poles more than 4 to 1. I would be very suprised if any German pilot encountered more than a handfull of combats. In 1944, 12 fighter squadrons attempted to intercept approx 7000 V-1s, and shot down close to 2000. They may not have fired back, but every one carried a small risk when they exploded, or when they were rammed, or when the pilot chased one into an anti-aircraft free fire zone, or a ballon barrage. That small risk each time adds up.
Post some complete numbers and I will believe them, but so far your postition has changed from no pilots were killed by V-1s, to 5 and 1 navigator killed by exploding V-1s. You now claim 500 fighters involved in chasing down V-1s, which contradicts everything I have read. Back it up and I will believe it.

[Pongo]

Oh well, guess your right.