Pilot Kills

[Charles2222]

Please delete this if it's too controversial, considering in particular that the following quote is from the recent closed thread, but here goes the quote followed by comments:

I wondered about this discrepancy for awhile and then I did some additional reading. (I suggest you consider that as well). You really need to look at number of sorties flown per pilot. German pilots frequently flew over their own territory. As a result, they were often able to return to their units in very short period of time and continue to fly. US pilots frequently flew over enemy territory. Once shot down, they often did not return to their units due to subsequent capture/death after landing. (This assumes either pilot survived being shot-down!)

Also, as already stated, US pilots used a rotation system. They flew XX number of sorties (actual number varied throughout the war)and then were pulled back and sent home or used as instructors. German pilots were there for the duration.

There is also some evidence that the German kill tallies might have been exaggerated. I read someplace that one German Ace on the eastern front returned from a sortie and claimed several Russian kills. Problem was, his ground crew discovered that he had not fired a shot! As a general rule, German "kills" were on the honor system. Whatever they claimed, they got credit for. US pilots only got "kills" if the enemy aircraft was shown going down on the gun camera. As a result it was much harder for US pilots to get credit for kills.

I'm not meaning to help JR here, but what the quote brings up is that home defenders more easily survive their "missions". I stress missions, because that's what we always hear that the home guy has the survival advantage, which makes good sense.

However, what about the pilots killed or wounded beyond returning to action, who were put into such conditions during air raids on their own airfield? I would like to think that the common talk about the home field having the advantage such as the Germany against the USAAF, or RAF against the Germans has put this matter nto comparison and that the home guy still has the advantage, but at least in the case of ME262 pilots, having your jet vulnerable during take-off and landing was a considerable risk, and that doesn't even speak to the risk of the guys who didn't get off the ground. What about it? Anyone know truly whether this adage of the home field having the advantage in being able to parachute over your own land, offsets the losses incurred through having you entire airfield exposed?

[Grumble]

T"here is also some evidence that the German kill tallies might have been exaggerated. I read someplace that one German Ace on the eastern front returned from a sortie and claimed several Russian kills. Problem was, his ground crew discovered that he had not fired a shot! As a general rule, German "kills" were on the honor system. Whatever they claimed, they got credit for. US pilots only got "kills" if the enemy aircraft was shown going down on the gun camera. As a result it was much harder for US pilots to get credit for kills."
Not true at all. German crews were required to either have gun camera footage, witness a bailout, and/or have their wingman confirm the kill. In fact, Goering issued a directive, reinforcing this as he thought the crews were overclaiming kills. US crews had the same criteria in actuality (explosion, crew bailout, hits the ground, wingman confirmation). The story about the "taped guns" is apochryphal.
There is no reason to believe that German claims are anything other than totally accurate. Had the Allies used their crews the same way, several Allied fighter crews would have tallies in the same ranges.

Getting shot down over your own airfield doesn't negate the fact that you still have a statistically better chance of returning to duty, than the crews doing the shooting. Sortie effectiveness (which is I submit what you are REALLY discussing when one is looking at missions destroyed before they can effect intercept, OCA etc) is one thing-recovery and return to duty is another.

[Nikademus]

I have heard it said that the US offset the usual disadvantage of having to fight over enemy territory by having a greater cadre of "mechanically inclined" manpower which made it easier to train them for such fields as operating an aircraft.

I've seen this "factor" in a variety of wargames. The old USAAF (wargame) for example stated in the rules book that when a German pilot was lost, when calculating the new "experience" level of the squadrons the replacments were assumed to have an exp rating of '0', hence if a good number of pilots were lost from a high exp unit their overall exp rating would drop dramatically.

For the US "player" the new squadron exp rating was calculated based on the replacement pilots having 2/3rd of the exp level of squadron they were joining, hence a US squadron that suffered heavy losses would suffer a less dramatic drop in overall experience.

"Mechanically inclined" was defined as having a large pool of manpower that were well familiar in the use, operation and even upkeep of machinery. Believe it was that way also to factor for the very large and thorough training pkg that the Allies were able to set up do to the luxery of near unlimited fuel resources whereas the German and Japanese training programs suffered from fuel shortages and lack of trained instructors resulting in their qualifying "flight hour" requirement getting shorter and shorter before earning their "wings".

One compensation to the German player though was that since the fight was over his "territory" there was a 50% chance each time a pilot was shot down that he would survive the event and therefore the squadron would only have to replace the machine, not the pilot.

