PDA

View Full Version : Were German claims highly over inflated



pourshot
03-13-2004, 06:55 PM
I have been reading a interestimg book called Desert Warriors that talks about the RAAF in the desert war.After reading these pages and remembering the many times german kill claims have been raised in this forum I thought it would make some good reading for you people.

Please dont turn this into a flame fest the text is not mine but I would like to hear what others have to say on the topic.


Desert Warriors
page 281
APPENDIX 10

GERMAN VICTORY CLAIMS in PERSPECTIVE

As explained in the text, unintentional over claiming by pilots of all nations was common, and was brought about by a number of factors, the chief one being attacks by more than one pilot on the same target aircraft. Another factor, now well known, which probably contributed to the serious over claiming by the RAF over France in 1941 and 1942, was the basic evasive tactic employed by the Luftwaffe, a steep dive at full throttle, which produced a trail of black smoke from the Bf109's exhaust.
Nevertheless, there were numerous occasions in the Desert war when Luftwaffe victories could not be verified by documented Allied losses. They are discussed in the text when Australian pilots were involved.
The most spectacular of these occurred on 15 September 1942, when JG 27 claimed a total of nineteen Allied aircraft in a combat which began some time after 1715, when the three Gruppen of JG 27 took to the air to escort a Stuka raid. Marseille's biographer, Franz Kurowski, listed the following claims:
I Gruppe: eleven, II Gruppe: one, III Gruppe: seven.
Details from Fighters Over the Desert suggest that twenty claims were made, matching claims to names, several of which are omitted by Kurowski, who awarded Marseille seven kills in six minutes!
The true facts of this engagement are rather different. Sgt. Des Cormack of 250 Squadron took off at 1736, leading a section of 250 Squadron as top cover to 112, 3 and 450 Squadrons. PO Keith Kildey of 3 Squadron was airborne at 1725, leading eight aircraft. His combat report shows that the engagement began at 1800, at an altitude of 12,000 feet. Both pilots were heavily involved in the battle, submitting claims for a probable (later confirmed) and a damaged respectively, and both coming under attack from German fighters.
There was a total of 36 Kittyhawks in the 239 Wing formation. Six failed to return, and of these, 112 Squadron records show that Sgt. Young was shot down by friendly AA fire!' Even if this is mistaken, a discrepancy of fourteen can not be adequately explained. Keith Kildey almost certainly ended up as a little white bar on someone's rudder after he brought home his aircraft with cannon damage to the tail. Sgt Ken Bee probably shared the same fate, returning with wounds in a damaged aircraft. 250 Squadron lost two aircraft, 3 Squadron two, 450 one, and 112 one.
Keith Kildey and Des Cormack were both interviewed as part of the research for this book, and both expressed shocked disbelief, followed by laughter, when told of the German claims.
The circumstances of this combat cast serious doubts on assertions that the Luftwaffe's system of dealing with the confirmation of claims was so reliable.
Without a witness, a Luftwaffe fighter pilot had no chance to have his victory claim confirmed. Such a claim, even if filed, would not pass beyond group level.
The final destruction or explosion of an enemy aircraft in the air, or the bail-out of the pilot, had to be observed either on gun-camera film or by at least one other human witness. The witness could be the German pilot's wingman, squadron mate, or a ground observer of the encounter.
There was no possibility, as with some RAF and USAAF pilots, of having a victory credited because the claiming officer was a gentleman and a man of his word. ' (Author's italics). The German rule was simply "no witness - no kill."

page 282

The German system was impartial, inflexible, and far less error-prone than either the British or American procedures. German fighter pilots had to wait several months, a year, or sometimes even longer for a kill confirmation to reach them from the German High Command.2 (Author's italics)
But such a waiting period apparently did not apply in the case of the high profile experten, as the following table listing the dates of their awards suggests.

Heinz Bar RK 02/07/41, 27; EL 14/08/41, 60; S 16/02/42, 90.

Adolf Galland RK 01/08/40, 17; EL 25/09/40, 40; S 21/06/41, 69.

Gordon Gollob RK 19/09/41, 42; EL 26/10/41, 85.

Hans-Joachim Marseille RK 22/02/42, 50; EL 06/06/42, 75; S 18/06/42, 101; Br 02/09/42, 126.

Joachim Muncheberg RK 14/09/40, 20; EL 07/05/41, 43; S 09/09/42 103.3

Marseille made five claims on 2 September, (only 3 of which are valid) taking his total to 126, and was awarded the Diamonds (Br) on the same day, with 126 noted as his total at the time of the award.
Clearly, in the combat of 15 September, there could not have been seven accurate eyewitness reports, let alone twenty, but Marseille's seven victory claims were apparently accepted without question. `After this outstanding victory, Marseille had brought his account up to 151 kills, meaning that he had reached third place in the absolute record list - behind Hermann Graf and Gordon Gollob.'4
Other recognised experten, Schroer, Homuth and von Lieres, submitted a total of six further claims between them.
Authors working in the 1990s have access to squadron records, and Chris Shores, writing in 1969, made it quite clear that 239 Wing's losses on 15 September 1942 totalled six.
The reader is referred to the comments made by Erhard Braune of III/JG 27, mentioned in Bobby Gibbes' Foreword.
Following is a list of other Lufiwatfe claims, mainly involving Australian pilots and squadrons, and sometimes other squadrons of 239 Wing, when Australians were present. Many of these clearly could not be confirmed, because the targets returned to base, or definitely could not have been seen to hit the ground in the area where the combat took place, or were claimed by more than one attacking pilot, which, in the circumstances of close combat, is understandable.
AUSTRALIAN & ALLIED LOSSES
GERMAN CLAIMS
12/10/41:
Roberts (3 Sqn) c/I inside Allied lines Scott (3 Sqn) c/I LG105
Parker (3 Sqn) s/d KIA Whaits (2 SAAF) s/d KIA One SAAF a/c damaged: total 2 Clearly, the two damaged 3 Squadron Tomahawks were seen to meet the rigid criteria required by the Luftwaffe.
Sinner 1 (Parker) Franzisket 1 Marseille 2
total 4
30/10/41: Cornall (250 Sqn) s/d captured Schulz 3 Mclnnes RAF (238 Sqn) s/d Schacht 1 Cole RAF (250 Sqn) damaged:
total 2 total 4


page 283

Desert Warriors
12/11/41 Thomas SAAF (451 RAAF Tac R Sqn) s/d KIA Dullberg 1 Whalley RAF (451 Sqn) s/d KIA: Krenske 1 Reuter 1 total 2 total 3
two assailants for one target?
22/11/41 Lane (3 Sqn) s/d KIA Redlich 2 Saunders (3 Sqn) s/d KIA Schneider 2 Watson (3 Sqn) s/d KIA:
total 3 total 4
two assailants for one target?
15/02/42 four a/c of 94 Sqn s/d Schulz 5 McQueen (112 Sqn) damaged, landed at base:
total 4An Afrika Korps tank officer reported a cloud of dust total 5behind
. a sand dune, which was the `confirmation' of his last claim,
(McQueen) bringing Schulz's total to 44.
15/03/42 Unnamed pilot (450 Sqn) Cat. 1 damage Schulz 1
no losses total 1
22/05/42 Quirk (450 Sqn) s/d KIA Bendert 2
Williams (450 Sqn) s/d KIA Steis 1
total 2 total 3
‚? Two assailants for one target?
Bendert's second Clam was not confirmed.
22/05/42 Gundry RAF (112 Sqn) s/d KIA Franzisket 2
Rogerson RAF (250 Sqn) c/I return flight von Lieres 2 One 250 Sqn a/c missing: Steinhausen 1 Stahlschmidt 1 Rosenberg 1
total 2 total 7 (5) Chris Shores noted that the second claims for
both Franzisket and von Lieres were not confirmed, thus reducing 7 claims to 5, for a total of 2 actual losses.
01/06/42 Wilson RAF (112 Sqn) s/d PoW
Alderson (3 Sqn) wounded; a/c damaged:
total 1 Kronschnabel's claim was not confirmed. Hurricanes were not present.
Quaritsch 1 Stecher 1 Kronschnabel 1 Bf110 pilot 1(Hurricane) total 4 (3)
26/06/42 Cuddon RAF (112 Sqn) s/d KIA Barr (3 Sqn) s/d PoW
total 2
Hurricanes were almost certainly not present.
Kabisch 1
Schroer 2 (1 Hurricane) Rosenberg 1
total 4

page 284
Desert Warriors
26/06/42 Wallis (250 Sqn) damaged Seabrook RAF(250 Sqn) damaged Copeland RAF (250 Sqn) s/d KIA Jones (450 Sqn) s/d baled out and returned: total 2
Again, it is unlikely that Hurricanes were present.
Korner 2 Franzisket 1 Stahlschmidt 3, (2 of which were Hurricanes) total 6
17/07/42 Stevens (3 Sqn) damaged s
Weber RAF (145 Sqn) s/d baled out: total 1
two assailants for one target?
III JG 53: 2
total 2
01/09/42 450 Sqn:
no losses According to Kurowski, Sinner and Rodel made no further claims for the day.
Sinner 2 Rodel 1 total 3
01/09/42 Wood (3 Sqn) a/c damaged, landed at base no losses
. Fink (JG 53) 1 total 1
03/09/42 Although the two Australian squadrons were not involved in this combat, Ron Cundy of 260 Squadron was present, and his log book noted the loss of PO Joseph Bernier. Bernier RCAF (260 Sqn) s/d KIA
Powers RAF (145 Sqn) s/d baled out, wounded Reyneke (2 SAAF) force landed; PoW:
Marseille 3 (Curtiss) Stahlschmidt 3
(2 Curtiss, 1 Spitfire) total 6
total 3
03/09/42 Thomas (3 Sqn) a/c damaged Cat. 2 pilot wounded: c/I base
Hannaford (450 Sqn) a/c damaged Cat. 2 pilot wounded: c/I base
Sinner 1 total 1
no losses
05/09/42 two 145 Sqn Spitfires s/d (3 Sqns airborne at Thomas RNZAF (112 Sqn) s/d PoW
Oakley (450 Sqn) damaged Cat. 2
total 3
1125) Marseille 4 (1148-1200) (all Curtiss) Stahlschmidt 2
Rodel 3 total 9
08/09/42 one 145 Sqn Spitfire lost
Freer (3 Sqn) c/I in minefield (damaged): total 1
Schroer 2 (Spitfires) Stumpf III/JG 53. 1 total 3
12/09/42 Hogg RAF (112 Sqn) damaged Cat. 2 Stumpf JG 53. 1
3 A/C of 450 Sqn damaged Cat. 1 Nairz JG 53. 1
no losses total 2

