PDA

View Full Version : So how many kills did the 109 get?



k5054
12-19-2004, 06:31 AM
In its whole combat career, how many kills were achieved by the Bf109? Was it more than the number of 109s built?

This thread carries over from the P-38 discussion on ORR, of which I'll quote some to start...

Me:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Well, no more than 30,000 109s were lost to all causes, mostly in air combat as opposed to flak.
Yet that old dog scored at least 30,000 kills, around 10,000 more than its nearest rival, and more than, say, all the US kills by all services in all theatres. A one-to-one kills/ac built is a very rare achievement. (Most US fighters got nowhere near that, with just one exception.) 109 has a good claim to being the greatest fighter of all time, based on those stats. I don't think it can have been too hard to fly, can it?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Korolov:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The amount of accidents recorded for the Bf-109 seem to suggest it was a poor plane to stick inexperienced pilots into - with the narrow track landing gear and nearly uncontrollable torque. I also highly doubt that the Bf-109 shot down 30,000 enemy aircraft. Although I don't deny it wouldn't be possible, given how the soviets deployed many aircraft and the plane was fighting in 1937 and from 1939 to 1945, across multiple fronts. The Fw-190, for example, started it's combat tour in 1942. The 109 is not exactly a good comparison - there were few aircraft which had such a long service life at the time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Me:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Did the 109 shoot down 30,000 enemy aircraft?
Well, somebody had to, the LWs enemies lost around (I can't verify these figures, they are low side estimates) 50,000+ (soviet) and 20,000+ (western allies) in the war. Allowing for flak, and allowing that 109 scored way more than 190, and that the 110 is a relatively minor player (although it probably had more kills than P-51), the 30,000 is a reasonable guess. Maybe someone with more LW knowledge than I can add something. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Korolov:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Allowing that the 109 killed 30,000 enemy aircraft, as you suggest, leaves the 190 for 20,000 downed and the 110 for 20,000 downed. Or if you want to figure it more accurately, take away 5,000 from the 110s and give them to various bomber kills. That means that the 110 killed 15,000 - and, with assumption - losing every 110, means 6,000 110s lost. That means that the 110 killed more than 2 to 1 and the Fw-190 was 1 to 1.

I highly doubt those figures. The losses appear accurate, but the kill count for the 109 is beyond belief. It wasn't a super plane either, you know.

So if we look at it FAR more accurately, and assume that the majority of the Soviet and Allied losses were due to flak, lets say the Bf-109 destroyed maybe 15,000. That sounds reasonable enough. The Fw-190, 7 to 10,000, perhaps. Bf-110 not destroying more than 5,000. Maybe 2,000 or thereabouts for bomber kills. Those kill counts make a lot more sense when looking at the grand scheme of things; especially since flak caused far more losses than ATA combat could ever hope to. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I don't claim to know for sure, I'm ranging my best guess against Korolov's best guess.

Does anybody have any better data?

mynameisroland
12-19-2004, 07:08 AM
No hard figures Unfortunately but..

I have a book on LW aces - there were more than 100 LW aces who achieved 100 or more kills so that is at least 10000 Aerial Victories alone - I think the real figure is 13,000 or 14,000 thats is for only 100 pilots....

The 109 would have had over 20000 kills easily. In 1941 to the start of 1942 the Red Army Air Force lost 20000 planes alone to all causes. Many through ground attack but there were thousands air to air.

Also another way to look at this is individual Staffel Victories some units like JG52 had over 3000 kills alone.

p1ngu666
12-19-2004, 07:23 AM
claimed kills, and real kills are different.
rule of thumb is to devide by half.
russian, kills where much harder to confirm, and otheres somewhere in between.

for example, in BOB the RAF didnt exist, had minus planes, if u belive lw kill claims http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
RAF strength was about the same as the start...

