Luftwaffe claims vs RAF losses

[Angus]

Hello dear forum.
I have been going through a file with the Luftwaffe claims from the western front 1940-1943, and comparing it with RAF fighter commands actual losses as registered in the book "Fighter Command Losses (Volume 2, 1942-1943)" by Norman L R Franks.
It is quite a detailed book, giving information about date, plane, pilot, serial number, location, cirkumstances etc, sometimes even more.
Well, anyway, there is quite a difference between the figures. I will give here an example of  January 1942, - more will be posted later.
The yes/no at the end of each registration indicates whether the kill was acceptet by the RLM (Reiches-Luftfahrt-Ministrium I belive)

January 1942

02.01.42   Ofw. Walter Prentzel   7./JG 2   Hurricane   £ wanting   12.12   -   -   yes
(RAF lost a Hurricane that day)

03.01.42   Hptm. Josef Priller   III./JG 26   Hurricane   £ Sea: 5 km. NW Calais   15.38   59   -   no
(No loss on that day)

07.01.42   Fw. Josef Bigge   Stab/JG 2   Spitfire   £ N. Brest   10.30   -   -   yes
(No loss on that day)

08.01.42   Oblt. Erich Leie   Stab/JG 2   Hudson   £ Pl.Qu. 6927/14W   10.09   -   -   yes
(Possible, only have Fighter command loss registry)

09.01.42   Fw. Adolf Glunz   4./JG 26   Spitfire   £ Sea: Le Touquet   13.08   16   69   1088/44
09.01.42   Ofw. Eduard Koslowski   9./JG 26   Spitfire   £ Location unknown   -   12   -   no
(No loss on 09.01)

26.01.42   Oblt. Erich Leie   Stab/JG 2   Spitfire   £ Pl.Qu. 6042/15W: S Rame Head   13.45   34   -   yes
26.01.42   Oblt. Erich Leie: two kills ?   Stab/JG 2   Spitfire   £
Pl.Qu. 6042/15W: S Rame Head   13.47 e   35   -   yes
(Both kills confirmed by the RAF)

28.01.42   St.Fw. Fritz Stritzel   3./JG 2   Spitfire   £ wanting   13.24   -   -   yes

(no other losses on that date)

As you will notice, there is a big difference between claims and losses, or 2 Hurricanes and 6 Spitfires against the actual 1 Hurricane and 3 Spitfires, - claims seem to be double!!!
I am wondering why, - is it so, or is my book missing big bits?
I will post further data very soon

[whgates3]

2 pilots shoot at the same plane, it crashes (or pilot bails), both pilot claim a victory, higher ups do no question claims, because 2 looks better than 1 for PR purposes...apparently not too uncommon.  A. Price's book "the Hardest Day" goes a bit more in depth on this.  Just read about an engament over Henderson Field in Aug '42 in which USN claims were 25 destoryed and IJN  claims were 7, actual loses were 7 for IJN, 3 for USN

[Furious]

I believe you will find that the LW had the most stringent confirmation process of any air force at the time.

However, mistakes are always made.

If a LW pilot shoots the hell of a plane, and he and his wingman see it spinning out of control, pouring smoke as it goes into a low fog layer, they will assume and report a victory for conformation.  But, the RAF guy pulls it out, lands safely and the plane is repaired; no loss.

You will not find the whole story, nor prove the extent of overclaiming by looking at just 2 sources.

Donald Caldwell has done extensive research, particularly of JG26, and found the claims to be rather accurate.

You need to define victory better that just a total loss of aircraft.


F.

[Angus]

I am actually going through the whole years 1942 and 1943 on the western front. This was just January 1942.
I will be posting the other months as I proceed. (I am into april 1942 now). But what I can roughly "see" is that the claims are somewhat over the loss numbers, perhaps about 20% or so.
Some claims vs actual losses are quite interesting, such as 3 - 1 one day, 2 - 0 another day, and 11 - 5, - number like that sum up quite quickly, while still one sees 100% accuracy  on certain days, and I even found an "underclaim" 6 - 7 once.
Will post some more in a few hrs.

