How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ?

[String]

The thing is, to keep the morale up, the 8th airforce (and possibly the bomber command) didn't require any proof for any gunners claims. If he claimed that he had shot down 8 Fw190's then it counted as 8 Fw190 kills. Usually the same fighter downed was claimed by several gunners from different planes, and quite often the fighter was just damaged or even totally undamaged.

Fighter pilots atleast had to have someone to witness the kills or have wrecks on the ground if it took place over friendly territory.



EDITED:

Added a helpful link for you. *Click here*

[Demosthenes]

ORIGINAL: String

The thing is, to keep the morale up, the 8th airforce (and possibly the bomber command) didn't require any proof for any gunners claims. If he claimed that he had shot down 8 Fw190's then it counted as 8 Fw190 kills. Usually the same fighter downed was claimed by several gunners from different planes, and quite often the fighter was just damaged or even totally undamaged.

Fighter pilots atleast had to have someone to witness the kills or have wrecks on the ground if it took place over friendly territory.



EDITED:

Added a helpful link for you. *Click here*

I don't know, the Army was never into fooling itself. They wanted to know as sure as could be known what was actually happening. And in debriefings they did their best to reduce overclaiming so as to get an accurate picture of what they were accomplishing.

And claims did have to confirmed ie..whitnessed by others, I don't know where the guy in that link is coming from saying they just accepted them on face value.

[String]

Okay, another link then *Click here*

an extract from the webpage:
Even the best all-round armament was never enough. Deep penetrations in German territory turned out to be extremely costly. The most famous examples are the attacks on Regensburg and Schweinfurt: The first attack, on 17 August, resulted in the loss of 60 bombers out of a force of 363. Some consolation was found in the claims by the gunners, which amounted to a total of 228 enemy fighters shot down; even after careful evaluation of claims the 8th AF estimated the German losses to be between 148 and 100. In fact the Luftwaffe had lost only 25 fighters. A repeat attack on 14 October gave a confirmation, if any was necessary: 65 more B-17s were lost. The initial claim of enemy fighters downed was even higher than in the first attack, 288; but even the official figure of 104 was way above the real German loss: 35.

[Demosthenes]

ORIGINAL: String

Okay, another link then *Click here*

an extract from the webpage:
Even the best all-round armament was never enough. Deep penetrations in German territory turned out to be extremely costly. The most famous examples are the attacks on Regensburg and Schweinfurt: The first attack, on 17 August, resulted in the loss of 60 bombers out of a force of 363. Some consolation was found in the claims by the gunners, which amounted to a total of 228 enemy fighters shot down; even after careful evaluation of claims the 8th AF estimated the German losses to be between 148 and 100. In fact the Luftwaffe had lost only 25 fighters. A repeat attack on 14 October gave a confirmation, if any was necessary: 65 more B-17s were lost. The initial claim of enemy fighters downed was even higher than in the first attack, 288; but even the official figure of 104 was way above the real German loss: 35.

Yes Schweinfurt/Regensberg was a particularly rough raid. And of course gunners claimed planes destroyed that:
A) Were also claimed by other gunners, and
B) Aircraft that actually survived.

I'm not saying they didn't overclaim - everyone does. But what I am saying is that the AAF did not accept claims on face value for morale reasons, and we are talking about the accumulated total of aircraft actually destroyed by 8th AF over their two year war over Europe.

The Schweinfurt/Regebsburg double strike, which became known as Black Thursday, was the 8th's worst encounter in in it's history. It was not typical of the air war in general.

Also note that the AAF did indeed adjust down the claims that gunners made in the evidence sited above.

What started all this was El Cid's post that post war research showed that bombers actually accounted for the bulk of Luftwaffe fighters destroyed, and I think that was researched in the late 1970s or 1980s

[String]

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes

ORIGINAL: String

Okay, another link then *Click here*

an extract from the webpage:
Even the best all-round armament was never enough. Deep penetrations in German territory turned out to be extremely costly. The most famous examples are the attacks on Regensburg and Schweinfurt: The first attack, on 17 August, resulted in the loss of 60 bombers out of a force of 363. Some consolation was found in the claims by the gunners, which amounted to a total of 228 enemy fighters shot down; even after careful evaluation of claims the 8th AF estimated the German losses to be between 148 and 100. In fact the Luftwaffe had lost only 25 fighters. A repeat attack on 14 October gave a confirmation, if any was necessary: 65 more B-17s were lost. The initial claim of enemy fighters downed was even higher than in the first attack, 288; but even the official figure of 104 was way above the real German loss: 35.

