Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Crumpp on September 24, 2004, 03:37:05 PM
-
Just got a bunch of documents from the USAF Historical Archives.
These figures are for USAAF Day fighters ONLY. They do not include the RAF, RCAF, or any other allied air force. They only include the USAAF fighters engaged in western Europe.
Some telling statistics for 1944:
USAAF Day fighter Losses - 4,897 planes lost in air to air combat
Pilots Lost in combat - 2,801
Enemy Aircraft of all types claimed destroyed in Air to Air Combat - 5608
Sorties Flown - 365,284
Escort Sorties - 207,532
Above sortie figures does NOT include 30,706 non-effective sorties that turned back due to weather, technical problems, or other reasons.
Average Number of USAAF fighters vs. Luftwaffe fighters in engagements - 8.6: 1
Total number of sorties flown by the Luftwaffe in all fronts during 1944 - 66,300
Roughly 75 percent of the Luftwaffe day fighters on the Western Front in 1944 were FW-190A's. For the majority of time in 1944, the predominate FW-190 was the FW-190A8.
Discuss please.
-
Hello
In 1944 I belive the LW lost 2000 aircraft on the eastern front, and 8000 on the western front.
(Air action I think)
Would be great to know more about this.
Nice Idea for thread Crumpp :)
-
Yeah, those statistics do not include other Allied AF's nor their claims.
8000 A/C total lost = about 3400 destroyed by RAF and other Allied AF's.
Any idea of the RAF losses in Air to Air combat?
Thanks for the info, Angus.
Crumpp
-
Hello again.
I don't have all the data, I had this from a website.
I have the raw data from the RAF aces only, but again, the RAF as well as the USAAF had so many pilots with a couple of kills.....hundreds...even thousands!
I'll look into the RAF losses, but again, I am sure that this will be a successful thread in bringing data, so just wait.
Guppy perhaps would have some goodies coming. :)
-
I have the raw data from the RAF aces only, but again, the RAF as well as the USAAF had so many pilots with a couple of kills.....hundreds...even thousands!
:)
Nice!
Actually for every 1000 sorties the Luftwaffe averaged 40.9 allied A/C destroyed.
For every 1000 sorties the USAAF averaged 12.3 Axis A/C destroyed.
Of course with 8.9 targets a piece on average to choose from....
Looking forward to Guppy's input!
Crumpp
-
Geez, talk about pressure :)
What you gents looking for RAF or USAAF stuff or both?
I do think it speaks loudly to those LW honchos that somehow survived it all and racked up such high scores. The amount of targets they saw compared to the average USAAF pilot would have been no comparision.
I remember reading some comment by a 4th FG pilot who saw an enemy aircraft on only one occasion of his tour
Seems to me Yeager said he encountered enemy aircraft only five times during his tour as well.
I know when we argued about when the airwar was won in that one thread I posted those numbers of sorties vs losses and the losses percentage wise were miniscule for the Allies based on the amount of aircraft in the air.
That's the thing that is hard to comprehend is that sky over Europe covered with thousands of aircraft each day.
A couple of things just to throw out there to give a perspective on RAF engagements.
Two squadrons operated the XII from February 43 -September 44. During that time they claimed 59 enemy aircraft..
I have the logbook of a Canadian Spitfire Pilot who flew with 416, 41 and 91 Squadrons. In 289 combat sorties, totaling 704.25 hours of combat flying from December 9, 1941 to August 16, 1944 he saw enemy aircraft 5 times. and was in only one real scrap on July 18, 1943, otherwise it was chasing or evading on the other four occasions. One he was on a recco and bounced by 190s and outran them. On two of the others it was seeing 190s that didn't engage and the other one was early on in 1941 chasing a Ju88 that had been over England.
I have to believe that a LW fighter pilot flying in the same time frame on the Western Front, with the same amount of hours would have engaged in combat a heckuva lot more often.
And I have a list of 91 Squadron claims for the entire war from their formation in 1941. They claimed 73 aircraft in the entire war with their last two kills being in May of 1944.
Pop over to this site:
http://brew.clients.ch/RAF41Sqdn.htm
I've got a lot of my 41 stuff there. 41 was fairly typical of a Fighter Command squadron. Look at the casualties to all causes during the course of the entire war. Roughly 180 lost to all causes.
Do the math and average it out for the rest of the squadrons.
Clearly the RAF and USAAF were target 'deprived' compared to those LW guys. At the same time I wouldn't want to have been climbing into the cockpit of a 190 or 109 from 43 on as the odds were against them bigtime.
Dan/Slack
-
Oh, for interest,I have the RAF fighter command losses 1942 and 1943. I had some sport comparing it with LW claims a while ago.
BTW, I have some LW claims on file, and Crumpp has very much of their losses. We could build one hell of an archive!
Will be back with some links later on.
-
Here are some OOB for the Luftwaffe in regards to the FW-190. Do you think we can draw any conclusions on how competitive the A/C was from these statistics? I am interviewing LW veterans who flew the FW-190A8. They all claim it was the most nimble version of the FW-190A. One flew the FW-190A8/R7 "sturmjager" until the unit was disbanded in 1944. Then he flew the FW-190A8 for the rest of the war.
http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/oob.htm
I know when we argued about when the air war was won in that one thread I posted those numbers of sorties vs. losses and the losses percentage wise were miniscule for the Allies based on the amount of aircraft in the air.
You can compare the number of sorties, losses, and claims in the reports I have. The Luftwaffe was destroyed in a year of intense Allied Pressure marked by spikes of maximum effort once the allies established a 10 to 1 ratio.
We could build one hell of an archive!
I would love to do this. Sharing information means we can all make better conclusions.
As far as individual pilot stories go, you would surprise Guppy what comes out when you start looking at both sides of the same engagement.
One the FW-190A pilots made an interesting comment. He says the race for level speed between the FW-190A and the Merlin Spit was won for a short time period by the Spitfire in late 1943. The FW design team came out with some changes to the fuel injector system and the Kommandgerat that gave the FW-190 the edge again. This would account for the wide variations we see in documented horsepower of the BMW 801D2. Benefits I guess of having the design team fly the plane in combat themselves as well as constantly meeting with pilots who flew the plane. Kurt Tank was the flight leader of the Focke Wulf factory defense flight team. His engineers flew along side him.
Another commented on EW/MW boost systems that they all say they had mounted on their FW-190A8's in 1944. Only one says he did not use it. The rest say the extra 200 hp gave them a measure of superiority over the Spitfire IX. BMW-801D2 would have been a 2250hp engine at FTH in the lower supercharger gear for 10-15 minutes.
The air war was a punch and counterpunch affair as you once commented Guppy. I don't think the allied pilots where flying around menacing fighters which had no chance performance wise to win the fight. I think the majority of actual dogfights were decided by pilot skill with each pilot desperately fighting for their lives. This is punctuated by short time periods were one side does enjoy technical superiority, which is quickly countered by the other side.
There is documentation to back up these pilots' claims on the FW-190A.
Crumpp
-
60K sorties for the whole LW looks strange. Here is another point of view:
1944 - All Combat Types
Total West 182,004
Eastern Front 342,483
As for USAAF losses.
Here:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwroot/aafsd/aafsd_pdf/t159.pdf
http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwroot/aafsd/aafsd_pdf/t160.pdf
You can find another data:
1734 fighters lost to enemy ac (ETO + MTO).
-
With some exceptions, many of which are documented elsewhere, LW claim lists have been transcribed from the microfilms by a fellow named Tony Woods and are available on his site:
http://www.tonywood.cjb.net
The claims for 1945 are missing, either destroyed at the end of the war or simply not compiled as the Reich descended into chaos. A recent book has listed out the Nachtjagd claims for '45, I can find reference if needed.
HEALTH WARNING! Attempting to link up claims and losses can cause insanity. I know this to be true since I'm still on medication myself, though I have not been fully cured.
It can be done in some cases, but in swirling daylight battles with aircraft all over the sky, it is all but impossible to build clear links. Generally speaking, it works a little better with night claims.
Crumpp - are you willing to exchange info on claims and losses? I have a file of Mosquito claims which you're welcome to in any case.
Cheers,
Scherf
-
HEALTH WARNING! Attempting to link up claims and losses can cause insanity. I know this to be true since I'm still on medication myself, though I have not been fully cured.
Absolutely, Takes a week to uncross your eyes.
It can be done in some cases, but in swirling daylight battles with aircraft all over the sky, it is all but impossible to build clear links.
Yes but we have found a measure of success in many of the battles analyzed. One point has come to light. Mistaken identity was a very common occurance.
Angus, after our most recent comparision, I found numerous examples of 109's bouncing 190's! One poor guy was all dirtied up (gear down, flaps, etc..) and on final approach to a Luftwaffe Airfield. Two 109's from I/JG53 came down out of the clouds and bounced him. The 190 pilot was killed.
Crumpp - are you willing to exchange info on claims and losses? I have a file of Mosquito claims which you're welcome to in any case.
Yes I would be glad to exchange the info I have but you better buy a copy of my book when it comes out! :p
Crumpp
-
Book? Details? Date? Muahahahahahaahhhaaaaa!
Done, put me down for a copy.
Email me at markhux@hotmail.com and I'll forward my Mosquito file. All secondary sources you understand, but there is a certain level of consistency among them which allows the duplications and "unlikelies" to be weeded out.
Cheers,
Scherf
-
60K sorties for the whole LW looks strange. Here is another point of view:
What is your source because it looks like you are listing the USAAF sorties instead of the LW.
66,000 comes from a Luftwaffe document. Considering the number of fighters the Luftwaffe fielded this seems correct. I posted a link to the OOB's for the Luftwaffe. You can see from the OOB that even under ideal conditions, the Luftwaffe was never able to launch more than 450-500 fighters in the Air. The majority of the interceptions conducted involved less than 250 machines up on the entire Western Front. The percentage of these which made contact with the bomber stream depended on the weather and the tactical situation. It varies from 20 percent or less to up to 80 percent on clear days.
The largest number of fighters the LW was ever able to get up on the air was "Bodenplatte". The reserves were thrown in as well as 3 Gruppes of the single engine nightfighters. The Luftwaffe was able to field almost 900 machines.
This is against a force that averages in 1944 1000+ bombers and 500-700 close escort fighters. It does not include RAF operations, 9th Tactical Airforce, or USAAF on Fighters on pure fighter missions (sweeps etc..).
The 8.6: 1 ratio is from the USAAF as it the ratio of kills per 1000.
AS for the Fighter A/C fighter losses in Air to Air combat, you are correct. I read a different report which list's total losses in the Air. I have this report but just have not gotten to it yet. I have almost 4 linear feet of documentation. I just finished filing it!
The correct figures should be:
1293 fighters shot down in Air to Air combat
1516 Heavy bombers shot down by enemy fighters
93 medium/light bombers shot down by enemy fighters.
Total USAAF aircraft lost to fighters in 1944 = 2902 A/C shot down by fighters at 8.6: 1 odds.
If you analyze the Luftwaffe casualty figures. The pre-1943 trained pilots die at a steady attrition rate throughout the war. It increase slightly the last two years but not dramatically. The Post-1943 trained pilots have a 98 percent attrition rate. If they could survive their first 6 missions their chances of surviving the entire war went up astronomically. Much closer to the pre-1943 pilot attrition rate.
Crumpp
-
When did you decide to write a book Crumpp, and what kind of book will it be?
-
Voodoo,
I found it. Your figures are total sorties of All types.
66,000 is the single engine dayfighters.