[Angus]

Back with more data!
First I want to make it clearer what I consider a kill claim.
That is just what a pilot was expected to prove as a kill, - both in the RAF abd the LW at the time. Pilot bails out, plane smashes into the ground or disintegrades in the air. Not just trailing smoke, having registered hits, or looking as if it was out of control.
Regarding the data I am using, the loss reports seem to be absolutely complete, however the claim reports need some bits and pieces, so additional data would only increase the gap between claims and losses.
I go over the files on a day-to day basis registering LW claims vs losses to e/a in the area. For example, a claim of a pilot matching only 1 loss by flak does not count. A Spitfire claimed near Calais does not match a loss in Inverness either. So, It should be a pretty solid comparison, I will do my best:)
So, Back to February 1942.....

FEBRUARY.
JG's  claims total 11 Spitfires and 2 Westland Whirlwinds.
Possible matches are 9 Spitfires + one damaged.  Further 3 Spitfires are reported lost to enemy a/c at other dates without any matching claims from the German side. 4 Westland Whirlwinds failed to return to base.
So, 2 overclaims from engagements and claims for 3 Spitfires missing along with 2 unexplained losses for the Whirlwinds.

MARCH

Claims Total 41 Spitfires and 2 Hurricanes vs the losses of 28 Spitfires and no Hurricane.
1 Further Spitfire ditched in enemy territory from battle damage, and the pilot managed to make his way back to England. 1 damaged Spitfire flew back with battle damage, where pilot bailed. 7 other Spitfires returned to base with some damage.
The overestimated kills of the LW here are near 30% which is unusually high.

APRIL 1st to APRIL 24th. (JG26 data missing from 24th to 30th)
Claims total 58 Spitfires. Possible matches are 47 + a further 11 returning to base with either battle damage or a wounded pilot. Although 11 planes or approx 20% overclaiming, it is amazingly accurate to the point that the missing 11 aircraft were all hit.


That is as far as I have got. May has a lot of missing data from the LW side, but I will look further into the year as soon as I find the time

[Oldman731]

Originally posted by Angus
Back with more data!

Great work, Angus.  We'll all be glad to follow your research, I'm sure.

I, for one, have never figured out why anyone says that the Luftwaffe had the most accurate claims confirmation procedure.

- oldman

[RRAM]

Between June 14 an September 3, the RAF claimed having killed around 437 luftwaffe single-engined fighters in the Rhubarbs and Circuses organized over france, wiht another 182 probable


437 with 182 as probable makes a claim of 619 German fighters shot down



The total numbers of german fighters on the zone never were more than 260 (and never over 200 serviceable at the same time). The luftwaffe official loss list of the WHOLE six months (so that means losses on the named rhubarbs and circuses), was of exactly 128 machines. A further 76 damaged.


619 vs 128 makes a 1-to-5 kill-to-claim ratio. Impressive...most impressive .



The RAF lost in the same timeframe (RAF official numbers) talk about 194 pilots lost.

Way to go, RAF


In the whole six last moths of the year (june 14 to December 31), FIghter command claimed 731 enemy airfcaft shot down during operations over france. The official list of RAF planes lost was 411.

The actual german losses were 154, including 51 not attributed to british action, and further 11 lost over the United Kingdom in quite other operations. That leaves us with 92 planes lost by the German Luftwaffe on the operations we're talking about.

92 out of 731...even better claim-to-kill ratio. Impressive again...

oh...and 92 german fighters for 411 british planes lost (confirmed by RAF)...


MOST impressive

(Source: john Terraine's "the right of the line", a magnific book about the history of the RAF since the prewar years until 1945)  


Angus...piece of advice...never mix in a same sentence the words "overclaim" with the word "Luftwaffe", at least not with me nearby, because I'll turn you blue with what the RAF and USAAF used to overclaim.