For the US player if the plane was shot down it the pilot was automatically assumed permantly lost and a replacement pilot would have to be shipped in.

For the Germans i think the disadvantage was more due to the training pkg vs the "mechanically inclined" issue as Germany was a strong industrial power. The problem affected Japan more since even by the mid 20th century her society was still largely fuedal based with a large preportion of the population not having had alot of exposure to modern industrial factors.

Additionally, before the war Germany had what was essentially a 'love affair' with the airplane and there was alot of interest in the subject with the result that they'd developed a large cadre of manpower familar if not qualified to fly. Japan's air corp was always highly specialized due to the stringentness of it's training. They washed out and/or killed far more trainees than they passed.

The result was small but extremely qualified group of specialists but one that was very vulnerable to attrition.

[sinner]

In Adolf Galland biography, they explain a little the "big numbers" thing:

Luftwaffe gave one kill for every "engine" of a shot-down aircraft. That is, downing a B-17G means "4 kills".

Also. Remember that the Russians, at the start of the war had a lot of airplanes and bombers... but they were mostly obsolete. They had been good in the middle 30's... but in the early 40's they were a little behind. And this, added to the tactical & strategic surprise, make for a whole lot of kills. Marianas urkey shot anyone?

Also, beign the eastern front soooo big , well, having total fighter superiority is a little tough. So some Soviet bomber missions would fly over the target area unescorted. And then, the Me-109 (remember, very short range) would take off, intercept and make some kills, 1 kill per engine. Easy kills.

And even further, Luftwaffe had a very good shot-down pilots' rescue service.

I think all this together explains a lot of things about the big numbers.


Check six!

[gators]

Even if they were old Polikarpovs, Hartmann shot down a ton of planes/

[Charles2222]

Very nice comments there, but I don't know if I was totally understood, but my mentioning the 262s might've clouded things a bit. I mentioned the 262 because it took such a long runway that it was vulnerable during trying to take off (maybe landing required great distance too).

Anyway, what I was really talking about were pilots who didn't get off the ground, and were bombed/strafed while trying to scramble or in the barracks. Could the disadvanatge of having your airfield bombed, thus losing pilots on the ground, have had a greater loss factor than the pilots saved because they were over their own territory. I'm talking specifically about air situations where the offensive air force had very little if any chance of being bombed themselves, either because of one air forces shorter range, doctrine, or air superiority so intense.

My guess is that the factor of losing pilots on the ground has been neglected, because the focus is on 'survival if shot down", but when the focus is on "likelihood of pilot survival, whether home or abroad" as the theory is more directly worded (but possibly ignored), then aerial kills aren't the only factor that determines combat lifespan of pilots, for the attacker in the situation described is free of airfield pilot losses due to enemy attack.

[gators]

Charles you do have a point there. Training pilots, and other aircrew, was a fairly big investment. I know when the USN launched big airstrikes in the Pacific they posted subs to recover as many downed pilots as possible. I'm sure George Bush would tell you it was a grand idea. I know you have a valid idea I just can't cite you to any source that's researched it in detail. Maybe the Dupuys did something along those lines. I know anecdotally speaking the Stuka pilot Rudel was shot down a couple of times and made it to German lines, once he had to make his way back from behind the Soviet lines, It sounded hairy.

[Nikademus]

Originally posted by Charles_22:
Very nice comments there, but I don't know if I was totally understood, but my mentioning the 262s might've clouded things a bit. I mentioned the 262 because it took such a long runway that it was vulnerable during trying to take off (maybe landing required great distance too).

Anyway, what I was really talking about were pilots who didn't get off the ground, and were bombed/strafed while trying to scramble or in the barracks. Could the disadvanatge of having your airfield bombed, thus losing pilots on the ground, have had a greater loss factor than the pilots saved because they were over their own territory. I'm talking specifically about air situations where the offensive air force had very little if any chance of being bombed themselves, either because of one air forces shorter range, doctrine, or air superiority so intense.

My guess is that the factor of losing pilots on the ground has been neglected, because the focus is on 'survival if shot down", but when the focus is on "likelihood of pilot survival, whether home or abroad" as the theory is more directly worded (but possibly ignored), then aerial kills aren't the only factor that determines combat lifespan of pilots, for the attacker in the situation described is free of airfield pilot losses due to enemy attack.