Crumpp
-
When did you decide to write a book Crumpp, and what kind of book will it be?
About 4 months ago, Gscholz.
Started digging into the technical stuff on the FW-190A. There are numerous myths about the aircraft that have been passed along and taken a life of their own. Especially on this side of the pond.
The earlier versions are covered in detail but the later ones are glossed over by most texts.
Managed to get a hold of some great sources including several which are closed to the public and bring to light lots of new information. Since Sept 11th over 10,000 rolls of microfilm of captured Luftwaffe documents in storage have been cataloged that are in an archive closed to the general public.
I got in touch with pilots who flew the aircraft in combat and scored many victories in it. Soon I will interview allied pilots who fought against it.
The design team for the FW-190 was amazing. On a regular basis they met with pilots to discuss improvements in the design. They even flew the plane in combat themselves as part of the factory defense flight. Hundreds of "tweaks" were made to the design.
The NASM just finished restoring an FW-190A9. The man that headed up the project calls it the "Teutonic Bearcat" and in many areas he says it was superior both technically and in performance.
All of the pilots I have interviewed confirm that the FW-190A8 was the most nimble version of the FW-190A's. The FW-190A5 was the worst performing version in regards to maneuverability. It is the 190 equivalent to the first production version of the Bf-109G6.
Crumpp
-
I found it. Your figures are total sorties of All types.
Sure. Because you've said:
"Total number of sorties flown by the Luftwaffe in all fronts during 1944 - 66,300"
"by the Luftwaffe" is not "by the single engine dayfighters" ;) . And I think that its not only "single engine dayfighters", but "single engine dayfighters of the Reichsverteidigung".
Considering the number of fighters the Luftwaffe fielded this seems correct.
For the Reichsverteidigung - yes. For the whole Luftwaffe - no.
This is against a force that averages in 1944 1000+ bombers and 500-700 close escort fighters.
Its OK against 250-500 LW single engine dayfighters. As for fighters 1,5-3 to 1.
The 8.6: 1 ratio is from the USAAF as it the ratio of kills per 1000.
You mean US pilotes claimed 8,6 kills per 1000 sorties ?
If you analyze the Luftwaffe casualty figures
Do you have Reichsverteidigung 1943 losses ? Espessialy from US bomber gunners ?
-
And I think that its not only "single engine dayfighters", but "single engine dayfighters of the Reichsverteidigung".
No it's for the entire Luftwaffe.
Its OK against 250-500 LW single engine dayfighters. As for fighters 1,5-3 to 1.
No the 8.6:1 is the USAAF's figure for average contact ratio in Western Europe on an escort mission. It's not mine.
No what you fail to factor in the actual number of A/C in contact. A plane in the air is not the same as a plane in the fight. Only a handful of interceptions were ever made in any force. This was the crutch of Gallands "Knock out blow"
IIRC,
1. Gather the forces to field 400 fighters IN CONTACT. By the current statistics he needed to launch 1000 fighters to guarantee 400 would make contact with the bombers. He managed to gather 90 percent of the forces but then watched them get squandered in "Operation Bodenplatte".
2. Do this TWO times and statistically the LW would have caused enough casualties to halt the daylight bombing campaign temporarily. Based on past casualty figures vs. dayfighters that made contact and past experience halting the daylight bombing campaign in 1943.
The LW was never able to achieve this even once. They never got 400 fighters in contact and could only achieve around 500 in the air on a handful of occasions.
You mean US pilotes claimed 8,6 kills per 1000 sorties ?
No it is a ratio used for strategic planning. It represents the numeric advantage in the air. 8.6 USAAF fighter's vs. 1 Luftwaffe fighter.
Current doctrine calls for a 10:1 ratio to achieve Air Supremacy over an adversary. This is one of the things that made strategic planners do cheetah flips during the Cold War. All of NATO's are power could not even come close to achieve this over the Soviet Air Force.
The kill ratio is:
For every 1000 sorties the Luftwaffe averaged 40.9 allied A/C destroyed.
For every 1000 sorties the USAAF averaged 12.3 Axis A/C destroyed.
This a natural byproduct of existing in a target rich enviroment.
The each Luftwaffe fighter had an average of 8.6 targets vs. the USAAF pilot had 1 target with 7.6 other guys competing to shoot it down.
Espessialy from US bomber gunners ?
Gunner claims are a complete waste of time to examine. Everyone I have done has resulted in a HUGE discrepancy when compared with the oppositions losses. In Schwienfurt the B17 gunners claimed more German Fighters destroyed than were even present at the battle.
IIRC only around dozen LW fighters were even damaged and 2-3 pilots were wounded or killed from B17 gunners in that raid.
For morale purposes the 8th USAAF allowed most of the claims to stand. Even they knew from Ultra intercepts the extreme over inflation and few actual casualties inflicted.
Crumpp
-
You can find some opinion about the gunner-score from Pierre Closterman's book. He spent some time on planning before D-Day, and was furious about those claims to be taken seriously, - had they been correct, there could have been no Luftwaffe, and the RAF and USAF fighters should have been useless anyway with their modest claims.
Ummm, do I understand it correctly that the LW only mounted 60K sorties in 1944? Looks kinda little to me......
-
Ummm, do I understand it correctly that the LW only mounted 60K sorties in 1944? Looks kinda little to me......
Single engine dayfighters. That is what the paper says!
That is 180 planes in the air everyday all year long. Considering the number the days they could not fly and the few numbers of planes they could launch. Everyday you don't launch a plane is an extra 180 planes in the air.
Now the data could be incomplete when the record was filed. Check out the LW OOB I posted. Look at the serviceable plane numbers. I would think this figure is definately in the ballpark.
Usually only one sortie was flown to intercept the bombers. Rarely would a second one be flown.
Crumpp
-
Christer Bergstrom claims the LW made 650-1000 sorties per day on many occasions.
-
Christer Bergstrom claims the LW made 650-1000 sorties per day on many occasions.
I am sure they did Milo. However we are talking just the dayfighters. All it would take would be 3 days of "no-fly" weather and you have 800 sorties you can do for JUST FIGHTERS.
There were weeks that went by in the winter with little to no air activity.
Lumping in the bombers and ground attack units the LW could have easily made 650-1000 sorties a day on the Eastern front.
Crumpp
-
That was on the Western Front Crumpp.
Here is his words:
"The Luftwaffe had the required capacity, and even much more than that. They were able to bring 650 fighters into the air in a single day over the Western Front, occasionally even over a thousand fighters in a single day."
-
"The Luftwaffe had the required capacity, and even much more than that. They were able to bring 650 fighters into the air in a single day over the Western Front, occasionally even over a thousand fighters in a single day."
That is correct Milo.
They were able to do it twice with 650 fighters.
They did it once with 900, on Operation Bodenplatte.
The problem was getting them into contact with the bombers.
The largest intercepts were flown in December of '44 when the front line units began to get beefed up for Gallands "knockout blow".
On Dec 16th the Western front was reinforced leaving just JG301 and JG300 in Germany. After Dec 16th some large intercepts were flown averaging 400 fighters with two being around 650.
On January 1 Bodenplatte was launched and the Jadgwaffe was smashed. The reserves meant for the "knockout blow" were gone.
However the key word is CAPACITY.
"The Luftwaffe had the required capacity, and even much more than that. They were able to bring 650 fighters into the air in a single day over the Western Front, occasionally even over a thousand fighters in a single day."
The REALITY is:
Never were they able to get 400 fighters to make contact with the bomber stream.
Good book to learn about the difficulties the Jadgwaffe faced in intercept missions is:
http://www.schifferbooks.com/newschiffer/book_template.php?isbn=0887403484
Crumpp
-
The problem is Crumpp, he meant on many occasions. Take it up with him.
Have had that book for a long time.:)
-
FW-190 A is one of the best air to air fighters in AH, peeriood.
-
The problem is Crumpp, he meant on many occasions. Take it up with him.
He doesn't say that Milo. He says they had the capacity to field 650 fighters and on occasion 1000. Yes they did.
I am sure Galland would have been extremely happy if what you are saying was true.
Have had that book for a long time
It's a good read and illustrates point well.
Crumpp
-
No it's for the entire Luftwaffe.
OK. This means LW fighters were only twice better than kamikaze. From O. Gröhler, "Stärke, Verteilung und Verluste der deutschen Luftwaffe im zweiten Weltkrieg":
Total LW dayfighters losses in jan-oct '44 - 13964. 66300/13964=4,75. Kamikazes manage to stay alive at a rate of 2 sorties per kill or so.
No the 8.6:1 is the USAAF's figure for average contact ratio in Western Europe on an escort mission. It's not mine.
Contact ratio is another thing. If somebody wants to destroy your house and you just cant find him - thats your and only your problem.
No what you fail to factor in the actual number of A/C in contact.
Its not me who failed but LW ;).
Gather the forces to field 400 fighters IN CONTACT.
Yeah... Sure... Triple available fighters... Quadruple...
By the current statistics he needed to launch 1000 fighters to guarantee 400 would make contact with the bombers.
US pilots made contacts with 8 to 1 ratio while german were launching 250-500 fighters and US - 500-700. It looks like 4 to 1 ratio to get 1 german fighter in contact with the US. So if you want 400 german fighters to make contact you should launch 1600 of them. Not bad. Germans must have 2-3 to 1 numerical superiority to achieve... hmmm.... not victory but... something.
Gunner claims are a complete waste of time to examine
Do you have any details about Grislawski fight 24 January 1944 ?
-
Crummp "Teutonic Bearcat" is funny since in fact the Bearcat was directly inspired by Fw190 test flights done by Grumman's chief designer and test pilot Robert Hall.. :)
-
Crummp "Teutonic Bearcat" is funny since in fact the Bearcat was directly inspired by Fw190 test flights done by Grumman's chief designer and test pilot Robert Hall..
Right! Grunherz It was an improvement in the design incorporating the latest in Piston engine technology. The area many like to claim Germany was inferior to the allies in aviation technology. How many times have your heard, "The Germans did not have good superchargers because they did not have the technology".
I took Larry's expression to mean that thought process was a bunch of baloney. Haven't been able to press him for details but I will when I talk to him this week. His statement about the "Bearcat" was immediately followed by praise for the BMW801TS. I did not have time to press him for details but he did comment that he could not believe the technology available then.
Total LW dayfighters losses in jan-oct '44 - 13964. 66300/13964=4,75. Kamikazes manage to stay alive at a rate of 2 sorties per kill or so.
I think your number reflects the entire Luftwaffe and includes A/C destroyed on the ground, Ack, etc, certainly not just the day fighters.
If not I have no idea where this number comes from. I have an extensive casualty list.
Here is an accurate list broken down for you in November. It shows the losses for that month by Unit.
http://www.luftwaffe.no/SIG/OOB/Nov44-1.html
Now in December the Jagdwaffe took some casualties. Use the back button at the bottom and check it out. Nowhere near 13,000. In fact nowhere near even a thousand.
Maybe for the entire war 13,000??
Contact ratio is another thing. If somebody wants to destroy your house and you just cant find him - that's your and only your problem.
Huh? Contact ratio is just that. The number in contact. You can further breakdown the contact ratio into contact with fighters, bombers etc...
Crumpp says:
By the current statistics he needed to launch 1000 fighters to guarantee 400 would make contact with the bombers.
Voodoo says:
US pilots made contacts with 8 to 1 ratio while german were launching 250-500 fighters and US - 500-700. It looks like 4 to 1 ratio to get 1 german fighter in contact with the US.