[Angus]

Well, I knew I'd get a flame somewhere.
IMHO an overclaim is an overclaim, no matter who claimed.
Also bear in mind, that I am comparing actual registered losses with an incomplete claim report, - further data will only raise the overclaims.
I have not yet looked into the RAF claims vs Luftwaffe Losses, but I will, so I be sure your help will be appreciated;)
I have been chasing some claims from RAF vs the Luftwaffe, but had great troubles finding all their loss reports, - LW vs RAF is easier to dig up, and always a hotter debate, - more fun.
The debate can always be looked upon from many angles. How do LW loss reports compare to the approx. 30.000 Me109's that they lost?
How many claims did the enemy have for those 30.000? 150.000 maybe?
Anyway, do you know of some good online sources for LW losses and RAF claims? I am particularly interested in the N- African theatre. Well, RAF loss reports as well.
Will be bringing even more data soon;)

[RRAM]

Originally posted by Angus
Well, I knew I'd get a flame somewhere.
IMHO an overclaim is an overclaim, no matter who claimed.
Also bear in mind, that I am comparing actual registered losses with an incomplete claim report, - further data will only raise the overclaims.

heh, but you'll agree with me that a 1-to-5 ratio is not the same as a 1-to-2 ratio, wont you?

The german routine to officially award kills to pilots was the most severe of the whole war. That's a fact, so it's clear that the Luftwaffe will be always the less overclaiming air force of the war.

The debate can always be looked upon from many angles. How do LW loss reports compare to the approx. 30.000 Me109's that they lost?
How many claims did the enemy have for those 30.000? 150.000 maybe?

The own base of your assumption is wrong.

1-there were 30.000 messerschmitts 109s built. NOt all of them during the war.

2-of the messerschmitts delivered to the Luftwaffe, many were written off without being a loss off battle. I am talking for instance, about perfectly intact planes phased out of service because new versions arrive.

3-Many 109s in damaged condition, or inmovilized because being overhauled were lost in land offensives when they had to be left behind by the retreating german armies, and so they were captured by the enemy.

4-in some theaters of operations were spare parts were rare, some planes were canibalized to get spare parts to repair other planes, thus the cannibalized planes had to be written off.

5- a good number of 109s were destroyed after leaving the lines of production but BEFORE arriving to frontline units.

6- also a good number of 109s were destroyed on the ground and not when airborne


...I could go on ad nauseam. THe aircraft written off by an air force are so because MANY and DIFFERENT reasons, not just because being shot down in air combat.

Your whole premise of your investigation is based on wrong and soft ground, Angus. Better revise it a bit or you won't be able to conduct a proper investigation. I tell this with the most friendly  intention

Anyway, do you know of some good online sources for LW losses and RAF claims? I am particularly interested in the N- African theatre. Well, RAF loss reports as well.
Will be bringing even more data soon;)

I don't really known online sources for this kind of information, but you can get some good books with complete and incredibly well-documented information. THe book I mentioned above is a good example and comes with good information of this kind, all of it well backuped. If you want the ISBN, I can give it to you.

[Angus]

Hello again
"heh, but you'll agree with me that a 1-to-5 ratio is not the same as a 1-to-2 ratio, wont you? "
It surely is impressive, 5 to 1. Comes as somewhat a surprize to me that the RAF INCREASED overclaims from the BoB, while the Germans found their error, and made it right from their previous overclaims that had even surpassed the British.
I have read from many sources that the RAF reviewed its kill claims after the BoB, since they were not able to match their kill claims over British soil with the wrecks retrived.
No doubt, the Luftwaffe reviewed their own claims too, realizing that their claims from the BoB were way above the whole strength of the RAF at the time.
The claim data I have comes from only 3 German Squadrons, (or rather wings), - JG1, JG2 and JG 26. (more than one gruppe from each) while the loss data I have is complete. I am trying to find out the full order of battle in the area from the LW side, I guess there were not so many more since the Russian campaign had started.
But at least those 3 squadrons do more than claim all RAF losses, so I would not exactly say that my  whole premise of investigation is based on wrong and soft ground as you so neatly put it. You said I should revise my work, - I am just comparing LW claims with RAF losses from a certain timeframe, - so what exactly should I revise?
The LW claims I have, are not absolutely complete I know, but I thought that only 1 1/2 year yealding nearly 2000 Spitfires killed from 2-3 squadrons was just a wee bit over the top, if you forgive me. So, I investigate.
BTW, I would very much like to get my hands on the book you mentioned, so the ISBN would be thankfully appreciated.
Regarding the lost 30.000, I know I was a bit over the top, - hehe, a little teaser for you.
33.000+ were manufactured including foreign built 109's after the war. I belive the Germans built very near 30.000. 5% were lost in landing accidents, and as with all other airforces, a large percentage was lost for various reasons. However, Germany being short of aircraft for a very long time, definately used them as much as they could. They had less to replace them with than their enemies, so if this was investigated, I would put my money on that a higher proportion of the 109 was shot down in air combat than many of their opponents.
Come to think of it, - Gunther Rall got shot down 8 times in the 109, Rudorffer 17 times (always in the 109?)
But again, what is that compared to the kills they got in them