Yes Schweinfurt/Regensberg was a particularly rough raid. And of course gunners claimed planes destroyed that:
A) Were also claimed by other gunners, and
B) Aircraft that actually survived.

I'm not saying they didn't overclaim - everyone does. But what I am saying is that the AAF did not accept claims on face value for morale reasons, and we are talking about the accumulated total of aircraft actually destroyed by 8th AF over their two year war over Europe.

The Schweinfurt/Regebsburg double strike, which became known as Black Thursday, was the 8th's worst encounter in in it's history. It was not typical of the air war in general.

Also note that the AAF did indeed adjust down the claims that gunners made in the evidence sited above.

Even with adjustment they are 4-500% overclaims, compared to 1-200% overclaims of fighter pilots.

But then again, seems like nothing I can do will change your opinion. I COULD go and investigate in archives etc and provide you with exact german fighter loss data... but why do a job that has been done already?

I refuse to derail this thread further and I will not post on this matter again. Believe what you wish, I've said all i've had to say.

[Mike Scholl]

Some elements of truth on both sides of this discussion. The Eight (and Fifteenth) Air Force DID break the back of the Luftwaffe. But not with just bombers.
In 1943, the Bombers (17's and 24's) raids forced the Luftwaffe to bring the majority of it's fighters back to guard german skies. The bombers did shoot down quite a few Luftwaffe fighters, but they weren't winning the air war. That occurred when the long ranged escorts (P-51's primarily) started escorting the bombers all the way and back in the Spring of 1944. The combination of heavily armed bombers and long ranged escorts proved too much for the Luftwaffe to keep up with. While 1944 was the peak year of German Fighter Production, it was the Eight Air Force that was roaming German Skies at will by the Summer of the year.

[el cid again]

Ofcourse all bomber gunner kills are horrribly inflated. All claims were counted as kills. IIRC it was quite usual for a heavy raid to claim 200 fighters shot down while actually only 20 were.

There is a lot of evidence that all air forces overstate all claims in all wars. This usually comes out only after we get the information from both sides - and sometimes we never do figure it out. But how can you know that "actually only 20 were" for any particular airplane - the one claiming 200? Bombers (especially in US service) rarely made raids alone in ETO (whereas in PTO a lone patrol bomber was common). If you are part of a box formation involving 48 heavies, or a major formation of wing or multiple wing size, many planes are shooting at the same fighter: how could you say for sure the plane claiming to shoot it down didn't? [Of course, you could say for sure that 9 different planes claiming the same kill did not individually kill it, but in that case it is customary to score the kill - and call it "shared."]

[el cid again]

EDIT: String, I see you are from Estonia. I know from friends I have had over the years who were born and raised in Eastern Europe that WWII history is taught differently from how it's taught in the West (both sides stress their contribution and downplay the other sides...ie - West Front / East Front).
Be that as it may, I believe the strategic air war over Europe, particularly over Germany, has always been regarded being decided by USAF and RAF, even though a large portion of the Luftwaffe was in the East along side the Whermacht.

Although I thank you for defending me (Demosthenes), and although I know (from reading the materials used) you are right about the way the Soviets taught history, in fairness I must say that we are almost as bad:
The Germans never had less than 2/3 of their forces facing the Russians, and we often pretend it was not the Red Army which defeated the Wehrmacht. Other than Eastern Front fans, it is hard to find anyone who thinks the Eastern Front mattered - when in fact it is hard to imagine victory without it. We also inflate the significance of our aid to the USSR: it amounted to about 10% of what they produced and it was virtually never first line material from their point of view (that is, an elite unit given its choice would rarely pick US material, as in fighter planes). The Russians were even worse - if you believe their version they did everything - we barely even fought the Japanese! But we really do have a tendency to downplay the impact of the Eastern Front in ETO.

[el cid again]

I don't know, the Army was never into fooling itself. They wanted to know as sure as could be known what was actually happening. And in debriefings they did their best to reduce overclaiming so as to get an accurate picture of what they were accomplishing.

And claims did have to confirmed ie..whitnessed by others, I don't know where the guy in that link is coming from saying they just accepted them on face value.

This is correct. No claim was counted if not confirmed. That does not mean it was true - but it is not the same as counting every claim either.

[el cid again]

I will stipulate that the quote given by String is true. And I note it means he is wrong when he posts the USAAF did not require confirmation. It is IN his quote! The claim, and the "careful examination" resulting in a reduced claim. This is very similar to what happened with other air-air combat claims. The real result virtually always is that "confirmed claims" are exaggerated. The only thing that varies is the proportion by which they are exaggerated. It is STILL said the US achieved fantastic kill ratios over Korea - in spite of scholarship establishing this was not the case - we are quite emotional about it - and I once thought it was a good thing posting on FYEO site did not result in fist fights because of the reaction I got from quoting a scholarly work about it!