page 285

Desert Warriors
'" 285
15/09/42 Donald (3 Sqn) s/d. PoW Marseille 7
Scribner (3 Sqn) s/d KIA von Lieres 2
Young RNZAF (112 Sqn) s/d c/I (flak?) Homuth 1
Thorpe RAF (250 Sqn) s/d PoW Borngen 1
Strong RAF (250 Sqn) s/d PoW Schroer 3(incl. Ewing (450 Sqn) s/d PoW Krainik 4 Gruber 1 No Spitfires were present. Stuckler 1
total 6 total 20.
1 Spitfire)
16/09/42 Wood (3 Sqn) damaged, wounded: landed at base Schroer 1 Schofbock 1 total 2
no losses
01/11/42 Agnew RAF (112 Sqn) force-landed Allied lines Unterberger 1*
DeBourke RAF (112 Sqn) wounded in shoulder, Rodel 1
normal landing at base. Berres JG 77. 1 (two Australians of 112 Sqn. were involved in this action) Bar JG 77. 1 * The pilot was reported to have baled out.
no losses
total 4
09/11/42 Blades RAF (92 Sqn) s/d KIA Muncheberg JG 77 1
Borthwick (450 Sqn) s/d wounded. Hackler JG 77 1
3 a/c of 450 Sqn damaged Cat. 1: JG 77: 3 further claims
total 2 total 5
18/01/43 Prowse (450 Sqn) wounded: Bar JG 77. 2
c/I near army dressing station behind own lines. Weidlich JG 77. 1 Palethorpe RAF (250 Sqn) A/C damaged
Bar's claims were not confirmed.
total 1 (Prowse - if observed) total 3 (1)
Notes
1. German pilots are all from JG 27 unless otherwise noted.
2. Allied pilots listed are all Australian unless otherwise identified. 3.
Allied losses grouped together under a specific date all occurred in the same combat, and the German claims listed in the next column are all for that particular combat.
4.
5.
6.
7. 8.
German claims have been linked to the Allied losses in each specified combat by Shores and Ring in Fighters Over the Desert, or Franz Kurowski in German FighterAce Hans Joachim Marseille - The Life Story of the Star of Africa. Times and locations of German claims were compared with Allied losses in the same time frame and location.
Shores and Ring either state that a German pilot `claimed' an aircraft, or that an Allied pilot was 'shot down' by a specific German pilot. If a claim was not confirmed, (eg, see entries for 22/05/42) they make this clear in the text.
Given the statement by Tolliver and Constable that 'Such a claim (without a witness) even if filed, would not pass beyond group level' it follows that the claims reported in Fighters Over the Desert were subsequently 'confirmed' and included in the claimant's total.
In the combats described by Kurowski, there is no mention of claims which were not confirmed.
According to Kurowski, all claims made by Marseille can be regarded as 'confirmed'. This would appear to include four of seven victories claimed over the Channel in 1940, which Kurowski, Constable and Toliver acknowledge were not witnessed at the time. (See quotation above.)
9. Claims for Hurricanes and Spitfires, when they were not actually present, can generally be assumed to be cases of mis-identification.



http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/mybaby.jpeg.JPG
Ride It Like Ya Stole It

[This message was edited by pourshot on Sat March 13 2004 at 06:06 PM.]

[This message was edited by pourshot on Sat March 13 2004 at 06:11 PM.]

pourshot
03-13-2004, 06:55 PM
I have been reading a interestimg book called Desert Warriors that talks about the RAAF in the desert war.After reading these pages and remembering the many times german kill claims have been raised in this forum I thought it would make some good reading for you people.

Please dont turn this into a flame fest the text is not mine but I would like to hear what others have to say on the topic.


Desert Warriors
page 281
APPENDIX 10

GERMAN VICTORY CLAIMS in PERSPECTIVE

As explained in the text, unintentional over claiming by pilots of all nations was common, and was brought about by a number of factors, the chief one being attacks by more than one pilot on the same target aircraft. Another factor, now well known, which probably contributed to the serious over claiming by the RAF over France in 1941 and 1942, was the basic evasive tactic employed by the Luftwaffe, a steep dive at full throttle, which produced a trail of black smoke from the Bf109's exhaust.
Nevertheless, there were numerous occasions in the Desert war when Luftwaffe victories could not be verified by documented Allied losses. They are discussed in the text when Australian pilots were involved.
The most spectacular of these occurred on 15 September 1942, when JG 27 claimed a total of nineteen Allied aircraft in a combat which began some time after 1715, when the three Gruppen of JG 27 took to the air to escort a Stuka raid. Marseille's biographer, Franz Kurowski, listed the following claims:
I Gruppe: eleven, II Gruppe: one, III Gruppe: seven.
Details from Fighters Over the Desert suggest that twenty claims were made, matching claims to names, several of which are omitted by Kurowski, who awarded Marseille seven kills in six minutes!
The true facts of this engagement are rather different. Sgt. Des Cormack of 250 Squadron took off at 1736, leading a section of 250 Squadron as top cover to 112, 3 and 450 Squadrons. PO Keith Kildey of 3 Squadron was airborne at 1725, leading eight aircraft. His combat report shows that the engagement began at 1800, at an altitude of 12,000 feet. Both pilots were heavily involved in the battle, submitting claims for a probable (later confirmed) and a damaged respectively, and both coming under attack from German fighters.
There was a total of 36 Kittyhawks in the 239 Wing formation. Six failed to return, and of these, 112 Squadron records show that Sgt. Young was shot down by friendly AA fire!' Even if this is mistaken, a discrepancy of fourteen can not be adequately explained. Keith Kildey almost certainly ended up as a little white bar on someone's rudder after he brought home his aircraft with cannon damage to the tail. Sgt Ken Bee probably shared the same fate, returning with wounds in a damaged aircraft. 250 Squadron lost two aircraft, 3 Squadron two, 450 one, and 112 one.
Keith Kildey and Des Cormack were both interviewed as part of the research for this book, and both expressed shocked disbelief, followed by laughter, when told of the German claims.
The circumstances of this combat cast serious doubts on assertions that the Luftwaffe's system of dealing with the confirmation of claims was so reliable.
Without a witness, a Luftwaffe fighter pilot had no chance to have his victory claim confirmed. Such a claim, even if filed, would not pass beyond group level.
The final destruction or explosion of an enemy aircraft in the air, or the bail-out of the pilot, had to be observed either on gun-camera film or by at least one other human witness. The witness could be the German pilot's wingman, squadron mate, or a ground observer of the encounter.
There was no possibility, as with some RAF and USAAF pilots, of having a victory credited because the claiming officer was a gentleman and a man of his word. ' (Author's italics). The German rule was simply "no witness - no kill."

page 282

The German system was impartial, inflexible, and far less error-prone than either the British or American procedures. German fighter pilots had to wait several months, a year, or sometimes even longer for a kill confirmation to reach them from the German High Command.2 (Author's italics)
But such a waiting period apparently did not apply in the case of the high profile experten, as the following table listing the dates of their awards suggests.

Heinz Bar RK 02/07/41, 27; EL 14/08/41, 60; S 16/02/42, 90.

Adolf Galland RK 01/08/40, 17; EL 25/09/40, 40; S 21/06/41, 69.

Gordon Gollob RK 19/09/41, 42; EL 26/10/41, 85.

Hans-Joachim Marseille RK 22/02/42, 50; EL 06/06/42, 75; S 18/06/42, 101; Br 02/09/42, 126.

Joachim Muncheberg RK 14/09/40, 20; EL 07/05/41, 43; S 09/09/42 103.3

Marseille made five claims on 2 September, (only 3 of which are valid) taking his total to 126, and was awarded the Diamonds (Br) on the same day, with 126 noted as his total at the time of the award.
Clearly, in the combat of 15 September, there could not have been seven accurate eyewitness reports, let alone twenty, but Marseille's seven victory claims were apparently accepted without question. `After this outstanding victory, Marseille had brought his account up to 151 kills, meaning that he had reached third place in the absolute record list - behind Hermann Graf and Gordon Gollob.'4
Other recognised experten, Schroer, Homuth and von Lieres, submitted a total of six further claims between them.
Authors working in the 1990s have access to squadron records, and Chris Shores, writing in 1969, made it quite clear that 239 Wing's losses on 15 September 1942 totalled six.
The reader is referred to the comments made by Erhard Braune of III/JG 27, mentioned in Bobby Gibbes' Foreword.
Following is a list of other Lufiwatfe claims, mainly involving Australian pilots and squadrons, and sometimes other squadrons of 239 Wing, when Australians were present. Many of these clearly could not be confirmed, because the targets returned to base, or definitely could not have been seen to hit the ground in the area where the combat took place, or were claimed by more than one attacking pilot, which, in the circumstances of close combat, is understandable.
AUSTRALIAN & ALLIED LOSSES
GERMAN CLAIMS
12/10/41:
Roberts (3 Sqn) c/I inside Allied lines Scott (3 Sqn) c/I LG105
Parker (3 Sqn) s/d KIA Whaits (2 SAAF) s/d KIA One SAAF a/c damaged: total 2 Clearly, the two damaged 3 Squadron Tomahawks were seen to meet the rigid criteria required by the Luftwaffe.
Sinner 1 (Parker) Franzisket 1 Marseille 2
total 4
30/10/41: Cornall (250 Sqn) s/d captured Schulz 3 Mclnnes RAF (238 Sqn) s/d Schacht 1 Cole RAF (250 Sqn) damaged:
total 2 total 4


