USSAF Statistics for 1944

[Crumpp]

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

[MiloMorai]

Those countries mentioned received less than the Hungarian production run.

fate = shot down, accident, etc, etc, ......

[VooDoo]

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.

[Angus]

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

[Crumpp]

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

[Oldman731]

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

[Crumpp]

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

[Angus]

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 ;=)

[VooDoo]

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.

[Angus]

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?

[Crumpp]

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.  


Crumpp

[Guppy35]

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

[Guppy35]

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

[HoHun]

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)

[Crumpp]

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