Okay, another link then *Click here*

an extract from the webpage:
Even the best all-round armament was never enough. Deep penetrations in German territory turned out to be extremely costly. The most famous examples are the attacks on Regensburg and Schweinfurt: The first attack, on 17 August, resulted in the loss of 60 bombers out of a force of 363. Some consolation was found in the claims by the gunners, which amounted to a total of 228 enemy fighters shot down; even after careful evaluation of claims the 8th AF estimated the German losses to be between 148 and 100. In fact the Luftwaffe had lost only 25 fighters. A repeat attack on 14 October gave a confirmation, if any was necessary: 65 more B-17s were lost. The initial claim of enemy fighters downed was even higher than in the first attack, 288; but even the official figure of 104 was way above the real German loss: 35.

[el cid again]

Even with adjustment they are 4-500% overclaims, compared to 1-200% overclaims of fighter pilots.

Wow. ONLY 200% overclaims. Now that is good data! Even with 400% overclaims, the bombers may well have killed more fighters than the Mustang did.

[el cid again]

The bombers did shoot down quite a few Luftwaffe fighters, but they weren't winning the air war. That occurred when the long ranged escorts (P-51's primarily) started escorting the bombers all the way and back in the Spring of 1944. The combination of heavily armed bombers and long ranged escorts proved too much for the Luftwaffe to keep up with. While 1944 was the peak year of German Fighter Production, it was the Eight Air Force that was roaming German Skies at will by the Summer of the year.

While I agree with the statement that both fighters and bombers mattered when we began long range escort, it is a misnomer - KNOWN AT THE TIME - that it didn't win the war. The statistical analysis indicated that the total cost of repairing the damage inflicted was a small (SMALL) fraction of the cost of inflicting it (never more than a third, often less, particularly early on). Hopes (and these were strongly held by bomber generals) that the enemy would surrender due to the air campaign never had any chance of realization, and eventually Churchill had to put his foot down and insist the invasion not be postponed in favor of such concepts. In spite of this, the American bomber politics - which had to justify daylight bombing raids - was so strongly advocated its propaganda STILL makes converts (although not very many among the bomber crews themselves).

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The bombers did shoot down quite a few Luftwaffe fighters, but they weren't winning the air war. That occurred when the long ranged escorts (P-51's primarily) started escorting the bombers all the way and back in the Spring of 1944. The combination of heavily armed bombers and long ranged escorts proved too much for the Luftwaffe to keep up with. While 1944 was the peak year of German Fighter Production, it was the Eight Air Force that was roaming German Skies at will by the Summer of the year.

While I agree with the statement that both fighters and bombers mattered when we began long range escort, it is a misnomer - KNOWN AT THE TIME - that it didn't win the war. The statistical analysis indicated that the total cost of repairing the damage inflicted was a small (SMALL) fraction of the cost of inflicting it (never more than a third, often less, particularly early on). Hopes (and these were strongly held by bomber generals) that the enemy would surrender due to the air campaign never had any chance of realization, and eventually Churchill had to put his foot down and insist the invasion not be postponed in favor of such concepts. In spite of this, the American bomber politics - which had to justify daylight bombing raids - was so strongly advocated its propaganda STILL makes converts (although not very many among the bomber crews themselves).

CID. Please READ the post before you respond!! My statement was "weren't winning the air war. ". That's AIR WAR..., not war. All I would ever claim for "strategic bombing" was that by the time Germany actually got around to actually trying to fully mobilize it's economy for war, strategic bombing began to force dispersion (the enemy of rationalization) of those industries and prevented the Krauts from ever achieving all that they were theoretically capable of.

[joliverlay]

1. Prior to introduction of fighter escorts the allied forces were losing the daylight air war. As penetrations got deeper into Germany the losses were not sustainiable.

2. After the very costly raids on the ball bearing plants the 8AAF changed tactics admitting that unescored raids were not going to be successful. Prior to that they USAAF doctrone stressed the bombers could operate without escort. They learned this was not true the hard way.

3. The Mustang was NOT designed for air to air it was designed for ground support. It was found to be a wonderful air to air fighter by good fortuneor accident. It was not due to a delibreate design.