page 283

Desert Warriors
12/11/41 Thomas SAAF (451 RAAF Tac R Sqn) s/d KIA Dullberg 1 Whalley RAF (451 Sqn) s/d KIA: Krenske 1 Reuter 1 total 2 total 3
two assailants for one target?
22/11/41 Lane (3 Sqn) s/d KIA Redlich 2 Saunders (3 Sqn) s/d KIA Schneider 2 Watson (3 Sqn) s/d KIA:
total 3 total 4
two assailants for one target?
15/02/42 four a/c of 94 Sqn s/d Schulz 5 McQueen (112 Sqn) damaged, landed at base:
total 4An Afrika Korps tank officer reported a cloud of dust total 5behind
. a sand dune, which was the `confirmation' of his last claim,
(McQueen) bringing Schulz's total to 44.
15/03/42 Unnamed pilot (450 Sqn) Cat. 1 damage Schulz 1
no losses total 1
22/05/42 Quirk (450 Sqn) s/d KIA Bendert 2
Williams (450 Sqn) s/d KIA Steis 1
total 2 total 3
‚? Two assailants for one target?
Bendert's second Clam was not confirmed.
22/05/42 Gundry RAF (112 Sqn) s/d KIA Franzisket 2
Rogerson RAF (250 Sqn) c/I return flight von Lieres 2 One 250 Sqn a/c missing: Steinhausen 1 Stahlschmidt 1 Rosenberg 1
total 2 total 7 (5) Chris Shores noted that the second claims for
both Franzisket and von Lieres were not confirmed, thus reducing 7 claims to 5, for a total of 2 actual losses.
01/06/42 Wilson RAF (112 Sqn) s/d PoW
Alderson (3 Sqn) wounded; a/c damaged:
total 1 Kronschnabel's claim was not confirmed. Hurricanes were not present.
Quaritsch 1 Stecher 1 Kronschnabel 1 Bf110 pilot 1(Hurricane) total 4 (3)
26/06/42 Cuddon RAF (112 Sqn) s/d KIA Barr (3 Sqn) s/d PoW
total 2
Hurricanes were almost certainly not present.
Kabisch 1
Schroer 2 (1 Hurricane) Rosenberg 1
total 4

page 284
Desert Warriors
26/06/42 Wallis (250 Sqn) damaged Seabrook RAF(250 Sqn) damaged Copeland RAF (250 Sqn) s/d KIA Jones (450 Sqn) s/d baled out and returned: total 2
Again, it is unlikely that Hurricanes were present.
Korner 2 Franzisket 1 Stahlschmidt 3, (2 of which were Hurricanes) total 6
17/07/42 Stevens (3 Sqn) damaged s
Weber RAF (145 Sqn) s/d baled out: total 1
two assailants for one target?
III JG 53: 2
total 2
01/09/42 450 Sqn:
no losses According to Kurowski, Sinner and Rodel made no further claims for the day.
Sinner 2 Rodel 1 total 3
01/09/42 Wood (3 Sqn) a/c damaged, landed at base no losses
. Fink (JG 53) 1 total 1
03/09/42 Although the two Australian squadrons were not involved in this combat, Ron Cundy of 260 Squadron was present, and his log book noted the loss of PO Joseph Bernier. Bernier RCAF (260 Sqn) s/d KIA
Powers RAF (145 Sqn) s/d baled out, wounded Reyneke (2 SAAF) force landed; PoW:
Marseille 3 (Curtiss) Stahlschmidt 3
(2 Curtiss, 1 Spitfire) total 6
total 3
03/09/42 Thomas (3 Sqn) a/c damaged Cat. 2 pilot wounded: c/I base
Hannaford (450 Sqn) a/c damaged Cat. 2 pilot wounded: c/I base
Sinner 1 total 1
no losses
05/09/42 two 145 Sqn Spitfires s/d (3 Sqns airborne at Thomas RNZAF (112 Sqn) s/d PoW
Oakley (450 Sqn) damaged Cat. 2
total 3
1125) Marseille 4 (1148-1200) (all Curtiss) Stahlschmidt 2
Rodel 3 total 9
08/09/42 one 145 Sqn Spitfire lost
Freer (3 Sqn) c/I in minefield (damaged): total 1
Schroer 2 (Spitfires) Stumpf III/JG 53. 1 total 3
12/09/42 Hogg RAF (112 Sqn) damaged Cat. 2 Stumpf JG 53. 1
3 A/C of 450 Sqn damaged Cat. 1 Nairz JG 53. 1
no losses total 2

page 285

Desert Warriors
'" 285
15/09/42 Donald (3 Sqn) s/d. PoW Marseille 7
Scribner (3 Sqn) s/d KIA von Lieres 2
Young RNZAF (112 Sqn) s/d c/I (flak?) Homuth 1
Thorpe RAF (250 Sqn) s/d PoW Borngen 1
Strong RAF (250 Sqn) s/d PoW Schroer 3(incl. Ewing (450 Sqn) s/d PoW Krainik 4 Gruber 1 No Spitfires were present. Stuckler 1
total 6 total 20.
1 Spitfire)
16/09/42 Wood (3 Sqn) damaged, wounded: landed at base Schroer 1 Schofbock 1 total 2
no losses
01/11/42 Agnew RAF (112 Sqn) force-landed Allied lines Unterberger 1*
DeBourke RAF (112 Sqn) wounded in shoulder, Rodel 1
normal landing at base. Berres JG 77. 1 (two Australians of 112 Sqn. were involved in this action) Bar JG 77. 1 * The pilot was reported to have baled out.
no losses
total 4
09/11/42 Blades RAF (92 Sqn) s/d KIA Muncheberg JG 77 1
Borthwick (450 Sqn) s/d wounded. Hackler JG 77 1
3 a/c of 450 Sqn damaged Cat. 1: JG 77: 3 further claims
total 2 total 5
18/01/43 Prowse (450 Sqn) wounded: Bar JG 77. 2
c/I near army dressing station behind own lines. Weidlich JG 77. 1 Palethorpe RAF (250 Sqn) A/C damaged
Bar's claims were not confirmed.
total 1 (Prowse - if observed) total 3 (1)
Notes
1. German pilots are all from JG 27 unless otherwise noted.
2. Allied pilots listed are all Australian unless otherwise identified. 3.
Allied losses grouped together under a specific date all occurred in the same combat, and the German claims listed in the next column are all for that particular combat.
4.
5.
6.
7. 8.
German claims have been linked to the Allied losses in each specified combat by Shores and Ring in Fighters Over the Desert, or Franz Kurowski in German FighterAce Hans Joachim Marseille - The Life Story of the Star of Africa. Times and locations of German claims were compared with Allied losses in the same time frame and location.
Shores and Ring either state that a German pilot `claimed' an aircraft, or that an Allied pilot was 'shot down' by a specific German pilot. If a claim was not confirmed, (eg, see entries for 22/05/42) they make this clear in the text.
Given the statement by Tolliver and Constable that 'Such a claim (without a witness) even if filed, would not pass beyond group level' it follows that the claims reported in Fighters Over the Desert were subsequently 'confirmed' and included in the claimant's total.
In the combats described by Kurowski, there is no mention of claims which were not confirmed.
According to Kurowski, all claims made by Marseille can be regarded as 'confirmed'. This would appear to include four of seven victories claimed over the Channel in 1940, which Kurowski, Constable and Toliver acknowledge were not witnessed at the time. (See quotation above.)
9. Claims for Hurricanes and Spitfires, when they were not actually present, can generally be assumed to be cases of mis-identification.



http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/mybaby.jpeg.JPG
Ride It Like Ya Stole It

[This message was edited by pourshot on Sat March 13 2004 at 06:06 PM.]

[This message was edited by pourshot on Sat March 13 2004 at 06:11 PM.]

Fillmore
03-13-2004, 07:05 PM
Overclaiming is a matter of course. The real question is confirmation of the claims. It seems high profile German aces were given awards before their claims were confirmed, but does that mean that all those claims were necessarily confirmed? It can get confusing wrt semsntics when a source isn't clear as to wheather it is referring to claims, or confirmed claims, and the same source may go back and forth in its use of the term "claims".

p1ngu666
03-13-2004, 07:12 PM
rule of thumb, half the claims

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg

pourshot
03-13-2004, 07:17 PM
Well I think it does go to show that while the germans no doubt had huge scores I think I will take those claims with a grain of salt for now on.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/mybaby.jpeg.JPG
Ride It Like Ya Stole It

S77th-brooks
03-13-2004, 07:42 PM
read this about RAF http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/wutzgalland/wutzgalland.htm

Destraex
03-13-2004, 07:43 PM
The one about the australian P40 aces. I have it but have not read much of it yet (had it for over a year http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I usually get about 300 pages into a book before my priorities change and I will read 300 pages of another book or have the inspiration to finish a previously started book. LOL

So maybe when Oleg makes a Desert sim I will have the inspiration to pick it up again http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

clint-ruin
03-13-2004, 07:56 PM
I think we now have a bit more of the picture as to why Marseille had such low ammo usage per kill.

IE - http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=144104562&r=217106762#217106762

It is indeed entirely possible to claim to have shot down twice as many planes as you really did in FB :>

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Zen--
03-13-2004, 11:49 PM
People have been arguing this point on German records for 40 years now...to my knowledge it is now pretty much accepted that their records stand as correct.

After all this time and so many people doing research on the issue, one man writes a book about the evidence in a single battle...and that is supposed to disprove or discredit what the entire Luftwaffe did?


I tend to stick with what the majority says in this particular case. The topic was hotly debated after WW2 because the Allies simply couldn't believe what the German records listed, but as far as I know, no one has disproven it.

I'm inclined to accept the accepted figures over what a single author says about one episode.

Just my .02 Rupees.

-Zen-

Stalker58
03-14-2004, 01:49 AM
Inflated or not, could any one please point me to VVS A2A victory claiming and verifying proces? Also some RL VVS gun camera footage would be welcome...

Altitude, speed, manoeuvre and.... CRASH!

pudsterIV
03-14-2004, 02:24 AM
Wouldnt every aiforce overstate their kills, to optimistic?

pourshot
03-14-2004, 02:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
People have been arguing this point on German records for 40 years now...to my knowledge it is now pretty much accepted that their records stand as correct.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What does pretty much mean, It either is or is not accepted

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> After all this time and so many people doing research on the issue, one man writes a book about the evidence in a single battle...and that is supposed to disprove or discredit what the entire Luftwaffe did?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is only a example but it does bring to light a important fact and that is the aces were not subject to the same verification process as the rest,so if he and others would lie or simply make a mistake about this battle with so many witnesses I think that goes a long way to explaining his huge total.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I tend to stick with what the majority says in this particular case. The topic was hotly debated after WW2 because the Allies simply couldn't believe what the German records listed, but as far as I know, no one has disproven it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you will find it has been proven that the scores are inflated at least in the desert.When the RAF,RAAF,SAAF and USAAF records dont back up the claims how much more proof does one need.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I'm inclined to accept the accepted figures over what a single author says about one episode.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who's figures are they the germans or the allied?