F19_Ob
12-19-2004, 07:54 AM
How many kills an ac as a whole got during the war actually say almost nothing of the planes actual capabilities compared to other ac.
Thats a reason for the missunderstandings regarding famous planes and their actual capabilities.
In that type of counting there are many bounces wich say nothing, and lots of shot down unarmed planes wich also say nothing.
It also matters if the opponent is a rookie or experienced wich almost never is taken into count and the number of planes in the individual fights matter also, for example if 40 bf109's shot down 9 spits and so on....so actually how many kills a planetype gets say very little indeed.
The only real way to know for sure is to test them with equal pilots for long periods of time.
that seldom happened, hence the errors.
A thought to keep in mind.


cheers. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

VW-IceFire
12-19-2004, 08:33 AM
All I can say is that Koro has a very serious point when mentioning flak. Its a huge killer of Allied planes, particularly in the last year of the war during the invasion of the west. There were very high concentrations of guns and very high losses due to flak more than fighters.

Zmir88IAP
12-19-2004, 08:49 AM
10000 is max. possible. But all: Air+ground kills.

k5054
12-19-2004, 09:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
How many kills an ac as a whole got during the war actually say almost nothing of the planes actual capabilities compared to other ac. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe, but if while that aircraft was your only single seat fighter your forces could, for instance, conquer Poland, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, France, Yugoslavia and Greece (not sure if I missed any out), wouldn't that mean the fighter had done pretty well as far as its contribution to its country's war effort?

I know the kill count isn't everything, but it is something. The 109's kill count is evidently (to me, at least) higher than that of any other aircraft. Doesn't that mean anything?

LStarosta
12-19-2004, 09:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I know the kill count isn't everything, but it is something. The 109's kill count is evidently (to me, at least) higher than that of any other aircraft. Doesn't that mean anything? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The 109 achieved no kills. It was the pilots that flew them. And that is a BIG point. Unlike pilots of other nations, Luftwaffe pilots were rarely sent into reserve units for a cool down period every two months or so like RAF pilots were. The Luftwaffe juiced everything they could out of their pilots. While the most successful pilots in the RAF were quickly retired to Operational Training Units or administrative jobs, the Luftwaffe kept their pilots, whether Sergeant or Colonel on combat duty practically their entire career. And this was a big difference which contributed to many German pilot's big kill figures, especially since competition for kills was encouraged at the individual, Staffel, and Geschwader level.

Another thing to consider is that the 109 in all its variants was the most produced aircraft in history, even up until now. Total number of kills scored by pilots flying this airplane will be quite high for that reason, if no other.

Also, remember that German pilots on the Eastern front were shot down, returned to unit and sent back into combat usually the next day, much like the RAF did in the Battle of Britain. And if you note the number of kills scored by RAF pilots during the Battle of Britain, and then afterwards, you will see a big difference in the fact that many more kills were made within a single month or less in the BoB than in the rest of their careers. This is due to the fact that there was a) a beautiful invitation (read: opportunity) from the Germans to destroy scores of German aircraft (especially after Goring ordered fighters to fly co-level with the bombers), and b) MUCH different policy in RAF brass to keep successful pilots on the front at this critical time, much like the Luftwaffe policy throughout the entire war.

Tully__
12-19-2004, 09:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
The 109's kill count is evidently (to me, at least) higher than that of any other aircraft. Doesn't that mean anything? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It may mean nothing more than pilots of 109's had more oppurtunities to shoot down unarmed planes or inexperienced piltos than pilots of any other type. Until you look at the tactical circumstances, the training levels of both the 109 pilots and their adversaries, the relative numbers of targets, whether the "target" aircraft were flying with instructions to concentrate on assigned tactical targets and avoid dogfighting with enemy fighters, number of sorties flown etc. you can draw no conclusions from a simple kill ratio or total number of kills figure.

Von_Zero
12-19-2004, 09:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LStarosta:
The 109 achieved no kills. It was the pilots that flew them.

Another thing to consider is that the 109 in all its variants was the most produced aircraft in history, even up until now. Total number of kills scored by pilots flying this airplane will be quite high for that reason, if no other reason. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
just to avoid confusions, the Il2 was the most produced aircraft in history, the 109 was the most produced fighter http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

LStarosta
12-19-2004, 09:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Zero:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LStarosta:
The 109 achieved no kills. It was the pilots that flew them.