4. FW190s were NOT better than 109s at high altitude. In his book "The First and the Last" Adolph Galland even discusses the use of heavy and light groups. While often this was a reference to the gun armement of the fighers, it was Galland's intention to use lightly armed Me 109s against Allied fighters and heaviliy armed 190s against the bombers. The 190s (before the D model) were not good at high altitude compared to the 109s. The problem was Hitler forbade the head of german figher forces (Galland) from assigning units specifically to combat the escorts. The bombers were given top priority, and the formation of 109 escort killing units was forbidden. Thus they armed the 109s with heavy cannon.
Many german aces continued to fly 109s throught the war (or until they could get into the jets with JV44).

5. The 109 series remained competative with Allied fighters in the varients NOT armed for attacking bombers. The G5/G6 marks designed without heavy cannon and late war G10s and K series were very close in performance to aircraft produced in their timeframe. Thus the G5/G6 high altitiude versions of the 109 series used to attack allied recon aircraft were very good, but were only produced in limited numbers and not at all suited for attacking bombers. While the later allied planes were better, the Spitfire, Hurricane, and Me109 need to be given alot of credit for flying competatively (Spitfire and Me109) over the entire war.

6. Regarding the notion that the Red Army broke the back of the Luftwaffe. If you look at the disposition of fighter gruppen you will see that the figher arm was crippled by the daylight combat in the west. Most of the fighter gruppen wereeturned to Germany, Italy, etc. during the bomber offensive. Very few fighter gruppen remained on the russian front. They were not needed. Of course it is correct that most of the Army units and Luft. ground support units remined on the Russian front.

[Demosthenes]

You know, it's very hard to find any data online on this subject. I found all kinds of data about USAAF losses - but very very little about Luftwaffe losses.[:(]

[pauk]

ORIGINAL: String

The thing is, to keep the morale up, the 8th airforce (and possibly the bomber command) didn't require any proof for any gunners claims. If he claimed that he had shot down 8 Fw190's then it counted as 8 Fw190 kills. Usually the same fighter downed was claimed by several gunners from different planes, and quite often the fighter was just damaged or even totally undamaged.

Fighter pilots atleast had to have someone to witness the kills or have wrecks on the ground if it took place over friendly territory.



EDITED:

Added a helpful link for you. *Click here*

I have same data as String, but than again, i'm coming from ex-Yugoslavia....

BTW, my data coming from western authors, like Peter Hinchliffe (The Other Battle), who flew with Bomber Command....

[ChezDaJez]

In spite of this, the American bomber politics - which had to justify daylight bombing raids - was so strongly advocated its propaganda STILL makes converts (although not very many among the bomber crews themselves).

That's why you have to take the data in the US Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS) with a grain of salt. One of the primary purposes of the document was to justify the creation of a seperate military service, the USAF. There are so many instances in it where the research is either incomplete or simply missing altogether. It was a rush job pure and simple and presents several wrong conclusions such as the impact the USAAF had on the Japanese land transportation system. IRL it was minimal but the USAAF claimed that it had virtually destroyed the entire rail system with only a passing mention of Navy strafing attacks that had far more impact on it. Not that strafing counted for much either. The Japanese land transportation system was totally inadequate and woefully inefficient even before Doolittle's raid and was in a near state of collapse by mid-44.

I would agree that the B-17 probably did score more air-air kills on the western front than any other allied aircraft. On the eastern front it was probably a Yak or Mig fighter that held the record. My guess (and its only a guess) is that Germany probably lost more aircraft in combat on the eastern front than on the western.

Chez

edit: inserted the word allied in last paragraph.

[Hoplosternum]

I am very sceptical that the B-17 shot down the most planes in the ETO. Germany never really hurled the number of badly trained forces at the enemy that the Japanese did. They fought off 8AAF in '43 and then lost to it in '44 when they came back escorted. I don't doubt that the bombers shot down their fair share but we are only talking hundreds a month for a few months before the Luftwaffe were all but knocked from the skies. The Luftwaffe were beaten by about May '44.

On top of that the bomber kills would have to be split between B-17s and B-24s. The fighters between Lightnings, P-47s and Mustangs. I doubt any one of these types gets the prize for most kills in the ETO. While they were instrumental in wiping out the luftwafe as an effective force the Luftwafe itself had never really grown to the sort of size that physically provided the numbers for such a short (few month) campaign to do that.

Just consider the numbers of planes likely to have been shot down by the Bf 109 over Poland, France, in the Battle of Britain, two years in North Africa, Yougoslavia, Greece, Russia in '41, '42 and '43. All before the B-17s bombing and the rest of the US onslaught had really geared up. That happened in the early months of '44. It was brutal and effective. But far too short for any 'most ETO' kill records.