The USAAF needed a 8.6:1 contact ratio for the fighters in order to achive a much lower contact ratio for the bombers.
Actually it is more like a 2.5: 1 . For every 2.5 fighters the Luftwaffe launched. One could penetrate the 8.6:1 fighter screen and get a shot at a bomber.
Crumpp
-
Looks like many are using this site for their stats on their site.
http://www.ww2.dk/
-
Yep,
It's conveniently compiled for you on the above site I linked.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
About 4 months ago, Gscholz.
Started digging into the technical stuff on the FW-190A. There are numerous myths about the aircraft that have been passed along and taken a life of their own. Especially on this side of the pond.
The earlier versions are covered in detail but the later ones are glossed over by most texts.
Managed to get a hold of some great sources including several which are closed to the public and bring to light lots of new information. Since Sept 11th over 10,000 rolls of microfilm of captured Luftwaffe documents in storage have been cataloged that are in an archive closed to the general public.
I got in touch with pilots who flew the aircraft in combat and scored many victories in it. Soon I will interview allied pilots who fought against it.
The design team for the FW-190 was amazing. On a regular basis they met with pilots to discuss improvements in the design. They even flew the plane in combat themselves as part of the factory defense flight. Hundreds of "tweaks" were made to the design.
The NASM just finished restoring an FW-190A9. The man that headed up the project calls it the "Teutonic Bearcat" and in many areas he says it was superior both technically and in performance.
All of the pilots I have interviewed confirm that the FW-190A8 was the most nimble version of the FW-190A's. The FW-190A5 was the worst performing version in regards to maneuverability. It is the 190 equivalent to the first production version of the Bf-109G6.
Crumpp
Sounds interesting Crumpp, I'm looking forward to it. I suppose you're still in the planning stage, and that it will take you some time to write it. Finished by next year perhaps? Have you found an interested publisher for your book?
-
Sounds interesting Crumpp, I'm looking forward to it. I suppose you're still in the planning stage, and that it will take you some time to write it. Finished by next year perhaps?
It's coming along. Yes I am still researching. It will be a while before it is ready. Got plans to make a trip to Europe soon for research. Every weekend I am taking a trip somewhere to conduct research and every night on the phone doing research.
BTW if you are interested in Original Luftwaffe reports, BMW reports, and Focke-Wulf manuscripts/reports let me know. I can hook you up with some fantastic private collections.
Thanks for the vote of confidence. I plan on making it worth your wait.
Have you found an interested publisher for your book?
No, You interested?
Just kidding....
Crumpp
-
Heheh, I'm in the printing industry, but not in the book department. ;)
Thanks for your offer, but I don't have the time for something like that now. I'll wait for your book.
-
Crumpp:
When you refer to the Jagdwaffe, are you referring to just the fighter arm of the Luftwaffe?
(Air to air, skipping ground attack then?)
If so, even 13.000 losses seem a tad low. That would give you much more losses to other causes.
Anyway, let me know, and I'll peek into it ;)
-
When you refer to the Jagdwaffe, are you referring to just the fighter arm of the Luftwaffe?
Yes, Only Air to Air combat losses.
13,000 breaks down to 120 fighter planes a month for the entire war.
Crumpp
-
I think your number reflects the entire Luftwaffe and includes A/C destroyed on the ground, Ack, etc, certainly not just the day fighters.
You wrong. Its dayfighters only. But yes - its losses from all reasons.
If not I have no idea where this number comes from.
I said you already.
Now in December the Jagdwaffe took some casualties. Use the back button at the bottom and check it out. Nowhere near 13,000. In fact nowhere near even a thousand.
Do you understand that 13.000 is not a month figure but for: jan feb mar may apr etc. I put all data from your link into Excel and got 572 dayfighters lost due to enemy action and over 500 due to other reasons. More than 1000. If you multiply it by 12 you'll get that 13.000 figure.
Huh? Contact ratio is just that. The number in contact. You can further breakdown the contact ratio into contact with fighters, bombers etc...
Do you want to say that its from pilots and crews accounts !? Do you really believe that this 8,6 to 1 ration means something ? Remember that bomber crew overclaim thing ? Same here. Its not for historic work but for psychoanalytic. One german plane counted more than once, one didnt counted at all, pilot wanted to save his bellybutton and so have to tell nice stories at home about hundreds of huns. This ratio is meaningless.
The USAAF needed a 8.6:1 contact ratio
To lower this ratio USAAF needs only to stop its pilots from smoking weed. To rise it through the sky it needs only to find another sort of weed.
The real thing was 2 to 1 ratio. Means (US fighters launched) / (german fighters launched).
-
Do you want to say that its from pilots and crews accounts !? Do you really believe that this 8,6 to 1 ration means something ?
It does not come from pilot's stories. It comes from comparing effective sorties.
If your mission is an intercept, and you fail to make contact with the bombers, then you have to report to higher an "ineffective sortie". Cross reference with Ultra intercepts, fighter claims, and other intelligence.
Do you understand that 13.000 is not a month figure but for: jan feb mar may apr etc. I put all data from your link into Excel and got 572 dayfighters lost due to enemy action and over 500 due to other reasons. More than 1000. If you multiply it by 12 you'll get that 13.000 figure.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2072/LWOB.html#Jagdwaffe
Do you understand that you are saying the Jagdwaffe was completely destroyed every month on the Western Front?
To lower this ratio USAAF needs only to stop its pilots from smoking weed. To rise it through the sky it needs only to find another sort of weed.
What?? A little heated debate is fine. I appreciate your input on this subject Voodoo. However lets not attack the bravery or competence of the men who fought these battles.
The real thing was 2 to 1 ratio. Means (US fighters launched) / (german fighters launched).
Doesn't mean a thing. The USAAF is measuring the application of combat power at the tip of the spear. The place it is needed.
You understand that the 8.6: 1 is an average taken over the whole year?
Only on a handful of missions did the Luftwaffe get out in strength.
Crumpp
-
If your mission is an intercept, and you fail to make contact with the bombers, then you have to report to higher an "ineffective sortie".
This kind of data could be found only in LW archives... Could you post some quoting from that document ?
Cross reference with Ultra intercepts, fighter claims, and other intelligence.
So... No direct data. Only guesses.
Do you understand that you are saying the Jagdwaffe was completely destroyed every month on the Western Front?
You are absolutely correct. Dont forget that losses were replaced by newly produced pilots/planes.
However lets not attack the bravery or competence of the men who fought these battles.
So I should trust bomber gunners claims...
Doesn't mean a thing.
Its raw combat power available to sides.
The USAAF is measuring the application of combat power at the tip of the spear. The place it is needed.
And such a bad ratio means that LW had problems with the ability to direct its power into desired place.
You understand that the 8.6: 1 is an average taken over the whole year?
The more I understand this ratio the more meaningless it becomes...
-
Jagdwaffe would have a similar meaning as "Fighter Command" right?
So this would be the losses of the whole 109's, 110's and the 190's (those being the bulk of the LW fighters) due to air-to-air combat in the entire war, right?
13.000...hmmm.
You have probably about 30-40.000 German fighters lost total in the war (Wild but somewhat educated guess). 13 out of 40 is rather a low rate I think, however, since I have nothing to compare with, I can't point that out so well.
The USAF and the RAF should perhaps have a lower rate, since they did a horrible lot of strafing, and the USSR should have a very much lower rate, since their role was primarily ground support. So, it boggles me a bit, that's all.
I have somewhere the LW losses in Poland, and the BoB, maybe even in France. I'll try to find it if it can be of any use.
Regards.
Angus
-
What was the fate of the ~55000 109s and 190s? There only ~1300 servicable at wars end.
-
This kind of data could be found only in LW archives... Could you post some quoting from that document ?
Data is from the USAAF. Not the LW. Buy the book.
So... No direct data. Only guesses.
Again, It is USAAF data.
Crumpp says:
Do you understand that you are saying the Jagdwaffe was completely destroyed every month on the Western Front?
Voodoo says:
You are absolutely correct. Dont forget that losses were replaced by newly produced pilots/planes.
The Luftwaffe was NOT 80 percent destroyed for 6 months in a row. You understand that there would be no such thing as a Luftwaffe veteran at those odds?
The USAAF Daylight bombing campaign took the highest rate of casualties of any branch of Service in US History. They Averaged about a 3-4 percent casualty rate at it's worst. This means by the time a guy finished 25 missions; he had a 75-100 percent chance of becoming a casualty. 3 out of 4 men who flew in 1943 became casualties.
Luftwaffe pilots flew until the war ended or they got killed. Many of them have thousands of missions. That is 40 tours in the USAAF.
So I should trust bomber gunners claims...
Totally different situation Voodoo. Those gunners made those claims in good faith. Have you ever fired a .50 cal in a flex mount at a target you see for a few seconds? Ever time a WWII fighter gunned it's engine, the exhaust blew out a puff of black smoke. Whenever the fighters shot it's weapons, the brass would come flying out the bottom and plumes of smoke off the muzzles. I am sure it was easy to mistake the smoke and falling debris for a hit.
And such a bad ratio means that LW had problems with the ability to direct its power into desired place.
1. We are only talking a handful of times the Luftwaffe was able to launch in force. You seem to think the Luftwaffe was launching 400 fighters a mission. It was not.
2. Yes they certainly did have a problem making contact with the bomber stream.
a. They had to fight through the Fighter Screen to get at the bombers. Fighters that had the advantage of both numbers and altitude in most engagements. If they made contact. they had to fight their way out as well. Interceptions were made with a USAAF fighter on their six.
b. The Luftwaffe abbreviated pilot training was beginning to tell. The post-43 pilots were not instrument rated and could barely fly the plane. They took an almost 50 percent casualty rate to accidents! If the weather was cloudy chances are the Gruppe would not make it through the clouds intact. Scattered and unable to regroup in any strength, the Gruppe would be unable to intercept the bomber stream.
The more I understand this ratio the more meaningless it becomes...
Yeah I question your understanding of it too.
As an average there are encounters with a fewer fighters and ones with more.
In the words of Oblt. Dahl, Kommanduer JG3:
"November 1944's flying was the toughest I had been through in the whole war. The odds were 20 to 1 and as much as 30 to 1 against us. We were taking casualties everyday. Our aircrew reinforcements were short on quality as they did not receive enough training. And shortage of fuel was making itself more and more felt."
It was in December that the LW was able to launch a couple of good-sized interceptions.
Losses I have for the Western Front during this critical time period:
November = 404 A/C destroyed (total from all causes), 244 pilots killed or missing
December = 500 Killed or missing; 316 KIA from 23-31Dec. Allied bombing offensive and 136 KIA in the opening Ground Support missions of the Ardennes offensive. 35 taken prisoner, 194 wounded
650 Machines destroyed.
January 1945 - 255 casualties from Bodenplatte, 151 KIA
125 casualties for the rest of the Month, 18 KIA
680 machines destroyed.
At the end of January the Jagdwaffe reported 300 serviceable fighters. Never again was it able to offer anything but paltry resistance.
The thousands of planes the Luftwaffe destroyed in 1944 accounted for a mere 2% of the Allied Armada.
Hardly the 1000+ a month the figure of 13,000 requires even for the year of 1944.
What was the fate of the ~55000 109s and 190s? There only ~1300 servicable at wars end.
Production Numbers!
Lets see:
Turkey
Romania
Hungry
Italy
Switzerland
I am sure I missed quite few user countries.