And just so you know what tone I'am using in my reply here is a smilly for ya http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I really would like a nice polite debate about this

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/mybaby.jpeg.JPG
Ride It Like Ya Stole It

pourshot
03-14-2004, 02:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pudsterIV:
Wouldnt every aiforce overstate their kills, to optimistic?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'am sure of it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/mybaby.jpeg.JPG
Ride It Like Ya Stole It

Gershy
03-14-2004, 05:55 AM
You shouldn't forget that overclaiming happened quite regularly and that the recordsof each side differ because of several reasons. e.g.: The Germans counted a plane shot down if it went down, the British counted one of their planes as loss ONLY if no part of the plane could be used as spare part for other planes. So here you already see that htis leads to completely different records on both sides. In general the German system for crediting kills was the most accurate in WW2 as several kills were not counted as well. Goering even sent ppl to find and count destroyed planes on the ground cause he didn't believe the records of his pilots. Another fact is the the Germans got kills for other things as well e.g: If a B17 is shot down there were several incidents were one pilot was credited with a "Herausschuss" (meaning he forced the B17 to break formation) and another guy got the credit for shooting the plane down in the end. so 2 credits for 1 plane. another reason is that it's indeed hard to judge yourself if you shot someone or not. Pilots often saw a plane go down and several pilots had taken a shot at this plane before so who got the kill??? (e.g. massive overclaiming by US bombers in Normandy B17s claimed over 70 german planes shot down, german records of the day show 2 planes lost!!!) you see it's not too easy to judge. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

-----------------------------

So long.We wish you well.
You told us how you weren't afraid to die.
Well then, so long.Don't cry.
Or feel too down.
Not all martyrs see divinity.
But at least you tried.

SeaFireLIV
03-14-2004, 06:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> another reason is that it's indeed hard to judge yourself if you shot someone or not. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I`ve been reading on German versus allied kills and indeed, LW claims are amazing!

Anyway, I tried to replicate the reality of shooting down an enemy plane without the HUD `Enemy plane destroyed` writing and it`s very true how in a furball you`ll smoke an enemy plane, watch it go down, but don`t have time to see if it really went down or not. You never actually know if you killed the bogey till you get back to base where your briefing will tell you (although, in reality debrief wouldn`t really know either).

I prefer it this way. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

SeaFireLIV...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/storm.jpg
Soon... Very soon....

LEXX_Luthor
03-14-2004, 06:06 AM
I recall reading about some German twin engine fighter unit in France and they operated over the Atlantic. They requested transfer cos they could never get any kills confirmed over the ocean. They got their transfer. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

__________________
"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Spinne_3.-JG51
03-14-2004, 06:18 AM
You'd think that if there was even the slightest doubt in the minds of the allies after the war, they'd revise the German kill figures. No opposing airforce would stand for aces such as Hartmann unless thier claims really are in the range of the recorded claims. I find it hard to believe that the Soviet Union wouldn't have started a campaign to publicise lower figures for the German aces if there was substantial evidence about over-claiming. So while Hartmann may not have shot down exactly 352 aircraft, or Marseille 151, it's probable that thier actual kills were off by only five to ten, plus or minus. Don't forget that there were many instances of German kills occuring over enemy territory where there were no ground vitnesses to verify thier claims. This adds to thier score.

http://www.student.richmond.edu/~vk5qa/images/forumsig.jpg

"Come on in, I'll treat you nice! I used to know your father."

SeaFireLIV
03-14-2004, 06:25 AM
Well, I read that Erich Hartmann was sentenced to 20 years in prison for `the damage caused to the Soviet economy, as he destroyed 347 planes`! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

So there must be some truth to these claims.

SeaFireLIV...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/storm.jpg
Soon... Very soon....

Extreme_One
03-14-2004, 06:38 AM
Every book I've read on the subject states that BOTH sides over claimed but the Luftaffe was probably the most 'over optimistic'
Wasn't the German medal system partly to blame for over claiming?

S! Simon
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''
Download the USAAF & RAF campaign folders here (http://www.netwings.org/library/Forgotten_Battles/Missions/index-9.html).

Download "North and South" including the Japanese speech-pack here (http://www.netwings.org/library/Forgotten_Battles/Missions/index-11.html). *NEW*

http://server6.uploadit.org/files/simplysimon-raf_sig.jpg

FW190fan
03-14-2004, 06:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zen--:
People have been arguing this point on German records for 40 years now...to my knowledge it is now pretty much accepted that their records stand as correct.

-Zen-
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually Zen it's been 60 years. And the kill claims of no nation has been as closely scrutinized as that of Germany.

I think closely evaluating history is a good thing, not a bad thing. German claims will probably be closely scrutinized for another 60 years.

This is all well and good as long as the same zeal is applied to all nations "in the name of historical accuracy". http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

jensenpark
03-14-2004, 06:41 AM
There are exaggerated claims on both sides...

Even going back to BoB, both claims were quite wildly exaggerated...

German claims far exceeded even the entire existing British fighter force inventory (with new production counted in as well). And the Brits were just as high with thier counts...

Like everything else, some counts were probably very accurate, and some wildly off.

Hartmann discusses one of their high scorers lying about his claims...

http://www.unicover.com/images/G6A876.JPG

SeaFireLIV
03-14-2004, 06:55 AM
There are some reasons for LW high claims...

1. The LW pilots never had any time off. He never got any holiday or rest time unless his CO recognised that the pilot may need a rest. Some LW pilots as a result flew well over 1000 missions during the war.

2. LW airfields tended to be rather close to the frontline, which meant that pilots could fly several sorties in a day. And in later years were over home areas on defense missions, meaning when they got shot down they were quickly returned to duty. This must be true especialy on the Eastern theatre.

3. They oftem landed and operated from any friendly airfield as needed, which allowed a quick turnaround and and back to the fight.

4. I`ve also read that German aircraft were very durable. Hans Joachim flew the Bf 109 right up to his death, getting 158 kills. And all the Aces seemed to have flown the BF 109 at some point.

There were also claims lied about too, though...

In one case a young LW Ace returned from a fight with Spits over the English Channel and claimed 3 of them shot down. But the ground crew discovered that his guns hadn`t fired and none of his ammo had been used!

SeaFireLIV...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/storm.jpg
Soon... Very soon....

Zen--
03-14-2004, 07:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:

Actually Zen it's been 60 years. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


lol, now that was a simple error in basic arithmetic on my part. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

-Zen-

hop2002
03-14-2004, 07:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>People have been arguing this point on German records for 40 years now...to my knowledge it is now pretty much accepted that their records stand as correct.

After all this time and so many people doing research on the issue, one man writes a book about the evidence in a single battle...and that is supposed to disprove or discredit what the entire Luftwaffe did?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What about adding another battle, ie the Battle of Britain.

The Jagdwaffe, ie just the fighters, claimed 1,998 single engined fighters shot down. I can find only a handfull of those that were not allowed. The RAF actually lost 900 or so single engined fighters on operations, including those destroyed on the ground, accidents, and to bomber's defensive fire, which claimed a fairly large percentage of the losses.

In the BoB the Jagdwaffe were awarded around 3 times as many kills as they actually got.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>e.g.: The Germans counted a plane shot down if it went down, the British counted one of their planes as loss ONLY if no part of the plane could be used as spare part for other planes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is utter rubbish.

Let's take two examples, the BoB and the fighting over the channel the following year.

From a post by Ruy Horta, quoting Jochen Prien:

Jg 2 and Jg 26 lost 100 pilots killed, 48 wounded, 1 pow between 22nd June and 31st December. they lost 110 fighters in combat, 168 in total.

That means they lost 1.68 planes per pilot killed.



The RAF during the BoB lost 420 Spit and Hurricane pilots killed, and around 900 Spits and Hurricanes listed as lost.

So, the RAF lost about 2.1 planes per pilot killed.

The more planes lost per pilot, the more ready an airforce is to write off planes. As you can see, the RAF were writing off planes at a much faster rate per pilot lost than the Luftwaffe.

Zen--
03-14-2004, 07:26 AM
Pourshot:

I say things like 'pretty much' and the 'accepted' figures (meaning German) because I personally haven't spent time as a historian researching the claims myself, therefore I am not in a position to say with 100% certainty they are accurate.

The incredible scores tallied by the Germans have brought them under close scrutiny, yet after all this time they have not been conclusively proven incorrect. There does not appear to be a split down the middle about their accuracy which you might normally find on a subject if there was a large margin of error, instead you see that most historians are in agreement from all nationalities. The number of people that refute their claims are in the distinct minority.

If so many countries basically agree on the issue despite having fought against the German during the war, I'm reasonably sure that means the German records were able to stand up to the investigation. If there were more than a few discrepancies, isolated researchers would be arguing that they HAD the numbers they did, while everyone else would be arguing they didn't...the argument would be reversed.

The scores may very well have been inflated in the desert. I can't really speak to that other than to read your initial post, think about it and then try to take that in context with the rest of the war. (which I have as a matter of fact) It is after all a rather isolated discovery compared to the rest of the kill claims, so while it may be true, in my mind it doesn't cast doubt on the Luftwaffe as a whole.

&lt;S!&gt;

-Zen-

clint-ruin
03-14-2004, 07:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zen--:
Pourshot:

I say things like 'pretty much' and the 'accepted' figures (meaning German) because I personally haven't spent time as a historian researching the claims myself, therefore I am not in a position to say with 100% certainty they are accurate. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd concur with your post as a fellow amatuer grognard. Were they inflated? Probably - both as a result of pilots/commanders fiddling the figures and simple plain honest mistakes. Were they grossly, hugely over-inflated? Most likely they weren't. Bearing in mind, however, that even a modest [by the standards of WW2 era air forces] 2:1 overclaim ratio would mean chopping scores in half, at least for some pilots. Something to think about..

Pourshot - Imperial Japanese records tend to be the ones most widely documented as being completely out-of-touch with reality for claim/loss statistics, so you might have more luck asking about that :&gt;

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

UberDemon
03-14-2004, 07:49 AM
All good arguments. SeaFire is on the money, at least on what we have deduced from LW literature. Most of it makes sense.