Not only are the pilots a factor, they are THE most important factor

During the battle of Britian it was'nt lack of machines that was critical. British industry proved itself quite capable of keeping pace with the loss ratios. The critical issue was the rapidly shrinking cadre of qualified and/or experienced pilots. The Germans had an advantage there initially as they had a larger cadre and could better afford the "attrition" than the RAF could.

Things were getting very dicy for the British but a quirk of fate saved them. A German bomber got lost and accidently dropped it's loadout onto a residential area of London. Bomber command retaliated by hitting Berlin, leading to Hitler's famous and outraged decision to blitz British cities instead of keeping up the pressure on the RAF infrastructure.

[Charles2222]

Yes, i wonder whether the people that speak with authority on chances of pilot survival actually take into consideration that a number are lost on the ground. There's so much emphasis on aerial kills and it sounds like good reasoning on the face of it, but when you only consider one aspect of whether a pilot survives battle, while they're in the air, the whole theory is in question. I have my doubts that those lost on the ground were ever considered in this theory.

What makes it a bit more difficult to figure is the battles like those in the USSR, where it was fairly common for both sides to bomb each other's airfields. Of course in that case, depending on range to the target, in one attack Germany would have the home court and the disadvantage of possibly losing pilots on the ground, while possibly even the very next day those who had bombed before, in this case Russians, would then be subject to being bombed, possibly, and then they had the 'aerial' home court but the ground disadvantage.

[ July 12, 2001: Message edited by: Charles_22 ]

[Grumble]

In Adolf Galland biography, they explain a little the "big numbers" thing:
Luftwaffe gave one kill for every "engine" of a shot-down aircraft. That is, downing a B-17G means "4 kills".

Refuted after this was published, by Gunter Rall, and Erich Hartmann among others.

I think maybe the issue is clouded by the word "survival" versus maybe "wastage/attrition". Yes obviously, if you can hit my airfields and kill my crews on the ground (the best way to do this BTW) then my overall attrition MAY be higher than yours. Assuming your attrition due to my IADS, weather, your crew's competence is less than mine PER MISSION. Your attrition losses due to egress are directly unrecoverable whereas mine are-because they are in my territory ergo that's to my advantage. It's only at the point where my losses due to your OCA activity exceed yours that the attrition advantage falls to you.

[Charles2222]

Grumble: Very good. Yes, I thought I had read somewhere that there were attempts to claim that the German kills were bogus because of the engine thing, but I just can't recall where I saw it (perhaps Aces of the Reich in which I have a copy).

[Grumble]

I had read the same thing, along with the taped guns in a book written by ex-US fighter pilots, who obviously had HUGE axes to grind.
In this book, they also had problems with giving victories to WSOs in the "modern era"; in the context of Chuck DeBellvue having the highest score in Vietnam and he was a WSO! Perish the thought.

[sinner]

Originally posted by Grumble:

Refuted after this was published, by Gunter Rall, and Erich Hartmann among others.

Excuse my poor English, but...

What's the meaning of "Refuted"? This means that Rall & Hartmann agree with Galland? Or it means that they disagree?

Really, I do not understand.

[sven]

Originally posted by Sinner from the Prairy:


Excuse my poor English, but...

What's the meaning of "Refuted"? This means that Rall & Hartmann agree with Galland? Or it means that they disagree?

Really, I do not understand.

disagreed, and did not concur would be more accurate.

sven

[Gordon_freeman]

Dear all,

I am quiet surprised this theme takes so much emotions.
I would'nt really care on how many planes were shot down by whom, they are at the end just statistic!

One thing which really gets me is that u underestimate the ability of pilots, like that of Hartmann for instance.
The special ability of Hartmann was, as someone else said here in the forum somewhere, he was a great tactician. He was indeed cause he said "I choose where to hit and where to run!". He also was famous for being an outrage pilot, like a few other who flew so long (and I am not mentioning their shot down records). He also managed to never loose a wingman! That was the special thing about him. I remeber also a Japanese pilot (forgot his name) who never lost a wingman.
He lost one of his eyes over the solomons and was shifted back to Japan where he trained pilots. He flew an attack on one of the US fleets and was from about 30 planes the only one who came back with both wingman appart being chassed all the way through (I am not mentioning that he was once attacking 12 US fighter planes and survived it...).

Anyhow, there are so many stories of these stupid numbers of kills and there are even more stories of trying to explain how they were reached or "brought together". I remeber for instance that the ME 109 had a special "front wing" built into the wing which used to come out with a big "bang" when u curved around with high speeds. This sound never was explained in the last stages of the war to this young and unexpirienced pilots of the Luftwaffe resulting in a coupple of bailing outs during a fight cause they thought they have been hit badly and were credited as victories. I say this explains a lot as an example.