Another thing to consider is that the 109 in all its variants was the most produced aircraft in history, even up until now. Total number of kills scored by pilots flying this airplane will be quite high for that reason, if no other reason. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
just to avoid confusions, the Il2 was the most produced aircraft in history, the 109 was the most produced fighter http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I stand corrected. You know what I meant, though. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

OldMan____
12-19-2004, 10:03 AM
easy guys easy. This is an information thread.. not a place for "your side plane was not as über as Isay it was" .

Lets just try to figure it out the number?

I guess sum all confirmed kill by squadron is the best guess.

WOLFMondo
12-19-2004, 10:05 AM
I've been reading up on the first IL2's and it seems 109 pilots would literally practice on them, letting new pilots get a taste of air to air combat with minimal risk to themselves...before they got rear gunners and escorts and started using defensive formations.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
All I can say is that Koro has a very serious point when mentioning flak. Its a huge killer of Allied planes, particularly in the last year of the war during the invasion of the west. There were very high concentrations of guns and very high losses due to flak more than fighters. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Reading about IL2 losses I'd say that flak was just as bad in the east.

KaRaYa-X
12-19-2004, 10:35 AM
I hope you guys know that JG52 alone(!!) scored at least 10.000 kills out of the estimated total of 70.000 of the Luftwaffe... they flew the Bf109 exclusively

So 10.000 is the MINIMUM estimation... Then again you will ahve count in the whole lot of kills achieved by all the other JGs such as JG2/5/26/27/51/53/54 to name some of the most famous

20.000 is a good guess (maybe a bit more)

PS: regarding over-claims

I guess as a LW pilot it was very very difficult to get a kill claim verified.

You needed at least 1 eye-witness (wingman, ground-forces, etc.) - better two. to get it verified.
The kill-report also was VERY detailed and consisted of two parts. A fill-in form that includes exact time of the encounter, planes types involved, ammunition types fired and spent, type of damaged inflicted to target, special events that happened, if the pilot/crew survived and if they did if they came down over enemy/friendly territory, etc. (list goes on)
Then there was an extra after-action report to be written by the kill-claimer himself AND the wingman(witness) if he of course saw the kill...

Even for famous aces it was pretty hard to get kills verified. There is a famous quote from Gerhard Barkhorn (301 kills - best friend of Hartmann). When he saw that his kill would probably not be accounted for he used to say:

"Gebt ihn den Armen" (= Give it to the poor)

So to say that he didn't want to fight a kill claim over

LStarosta
12-19-2004, 10:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
easy guys easy. This is an information thread.. not a place for "your side plane was not as über as Isay it was" .

Lets just try to figure it out the number?

I guess sum all confirmed kill by squadron is the best guess. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who's bashing whose planes?



Karaya, that is all well and dandy, but do not deny that there were many pilots who were given the benefit of the doubt and were completely trusted with their claims. Not to say they didn't report in good will, but it's very easy to shoot down a plane, that unbeknownst to you, has already been damaged and claimed as a "kill" by someone else. Compare LW claims to allied losses, and you will see what I mean. While I agree that JG52 and other German units displayed great feats of airmanship, things such as kill claims were overstated not only by the Germans but by everyone else. It's getting pretty cliche now.

What I'm trying to say is, try to go more by the enemy's losses rather than just kill claims (or better yet, be a good statistician and combine and scrutinize both), and you will get a more accurate statistic.

mynameisroland
12-19-2004, 11:09 AM
Even Goering could not belive the LW claims on the Eastern front yet they were corroborated by actual events.

Those who think kill inflation was the casue of 100 plus aces ought to think again. Did you not read that the Red Air force lost 20000 aircraft in six months? Pilots like Marseille had in his log book accounts of how many rounds it took to get a kill. Also on Eastern front kills usually had to be seen by another pilot and a ground unit to be coroborated.

The LW was the strictest airforce when it came to awarding kills , there were no shared kills or half kills

BuzzU
12-19-2004, 11:16 AM
20,000 kills, but 15,000 sitting ducks.

PraetorHonoris
12-19-2004, 11:26 AM
Nonsense, I told you already.
Unless you call La5/7 and Yak9/3 in superoir numbers "sitting ducks". Try to inform yourself at least a bit about the air war in the east.

123-Wulf-JG123
12-19-2004, 11:34 AM
BuzzU wrote:
20,000 kills, but 15,000 sitting ducks.