Overclaiming is inevitable. LW was bit ostracized because they were "the bad guys" in WW2, if you allow that, and because they lost the war. In many studies, it was found that their accounting method was mostly accurate.

The accounting method for the VVS was fairly accurate too in paper [as stated by 19-kill Soviet Ace Col Vladimir Orekhov in an interview, there were 4 acceptable criteria for confirmation, one would suffice:
* from at least 2 other pilots in the fight
* from ground troops
* from partisans
* verification on the seized territory.

If the fight had only two Soviet pilots, then two forms of cofirmation were necessary. There is more to this, but this is the jist... ], however there were many instances of blatant overclaiming - who knows? most likely for morale purposes. For examples of that read the chapters on the batle of Kerch and Kharkov in Bergstrom and Mikhailov's "Black Cross Red Star" vol 2.

Another interesting book is Mike Spick's "Luftwaffe Fighter Aces". One of the largest "negative" propagandas publicized by the allies after the war was that Germans counted engines as planes... that is, a B-17 would be 4 kills. That was not true. The plane was awarded as one kill, however the engines were counted as points towards promotion and awards.

[This message was edited by UberDemon on Sun March 14 2004 at 06:59 AM.]

VO101__Kurfurst
03-14-2004, 07:51 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by hop2002:

What about adding another battle, ie the Battle of Britain.

The Jagdwaffe, ie just the fighters, claimed 1,998 single engined fighters shot down. I can find only a handfull of those that were not allowed. The RAF actually lost 900 or so single engined fighters on operations, including those destroyed on the ground, accidents, and to bomber's defensive fire, which claimed a fairly large percentage of the losses.

In the BoB the Jagdwaffe were awarded around 3 times as many kills as they actually got.
[QUOTE]


Hop 2002 like`s to come of this version of the events, if fact it`s been entirely his fabrication.

The basis of his claims is a detailed list of LW fighter pilot claims that can be found on Tony Wood`s site for the 1940 period. It contains all claims done by all pilots of the LW, including fighter, zestorer pilots and nightfighters operating over Germany.

Important to note that this list is a list of claim requests from pilots towards the High Command, not awarded, confirmed kills. Each claim has a note next to it, which means it was accepted, turned down, or fell into some special category (i.e. damaged, badly shot up but destruction was not proven).

What Hop 2002 does is putting all these claims in an excell table, counting victories of night fighters vs. bombers just as well as daylight victories of the Jagdwaffe over British fighter in the Kanalkampf. He uses all the claims, and disregard it completely that most of these claims were not accepted by the LW as valid, and awarded to the pilots, due to the lack of proof in most cases (aircraft wrecks usually fell into the channel or over enemy territory). Then he makes a twist and says these are actually awarded to pilots... they are not. Unlike in the RAF, the LW had a rather strict system for confirming kills, claims by the pilots were not accepted on probability or just by report. Even to file a kill claim, a witness was required. Only then could the confirmation process begin, which often took a year to be completed.

RAF total fighter aircraft losses during BoB was 960 fighters in combat, but in total 1960 were written down to various causes like bombings of airfields, sustained battle damage or aging. So in some case the German claims and British statistics don`t match each other, it could be a case where a LW fighter badly damaged a RAF fighter, which managed to return to base, but was written down as it didn`t worth to be repaired and was salvaged. On the other side of the Channel, the LW pilot had a witness for badly damaged a RAF fighter which went down in steep dive, and filed a claim, which was turned down, or accepted only as "well shot up plane, which`s destruction could not be confirmed", but not as a clean kill..

For one actual example, the LW claims of Sept 15th 1940.

The LW pilots on that day claimed 51 Spitfires, and 18 Hurricane`s (it appears that they often mixed up Hurris and Spits, for their similiar appearance, and tended to report Spits more often) and a single Blenheim.

Of all these, there`s only ONE Spitfire claim record that has a known confirmation certificate, the one claimed by Lt. Werner Pistor, flying a Bf 110 from the Stab of ZG 76, who claimed a Spitfire 10km SE of London, at 15:45.

Only in regards of that single claim out of the 70 for that day, is this document lists a confirmation (Anerkennung) document. The claim, was BTW, not yet accepted, it is noted with the "ASM" mark, which means the confirmation is later could become possible.

Reality is much more complex than Hop2002`s copy-paste job to Excell, and then making claims look like as actually accepted kills.

[This message was edited by VO101__Kurfurst on Sun March 14 2004 at 07:14 AM.]

FA_Maddog
03-14-2004, 07:52 AM
Zen wrote: "I tend to stick with what the majority says in this particular case. The topic was hotly debated after WW2 because the Allies simply couldn't believe what the German records listed, but as far as I know, no one has disproven it."


Zen think about what you just said here: "the Allies simply couldn't believe what the German records listed."

The Allieds knew how many planes of thiers were shot down! They didn't need the German records to tell them! The Allieds won the war and could have wrote the history books anyway they wanted too. All the history book here in the U.S. tell us the German had a lot of 100+ kill aces. So for my two cents worth I would say they believed it.

BaronVonSnoopy
03-14-2004, 07:58 AM
I'd have to agree, I'm sure there were "accounting errors" on both allied and axis counts. I don't see a couple hundred kills being all that unbelievable when I take into account LW pilots flew from the time they reported for duty until death/injury preventing further flight operations or end of war, whichever came first. So, if you had a pilot report for duty in 1939, and make it to the end, that's a good 6 years of potential air combat.

Arms1
03-14-2004, 08:04 AM
Hi i would like to share some research that i have done regarding my fathers first operational flight, it is only one op but it shows that the luftwaffe pilots involved overstated thier claims 3 to 1 in this instance, but of course is by no means indicitave of lw claims on the whole.

sources i have used for this are my fathers log book, raf 229sqn orb and documents available at the luftwaffe claims site.

229 ORB Tangmere June 23 1944
8 Spitfire patrolled beaches. Blue section, over Easy area, met 6 FW 190's at 3000 feet and engaged them. Three more FW 190's then bounced them from astern. F/Lt. ***** was seen to destroy one FW 190 which crashed to the ground in flames, but was himself shot down directly afterwards. F/Sgt. ***** damaged one FW190. F/O Armstrong crash landed on one of the beach landing strips. *(note this was an emergency strip at Beachy Head, not one on the continent) F/Sgt. ***** returned to the base with holes in his starboard wing tip.

Pilots Log entry F/O Armstrong
June 23 1944, shot down by 190, crash landed Beach Head, F/Lt. ***** missing.

Using the information available at the LW claims site and the time of the engagement along with types involved i was able deduce that the 190's were from JG54 led by the famous LW ace Robert Weiss (121 kills). After this engagement Weiss claimed 2 destroyed and another pilot claimed 1 destroyed. Claims should have been at most 1 destroyed and 2 probable.
As i stated before this is only one instance and not a large enough a sample to base any conclusions but i do find it interesting that in the one op i have researched LW claims were inflated 3x and that an experten involved claimed double the amount actually destroyed.

I would also like to add that a large percentage of Weiss's claims are substantiated and confirmed.

[This message was edited by Arms1 on Sun March 14 2004 at 08:10 AM.]

Cossack_UA
03-14-2004, 08:14 AM
we've got two contradicting statements. First, LW clame system was the most reliable and accurate of all. Second, LW aces were awarded on the spot before the clames were confirmed.

VO101__Kurfurst
03-14-2004, 08:25 AM
Arms1, that`s pretty interesting stuff ! What was the time of engagement ?

Arms1
03-14-2004, 09:18 AM
the time of the flight according to the 229 orb was 1550-1720, please note that i stated crash landing was at beachy head, this was stated from memory based on research years ago, am double checking to make sure this is correct, it is possible that it happened on the continent but if i remember correctly the a/c was listed as category e due to crash landing at beachy head.

hop2002
03-14-2004, 09:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Important to note that this list is a list of claim requests from pilots towards the High Command, not awarded, confirmed kills. Each claim has a note next to it, which means it was accepted, turned down, or fell into some special category (i.e. damaged, badly shot up but destruction was not proven).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Problem is, Isegrim, they lmost all seem to be confirmed.

Take Galland as an example.

He's claimed 36 kills during the BoB, and been awarded 35 of them. He had one kill turned down, on the 28 th July 1940. However, according to many sources, this claim is still counted anyway.

For example: http://www.luftwaffe.cz/gallanda.html

and

http://members.aol.com/geobat66/galland/kills.htm

Not only was a man like Galland almost never denied a claim, but even when he was, it still gets counted in his totals.

What about Helmut Wick. 31 "claims" during the BoB, every one awarded.

What about Walter Oesau. 32 "claims" during the BoB, every one awarded.

So, of the top 3 scorers by the end of the BoB, with 99 claims between them, 98 have been awarded, and most sites give Galland the other one anyway.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What Hop 2002 does is putting all these claims in an excell table, counting victories of night fighters vs. bombers just as well as daylight victories of the Jagdwaffe over British fighter in the Kanalkampf<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No Isegrim, they are single engined fighters, not bombers, just Spitfires, Hurricanes, Defiants, Moranes and Curtis', the last two obviously misidentified.

It's quite easy with a spreadsheet to sort the data.

The Jagdwaffe claimed 13 Curtiss, 23 Defiants, 715 Hurricanes, 7 Moranes, 1,239 Spitfires and 1 Bloch 151. (Oblt. Joachim M√ľncheberg got the Bloch for his 21st kill on the 17th Oct, what he was actually shooting at I don't know, because no Blochs or Moranes or Curtiss were used during the battle)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>He uses all the claims, and disregard it completely that most of these claims were not accepted by the LW as valid, and awarded to the pilots, due to the lack of proof in most cases (aircraft wrecks usually fell into the channel or over enemy territory). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And yet almost every claim is accepted. This is either a list of accepted claims, or all claims were accepted as a matter of course.

If the Luftwaffe would not award a kill because the plane fell over enemy territory, how could several German pilots get over 30 kills each during the BoB, when almost no RAF planes fell over German territory?


The claims document lists the accumulated score of each pilot with each new confirmed kill, for example:

25.10.40 Maj. Werner M√¬∂lders: 52 Stab/JG 51 Spitfire ‚£ N.W. Dover 10.45 OKL+JFV d.Dt.Lw. 4/II-36B

This was Molders 52nd kill.