Crumpp
-
Spain, Finland, Czechoslovakia ...
-
So, the Jagdwaffe got destroyed with accidents and on the ground at a 2/3rd rate?
-
So, the Jagdwaffe got destroyed with accidents and on the ground at a 2/3rd rate?
Of course not, Angus. They did have an extremely high accident rate among the pre-1943 pilots. Almost a 50 percent loss rate to accidents.
13,000 seems right for:
1. The entire war on the Western Front for fighters only.
2. The entire Luftwaffe (all plane types for all reasons) for 1944.
It does not seem to fit the data for a couple of months in 1944. They did not lose nearly as many as I thought to Allied fighters. Even when outnumbered greatly. This is backed not only by the statistics but also by Luftwaffe pilot testimonials.
The biggest factor was in spotting the enemy. As one FW-190A8 pilot said "I feared no fighter I saw."
This particular pilot was shot down on a number of occasions. Only twice while flying a fighter version of the FW-190A. Both times he was not looking out and got bounced.
The other times he flew a "Sturmjager" and closed from the rear to within 50 meters of a bomber. He got shot down 4 times by P51's that were on his six as he was attacking the bombers. As soon as he got a bomber the P51's got him.
A large portion of the Jagdwaffe on the Western Front flew FW-190's.
Crumpp
-
Those countries mentioned received less than the Hungarian production run.
fate = shot down, accident, etc, etc, ......
-
Data is from the USAAF.
So ? Do you think that USAAF wartime gueses are better than direct data from the LW ?
Buy the book.
Waste of money.
The Luftwaffe was NOT 80 percent destroyed for 6 months in a row. You understand that there would be no such thing as a Luftwaffe veteran at those odds?
I think that I understand these things better than you... Most LW newbie pilots didnt last more than 1-5 sorties. Some pilots were shot down even before becoming true combat pilots because allied fighters attacked flying schools. And many veterans were shot down too. Multiple times sometimes. There were many newbies and not so many vets.
Luftwaffe pilots flew until the war ended or they got killed. Many of them have thousands of missions. That is 40 tours in the USAAF.
There were thousands of the LW pilots. How much of them made it to fly thousands of sorties ? How much times they were shot down in the process ?
I am sure it was easy to mistake the smoke and falling debris for a hit.
I am sure it was easy to count one plane multiple times. And didnt notice some planes at all.
1. We are only talking a handful of times the Luftwaffe was able to launch in force. You seem to think the Luftwaffe was launching 400 fighters a mission. It was not.
LW problems. It had hundreds of serviceable planes. Till may '44 it had synthetic fuel plants working. If LW didnt want to launch its fighters - so be it.
2. Yes they certainly did have a problem making contact with the bomber stream.
LW problems. Whole Reich Defence radar system was available. Lotsa scouts, ground personnel, flak batteries radars etc...
a. They had to fight through the Fighter Screen to get at the bombers. Fighters that had the advantage of both numbers and altitude in most engagements. If they made contact. they had to fight their way out as well. Interceptions were made with a USAAF fighter on their six.
LW problems. It is escort fighters work to escort bombers. If LW couldnt make it to bombers - escort won.
b. The Luftwaffe abbreviated pilot training was beginning to tell. The post-43 pilots were not instrument rated and could barely fly the plane.
If so, why you have so much doubt in that 13.000 figure ? And again - thats LW problems. If youre losing too much pilots youll receive only bad trained pilots cause you need alot of them.
As an average there are encounters with a fewer fighters and ones with more.
Im not talking that US were typically outnumbered. Im talking only about that ratio - 8 to 1. You shouldnt make any calculation with it. Cause real ratio was higher or lower than this one. At any given time.
November = 404 A/C destroyed (total from all causes), 244 pilots killed or missing
Its a bit too late to be a "critical time period". Critical period was january - april 1944. Before synth. fuel plants were wasted. And why are you talking about Western front ? Reich Defence is another thing. Two different fronts. Not counting Eastern front and Italy.
At the end of January the Jagdwaffe reported 300 serviceable fighters. Never again was it able to offer anything but paltry resistance.
Yes. Sure... This is the end...
Hardly the 1000+ a month the figure of 13,000 requires even for the year of 1944.
13.000 is not for the whole '44. Only till october.
You gave me a link... Nice link... Use it.
http://www.luftwaffe.no/SIG/OOB/Nov44-1.html
More than 1000 dayfighters (only dayfighters) lost from all reasons. Only one month.
-
From Crumpp:
"13,000 seems right for:
1. The entire war on the Western Front for fighters only.
2. The entire Luftwaffe (all plane types for all reasons) for 1944. "
Hmm. Pretty credible, I'd say.
I somewhere saw the losses from Russia and the N European theater in 1944. That was 8000 to 2000, so what's missing is probably the S-European theater (Italy), So it could well be.
I wonder if there is data about how many Fighter Pilots,or rather Single-engined fighter pilots LW lost in action. That would give a number very much lower than the aircraft losses, since some pilots wrecked up to 17 planes or so.
Oh and this:
"Luftwaffe pilots flew until the war ended or they got killed. Many of them have thousands of missions. That is 40 tours in the USAAF. "
I seriously doubt that many flew thousands of missions. Even many of their top men never even reached the thousand (Harmann, Rall, from memory though)
As a sidenote.
A RAF pilot I knew flew some 500 combat hours, total 1200 hours in WW2. That was considered rather much, but not unique.
When asked about Hartmann's score, he replied: I neven even saw so many enemy aircraft!
He also wound up in several one-on-one/two duels and lived to tell as well as winning some. That was rather rare I belive.
BTW, Crumpp, can you check LW losses (190) on the 24th of June in 1944?(Or did you already).
And perhaps, 10th and 13th of September 1941 (Channel, 109 Losses)
Regards
Angus
-
So ? Do you think that USAAF wartime gueses are better than direct data from the LW ?
They are very close. Why? Because the USAAF got the figures FROM the Luftwaffe. Please take some time and read up on the intelligence breakthroughs the Allied made. It will save some explaining.
Most LW newbie pilots didnt last more than 1-5 sorties. Some pilots were shot down even before becoming true combat pilots because allied fighters attacked flying schools. And many veterans were shot down too. Multiple times sometimes. There were many newbies and not so many vets.
Absolutely right. IN fact every nations Ace pilots got shot down on occasion. Only ace pilot to make the entire war without getting shot down that I am aware of is Adi Glunz.
There were thousands of the LW pilots. How much of them made it to fly thousands of sorties ? How much times they were shot down in the process ?
Your right. Most of the Luftwaffe did not make it to 1000 sorties.
Most were lucky to have made it to 6.
For your last two definitions of what the 13000 means you have been wrong. Please nail down exactly what you believe this number to be. From when to when and exactly what.
It may be correct for RAW losses, including all damaged and repaired aircraft. IN that case it is a meaningless number because many would be repaired and flown the next day.
Here is a comparison of aces to other countries:
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/aces.html
I am sure it was easy to count one plane multiple times. And didnt notice some planes at all.
Oh no doubt. I have a copy of the RLM claims procedure and standards. Over claiming did occur but it was neither a common occurrence nor at a rate higher than the USAAF.
Im not talking that US were typically outnumbered. Im talking only about that ratio - 8 to 1. You shouldnt make any calculation with it. Cause real ratio was higher or lower than this one. At any given time.
It's an average and it is very meaningful. A Luftwaffe pilot could bet on being outnumbered 8.6:1 fighter to fighter. Go to the MA and fly against 8 opponents and see what happens.
Its a bit too late to be a "critical time period". Critical period was january - april 1944. Before synth. fuel plants were wasted. And why are you talking about Western front ? Reich Defence is another thing. Two different fronts. Not counting Eastern front and Italy.
Any interception the "Defense of the Reich" units in Germany proper conducted, the kanalgeschwaders conducted. Comes from the fact they have to fly through them first.
More than 1000 dayfighters (only dayfighters) lost from all reasons. Only one month.
What are you smoking?
http://www.luftwaffe.no/SIG/OOB/Nov44-1.html
I get 572 lost to enemy action. 492 losses to other reasons.
430 repaired. That makes 634 Aircraft lost for all reasons in November. Don't worry the allies made the same mistake. In Dieppe the RAF claimed the almost the entire Day fighter strength on the Western Front destroyed. In fact only a few planes were lost. This is because the Luftwaffe reported any fighter with any damage as lost. Most are repaired rather quickly. The majority by the next day's operations.
Far short of your claim of 1000 a month destroyed by the allies.
Those countries mentioned received less than the Hungarian production run.
And these countries are not part of the Luftwaffe. They are however part of the total production run of the 109 and the 190.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Oh no doubt. I have a copy of the RLM claims procedure and standards. Over claiming did occur but it was neither a common occurrence nor at a rate higher than the USAAF.
Other than knowing that the written guidelines, do you have any other information which would indicate that this is so, Crumpp?
- oldman
-
Other than knowing that the written guidelines, do you have any other information which would indicate that this is so, Crumpp?
1. Yes by comparing various airbattles from both sides you can get a feel.
2. Looking at the overall claims vs actual losses.
For example. I can track too rather famous LW pilots who consistantly overclaimed from 1943 on. To the point that in one battle, one of them claims EIGHT A/C destroyed when in fact the allied losses are NONE. Because of the time period these claims were never confirmed by the RLM which actually did a good job. It took a year to confirm many of the claims so when you are talking the last year of the war it takes some detective work.
That is what it comes down. Individuals would consistantly overclaim. However most the pilots on both sides did not.
BTW, Crumpp, can you check LW losses (190) on the 24th of June in 1944?(Or did you already).
Sure, I will dig through my stuff and email you.
Crumpp
-
Ok Crumpp, Thanks in advance.
Oh, this:
" A Luftwaffe pilot could bet on being outnumbered 8.6:1 fighter to fighter. Go to the MA and fly against 8 opponents and see what happens. "
Well, give me radar and Icon and none to the allies + alt + sun + being deep into my own territory.
I will kill some and dive away ;=)
-
They are very close. Why? Because the USAAF got the figures FROM the Luftwaffe. Please take some time and read up on the intelligence breakthroughs the Allied made. It will save some explaining.
Intelligence, counterintelligence. Useless. I dont want to trust in that ratio.
Absolutely right. IN fact every nations Ace pilots got shot down on occasion. Only ace pilot to make the entire war without getting shot down that I am aware of is Adi Glunz.
One shot down = victory for over side. And learn something about soviet aces ;).
Your right. Most of the Luftwaffe did not make it to 1000 sorties.
OK.
Most were lucky to have made it to 6.
And its OK too. 4-6 sorties.
For your last two definitions of what the 13000 means you have been wrong. Please nail down exactly what you believe this number to be.
I dont have to believe in it. Its LW dayfighter losses from january to october '44.
It may be correct for RAW losses, including all damaged and repaired aircraft.
Sure. As I understand explanation - damaged to 75%.
IN that case it is a meaningless number because many would be repaired and flown the next day.
Not sure about next day. Maybe written off next day but not flown ;).
Oh no doubt. I have a copy of the RLM claims procedure and standards. Over claiming did occur but it was neither a common occurrence nor at a rate higher than the USAAF.
Thats not about claims. Thats about enemy a/c counting.
It's an average and it is very meaningful. A Luftwaffe pilot could bet on being outnumbered 8.6:1 fighter to fighter.
Sure. But it was only LW fault to put its pilots into such a bad position.
Go to the MA and fly against 8 opponents and see what happens.