And your point is? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Care to give sources for those figures Buzz? or did you just make it up to suit your argument?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

FatBoyHK
12-19-2004, 11:35 AM
I think Buzz was regarding to those pre-war planes that VVS used in the first year of the war... they are pretty sitting duck.... but nonetheless VVS fought on bravely http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

BuzzU
12-19-2004, 11:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
Nonsense, I told you already.
Unless you call La5/7 and Yak9/3 in superoir numbers "sitting ducks". Try to inform yourself at least a bit about the air war in the east. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those planes wern't around at the start of the war. You might want to look at the post I responded to. (right above mine) Try and keep up.

PraetorHonoris
12-19-2004, 11:43 AM
You are right, I am sorry.

HayateAce
12-19-2004, 11:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
Nonsense, I told you already.
Unless you call La5/7 and Yak9/3 in superoir numbers "sitting ducks". Try to inform yourself at least a bit about the air war in the east. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yeah, really challenging.

Horrido... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://www.ww2guide.com/il4.jpg

BuzzU
12-19-2004, 11:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
You are right, I am sorry. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No problem. I repect the German pilots. They were very good, but you do have to admit they had it pretty easy on the Eastern Front in the beginning?

PraetorHonoris
12-19-2004, 11:52 AM
I would never describe war as an easy thing, but in 1941 it was definitely easier than in 1944, yes.

GreyBeast
12-19-2004, 01:27 PM
Quote from Bill Gunston´s "Aircraft of World War 2":

"....in the hands of a true expert it was deadly. Several 109-equipped JG (fighter wings) had 1.000 victories before 1942, and some went on to exceed 7.000...."

While this doesn´t give an EXACT figure, if SEVERAL fighter wings exceeded 7.000 victories...

As to production numbers:

"German production in 1944-5 is impossible to assess accurately because hundreds of wings or fuselages were taken from bombed factories and built into fresh machines, but overall total including Spanish and Czech post-war output is estimated at 35,000."

123-Wulf-JG123
12-19-2004, 02:24 PM
I think some of you guys really are living in a fantasy world.
Have you ANY concept of what it took to even become a pilot in WWII, the training, exams, and hardship involved?
Have you ANY concept of life in a front line combat squadron in front line war conditions, where constant attacks, missions and hardship was the norm?
Have you ANY concept of how hard it was to even fly ONE mission safely never mind the hundreds that some ended up flying?
AND that is all without any actual combat...how some of you dimwits can have the perception, that somehow flying combat missions in which enemy aircraft were engaged, is "like shooting ducks in a barrel" only demonstrates that you truly know nothing, and are in fact, talking out of your posteriors.
WWII was REALITY, there were no "refly" buttons. If the flak,cold,hunger,enemy aircraft, didn't get you, there was always the strong possibility of mechanical failure lurking around the corner too....ANYONE that survived, was either really good, or really lucky.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Brotrob
12-19-2004, 02:56 PM
So..

..whats the point here ? Its not surprising, that a fighter,

-which was build more often than any other fighter, and
-which was used almost exclusivly for the first 3 years of WWII by the german fighter-wings,
-used by fighter pilots which flew till they died, were trained very good (for the first 4 years of WWII),
-used superior tactics against sometimes very inexperienced opponents
-was through all the time of WWII competive to most allied planes

summed up the more kills than any other fighter.

30000 german 109, yes of course they could have gained 30000 victories. No need to argue.
Just look at the kills of the elite-fighter-wings on the eastern front. Buy some of the very good Osprey books for example.

And for those who bring it up every time the german scores are discussed, please inform yourself a bit before you state that the Luftwaffe was a bunch of overclaiming liers. Inform about the differences for "kill-confirmation" in the airforces of WWII. You can read any book about this topic, from american, british or other authors, they all admitt that the german confirmation-system was one of the strictest , if not the strictest.

Best greetings

Brotrob

123-Wulf-JG123
12-19-2004, 02:58 PM
It WAS the strictest, no witness = no kill.

pourshot
12-19-2004, 03:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 123-Wulf-JG123:
It WAS the strictest, no witness = no kill. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It may have been the strictest but rules get broken all the time or they simply make mistakes, They are only human remember. The fact that records fail to support claims on both sides should be proof enough for this.