Now, to take a day towards the end of the battle as an example, 25th October 1940

There are 21 kills listed. Isegrim says they are claims, not confirmed kills, but every single one is confirmed.

25.10.40 Hptm. Walter Adolph: 13 Stab II./JG 26 Spitfire ‚£ Maidstone 11.04 OKL+JFV d.Dt.Lw. 4/I-125B
25.10.40 Ltn. Karl Borris: 6 4./JG 26 Spitfire ‚£ Maidstone 11.04 OKL+JFV d.Dt.Lw. 4/I-126B
25.10.40 Oblt. Hans-J√ľrgen Westphal: 3 7./JG 26 Spitfire ‚£ s√ľdlich Sevenoaks 11.10 OKL+JFV d.Dt.Lw. 4/I-179B
25.10.40 Oblt. Gustav Sprick: 22 8./JG 26 Spitfire ‚£ Maidstone: 7.000 m. 14.30 OKL+JFV d.Dt.Lw. 4/I-180
25.10.40 Oblt. Joachim M√ľncheberg: 22 7./JG 26 Spitfire ‚£ Marden 14.40 OKL+JFV d.Dt.Lw. 4/I-81B
25.10.40 Hptm. Wolfgang Lippert: 14 Stab II./JG 27 Hurricane ‚£ London 13.05 OKL+JFV d.Dt.Lw. 4/I-82B
25.10.40 Hptm. Wolfgang Lippert: 15 Stab II./JG 27 Hurricane ‚£ London 13.06 OKL+JFV d.Dt.Lw. 4/I-83B
25.10.40 Maj. Werner M√¬∂lders: 52 Stab/JG 51 Spitfire ‚£ N.W. Dover 10.45 OKL+JFV d.Dt.Lw. 4/II-36B
25.10.40 Maj. Werner M√¬∂lders: 53 Stab/JG 51 Spitfire ‚£ Margate 13.20 OKL+JFV d.Dt.Lw. 4/II-37B
25.10.40 Ltn. Heinrich Tornow: 7 4./JG 51 Hurricane ‚£ S.E. London 10.10 OKL+JFV d.Dt.Lw. 4/II-133
25.10.40 Ltn. Heinrich Tornow: 8 4./JG 51 Hurricane ‚£ S.E. London - OKL+JFV d.Dt.Lw. 4/II-134
25.10.40 Ltn. Herbert Huppertz: 3 6./JG 51 Hurricane ‚£ Tunbridge Wells: 5.000 m. 13.30 OKL+JFV d.Dt.Lw. 4/II-135B
25.10.40 Oblt. Karl-Heinz Schnell: 9 9./JG 51 Hurricane ‚£ - 13.15 OKL+JFV d.Dt.Lw. 4/II-164B
25.10.40 Ltn. Gerhard Senoner: 3 9./JG 51 Hurricane ‚£ - 13.15 OKL+JFV d.Dt.Lw. 4/II-165B
25.10.40 Gefr. Helmut Ziehm: 1 9./JG 51 Hurricane ‚£ - 13.15 OKL+JFV d.Dt.Lw. 4/II-166B
25.10.40 Hptm. Walter Oesau: 38 Stab III./JG 51 Spitfire ‚£ - - OKL+JFV d.Dt.Lw. 4/II-167
25.10.40 Oblt. Eduard Schr√¬∂der: 2 6./JG 53 Spitfire ‚£ - 16.20 OKL+JFV d.Dt.Lw. 4/II-96B
25.10.40 Oblt. Werner Pichon-Kalau v. Hofe: 5 Stab/JG 54 Spitfire ‚£ - - OKL+JFV d.Dt.Lw. 4/II-4
25.10.40 Oblt. Roloff von Aspern: 18 5./JG 54 Spitfire ‚£ - 14.55 OKL+JFV d.Dt.Lw. 4/II-157B
25.10.40 Ofw. Karl Hier: 14 4./JG 54 Spitfire ‚£ - - OKL+JFV d.Dt.Lw. 4/II-158
25.10.40 Gefr. Leo Masterer: 4 4./JG 54 Spitfire ‚£ - 18.50 OKL+JFV d.Dt.Lw. 4/II-159B

As you can see, all confirmed, only 1 pilot got his first kill on this day, Molders got his 52nd and 53rd.

The RAF actually lost 10 aircraft to all causes, and 3 pilots killed on this day.

Anybody who's interested in this stuff should really visit Tony Wood's site tonywood.cjb.net (http://tonywood.cjb.net)

The entire claims list is there, look for
O.K.L. Fighter Claims : Chef f√ľr Ausz. und Dizsiplin Luftwaffen-Personalamt L.P. (A) V Films & Supplementary Claims from Lists
:: West 1939-41, Issue 1

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>For one actual example, the LW claims of Sept 15th 1940.

The LW pilots on that day claimed 51 Spitfires, and 18 Hurricane`s (it appears that they often mixed up Hurris and Spits, for their similiar appearance, and tended to report Spits more often) and a single Blenheim.

Of all these, there`s only ONE Spitfire claim record that has a known confirmation certificate, the one claimed by Lt. Werner Pistor, flying a Bf 110 from the Stab of ZG 76, who claimed a Spitfire 10km SE of London, at 15:45.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem with this comes when we examine some of the kills claimed on this day.

Just a couple of examples by well known aces on this day:

15.09.40 Maj. Adolf Galland: 32 Stab/JG 26 Hurricane ‚£ Themsem√ľndung 15.30 OKL+JFV d.Dt.Lw. 4/I-15B

15.09.40 Hptm. Walter Oesau: 27 Stab III./JG 51 Spitfire ‚£ - - OKL+JFV d.Dt.Lw. 4/II-140

According to Isegrim, none of these are confirmed.

But, looking at a typical Luftwaffe site, Galland's kills:

33 15.9.1940 15:30 Hurricane Stab JG 26 Thames Estuary Hurricane I (R 4087) NN-X of 310 Sqn RAF, flown by Sgt. Josef Hubacek
http://www.luftwaffe.cz/gallanda.html

Oesau's:

36. 15.9.1940 - Hurricane Stab III./JG 51
http://www.luftwaffe.cz/oesau.html

Now, Isegrim might say they are unconfirmed, but does that mean Galland had 104 unconfirmed kills, with only a tiny number confirmed? Not according to everyone else.

Zen--
03-14-2004, 09:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FA_Maddog:
Zen wrote: "I tend to stick with what the majority says in this particular case. The topic was hotly debated after WW2 because the Allies simply couldn't believe what the German records listed, but as far as I know, no one has disproven it."


Zen think about what you just said here: "the Allies simply couldn't believe what the German records listed."

The Allieds knew how many planes of thiers were shot down! They didn't need the German records to tell them! The Allieds won the war and could have wrote the history books anyway they wanted too. All the history book here in the U.S. tell us the German had a lot of 100+ kill aces. So for my two cents worth I would say they believed it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Certainly they knew how many of their planes were shot down, but many of the allied commanders and pilots were shocked to see what the individual claims of the experten were and disbelief was a common reaction. It's one thing to know that you lost X number of planes in a war against another airforce, but it's something else to see that a limited number of pilots did so much damage. When the details were revealed, those details of individual claims are what many of the allies had trouble believing, not that the Luftwaffe destroyed X number of planes in total. You're right, the allies did know how many planes they had lost themselves.


Perhaps I made too wide a statement, sorry for that, I was paraphrasing from memory.

-Zen-

Red_Russian13
03-14-2004, 10:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
I think we now have a bit more of the picture as to why Marseille had such low ammo usage per kill.

IE - http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=144104562&r=217106762#217106762

Two rupees. That's great. I've never heard someone use Indian money before...most people don't know about it.

Red Russian

It is indeed entirely possible to claim to have shot down twice as many planes as you really did in FB :&gt;

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

FA_Maddog
03-14-2004, 11:11 AM
"Perhaps I made too wide a statement, sorry for that, I was paraphrasing from memory."

-Zen-

No problem Zen, I wasn't trying to flame you.


Bud Anderson writes about Axis claims in his book "To Fly and Fight" pages 126 & 127 and to sum it up, he agrees that the Germans had pilots who had individual claims of 100+ kills and he was there.

I feel the Allieds had Intel on who was doing what on the Axis side.

Slickun
03-14-2004, 11:51 AM
Believe the country doing the dying. Country A claims a zillion planes shot down, but country Z only says a gillion were lost?

Believe the country doing the losing, not the claimants.

Everybody overclaimed. Most were guys claiming a plane they actually thought they had bagged. Some lied. Some were pressured by higher ups. Some got caught up in the propaganda, or "Ace Race".

It is possible now to comb through squadron and group losses and match claims to losses. There are several studies cited on this thread. Believe the country doing the dying, not the one claiming.

VO101__Kurfurst
03-14-2004, 12:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
Problem is, Isegrim, they lmost all seem to be confirmed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, I see from where Hop 2002`s confusion comes from. He mixed up the RLM refernces of claims with the Anerkennung (confirmation) docs.

Every single claim was filed by the RLM, and given a reference number. That`s why all those claims have one, like "OKL+JFV d.Dt.Lw. 4/II-133". This is reference for the claim when it was filed.

Not every claim was accepted of course, and the confirmation document was a seperate one, listed in these docs as "Anerk". If there`s a code, the kill is accepted and the confirmation document is known, if there`s none.

It`s quite clear.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Take Galland as an example.
He's claimed 36 kills during the BoB, and been awarded 35 of them. He had one kill turned down, on the 28 th July 1940. However, according to many sources, this claim is still counted anyway.
For example: http://www.luftwaffe.cz/gallanda.html <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you joking, right ? You want to prove that Galland has 36 claims accepted by the LW by pointing on an internet site that lists 36 kills for Galland? This is ridiculus.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Take Galland as an example. He's claimed 36 kills during the BoB, and been awarded 35 of them.
What about Helmut Wick. 31 "claims" during the BoB, every one awarded.
What about Walter Oesau. 32 "claims" during the BoB, every one awarded.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is wrong. Only YOU say every one of his claims were awarded, but the fact is, you don`t have the slightest idea what the CLAIM list contains, or how is it buildt up.