Uh... Not on AH MA but on the other - three kills, no ammo, heavy damage and bail out (slow plane), one-two kills and go home (fast plane). Almost 100% chance to intercept heavily guarded B-17/24 in the fast plane like 190. It was bad idea to talk bout games ;).
Any interception the "Defense of the Reich" units in Germany proper conducted, the kanalgeschwaders conducted. Comes from the fact they have to fly through them first.
Do you have exact JG roles ? JG.1, 3, 11, 27, 300, 301 - which ones kanalgeschwaders ? Or its for France-based units only ?
What are you smoking?
Me ? Nothning. Im not even a drunk :).
That makes 634 Aircraft lost for all reasons in November.
Nice logic. I always thought that nobody count damaged planes as losses. You will be first :). Lost plane... huh... just lost... gone... If its possible to repair it its not a loss. If you didnt noticed there are three main columns in the table:
Losses due to enemy actions
Losses due to other causes
Aircraft delivered for repair/overhaul
Losses its just that - losses. Write offs. Damaged planes are in the third column - "delivered to repair". And "430 repaired" its just those planes from prev. month(s) "Aircraft delivered for repair/overhaul" column.
-
Oh, I remember an incident in 1944 when 12 P51's tackled with 50-60 LW Fighters. That's.....1 to 5 ;)
And which 2 LW pilots were the overclaimers?
-
Well, give me radar and Icon and none to the allies + alt + sun + being deep into my own territory.
Usually the Luftwaffe in late 1944 was met by P51's on the climb out to the bomber stream. It was the allies with altitude.
One shot down = victory for over side. And learn something about soviet aces .
What? The shared victories or the propaganda?
I dont have to believe in it. Its LW dayfighter losses from january to october '44.
Your number is probably the number of LW fighters DAMAGED.
They would be reported as losses in the evening status report. Unless you had the service report you would have no way of telling how many were returned to service by morning through the geschwader maintenance shops. This reporting system caused the western allies to report the Jagdwaffe destroyed on several occasions before 1944.
Either way it's an over inflated number. It's very important in looking over Luftwaffe losses that you know whether it is from the evening or morning status.
Sure. As I understand explanation - damaged to 75%.
This is were the confusion lies. See above explanation. According to the Luftwaffe by their reporting procedures and standards, any aircraft that was not 100 percent by status time was put down as a loss. Let me did through my stuff and I will post the Luftwaffe status procedure and definitions.
Do you have exact JG roles ? JG.1, 3, 11, 27, 300, 301 - which ones kanalgeschwaders ? Or its for France-based units only ?
Channel based fighter wings.
I always thought that nobody count damaged planes as losses.
The Luftwaffe did.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1096492461_statusmistakes.jpg)
Crumpp
-
Interesting comment on Dieppe. Back in college I did a paper on just that event and connected it to D-Day.
The connection was through the lessons learned that day and the development of air to ground communications and the catalyst for that was Harry Broadhurst who was there for Dieppe, moved on to the Western Desert and the MTO where the cab ranks and use of air to ground communications were refined, on to D-Day where he and others put it all into practice over the beaches and beyond.
That guy convienently forgets about Broadhurst's role :)
Not that it has anything to do with this conversation, but it does cast doubt on his conclusions.
Dan/Slack
-
Claims for 10 FW190s destroyed and 3 Damaged listed in "1944 Airwar over Europe June 1st-30th" by John Foreman.
19 Squadron RAF Mustangs claimed 4 destroyed and 1 damaged 190
65 Squadron RAF Mustangs claimed 3 190s destroyed
306 Squadron RAF Mustangs claimed 2 damaged
315 Squadron RAF Mustangs claimed 1 destroyed.
No USAAF claims for 190s that day.
65 Squadron lost 4 Mustangs to 190s that day.
Dan/Slack
-
Hi Angus,
>I wonder if there is data about how many Fighter Pilots,or rather Single-engined fighter pilots LW lost in action. That would give a number very much lower than the aircraft losses, since some pilots wrecked up to 17 planes or so.
There's pretty little data on that, as far as I know.
Here's some stuff concerning the entire war:
According to Edward Sims' "The Fighter Pilots", the Luftwaffe claimed about 70000 victories, for the loss of 8500 pilots KIA, 2700 POW and 9100 wounded in action, for a total of ca. 20000 losses. Not knowing the real numbers, we could speculate there were another 20000 pilots who bailed out OK, so that we arrive at a 70000:40000 kill ratio for the Luftwaffe fighters, or 1.75:1.
That's claimed kills, of course, but I'm sure we're all aware of that particular can of worms :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
That guy convienently forgets about Broadhurst's role
Interesting Guppy, explain please.
How? Broadhurst improved tactical airpower use and it co-ordination with ground forces as I understand it.
His conclusions are not wrong. He thinks the USAAF accomplishments in the MTO overshadowed Broadhurst. His conclusion's simply do not acknowledge the efforts of the USAAF allies and their parallel accomplishments. IMO he does not give enough credit to the RAF for their roll in the MTO or in Europe.
That does not cast doubt on his facts or his conclusions.
Nothing to do with Luftwaffe loss reporting procedures though.
The point taken from that passage is the Luftwaffe's status report procedures has cause confusion to this day about the air war.
This stems from their design as a tactical airforce. By reading the morning or evening status a commander knew right then how many planes he could put in the sky. The older that information was the less of value and accurate it was to him.
So when you say the Luftwaffe took "x" number of losses, you have to be very specific about the timeframe and know exactly what point on the curve you are counting losses.
Every plane that was not 100 percent would be reported as a loss for that day. In the morning that same "loss" could take off and fly the next days missions.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Interesting Guppy, explain please.
How? Broadhurst improved tactical airpower use and it co-ordination with ground forces as I understand it.
His conclusions are not wrong. He thinks the USAAF accomplishments in the MTO overshadowed Broadhurst. His conclusion's simply do not acknowledge the efforts of the USAAF allies and their parallel accomplishments. IMO he does not give enough credit to the RAF for their roll in the MTO or in Europe.
That does not cast doubt on his facts or his conclusions.
Nothing to do with Luftwaffe loss reporting procedures though.
The point taken from that passage is the Luftwaffe's status report procedures has cause confusion to this day about the air war.
This stems from their design as a tactical airforce. By reading the morning or evening status a commander knew right then how many planes he could put in the sky. The older that information was the less of value and accurate it was to him.
So when you say the Luftwaffe took "x" number of losses, you have to be very specific about the timeframe and know exactly what point on the curve you are counting losses.
Every plane that was not 100 percent would be reported as a loss for that day. In the morning that same "loss" could take off and fly the next days missions.
Crumpp
The claim was there was no connection between Jubiliee and Overlord. My connection was Broadhurst as he was involved in Jubilee, then the development of Tac air based on the hard lessons learned at Jubilee, to the success over the beaches.
That's all :)
I was probably a bit strong on the 'casting doubt' bit. Better framed as his opinion as it was mine that Broadhurst is the connection that links Jubilee to Overlord.
No big deal either way :)
Dan/Slack
-
My connection was Broadhurst as he was involved in Jubilee, then the development of Tac air based on the hard lessons learned at Jubilee, to the success over the beaches.
Your right. The Allied services did learn lessons that were directly applicable and contributed to the success of Normandy.
I think what Caldwell is saying is the "air umbrella" theory was not one of them and was a bankrupt concept. Except for some temporary battlefield objectives it did not work for the Luftwaffe on the Eastern Front either.
For Normandy the Allies established Air Superiority over Europe and then Air Supremacy over the Beachhead.
Least that is what I get out of Caldwells comments.
I was probably a bit strong on the 'casting doubt' bit. Better framed as his opinion as it was mine that Broadhurst is the connection that links Jubilee to Overlord.
No problem at all bro. I felt he does not acknowledge the contributions of the RAF to the Air War. He seems to regulate them to a minor role after 1942 in the War Diaries.
Crumpp
-
BTW, Crumpp, can you check LW losses (190) on the 24th of June in 1944?(Or did you already).
At 0700 Second and Third Gruppen and III/JG54 were scrambled and directed towards a large Allied Force headed for Paris. The formations collided between Evreux and Dreux. The allied aircraft were 2nd TAF Mustangs from Nos. 19 and Nos. 65 Squadrons. Four No. 65 Squadron Mustangs went down in the subsequent dogfights, claimed by Oblt. Werner stoll, Lt Hoffmann, and six Green Heart pilots. Hptm. Matoni, who was once again leading most Second Gruppe missions, claimed a spitfire, but lacked a witness. Uffz. Hermann Ayerle of the 12th Staffle was shot down and fired at in his parachute. Ayerle was injured in a hard landing after a swift descent. A second third Gruppe Messerschmitt was shot down, possibly in this combat; its pilot was uninjured.
Oblt Werner Stoll was shot down by "Three Thunderbolts" according to his loss report, and bailed out with burns. No P-47 pilot claimed an FW-190 today, and Stol was probably another victim of the RAF Mustang pilots, Who claimed a total of 7-0-1 FW-190's and one Bf-109.
JG26 lost 1 FW-190A8 and 1 Bf-109G6, Both pilots wounded but RTD'd. III/JG54's losses are unknown.
The four claims were confirmed and awarded.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
At 0700 Second and Third Gruppen and III/JG54 were scrambled and directed towards a large Allied Force headed for Paris. The formations collided between Evreux and Dreux. The allied aircraft were 2nd TAF Mustangs from Nos. 19 and Nos. 65 Squadrons. Four No. 65 Squadron Mustangs went down in the subsequent dogfights, claimed by Oblt. Werner stoll, Lt Hoffmann, and six Green Heart pilots. Hptm. Matoni, who was once again leading most Second Gruppe missions, claimed a spitfire, but lacked a witness. Uffz. Hermann Ayerle of the 12th Staffle was shot down and fired at in his parachute. Ayerle was injured in a hard landing after a swift descent. A second third Gruppe Messerschmitt was shot down, possibly in this combat; its pilot was uninjured.
Oblt Werner Stoll was shot down by "Three Thunderbolts" according to his loss report, and bailed out with burns. No P-47 pilot claimed an FW-190 today, and Stol was probably another victim of the RAF Mustang pilots, Who claimed a total of 7-0-1 FW-190's and one Bf-109.
JG26 lost 1 FW-190A8 and 1 Bf-109G6, Both pilots wounded but RTD'd. III/JG54's losses are unknown.
The four claims were confirmed and awarded.
Crumpp
Interesting as no Spits were lost to enemy action that day. A Navy Seafire was lost in a landing accident.
Guess that Spit must have been a Mustang III.
Dan/Slack
-
Interesting as no Spits were lost to enemy action that day.
My Guess as well. Most likely a Mustang III if it was anything at all.
JG 26 claimed 4 Mustang III's that day in addition to the "mystery Spitfire".
It seems III/JG54 was in the middle of transitioning from the Bf-109G6 to the FW-190A8. They flew a mix that day. My records do not show any casualties for them that day.
Crumpp
-
What? The shared victories or the propaganda?
No. About not being shot down ;).
Your number is probably the number of LW fighters DAMAGED.
Its not a probability - I said very clear:
"As I understand explanation - damaged to 75%."
;)
They would be reported as losses in the evening status report.
But for nov. '44 we have report for the whole month.
Unless you had the service report you would have no way of telling how many were returned to service by morning through the geschwader maintenance shops.
We can say it easily for nov. 44 and other months from that site ;).