All sides overclaimed fact.

Now could the 109 have scored 30,000+, sure why not after all how many single engine fighters did the LW use.It's not like the allies who used dozens of models and so spread the kills out more evenly.

k5054
12-19-2004, 03:34 PM
The Luftwaffe pilots, or rather units, overclaimed like everyone else. The strict system was fine in theory but in practice was over-bureaucratic and still produced errors. The question is how much overclaim to allow. If there were truly 70,000 claims, where are the 70,000 losses?

RAF and CW losses in ETO and MTO were 22,000, this includes losses to flak, possibly 60% of the total, as most operations were over enemy territory. Also losses to Italian and maybe other axis forces (although they probably used 109s).
USAAF losses to enemy aircraft are listed separately, 6780 in ETO and MTO, also losses to Italian and other nations. That's from a total of 18,000 to flak,EA and other operational causes on combat sorties only.
That makes about 17,000 or so EA kills of Western Allies, perhaps another 1,000 or so from various other nations, France, Belgium etc.

Soviet total losses are listed as over 100,000, all causes, not just combat, including scrapped as beyond repair. 46,000 combat losses. Take away say 20,000 for flak etc, gives 26,000, add the US, RAF and others make 44,000.

All figures are only as good as the sources, I don't have faith that they are anywhere near exact.

Anyhow, 44,000ish take out 5,000 (or more?) for ZGs, KGs and NJGs and share the rest between 109 and 190, favouring 109, gives a figure more than 20k, less than 30k.

Non-connected fact I found, USAAF losses to Japanese aircraft total 1524.

berg417448
12-19-2004, 03:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 123-Wulf-JG123:
It WAS the strictest, no witness = no kill. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Soviet claims procedures were strict too. To get an individual claim, you had to:

1) have an independent witness, not part of your flight, or part of that combat engagement (ground observer, another flight nearby, etc.).
2) OR, have the wreckage of the victim on the ground
3) AND demonstrate that your actions alone were responsible for the claim."

LStarosta
12-19-2004, 03:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
Nonsense, I told you already.
Unless you call La5/7 and Yak9/3 in superoir numbers "sitting ducks". Try to inform yourself at least a bit about the air war in the east. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

D@mn straight. They sure had thousands of those in 1941/1942. Looks like the NKVD could give you some re-education.


I want to reiterate that kill claim inflation is NOT necessarily a factor of lying and purposefully overstating. Two, three, four, five... he1l, even a STAFFEL were sometimes claiming the same plane downed, and each claim was made sometimes as far as 50km away from the other. Most definately during large engagements over both the Western and Eastern front, it was IMPOSSIBLE to make fool proof claims. That's why the Germans introduced the MK108. They wanted any downed planes to be disintegrated wholly, instead of having a crippled plane be shot up 4 times, and each pilot being credited with a kill.

123-Wulf-JG123
12-19-2004, 04:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pourshot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 123-Wulf-JG123:
It WAS the strictest, no witness = no kill. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It may have been the strictest but rules get broken all the time or they simply make mistakes, They are only human remember. The fact that records fail to support claims on both sides should be proof enough for this.

All sides overclaimed fact.

Now could the 109 have scored 30,000+, sure why not after all how many single engine fighters did the LW use.It's not like the allies who used dozens of models and so spread the kills out more evenly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nowhere did I say that no-one overclaimed, the OKL bureaucracy was very strict though, and it could take up to a year for kills to be confirmed.

BuzzU
12-19-2004, 05:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 123-Wulf-JG123:
I think some of you guys really are living in a fantasy world.
Have you ANY concept of what it took to even become a pilot in WWII, the training, exams, and hardship involved?
Have you ANY concept of life in a front line combat squadron in front line war conditions, where constant attacks, missions and hardship was the norm?
Have you ANY concept of how hard it was to even fly ONE mission safely never mind the hundreds that some ended up flying?
AND that is all without any actual combat...how some of you dimwits can have the perception, that somehow flying combat missions in which enemy aircraft were engaged, is "like shooting ducks in a barrel" only demonstrates that you truly know nothing, and are in fact, talking out of your posteriors.
WWII was REALITY, there were no "refly" buttons. If the flak,cold,hunger,enemy aircraft, didn't get you, there was always the strong possibility of mechanical failure lurking around the corner too....ANYONE that survived, was either really good, or really lucky.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Matter of fact I do. Since I was born before the war. I have (had) lots relatives who were there.