Frankly, it`s not the first time you mix up LW terms and processes. I have seen you state that a power curve`s first supercharger speed was "a special boosting system".
I have seen you confusion about LW unit structure, you managed to mix up German Groups (40-80 plane sized units) with Squadrons (12-16 plane sized units). You didn`t have the slightest idea, yet argued like you do now.
You don`t even speak German, or any foreign language for that matter. You didn`t read anything about the confirmation process, yet you now want to tell anyone, based on your questionable conclusions based on a list you found on the internet and couldn`t even understand correctly.

Fact is, you constantly make such wild guesses, without having read any literature on the subject, not having an idea on how the confirmation system worked, and the present them as facts to support your quite obvious agenda.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
And yet almost every claim is accepted. This is either a list of accepted claims, or all claims were accepted as a matter of course.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, sorry, the case is so much more simplier: you found a list on the internet, and don`t know what does it means. You mix You keep repeating the mantra "almost every claim is accepted". But you can`t prove it.

It`s quite easy. It`s written with huge letters on front. "O.K.L. Fighter Claims". One just has to read what this list contains. Claims. Not awarded kills. The list, other than the details of pilot and kill, also shows the two relevant documents:

-The reference of the claim
-The LW Anerkennung`s (denied or awarded, or other case)

It`s clearly stated in the header of the PDF, which you did not read, or keep ignoring. This is what this list contains, in order left to right:

2. Terms.
-Date,
-Name,
-Unit
-Type
-Locations in various forms: a. geographical position. b. map reference. c. Luftwaffe Gradnetz [Fighter-Grid]: e.g. 05 Ost S/GU-5 is Hannover City Centre.
- Time in German Time: either CET or CET+1.

- Film Reference marks the BA-MA film identification.
- Anerk: = Anerkennung [Acknowledgement] certificate and number.

The Anerk can show the following :

VNE=Vernichtung nicht erwiesen=Destruction not yet proven.
ASM=Anerkennung sp√¬§ter moglich=Confirmation to be later decided.
Abgelehnt=Denied.
i.Zus.Arb.=im Zusammenarbeit=in collaboration with.
im Zus.=im Zusammenwirken=in cooperation with.
HSS=Herausabschuß=Shoot-out i.e. enemy aircraft separated from the protection of its formation.
e.V.=endg√ľltige Vernichtung=Final Destruction i.e. shooting-down of a straggler previously separated and damaged from its formation as a Herausabsch√ľ√ü
[HSS]. w.b.=wirklich beschossen=well shot-up or damaged.
o.Z.=ohne Zeuge=without witness.


Now, let`s compare this with what Hop claims as "There are 21 kills listed. Isegrim says they are claims, not confirmed kills, but every single one is confirmed."

Every single one. OK, let`s try from what he listed:

"25.10.40 Maj. Werner M√¬∂lders: 53 Stab/JG 51 Spitfire ‚£ Margate 13.20 OKL+JFV d.Dt.Lw. 4/II-37B

I can`t see the reference to the Anerkennungs document, wheter it was accepted or not.

Let`s compare with one that was accepted :

"01.08.44. Ofhr. Heckmann 9./JG 1 P-51 Sées-L'Aigle: 100-150 m. 14.58 Film C. 2025/I Anerk: Nr.30"

Interesting, this claim HAS an Anerkennung`s document number... this is an accepted claim... none of which Hop listed has one.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>This is either a list of accepted claims, or all claims were accepted as a matter of course.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don`t know why you have invent silly stories about what this list is. Oh pardon, I know why.
But it`s written there : "O.K.L. Fighter Claims"

It`s a claims lists. Not accepted claims. Claims means - well, claims. Not accepted claims. Different. Not the same. That`s why there are seperate words for it, Hop.

This list simple contains all claims - the ones that were accepted and ones that were refused. Simple as that.

You say "All claims accepted as a matter of course". Your true intentions are wearing thin.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
If the Luftwaffe would not award a kill because the plane fell over enemy territory, how could several German pilots get over 30 kills each during the BoB, when almost no RAF planes fell over German territory? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Basically the problem is that you don`t know in what ways the LW awarded a kill...
Hint: it wasn`t just a single category...


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The claims document lists the accumulated score of each pilot with each new confirmed kill, for example:

25.10.40 Maj. Werner M√¬∂lders: 52 Stab/JG 51 Spitfire ‚£ N.W. Dover 10.45 OKL+JFV d.Dt.Lw. 4/II-36B
This was Molders 52nd kill.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Another blind guess of yours. Unfortunately the doc does not lists the confirmed kills, but the number of claims filed from the pilot so far...

A perfect example of denied claim:

"25.08.44 Hptm. Heinz Knoke Stab III./JG 1 P-51 ‚£ 05 Ost S/SG-3: 3.200 m. [N.E. Tergnier] 18.55 Film C. 2025/I Anerk: Nr.- "

One can see there`s no Anerk. Nr. The claim was denied. This can be confirmed by Knoke`s autobiography, which states in the Appendix his 25th August claim for a Mustang was denied.


It`s also interesting what Knoke says on his list of kills. It sheds like to Hop`s confusion with those numbers put next to the pilot`s name.

Heinz Knoke: "Offically I was awarded with 33 victories. The 52 victories often mentioned for me are products of somebody reading a wartime document in a wrong way."

"The document in question is a confirmation document for shooting down a B-17 in 1943. The document was dated 5th December 1944. Based on the number 52 on the document somebody guessed it means my total number of victories."

BTW, it`s interesting, that if the "claims were awarded as a matter of course", as Hop likes to claim, why did the process took more than a year...?



Now, to take a day towards the end of the battle as an example, 25th October 1940

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
There are 21 kills listed. Isegrim says they are claims, not confirmed kills, but every single one is confirmed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hop2002, it really doesn`t matters how many times you repeat "every single one is confirmed, every single one is confirmed". Repeat as many times you want.

Fact is, they are not, or the confirmation documents numbers is not know. The ones that are confirmed, and which`s confirmation doc is known, are listed in every case.

None of the 21 kills you listed has ANY kind of Anerkennung refernce, just the RLM`s filing reference for a claim.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
25.10.40 Oblt. Werner Pichon-Kalau v. Hofe: 5 Stab/JG 54 Spitfire ‚£ - - OKL+JFV d.Dt.Lw. 4/II-4
25.10.40 Oblt. Roloff von Aspern: 18 5./JG 54 Spitfire ‚£ - 14.55 OKL+JFV d.Dt.Lw. 4/II-157B
25.10.40 Ofw. Karl Hier: 14 4./JG 54 Spitfire ‚£ - - OKL+JFV d.Dt.Lw. 4/II-158
25.10.40 Gefr. Leo Masterer: 4 4./JG 54 Spitfire ‚£ - 18.50 OKL+JFV d.Dt.Lw. 4/II-159B

As you can see, all confirmed, only 1 pilot got his first kill on this day, Molders got his 52nd and 53rd.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahem... for WHERE exactly one can see "all are confirmed"?
Is there a reference number to the Anerkennungs document... no... anything? no...


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>For one actual example, the LW claims of Sept 15th 1940.

The LW pilots on that day claimed 51 Spitfires, and 18 Hurricane`s (it appears that they often mixed up Hurris and Spits, for their similiar appearance, and tended to report Spits more often) and a single Blenheim.

Of all these, there`s only ONE Spitfire claim record that has a known confirmation certificate, the one claimed by Lt. Werner Pistor, flying a Bf 110 from the Stab of ZG 76, who claimed a Spitfire 10km SE of London, at 15:45.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem with this comes when we examine some of the kills claimed on this day.

Just a couple of examples by well known aces on this day:

15.09.40 Maj. Adolf Galland: 32 Stab/JG 26 Hurricane ‚£ Themsem√ľndung 15.30 OKL+JFV d.Dt.Lw. 4/I-15B
15.09.40 Hptm. Walter Oesau: 27 Stab III./JG 51 Spitfire ‚£ - - OKL+JFV d.Dt.Lw. 4/II-140

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
According to Isegrim, none of these are confirmed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, you are misquoting my words Hop. I said only one claim record has a confirmation certificate document, and even that is an "ASM" one, which means it was not yet confirmed, but possible will be.

Misinterpreting my words on purpose won`t serve your agenda in the way you would like it to be.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But, looking at a typical Luftwaffe site, Galland's kills: <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Looking on a "typical Luftwaffe site" proves nothing of your agenda, Hop.


[/QUOTE]Now, Isegrim might say they are unconfirmed, but does that mean Galland had 104 unconfirmed kills, with only a tiny number confirmed? Not according to everyone else.[/QUOTE]

This "everyone else" is only you... you are the one here claiming such silly things that LW claims were "automatically" accepted. "No witness was neccesary". What is obvious to anyone, you have little idea of what you are talking about, and your agenda is to discredit the LW`s confirmation system, which was by no mean flawless, still, 99% of the aviation historians believe it was fairly accurate within the possibilities, and reliable. I think I exposed this agenda of yours, and your unfamiliarity with the subject well enough now not to need respond to your claims any more here.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
03-14-2004, 12:08 PM
Salute

Here's another one:

Posters have mentioned Marseille's famous 17 victory day on September 1st 1942.

Germans backers insist that every claim was accurate. Were they?

Here is a detailed analysis of one of the combats which Marseille was involved in that day.

Between 17:30 and 18:00 hours of that day, the Ju-88's of III/KG77, as well as a few from LG-1 flew a mission to attack British ground troops in the El Alamein area.

The Ju's were assigned escorting 109's. I/JG27 was assigned close escort, and II/JG27 as loose escort. III/JG27 was sent on a Frei-Jagd ahead of the two other Gruppes.

For their part, the RAF scrambled 3 Squadrons to intercept. Spitfire V's of No. 145 Squadron, Hurricane II's of No 33 Squadron, and Hurricane II's of No. 213 Squadron.

The aircraft of No. 33, and No. 145 Squadron encountered the 109's of III/JG27, an inconclusive combat developed, II/JG27 entered the fray, and eventually all aircraft dispersed with no losses on any side.

The Ju88's, with I/JG27 escorting, continued on. There were eleven 109 pilots present, including Marseille, Lt. H.A. Stahlschmidt, Lt. Lieres and Obfw. Steinhausen, four high scoring Aces.

On an interception course, were 9 pilots of No. 213 Squadron. These were split into three sections, two high cover with 6 pilots, those being F.L. Waite, (British) F.O. Wollaston and Potter, (both Australian) F.O. Avis, (a RCAF American) Flt Sgt Ross, (a Canadian) and Sgt Garrod. (British) The low section had 3 pilots, those being F.L. Green, (British) and F.O.'s Houle and Steele. (both Canadians) This RAF Squadron was still operating with the "Vic" formation of 3 pilots per section.