{I]This reporting system caused the western allies to report the Jagdwaffe destroyed on several occasions before 1944.[/I]
I already said you that Ill not by that US figure based on the int. reports and other such thing - I dont need guesses ;).
Either way it's an over inflated number.
No. Its OK because 75% (or higher) damaged plane is just that - nonflying rubbish.
It's very important in looking over Luftwaffe losses that you know whether it is from the evening or morning status.
Month, Crumpp, month ;).
Let me did through my stuff and I will post the Luftwaffe status procedure and definitions.
OK.
Channel based fighter wings.
Hmmm... OK.
The Luftwaffe did.
It wasnt LW it were brits who misunderstood germans ;).
-
But for nov. '44 we have report for the whole month.
No what we have is a compiled list from the daily reports. A bean counter (Personnel and Logistics) compiles the status reports and turns in a monthly report.
Understand now?
Crumpp
-
Ok, it's 24th of june 1944.
RAF 65'th squadron claims 3 190's shot down.
1 was presumably a KIA case, 190 being shot down at high speed at very low alt, in a 6 chase. This exists yet on guncam.
2 were with pilots exiting safely, 1 probably a greenhorn, 1 being rather experienced.
Both confirmed, as caught on guncam.
I wonder if one was Ayerle, since the P51 pilot made a pass over him while he was on the ground, rolling his chute up.
(He passed to get a photo for the confirm). The LW pilot actually waved at the RAF pilot! However it is well possible that he interpreted the pass as an assasination attempt!
BTW, a german former wingco told me that they did a survey of chute shooters. On the Western front,most were US pilots, those who were RAF were in almost every case Polish!!
Anyway, 65 sqn RAF claims 3 190's on the 24th, 2 of those were 190's without a doubt.
Area is Dreux for 2 aircraft, but the 3rd one (where I am unsure of the ID being 100%) is further north or north-west, - even by some bit.
-
JG 26 Losses for the 24th are 1 FW-190A8 and 1 Bf-109G6. Pretty sure at least one the 190's 65 Squadron claimed was the 109 flown by Ayerle was flying Bf-109G6 "Black 5" WrkN 165177.
Your footage maybe of Stolle who was in FW-190A8 "White 1" WrkN 170384 maybe your man.
Again too. III/JG54 was flying a mix of FW-190A8's and Bf-109G6. Although no reportable casualties show up for the day, they may have sustained damaged or even downed A/C.
Crumpp
-
No what we have is a compiled list from the daily reports. A bean counter (Personnel and Logistics) compiles the status reports and turns in a monthly report.
Its exactly that Im talking about. All that "lost/flying next day" sorted out. Planes able to "fly next day" are in the "delivered to/from repair" column. Others are in "lost" column. Very simple.
Understand now?
And you ;) ?
-
All that "lost/flying next day" sorted out.
Your right! They have peered into the crystal ball and found the number.
Its exactly that Im talking about. All that "lost/flying next day" sorted out. Planes able to "fly next day" are in the "delivered to/from repair" column. Others are in "lost" column. Very simple.
The number you see in the "sent for repairs" comes from the Geschwader maintenance shop. It is the number of airframes sent to higher maintenace levels for both combat damages, non combat damages, and normal service life repairs/maintenance.
You keep missing the point.
As for the loss column, please review the thread.
Crumpp
-
Well, out of those 3 aircraft claimed by the 65th sqn, definately none flew again. - They crashed into the ground, 2 of them pilotless.
Oh, edit:
For your work Crumpp, a visit to the film archive of the IWM London is really worth it. It is a hard work though.
Very much guncam footage there, but the archive is messy. I had to go through a Pile of papers to find anything from the 24/06/44, and those were NOT sorted in any particular order.
If you have a remote plan to visit the IWM let me know, I'll help as much as I can.
-
Well, out of those 3 aircraft claimed by the 65th sqn, definately none flew again. - They crashed into the ground, 2 of them pilotless.
True for this day but not for everycase. Obviously the guncamera was not the same Aircraft from different angles? Stoll did claim to have multiple "P 47's" (Mustangs) on his six. Misidentification was very common. In fact I have one example of some Mustangs getting into a dogfight with 2 Obfw's in Bf-109G6's. The 109's managed to shoot each other down (H2H) in the confusion and two Mustangs continued to fight after the 109's went down. One of the Mustangs got shot down by his own squad mate. I am sure choice words flew in the ready rooms on both sides of the channel.
If you have a remote plan to visit the IWM let me know, I'll help as much as I can.
Thanks! I am making plans to visit Europe for Research. The IWM is on the agenda. Email you with details when things are finalized. Of course the offer extends to this side of the pond as well. The NASM is a great source of information. The still have wharehouses of microfilmed documents they have not even gone through yet. Everyday they catalog new finds.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Stoll did claim to have multiple "P 47's" (Mustangs) on his six. Misidentification was very common. In fact I have one example of some Mustangs getting into a dogfight with 2 Obfw's in Bf-109G6's. The 109's managed to shoot each other down (H2H) in the confusion and two Mustangs continued to fight after the 109's went down. One of the Mustangs got shot down by his own squad mate. I am sure choice words flew in the ready rooms on both sides of the channel.
Mis-IDing a 109 and P-51 was common but saying a P-47 is a P-51.:eek: The P-47 and 190 (include the Typhoon as well) were often mis-IDed. The P-51 and P-47 getting 12" colored bands on wing and tail surfaces to help eleviate this mis-IDing.
-
Mis-IDing a 109 and P-51 was common but saying a P-47 is a P-51. The P-47 and 190 (include the Typhoon as well) were often mis-IDed. The P-51 and P-47 getting 12" colored bands on wing and tail surfaces to help eleviate this mis-IDing.
That is nothing Milo. Misidentification was REAL common. Ask Angus about that one MTO Spitfire vs FW-190 fight. No 190 fighters even in theater much less conducting escort of Italian transports.
I have accounts of 109's flying high cover over Luftwaffe bases bouncing FW-190's coming in for a landing AT THEIR OWN BASE.
One famous case of misidentification is Wutz Galland. He shot down and killed one of his own pilots.
The "Fog of War" was very thick in the air battles of WWII.
Crumpp
-
Your right! They have peered into the crystal ball and found the number.
I think that they have peered into the german documents.
The number you see in the "sent for repairs" comes from the Geschwader maintenance shop. It is the number of airframes sent to higher maintenace levels for both combat damages, non combat damages, and normal service life repairs/maintenance.
Yes. Damaged planes. Its exactly that Im talking about.
As for the loss column, please review the thread.
Yeah. Its nothing new up there. You still think that lost german planes werent lost and damaged planes werent damaged...
-
I think that they have peered into the german documents.
Yeah the same ones I have.
Yes. Damaged planes. Its exactly that Im talking about
It says nothing about:
1. Those aircraft repaired in the GESCHWADER maintenance shops.
2. Those aircraft still in the GESCHWADER maintenance shop.
Yeah. Its nothing new up there. You still think that lost german planes werent lost and damaged planes werent damaged...
No you fail to understand the Luftwaffe accounting procedures and how they effect statistics. Why do you think this is STILL a major controversy among historians?
You also seem to think the Luftwaffe was a much bigger organization than it ever was numerically.
Crumpp
-
That Spitfire vs 190 fight was as we both know, quite possibly no mistake. The question remains from where the 190's came and what type of 190 they were.
The Guncam of the 190 shot down was pretty good, - I at least took it as a 190.
Oh, edit:
I have some tales of misidentification from the allied side. I'll take some time to type it up, and either post or mail it.
I have some as well about incredible mistakes and so on, will post some goodies from that as well ;)
-
Originally posted by Angus
That Spitfire vs 190 fight was as we both know, quite possibly no mistake. The question remains from where the 190's came and what type of 190 they were.
The Guncam of the 190 shot down was pretty good, - I at least took it as a 190.
Oh, edit:
I have some tales of misidentification from the allied side. I'll take some time to type it up, and either post or mail it.
I have some as well about incredible mistakes and so on, will post some goodies from that as well ;)
Did you see the August edition of "After the Battle " Magazine Angus?
Cover story is who shot down Douglas Bader.
No one could ever figure out which German pilot was involved. Well it turns out, based on some very convincing evidence, he was shot down by one of his Spit pilots who thought he was a 109. And the Spit pilot was no novice, but one of the Flight Commanders who was also shot down that day later on by Gerd Schoepful of JG26
Buck Casson, of 616 was the pilot in question, and in a 1945 letter to Bader, quoted in full by the author, he describes shooting the tail off a 109 from which the pilot finally was able to escape at about 6000 feet. An exact description of what happened to Bader. No LW plane that day suffered the same fate. Casson had no idea it was Bader, and Bader never commented afterwards, but you have to wonder what he thought when he read the description of that "109" being shot down
Dan/Slack
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Ask Angus about that one MTO Spitfire vs FW-190 fight. No 190 fighters even in theater much less conducting escort of Italian transports.
There was 190s though (even in NA).:) So unless you have the records of the 190 units in the MTO, how can you say they did not fly any escort missions.
-
The "Were not there" will always have to be taken with a grain of salt, - just like that Stuka that was supposed to have been at Stalingrad but was fished out of the med!
I actually looked it up on the net, and it definately lists the whole unit at the Russian front.
(StG 77)
Anyway, very interesting about Bader. Now, if my memory serves me, he himself makes no special note of being hit, and also, not just the tail was missing, but the whole unit behind the cockpit.
Since the wreckage was looked at by the LW (Iron Leg retrieved among things...) I wonder if there are documents about it.
I have the book, "Reach for the Sky" BTW.
-
The "Were not there" will always have to be taken with a grain of salt, - just like that Stuka that was supposed to have been at Stalingrad but was fished out of the med!
I have the records as you know bro. SKG 10 was the only 190 unit in the MTO at that time. Their missions for that day was low level strikes against an allied airfield.
If we use Occams razor:
We know that the transports were Italian according to the RAF pilots.
There were no FW-190 fighters in the theater.
The only fighter unit in the theater was escorting SKG 10.
The only fighter units did have transport escort duties 4 days before the date of the encounter.
1. It was most likely Italian fighters escorting Italian transports. The Italians did have a radial engine fighter that IMO very easily could have been mistaken for an FW-190.
2. The RAF intelligence officer changeover cause the date of the action to be recorded wrong and it occurred 4 days earlier. The Transports were Luftwaffe Ju52's and the fighters were Bf-109's out of JG53.
For the Stuka. It is much more likely someone transcribed the wrong WerkNummer than the Luftwaffe misplaced an entire StukaGeschwader.
Crumpp
-
Yeah the same ones I have.
And no crystal balls.
It says nothing about :
1. Those aircraft repaired in the GESCHWADER maintenance shops.
2. Those aircraft still in the GESCHWADER maintenance shop.
Maybe its because those planes just wasnt counted at all.
No you fail to understand the Luftwaffe accounting procedures and how they effect statistics. Why do you think this is STILL a major controversy among historians?
Its means that its discussable.
You also seem to think the Luftwaffe was a much bigger organization than it ever was numerically.
No its total strength wasnt so big. Just huge "aircraft flow".
-
No its total strength wasnt so big. Just huge "aircraft flow".
From where?? Have you copy of the monthly production and delivery figures? Compared to the Allies for sure. They had 10 times the fighters not to mention other types of Aircraft!
A war of attrition is about loss rate to size. If both airforces are lossing the same amount of planes then the larger force will win.
Maybe its because those planes just wasnt counted at all.