CTO88
12-19-2004, 07:11 PM
Luftwaffe claimes are overclaimed like other nations. meanwhile soviet archives are openend more and more and show overclaiming by Luftwaffe.

take i.e. battle for kursk. Luftwaffe in the southern sector claimed 682 airkills in July (of those ~90% where confirmed). the soviet units in this sector only lost only 231 planes in aircombat. even if you doubt that soviet made figures are wrong, they lost in the whole only 555 airplanes in combat sorties (by aaa, crashes, destroyed on earth, aircombat). german Luftwaffe aaa claimed alone and at least 68 kills, not to mention Heeresflak by divisions.

so german overclaim rate can be settled between 1:2 and 1:3.

p1ngu666
12-19-2004, 08:30 PM
http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mags/fighterinwar/SIMG6562.JPG

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mags/fighterinwar/SIMG6563.JPG

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mags/fighterinwar/SIMG6565.JPG

the last page, is most important for this http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

i dont think 109 played a major part in norway and poland, not 100% sure tho

wayno7777
12-19-2004, 09:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
In its whole combat career, how many kills were achieved by the Bf109? Was it more than the number of 109s built?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Korolov:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The amount of accidents recorded for the Bf-109 seem to suggest it was a poor plane to stick inexperienced pilots into - with the narrow track landing gear and nearly uncontrollable torque. I also highly doubt that the Bf-109 shot down 30,000 enemy aircraft. Although I don't deny it wouldn't be possible, given how the soviets deployed many aircraft and the plane was fighting in 1937 and from 1939 to 1945, across multiple fronts. The Fw-190, for example, started it's combat tour in 1942. The 109 is not exactly a good comparison - there were few aircraft which had such a long service life at the time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



fyi. Out of the 33,000+ 109's built more than 11,000 were lost due accidents.

More digging to do.

IL2-chuter
12-19-2004, 09:56 PM
An interesting clock ticker (ALL speculation based on one's starting point).

As a side note - a quick check of strength reports (in no way thorough) suggests that there were never any more than 2000 109's at any one time (I have no idea about Il2's). And don't forget: that ****able narrow track gear of the 109 was wider than a Spitfire's! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif (A lot further forward of the CG though - that's the problem . . . that coupled with the negative camber . . . http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif)

FiNaZZi
12-19-2004, 09:56 PM
The RAF "loss system" was very controversial too... They did not consider an aircraft a complete write-off if any part of it was reusable, be it the engine, part of the fuselage, whatever. The germans may have indeed downed maybe 3/4's of their claimed aicraft, but the british wouldn't consider the "lost".
Also, lots of kills claimed by 2 or more pilots were usually given to a nearby flak regiment, alas the spitfire Robert Weiss downed in the day of his death. Last, but not least, the FW-190 was used in the eastern front mainly as a fighter-bomber, while the Me109 was in charge of air superiority(this wasn't a rule, some FW equipped squadrons were in charge of air superiority too, but it was not so common as the Me109, who were 100% air interception). In the west, the FW-190 fought for air superiority up to late 1943, when they got transferred to bomber interception and the Me109's were, again, in charge of fighter to fighter combat.
Me110 was a nachtflieger, so I gess that it's kills would be a little more overclaimed that the dayfighters

Tully__
12-19-2004, 10:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IL2-chuter:
...that ****able narrow track gear of the 109 was wider than a Spitfire's! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif (A lot further forward of the CG though - that's the problem . . . that coupled with the negative camber . . . http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

...and toe out rather than the more desirable toe in...