[Oldman731]

Originally posted by RRAM
The german routine to officially award kills to pilots was the most severe of the whole war. That's a fact, so it's clear that the Luftwaffe will be always the less overclaiming air force of the war.

Um.  Where do you get this?

- oldman

[Guppy35]

Who won?

Seems to me that you can argue it til the end of time.  You also seem to be missing some essential points.

First being that for the majority of the war, in the west in particular, the Germans were fighting over their own turf, or the turf they were occupying.  That would tend to make confirming claims a bit easier and also lead to less overclaiming.  Allied pilots were over bad guy land.  Just a bit tougher to have someone on the ground check the crash sites.

Think about it from the Allied perspective.  Your pilots are crossing the Channel and over enemy territory in combat.  They're also in their early 20s and still, at least initially, thinking that air combat is 'sport'.  The competitive nature of those pilots is played to both by their High Command and by the press.  

The 8th AF sure recognized this when they started awarding equal kill status to ground claims.  It added to the incentive to go down to those airfields and brave the flak to add to a 'score'. Think of all those 'aces' who survived air combat but ended up dead or in a POW cage because they were down on the deck.  Yet in the end the losses and risks were worth it in terms of the damage done. Lots of black crosses on fuselages and a decimated Luftwaffe "in the air and on the ground".  

From a higher command point of view, allowing the overclaiming, kept their pilots in the 'game'.  This applied to bomber gunners as well. Everyone knows those claims were rediculous.  But if you are a CO sending out your bomber crews knowing that life expectancy is really bad, you are going to use anyway you can to help your guys feel like they are hitting back, even if the 1 190 that goes down is claimed by 10 gunners.

Who cares as long as you are winning, and in the end that was all that mattered.

Dan

[Pei]

RRAM,
A point you miss from the Fighter Command stats is that the losses include a/c  brought down by air defenses (the most common way to lose a/c by enemy action for allied fighters over Europe, especially later in the War). While some of these may well be due to Luftwaffe emplacements (rather than the Wehrmacht) I rather doubt they should be considered as evidence towards the superiority of Luftwaffe pilots as you seem to be implying.

[Replicant]

I haven't any RAF official losses books but Fighter Command weren't the only users of Spitfires/Hurricanes.   Some were used by Photo Reconnaisance Units, and even some Bomber Command squadrons had a Hurricane or Spitfire (later war) allocated just for training.  Additionally there were the Ferry pilots of which quite a few were shot down (many female pilots).  These would've been mostly in land though.

Perhaps if you could find a RAF book stating total losses per day including all commands and then you might be able to compare claims/losses more accurately?

[Angus]

Of course, the ultimate way for comparison would be to have all ends tied up. However, the losses and claims I have information about, both state time and location, so certain engagements come through quite well. A ferry Spitfire in a furball over Calais? No, I doubt so. A PR Spitfire? Maybe, and some PR planes were claimed, so I have been able to filter them out.
What actually surprized me when I went looking into these claims vs. losses was the accuracy of the claims rather than the overclaiming. So, although there is some error, or overclaims, it is not a lot. Well, it should not be, for the Germans were actually fighting over their own turf....