Yes the problem is that they can be counted in the loss section for one day and then returned to the full flight status. In other words they are not a loss yet they are recorded as one simply because of minor damage.
This is the third time this has been explained.
Its means that its discussable.
Not when you spend 3/4's of your time explaining the same thing over and over.
Crumpp
-
Umm.
"There were no FW-190 fighters in the theater.
The only fighter unit in the theater was escorting SKG 10. "
There were 190's in Sicily as we know.
There were also 190 ground attack aircraft right?
We know some bits of what did happen, but we have a lot of bits that we don't know about.
That's the headache of the whole deal.
So, I'd take that with a grain of salt, that's all.
BTW, I belive that Stuka was properly marked to StG77. The museum tried to find out about where it belonged to, and came out with the eastern front.
I tried here:
http://www.ww2.dk
and came out with the eastern front.
So, missing papers, or whatever the cause, what was registered was wrong. It took a whole wreckage to discover it though.
-
There were 190's in Sicily as we know.
There were no 190's in Sicily, either bro. The only FW-190 unit in the MTO was one SKG. You did the claim, loss, and OOB document I sent you right? Look through it and it lists the units in theater at that time.
This is what the 190's did that day:
III/SKG 10 attacked Souk el Ariba with an escort of JG53 109's. On the return flight they were bounced by Spitfires from 111 Squadron and 72 Squadron. 1 x 109 went down and 1 Spitfire was claimed by the 190's. F/O Clark's chute failed to open and he was killed (poor guy). After escaping the Spitfires III/SKG 10 shot up a light anti-aircraft gun and landed at 1945 hours.
Think I found your mystery Stuka as well.
On 18.10.43 II/ SG77 became III/SG10. They were in southern Russia (Black Sea) and exchanged their Stukas for FW-190's. The Ferry route back to the Reich for their Ju 87's would have taken them over the Med. In November a direct route up through russia, Eastern Europe, and finally Germany risked weeks of weather delays. The probably went Greece, Italy, Southern France, and then Germany. Slightly longer flight but much less of a weather risk in November.
We know some bits of what did happen, but we have a lot of bits that we don't know about.
Very true. Some of it we just have to piece together.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Angus
The "Were not there" will always have to be taken with a grain of salt, - just like that Stuka that was supposed to have been at Stalingrad but was fished out of the med!
I actually looked it up on the net, and it definately lists the whole unit at the Russian front.
(StG 77)
Anyway, very interesting about Bader. Now, if my memory serves me, he himself makes no special note of being hit, and also, not just the tail was missing, but the whole unit behind the cockpit.
Since the wreckage was looked at by the LW (Iron Leg retrieved among things...) I wonder if there are documents about it.
I have the book, "Reach for the Sky" BTW.
The aircraft came down fairly intact and was only surface wreckage. Bader when he met with Galland and his boys insisted on meeting the guy who shot him down. Galland had no idea and none of the claims his pilots made matched with Bader's shoot down. Initially Bader thought he had collided with a 109. But no 109s were lost that day to collision. Both 109 losses were claimed by other Spitfires. One of them possibily could have been the one Casson claimed to have shot down. They excavated it, but it had it's tail still attached.
Conjecture, since both Bader and Casson have passed away is that Bader may have realized what happened after reading Casson's letter in 1945 but saw no reason to point out the similarities to protect Casson, who clearly had no idea he'd shot down a Spit by mistake.
Dan/Slack
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
There were no 190's in Sicily, either bro. The only FW-190 unit in the MTO was one SKG. You did the claim, loss, and OOB document I sent you right? Look through it and it lists the units in theater at that time.
This is what the 190's did that day:
III/SKG 10 attacked Souk el Ariba with an escort of JG53 109's. On the return flight they were bounced by Spitfires from 111 Squadron and 72 Squadron. 1 x 109 went down and 1 Spitfire was claimed by the 190's. F/O Clark's chute failed to open and he was killed (poor guy). After escaping the Spitfires III/SKG 10 shot up a light anti-aircraft gun and landed at 1945 hours.
Think I found your mystery Stuka as well.
On 18.10.43 II/ SG77 became III/SG10. They were in southern Russia and exchanged their Stukas for FW-190's. The Ferry route back to the Reich for their Ju 87's would have taken them over the Med.
Crumpp
You sure about the 190s in Sicily bit Crumpp?
79th Fighter Group put two 190s they found on Sicily back in the air.
Image included here is a 190 with a couple of 350th FG pilots next to it also in the Med. I can post the photos of the 190s the 79th FG had flyable at the time too. Thought they were fairly well known
Dan/Slack
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1096828038_190tail.jpg)
-
You sure about the 190s in Sicily bit Crumpp?
Yes I am.
Not during the time period we are talking about of 16 April 1943. After Tunisia fell then you see FW-190's in Sicily that belong to ground attack units.
Thought they were fairly well known
Yes and the FW-190A5/U4's were captured much later after ZG 2 and SKG 10 left Tunisia for Sicily.
Guppy I wasn't claiming 190's never were in Sicily. I would be glad to email the documents to prove it.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Yes I am.
Not during the time period we are talking about of 16 April 1943. After Tunisia fell then you see FW-190's in Sicily that belong to ground attack units.
Yes and the FW-190A5/U4's were captured much later after ZG 2 and SKG 10 left Tunisia for Sicily.
Guppy I wasn't claiming 190's never were in Sicily. I would be glad to email the documents to prove it.
Crumpp
No prob Crumpp. I looked through the posts to see if there was a specific time frame you were after and clearly I missed it.
I'm not of the impression that you are making this up as you go along :)
Thanks for the clarification. I did see a mention in 109 Aces of the Med that II/JG2 arrived with 190Asin the Med in response to Operation Torch in late 42-early 43 operating out of Tunisia. Does that fall under the time frame?
Dan/Slack
-
Thanks for the clarification. I did see a mention in 109 Aces of the Med that II/JG2 arrived with 190Asin the Med in response to Operation Torch in late 42-early 43 operating out of Tunisia. Does that fall under the time frame?
Np Guppy. Some of the most productive discussions have come about because of the input of you and Angus.
Yes they were there. Their last transport carrying the last of their ground crews left theater on 22 March 1943. 92 Squadron just missed them for this action.
II/JG2 claimed 119 victories for 8 KIA while in the MTO. Of course, one of the pilots who seemed to overclaim quite a bit was with them.
Crumpp
-
Oh, ran across this again.
18th of April 1943:
Evan "Rosie" Mackie
243 Squadron
18th of April 1943, location SE of Tebersouk (243 sqn home was Souk el Khemis).
Squadron engaged a mixed formation of 109's and 190's, - there was possibly only one 190, but definately one.
"Rosie" managed to get a good shot into the belly of a 190 at some 150 yards. The 190 went Nose down full speed and was last seen heading into the ground at 2000-3000 feet.
Claim: One 190 damaged.
-
Squadron engaged a mixed formation of 109's and 190's, - there was possibly only one 190, but definately one.
According to the information I have:
There were 23 FW-190's from SKG 10 escorted by Bf-109's from JG53.
The got bounced by 12 Spitfires on the way to bombing Souk el Khemis.
3 FW-190's ditched their bombs the rest continued to target and dropped.
Only FW-190 casualty in the mission was 1 FW-190 was hit by "anti-aircraft" fire but managed to coax his plane to friendly territory and crashland. (Could be your man?)
JG53 escorts made 3 claims and took 2 losses.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Angus
You have probably about 30-40.000 German fighters lost total in the war (Wild but somewhat educated guess).
From what I have compiled, German daylight fighter losses were the following between March 1942 and and December 1944:
12 806 lost to enemy action (ie. AA and fighters alike)
11 403 lost to non-enemy related causes (accidents and such)
7207 was written down on overhauls, aging etc.
This would contain the vast majority of FW 190s and Bf 109s. Plus some 110s, 210s etc., but not all of them, since those were a different branch, Zestorers and Nachtjagd, mainly.
Obviously from these numbers, the LW most likely did not lost 13 000 fighters in combat alone in 1944, altough the total number of written down aircraft to all causes was probably around this number.
Note on Groehlers numbers, his statistics contain _ALL_ types of losses, combat and non combat, overhauls, and even damaged planes, with as little as 10% damage sustained.
-
Nice info :)
Any numbers on 1939-1942 and on 1945?
I have some from early war if you need, but only battle by battle for some
-
Makes sense Izzy. Thanks!
Crumpp
-
Izzy,
That is the Losses for the entire Luftwaffe. Not just the Western Front correct?
Crumpp
-
Yes, it`s for the entire LW, but again keep in mind that it`s about 90-95% complete only - not only Jagdgeschwaders had single engined fighters, but recce and KG(J) units as well, various reserve units etc!
Further what I could find :
To get some idea of the 1944 era monthly losses, from ww2.dk the following was complied (daylight fighters), losses in December :
875 lost to enemy related
554 lost to non-enemy related
393 lost to overhauls (uberholung)
In the same month, 1024 new planes were received from factories, 224 from repair facilities.
The latest JaPo 109K book also gives some information for fighter operations. These numbers are fighters only, and I am quite sure refer to enemy related losses only (given the numbers above). They don`t give both fronts, only one at a time.
Western Front, 1944 December
Take offs : 11 053
Victories : 552
Losses : 527
Eastern Front, 1945 January*
Take offs : 6816
Victories : 395
Losses : 140
Eastern Front, 1945 February*
Take offs : 12 225
Victories : 443
Losses : 260
* In `45, the LW turned it`s strenght increasingly against the Red Army. I guess the increase in losses, and decrease of kill ratio is probably due to having an increased number of ground attack sorties flown against Red Horde troops.
In addtion to that, RL2III/1158 shows losses for the whole LW fighters for January 1945.
In total they had 3379 fighters, 2493 of them in combat units, the rest in reserve/replacement units. The entire planeset of the LW was 6597/1631, 8228 in total.
During January, a total of (1256/262) fighters were lost, (664/21) to enemy action, 385/108) in non-enemy related accidents, and (207/133) to overhaul and repairs.
I guess this data helps to arrive at some good conclusions. It demythizes some 'common wisdom' about the ferocity of LW operations in late 44/45, and it gives a pretty good pictures about the air combat condition differences between the Western/Eastern Front.
-
The overhaul losses seem high.
Did the LW do like the RAF in difficult times, - scrap damaged aircraft for spare parts?
Would seem logical.
-
Originally posted by Angus
The overhaul losses seem high.
Did the LW do like the RAF in difficult times, - scrap damaged aircraft for spare parts?
Would seem logical.
Most likely they did, hell, every air force did that. But I think they just did bother much repairing a/c that had anything else than minor damage, that could took days, and why to bother when there were dozens of brand new aircraft available in the storages, and fighter production sky rocketed ? Just grab another one and hop in, write off the damaged one, and let it rotten next to the airfield, serve as a decoy for allied jabos, after the most valuabe parts, like engines, armament and radios are salvaged.
-
Did the LW do like the RAF in difficult times, - scrap damaged aircraft for spare parts?
Yes.
The not only canabilized aircraft for spare parts but remanufactured old airframes. Many of the FW-190A8's started life out as an earlier version of the 190A.
Crumpp
-
It demythizes some 'common wisdom' about the ferocity of LW operations in late 44/45, and it gives a pretty good pictures about the air combat condition differences between the Western/Eastern Front.
Yes it does IMO.
It demonstrates the ferocity and the futility of the Luftwaffe last days.
I think the main point that struck me was the relative size of the Luftwaffe. It was never the huge force I had imagined reading my College World History Text.