The six pilots of the No. 213 Squadron high section were attacked by the eleven pilots of I/JG27, the three No 213 Squadron pilots of the low section were able to attack the Ju88's of III/KG77 unmolested, and forced them to jettison their bombs and abort the attack.

German Claims


The following claims were posted by the Germans:

Marseille: 5 aircraft shot down, all accepted, victories number 117 to 121.

Stahlschmidt: 2 aircraft shot down, all accepted, victories number 49 and 50.

Lieres: 1 aircraft shot down, accepted, 18th victory.

Steinhausen: 1 aircraft shot down, accepted, 37th victory.

Total claims 9 aircraft shot down.


British Losses


No 213 Squadron admitted the following losses:

Wollaston: Killed

Potter: Killed

Avis: Crashlanded, aircraft destroyed.

Ross: Crashlanded, aircraft destroyed.

Garrod: Bailed out, aircraft destroyed.


In addition, a single Photo Recon Hurricane of No. 208 Squadron which unfortunately found itself in the wrong place, was also lost. Pilot survived. This plane was likely shot down by Lieres, since he specifies encountering a lone Hurricane away from the main combat.

From the above, we can see that excluding Lieres victory over the Photo Recon Hurricane, the remaining Germans claimed 8 victories over 5 actual losses. That is an overclaim of 1.6 to 1.

As to who actually shot down aircraft and who did not, is impossible to determine.

In combat, confusion is the norm, and it is likely that the various pilots took shots at the same aircraft and probably quite honestly thought they had been responsible for downing it.


How about the British side?


British Claims:

F.L. Waite: 1 Ju-88 destroyed, accepted.

F.O. Houle: 1 Ju-88 destroyed, accepted. (this victory was confirmed by several sources and is the most solid)

F.Sgt. Avis: 1 Ju-88 destroyed, accepted. (this claim was most questionable, since pilot was a rookie)

F.L. Steele: 1 Ju-88 damaged, accepted.


German Losses:


Obfw Moritz's Ju-88 32+KR of III/KG77 was shot down.

In addition, members of III/KG77 reported seeing another Ju-88 crew bailing out, although the records for LG-1 cannot be found to confirm this loss.

In addition several other Ju-88's of III/KG77 landed with battle damage.


So we see that there was an overclaim on the part of the British of at least 1.5 to 1.

Again, I doubt that the RAF pilots were deliberately overclaiming, it is likely once again, that in the confusion, several made attacks on the same plane, and seeing it crash, both claimed.


I have included this example to show a bit of the reality of combat and claiming. There are no messages appearing in print in front of a real pilot saying "Enemy Aircraft Destroyed", or "So in So, shot down So in So". Imagine FB without those little text announcements. There would be a lot of confusion and overclaiming too.

The fact is, there was overclaiming by all sides during the war. Some were worse than others, and some were bad at certain times, and not so bad at others. Very often sides which were claiming over enemy territory would overclaim more. However, it was not nessesarily the case, especially when as for example with the USAAF, they had guncams.

We know the Germans heavily overclaimed during the Battle of Britain. We also know the British heavily overclaimed during the 'KanalKampf', or the war over the channel in '41/'42. We also know the Soviets heavily overclaimed during '41/'42, and their average overclaim was at least 4-1. Japanese claims were also very suspect, likely being up in the area of 4-1. Italian were around 3-1.

For the Germans, British and Americans, the overclaim seems to be between 1.5 and 2 to 1.


Cheers RAF74 Buzzsaw

SeaFireLIV
03-14-2004, 01:36 PM
Ha! Sundays, eh? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

SeaFireLIV...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/storm.jpg
Soon... Very soon....

VO101__Kurfurst
03-14-2004, 02:09 PM
First I would like to gratulate to Buzzsaw for his objective and through post.

However it should be noted that according to the claim list on Tony Wood`s site, provided it`s complete, none of those claims by Marseille, Stahlschmidt, Lieres and Steinhausen were accepted : there`s no Anerkennung report for them, or maybe some/all were accepted, but the papers are lost. According to Tony Wood, the only claim accepted for the 1st of September is that of Gustav Roder`s from II/JG 27 over a P-40, SE. at 7:01. Another claim over a "P-46" by Rudolf Sinner, is noted as ASM, which means the confirmation is under process and may be accepted later on.

I would like to point out the main difference. As Buzzsaw showed, overclaiming by pilots was common on all sides, and the reason for that are quite obvious : heat of battle, confusion, loosing sight of the enemy etc. On the large scale, it can be fairly safely assumed the overclaiming factor was similiar for all sides facing the same circumstances.

The difference in the overall picture is how much work was put in validating the claims of pilots. To my knowladge, the VVS and LW rules in that regard were quite strict, requiring witness and some kind of proof, preferably the wreck itself to validate the claim. This made proving the claims complicated, and the actually accepted kills were in all cases much less than the number of claims by pilots, but the High Command got a better picture what was happening on the front. For example, when the P-38s of the 14th FG and our Bf 109s clashed on the 14th July, 1944, our pilots claimed 9 P-38s shot down. The real number was 5 (again it shows as apprx. 1,5-2 overclaim factor), as 2 P-38 limped back to the base heavily damaged, others with less damage, these were believed to be shot down. These pilots, despite all evidence, still believe they scored 9 of them on that day, but their kills were "unfairly" given to the AA gunners.

However, and this is where the difference comes, the confirmation system was strict. It allowed no more kills to be accepted than for proof was given. There were only 5 P-38 wrecks found on that day - so only five were confirmed.

A much better question than how accurate the German claims were is that what numbers are actually in the public opinion ? Total number of claims, or the officially accepted number of kills ? I tend to believe it`s often the first case, and books mostly repeat the total claims made by the pilot rather than the actual confirmed number, save in a few better researched cases, which are rare examples, "popular" works tend to rule the market. That would give an optimistic picture of the real tally of German aces, but in some way it is fair, considering that the Germans most likely didn`t overclaim any more than the Western Allies (who`s score was much harder, if not impossible to validate, as they were flying over enemy territory, and no such rigourous confirmation system existed), who basically list claims just as well instead of confirmed kills.

As for the main question : "Were German claims highly over inflated?" I think the answer is no. I see no reason why Germans would overclaim more than others, their system was certainly very strict to prevent that as much as possible, they needed witness even to file a claim. Of course by no means it was 100% accurate, but there is no such thing in war. As for their finaly tally.. Hartmann participated in how many - 800? - aerial engagements. I have no trouble believing he shot down a plane on every 2nd sortie, on avarage. He fought a lot, and his ability to survive all those engagement is probably more stunning than the number of victories he gathered during that long time.

Slickun
03-14-2004, 08:44 PM
Like the man said, figure an overclaim of 2 to 1 and you are close to the truth.

Gross overclaim? Nah. Just the usual overclaim.

RicknZ
03-14-2004, 11:15 PM
A: All sides overclaimed, though except on rare occasions not maliciously (mainly due to smokey engines on planes in a dive or combat stress etc)

B: Without a SHADOW of a doubt german checking was the most stringent of the lot. You can whine as much as you like amount there fantastic record vs russia but those figures stand. Youll have more luck discrediting evolution than german fighter scores.

horseback
03-14-2004, 11:26 PM
What people fail to factor into the 'claiming' issue is that we are dealing with extremely competitive young men performing under extreme stress. Culture also comes into play here, too.

Different cultures have different tolerances for exaggeration, and some things don't always translate well. This has lead to misunderstandings in this forum rivaling those with your significant other who KNOWS what you meant when you thought you were saying something else entirely.

We can, however, come to some general conclusions. Defending over your own territory enhances your chances to judge your opponents' losses accurately, as well as your fighter pilots' chances of scoring.

Germany and its allies were doing most of their fighting in the air over their own territories after 1942, they had made limited provision for training new pilots to replace or supplement the existing cadres, and they flew aircraft largely comparable in terms of firepower and performance to those of their opponents. Most of the time they did so in skies so crowded with enemy aircraft that their enemies' hardest task sometimes was picking them out of the crowd.

This meant that the best of the existing pilots had no choice but to develop skills of a generally higher level than their individual opponents could achieve in fifty or even a hundred sorties spread over a year and largely spent forming up, climbing to altitude and traveling to the combat zone to find little if any enemy activity. Virtuousos like Rall developed a skill sufficient to be able to take out 3 P-47s by shooting out their crankcases, not the cylinders surrounding them, with a few well-placed cannon rounds each in a single sorty.

Most American or Commonwealth fighter pilots were lucky to have an enemy a/c show up in their gun camera film, much less have it show evidence that they hit one.

With sorties running as high as eight or nine hundred, and much more of each sorty's time actually spent in the combat zone, it is not unreasonable that several dozen Germans achieved 100+ kills, and that no Western pilots appear to have exceeded 40 over Europe. What does seem suspect to me is how few 100+ kill aces served against the West or scored heavily in the West after mid-1943.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

WarGod5475
03-14-2004, 11:39 PM
NO!!!! all the info i have read is that the answer is no.

If anyone over claimed it was american espicially
and then all other allies and prolly german the least.

but i have talked about this so much that i wont give any facts and by the way im american.

im just tired of the subject.

Udidtoo
03-14-2004, 11:56 PM
As many times as these come up I have always avoided the temtation to just post something to the effecy of " Well Duh!!

Horseback. spot on IMO. It just seems like common sense to me and you hit the nail on the head.

Good god, if you have flown over 500 sorties and in some cases exceeded 900. Well then you damned well should be good as any and better than most.Given the circumstances they flew under its not hard (if you think that is) to see why the Luftwaffe produced so many 100+ aces.

One of my favorite things about Janes WWII combat was those short interviews they had. Gunther Rall put it quite plainly and simple when he said " I want to mention" " We are often asked how we scored so many victories" " When we flew a mission we always found targets" "Many allied pilots flew their 50 missions without seeing a single German plane"

Did Germans overstate? Most certainly, as did everyone else. Did the do it grossly. Probably not all that much. My hats off to those select few who through a combination of Skill determination and just plain dumb luck beat the odds long enough to wrack up those impressive numbers

..............................
I always have just enough fuel to arrive at the scene of my crash.