As for figures in support of the Bf 109 I don't have any to hand. But until late '43 the Bf 109 was still being built in larger numbers than the Fw190 so it WAS the Bf 109 that was likely doing most of the work. From Williamson Murray (new fighter production):

Month Bf 109 Fw 190
June 43 663 109
July 43 704 169
Aug 43 515 159
Sep 43 525 167
Oct 43 556 127
Nov 43 472 114
Dec 43 350 313

The operationally ready fighter force during the second half of '43 was about 1100. Not a significant increase on it's Battle of Britain or Barbarossa levels. Even losing about half of that a month for a few months (and it never got much worse than that) there are just not enough kills to go around. By mid '44 numbers of ready fighters were down to about 500. There just are not enough. Split 5 ways [:)] to let the B-17 (or any other US type) get that prize IMHO.

[Przemcio231]

Well the Fritz didn't put up a good show ober Poland in 1939 shooting down about 70 planes of all types in air to air combat and the Polish P.11C shoot down 147 german planes[:D] not a bad result for a outnumbered and obsolete air force... As for Western Front Bombing Campaign the Germans lost the fight when most of Allied fighters were transfered from Close Escort to Search and Destroy Missions...[:D][:D][:D] And BTW i read a book about a special German strike unit wich was designed as some kind of Kamikaze they were supposed to Ram allied Bombers... and from what i know they flew one mission of this type... Any way as for Eeastern Front Germans didn't have to keep lots of Fighters there as Russian flyers were more green then the Japs... compare the number of Victories of Sakai or some US ace to the German aces that fought on the East and they are about 50 or 60% bigger then those of Sakai and US pilots...

[Fishbed]

We also inflate the significance of our aid to the USSR: it amounted to about 10% of what they produced and it was virtually never first line material from their point of view (that is, an elite unit given its choice would rarely pick US material, as in fighter planes).

?? Are you sure of what you say El Cid? [&:]
Im not especially a western ally fanboy, and Im with those who recognize the importance of the eastern front - but I do not agree on lowering the importance of the Lend-Lease in the Russian fashion (nor anyway exagerrating it the US fashion neither). You have not to forget to remember splitting the LL help in two categories: combattant and logistics/ressources.
When it comes to combattant, it is true that a large part of the help was considered as not that useful (especially early british tanks, or Hurricanes) even if some of them were eventually put in service with changes (refit for the Hurry, new engine for the Warhawk, etc..) or in special use the Russian aircraft didn't use to have at this moment (ground straffing for LL P-47, high-altitude interception for the middle-mark Spitfires for instance). BUT it is also known that some other materials, the Shermans for instance, were "best-sellers", especially to Guard units.
Ok, at first sight, a sherman 76 may look like a toy, when compared to the punishment a T34/85 may take and give, and when it comes to pure performances, on the paper the T34 was with no doubt a better all-around machine. But we musn't forget neither everything the T34 lacked, especially when it comes to crew facilities. The fact is that nevertheless, Guards units had LL material for several reasons: radios for every crew (something definitely lacking in the normal tank units), somewhat cosy interior for a tank (even if sometimes the leather was taken off at the arrival...), better optics than the russian ones, rubber everywhere in the tracks, well it may not prove serious matter for us when we look at the technical data, but for the people fighting inside, it did. [:)]
Ok, it had its big flaws, and burnt easily, but I have to be fair on this point even if Im also a T34 fan, many Guards liked it because it was a crew-friendly tank, unlike its Russian counterparts...

Just found it after some minutes of search
Take a look at this testimony for instance, from a former Gvardia Tankman
http://www.iremember.ru/tankers/loza/loza1.html

LL planes were in the same fashion sent to Guards Air Regiments for the main same reasons: mainly radios and good confort in fighting condition rather than pure performance, where planes like the later Lavokhin or Yak had the point. But the experience of Pokryshkin shows it, having a radio simply changes the way you're shooting down people, and enable long-term team tactics, something non-radio planes didn't allow (usually, until late in the war, russian geared regiments had only a radio for the squadron leader...).

At last, because Ive got 1 minute left [:)], about the ressources, we shouldn't forget the allied help when it comes to trucks or jeeps was especially important in the logistic effort of the red army, and the Soviets literally equipped new (not to say the real first) motorized infantry units with these new machines. It is mainly the result of poor industrial planification maybe, but that was a capital step forward for many units.
And not to mention very important help in the form of air-refined gasoline of good octane, thousands of kilometers of rail, dozen of locomotives (1945 war railway system of USSR was significally constituted of US made materials), tons of meat and combat rations, things USSR couldn't or didn't have the time to built or produce. Economically speaking, anyone working of the LL will admit this help proved to be fundamental to Soviet war effort - it is admitted Russians may have won at the same speed without Shermans or Cobras, but certainly not without these resources. [:)]

AJ