Coupled with the size of the oppositions forces it is amazing Luftwaffe moral remained as high as it did. Joseph Goebbels must have done some good work.
The next thing that stands out is the number of losses to claims (we all know how claims are...). If you examine the poor level of pilot training in the last years of the Luftwaffe, it is amazing that they could dish out on an almost equal level with what they took.
Crumpp
-
Obviously from these numbers, the LW most likely did not lost 13 000 fighters in combat alone in 1944, altough the total number of written down aircraft to all causes was probably around this number.
Ive said it on the first page:
"Total LW dayfighters losses in jan-oct '44 - 13964."
"But yes - its losses from all reasons."
;) :)
Need some help about Wilhelmshaven raid 27/01/43.
http://www.luftboard.ndo.co.uk/reichwest_vol4_1943.pdf
27. January 1943
U.S. VIII Bomber Command: WILHELMSHAVE & EMDEN
Jafü Holland-Ruhr
27.01.43 Oblt. Hugo Frey: 5 2./JG 1 B-17 £ 20 km. N.W. Tossens: 800 m. 11.15 Film C. 2031/II Anerk: Nr.31
27.01.43 Fw. Siegfried Zick: 5 2./JG 1 B-17 £ E. Jadebüsen [Jade Bay]: 4.500 m. 11.23 Film C. 2031/II Anerk: Nr.32
27.01.43 Uffz. Otto Werner: 1 3./JG 1 B-17 £ Wallen: 7.500 m. 11.25 Film C. 2031/II Anerk: Nr. -
27.01.43 Ltn. Paul Arlt: 1 1./JG 1 B-17 £ 15 km. N. Wilhelmshaven: 9.000 m. 11.30 Film C. 2031/II Anerk: Nr.35
27.01.43 Uffz. Herbert Hänel: 1 12./JG 1 B-24 £ 543 7C3: 7.000 m. in Waddenzee 11.53 Film C. 2031/II Anerk: Nr.4
27.01.43 Uffz. Josef Löhr: 1 12./JG 1 B-24 £ 544 7B2: 6.000 m. West-Terschelling 11.55 Film C. 2031/II Anerk: Nr.5
Supplemental Claims from Sources:
27.01.43 Ltn. Dieter Gerhardt: n.b. 2./JG 1 B-17 - - Reference: JG 1 List f. 631
27.01.43 Ofw. Ernst Winkler: 12 4./JG 1 B-24 - - Reference: JG 1 List f. 631
27.01.43 Fw. Rudolf Haninger: 3 4./JG 1 B-24 - - Reference: JG 1 List f. 631
From USAAF chronology:
"EUROPEAN THEATER OF OPERATIONS (Eighth Air Force)
VIII Bomber Command Mission 31: The Eighth Air Force makes its first raid
on Germany. The 1st and 2d Bombardment Wings dispatch 64 B-17s and 27
B-24s against the primary target, the Wilhelmshaven, Germany Naval Base; 53
B-17s hit the target between 1110 and 1113 hours local dropping 137.5 tons
of bombs; two other B-17s attack the submarine base at Emden at 1135 hours
as a target of opportunity; the B-24s are unable to locate the target due
to bad weather and a navigational error and return to base. Mission
stats: we claim 22 enemy aircraft destroyed, 14 probably destroyed and 13
damaged; 1 B-17 and 2 B-24s are lost; 32 B-17s and 11 B-24s are damaged;
casualties are 2 KIA, 3 WIA and 30 MIA.
Seven Spitfire Mk Vs of the 4th Fighter Group fly uneventful fighter
patrols."
Any info about german losses that day ?
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Not when you spend 3/4's of your time explaining the same thing over and over.
Crumpp
Welcome to HTC's world..... :)
-
Just picked up a new book (at least for me) that has JG 2 flying Fw190s in Tunisia.
On Friday 16 April 1943, the Fw190s got into a fight with Spitfires of 72 and 111 Sqds while returning from their ground attack mission. The next day, on another mission, 7 190s of SGK 10 provided fighter escort for the bomb carrying a/c.
On Monday 5 April 1943, 10 Fw190s of III./SKG 10 took off on a fighter interception mission to attack EA attacking La Fauconnerie with 1 Spit claimed.
from: Focke-Wulf Fw190 in North Africa, Classic Pub, ISBN 1-903223-45-8
-
Errrr...this:
"The next thing that stands out is the number of losses to claims (we all know how claims are...). If you examine the poor level of pilot training in the last years of the Luftwaffe, it is amazing that they could dish out on an almost equal level with what they took. "
From the western front perspective:
Look at a map and consider what distances the enemy aircraft had to cross to get to their targets. By radar and ground observation EVEN UP TO HOURS!
Compare that to i.e. the BoB, where the distance over hostile territory would only be a fraction of what the allied agressors had to cross, yet the defender in the BoB was scoring on a 2 to 1 level.......................
IMHO the Luftwaffe's most amazing performance was on the eastern front. Incredibly low losses for massive amount of missions, being surrounded by a huge amount of enemy aircraft.
(Imagine a 109G6 in a swamp of La5's and Il2's...ehhh)
Just look at Izzy's numbers.
Regards
Angus
-
Oh, Milo...
Very nice info.
So, in the heat of battle, SgK 190's would be assigned to escort.
Just what I would have thought logical for what was actually going on :) ;) :D
-
So, in the heat of battle, SgK 190's would be assigned to escort.
Let's Look at Milo's "Fighter Assignments"
For 16 April 43:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1097005971_16april43.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1097006014_16april43-2.jpg)
For 5 April 43, I guess you loosely call it an "Interception Mission". I think it was more like local airfield defense combined with getting planes out of the way so they could not be destroyed on the ground.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1097006070_5april43.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1097006136_5april43-2.jpg)
Only when NO FIGHTERS were available to escort would SKG 10 provide their own escort. This happens very rarely.
"FW-190 in North Africa" is a great book and worth the money. It references quite a few of the same docs.
Crumpp
-
Compare that to i.e. the BoB, where the distance over hostile territory would only be a fraction of what the allied agressors had to cross, yet the defender in the BoB was scoring on a 2 to 1 level.......................
I have never heard that BoB was 2 to 1 fighters.
Crumpp
-
WOW!!!!
NICE!!!!!
BTW, Crumpp, or anybody....
Do you have the book fighters over Africa (I think) by Hans Ring and Cristopher Shores.
Now there's one I'd like to get my hands on!
-
Originally posted by Angus
WOW!!!!
NICE!!!!!
BTW, Crumpp, or anybody....
Do you have the book fighters over Africa (I think) by Hans Ring and Cristopher Shores.
Now there's one I'd like to get my hands on!
Tough book to find and expensive when you do. I ended up giving mine to a JG27 fanatic a while back. Wish I still had it now :)
Just checked on http://www.abebooks.com.
Cheapest copy is 70 dollars
Dan/Slack
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
I have never heard that BoB was 2 to 1 fighters.
Crumpp
Did it state fighters? There was LW bombers shot down as well. The main objective of the RAF's FC was to shoot down bombers.
As for the 190 in the MTO, you stated there was no fighter 190s in the MTO.
I would call it an intercept mission since they took off 15 minutes before the attack occured. The Spit was shot down 30km away from the field.
-
Cheapest copy is 70 dollars
That is much cheaper than original sources!
Crumpp
-
As for the 190 in the MTO, you stated there was no fighter 190s in the MTO.
Read the book Milo. There are no FW-190 fighter units in the MTO at that time. Please feel free to find one.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
That is much cheaper than original sources!
Crumpp
All a matter of perspective I suppose :)
Considering I had a copy and gave it away, I have only myself to blame :)
Dan/Slack
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Read the book Milo. There are no FW-190 fighter units in the MTO at that time. Please feel free to find one.
Crumpp
Who said anything about 'that time'?
quote: "There were no FW-190 fighters in the theater."
I hope you have some very good proof readers for your book.
-
Who said anything about 'that time'?
Read the thread Milo.
This statement:
"There were no FW-190 fighters in the theater."
Is taken out of context by you.
Crumpp
-
The BoB:
2:1 aircraft (roughly and scarcely) was my point.
Anyway,Crumpp, it's a bloody lot of data.
Lots of work to do ;)
Regards
Angus
-
Oh, and Milo...Crumpp......
Shake hands please :)
-
Angus, bro
I don't think the BoB was 2 to 1 at all. More like 1 to 1 with the Luftwaffe not having anything near the 8 to 1 numerical advantage needed according to the USAAF doctrine to win Air Supremacy. Now the Luftwaffe had almost a 2 to 1 advantage in numbers.
Check the casualties:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain
Crumpp
-
Just had some nice numbers from the BoB.
Will mail you later, or post here.
Regards
Angus
-
Sure, email me, bro. I want to share some news offline with you anyway!
Crumpp
-
Digging into BoB data.
It's too much interesting stuff there to put into this thread, makes enough for a seperate.
I'll post a seperate thread for it, - bound to bring some interesting data as well as a flamefest.
:D
-
Have some goodies for the BoB coming.
Found more data from the 16th of April 1943.
Source: Aces High by Christopher Shores.
That day saw the end of a RAF fighter ace, Ian Richard Gleed.
Here goes:
"On 16th of april he lead a raid in the Cap Bon area, hoping to intercept Axis transport aircraft. A large formation was seen and attacked, when escorting Bf109's and Fw190's intercepted, two Spitfires being shot down; these were Gleed's and his wingman's."
The claims made by the LW were from Bars men.
-
Have some goodies for the BoB coming.
Found more data from the 16th of April 1943.
Source: Aces High by Christopher Shores.
That day saw the end of a RAF fighter ace, Ian Richard Gleed.
Here goes:
"On 16th of april he lead a raid in the Cap Bon area, hoping to intercept Axis transport aircraft. A large formation was seen and attacked, when escorting Bf109's and Fw190's intercepted, two Spitfires being shot down; these were Gleed's and his wingman's."
The claims made by the LW were from Bars men.
-
Have some goodies for the BoB coming.
Found more data from the 16th of April 1943.
Source: Aces High by Christopher Shores.
That day saw the end of a RAF fighter ace, Ian Richard Gleed.
Here goes:
"On 16th of april he lead a raid in the Cap Bon area, hoping to intercept Axis transport aircraft. A large formation was seen and attacked, when escorting Bf109's and Fw190's intercepted, two Spitfires being shot down; these were Gleed's and his wingman's."
The claims made by the LW were from Bars men.
-
Angus Bro,
There were no FW-190 fighters in theater in April '43.
Heinz Bar was flying in I/JG77 and was using a Bf-109G at that time.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2072/LWJul42.html#May43
http://www.luftwaffe-experten.com/pilots_day/H-Bar.html
Look under the I/JG77 Gruppenkommanduers for 1943.
http://ww2.dk/air/jagd/jg77.htm
It sounds like a case of mistaken identity. Would not be the first by any means.
Crumpp
-
Well, no 190 fighters, however 190's, that's the point.
And the claim was from a 109 Pilot as far as I know.
3 LW pilots claimed:
Heinz Bar, Heinz-Edgar Berres, and Ltn Ernst-Wilhelm Reinert.
Somewhere in the back of my head I thought Bar had been flying 190's, even in N-Africa, but I checked and it turned out to be 109's in that theater.
Oh, a piece from the BoB:
The British loss figures go between 900 and about 1500 aircraft in the period. Their crew loss was about 400.
The most common LW loss number I've come across is 1.733
Regards
Angus