Luftwaffe_109
12-19-2004, 10:47 PM
The Luftwaffe's fighter force on the Ostfront averaged around 400-500 serviceable fighters (with a maximum at the time of invasion, in June 1941, of almost 700 planes, and a minimum in autumn of 1944). However, on the Ostfront the USSR lost well over 90,000 planes to all causes.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Those planes wern't around at the start of the war. You might want to look at the post I responded to. (right above mine) Try and keep up. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well at the begining of the invasion the VVS emplyed obsolete aircraft but this changed quite rapidly (one of the reasons being that so many were destroyed on the ground). For example, 1,200 Soviet Aircraft were destroyed in the first 9 hours of the invasion.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I would never describe war as an easy thing, but in 1941 it was definitely easier than in 1944, yes.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In case some people here fail to realise just how skewed the numbers were:

In mid-1944, the VVS was deploying over ten thousand aircraft along the Ostfront with at least 1,500 in STAVKA reserve. The Luftwaffe, on the other hand, had 1,600 to 2,000 deployed in the East, at the most.

At the very best, that's around 400 fighters, or less than one-tenth of the fighters deployed by the VVS.

CTO88
12-20-2004, 05:53 AM
in spite of this, luftwaffe mostly fought 1:1 cause luftwaffe often let parts of front completly alone.

also strongest fighters force at the eastern front was in 1945, when alone Luftflotte 6 had 1500 fighters and these were flying some 10000 sorties.

out of the 90000 planes ussr lost, there were 46000 in combat(sorties). luftwaffe figures are 98000 and some of 60000.

WOLFMondo
12-20-2004, 06:21 AM
Do any of those stats account for plane retirements or superceeded with new models and sent to the scrap heap?

k5054
12-20-2004, 07:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The RAF "loss system" was very controversial too... They did not consider an aircraft a complete write-off if any part of it was reusable, be it the engine, part of the fuselage, whatever. The germans may have indeed downed maybe 3/4's of their claimed aicraft, but the british wouldn't consider the "lost". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If it got back to the base OK, it wasn't a loss. It may or may not be classified cat E later, at the whim of an engineering officer. Just the same as what happened in the LW. Sometimes it seems the serial from an aircraft is the only part that survived the repair process, but that's the way it goes. Which part of an aircraft contains its soul? None of this affects the discussion here.

A few years ago a FW190 was recovered near Murmansk. It was found to be listed in LW records as 5-10% damaged. Modern-day researchers would not count it as a LW loss, although it landed out in the stocks and was never recovered by the LW. That's one of the perils of relying on the records.

I don't expect NJG claims to be less correct, there was a good chance of explosion or fire with the target, and less chance of duplication, two a/c firing at the same plane unaware of each other. The NJGs claimed 7400, the RAF lost 9000+, so the NJGs probably killed 4500ish. All over home territory so wrecks could be counted.

Did the OKL ever confirm the totally false claims submitted by members of II/JG27 in 1942?
A few of them got together to fire off their ammo into the sand and back up each other's claims. (They were punished when discovered).

LilHorse
12-20-2004, 10:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by F19_Ob:
How many kills an ac as a whole got during the war actually say almost nothing of the planes actual capabilities compared to other ac.
Thats a reason for the missunderstandings regarding famous planes and their actual capabilities.
In that type of counting there are many bounces wich say nothing, and lots of shot down unarmed planes wich also say nothing.
It also matters if the opponent is a rookie or experienced wich almost never is taken into count and the number of planes in the individual fights matter also, for example if 40 bf109's shot down 9 spits and so on....so actually how many kills a planetype gets say very little indeed.
The only real way to know for sure is to test them with equal pilots for long periods of time.
that seldom happened, hence the errors.
A thought to keep in mind.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How do bounces count for nothing? How many times does it have to be said here: 80% of all kills by fighters in WWII were by the bounce. That is, their victims either didn't have any idea what hit them or when they finally did it was too late.

And how do unarmed planes count for nothing? Destroying the enemy is all that matters.

This ridiculous asthetic of judging a plane based on which would win in a dogfight is something that comes out of the goofyness of the flight sim world. (Who'd win in a fist fight: D!ck Butkus or Ray Nitschke? Who'd win in a knife fight: Billie Holiday or Dinah Washinton?)

The question here is what is a reasonable assessment of the 109s kill numbers. That's what determes whether or not a given plane was a good fighter.

FiNaZZi
12-22-2004, 03:12 PM
Bumpadydooooo