The very important thing about a pilot was his ability to fly with the aircraft he got! I know for instance that a ME 109 K was'nt like another ME 109 K. Hartmann for instnace had his ME 109 G specially choosen from his Rotte! It was the craft with the best abilities while flying. And it was normal for the German commanding officers to have the best planes reserved for them, i.e. the "faulty" ones where left to the worse pilots. I simply guess that this happens to other airforces as well. Another example of how kills could come together...

The thing about the German Aces were that the high scoring aces were well trained and expirienced pilots which uppermost were incredible good in flying, not necessaryly good in fighting! That saved them in a lot of situations where "green" pilots would get shot down. As far as I remeber in the later stages of the war this high decorated pilots of Germanies Luftwaffe were seldom shot down, but frequently were victimsof accidents of exploding crafts, bailing out and hitting something etc. I don't say they were superheros I just claim they knew nothing better then flying! And that was because they had so much expirience (what a wonder if they usually were flying over 3000 missions).

To come to an end Germany did'nt credit an engine for a kill! A bomber, no matter of how many engines it got, was 1 kill. Imagine the famous nightfighting aces, with the "1 engine a kill" they would have brought down over 400 kills! What about the thing that as far as I remeber the allied pilots got a kill for each plane destroyed, no matter wether it was flying or on the ground, while the Germans only got credited for flying kills.
So long fellows

[Charles2222]

I think a lot of times people forget that the best aces got shot down MANY times.

[Grumble]

George AKA 2f: I think you mean Saburo Sakai, top scoring Japanese ace, and still alive. (He recently went public,unusual for him, to refute the "Japan as victim" that is popular among the right-wing). Interesting you mention him in that he also had some trashy stuff written about him. Martin Caidin's alleged biography was denounced by him as being more a novel from Caidin's imagination than a realistic biography...

[Colonel von Blitz]

Originally posted by Sinner from the Prairy:In Adolf Galland biography, they explain a little the "big numbers" thing:

Luftwaffe gave one kill for every "engine" of a shot-down aircraft. That is, downing a B-17G means "4 kills".

Actually, german pilots were NOT awarded 1 kill per engine, this was used as a point system for decorations. There was a certain amount of points that had to get before one was decorated and pilot got 1 point per engine to that score tally...it was completely different score tally where only kills were calculated.

Also. Remember that the Russians, at the start of the war had a lot of airplanes and bombers... but they were mostly obsolete. They had been good in the middle 30's... but in the early 40's they were a little behind. And this, added to the tactical & strategic surprise, make for a whole lot of kills. Marianas urkey shot anyone?

True, but still...it does not make score tallies of german pilots any less respectable. If one wants to take away "easy" kills from account, then every pilots tally from every air force has to be checked.

Also, beign the eastern front soooo big , well, having total fighter superiority is a little tough. So some Soviet bomber missions would fly over the target area unescorted. And then, the Me-109 (remember, very short range) would take off, intercept and make some kills, 1 kill per engine. Easy kills.

Stupidity by Russians...once again, that does not make german pilot tallies any less respectable. And once more, one plane shot down (no matter how many engines), only one kill

And even further, Luftwaffe had a very good shot-down pilots' rescue service.

I think all this together explains a lot of things about the big numbers.

Very good rescue service is a must if one wants to preserve lives of experienced pilots, I believe British and Americans had quite effective pilot rescue system

The main reason why several german pilots has a tally of 200+ victories is probably that they fought entire war...and quite usually they were out-numbered.

Colonel von Blitz

[Cyric]

Flightmaster Eino I. Juutilainen 92 kills
Captain Hans H. Wind 78 kills
Major Eino A. luukkanen 51, just to mention a few Finnish aces.

Kills during '41 to the end of '44
AA 1107
Air force 1567

Finnish fighterplanes
'41 168
'42 218
'43 211
'44 223
'45 288


I have here a book with all facts, it's a bit old but i don't believe the numbers very wrong.

didn't read the messages here so careful but feels like these number would fit here....

Bye :p

[sinner]

To Colonel von Blitz:

I didn't meant with my comment to make German kills unrelevant.

I posted them as a possible explanation of the many kills obtained by Luftwaffe pilots.

No intention to put them now. Maybe my English is not as good as I think, so the intent of the post is not understood. In fact, English is my 3rd language. So forgive me.

And, yes, having German pilots flying the whole war makes for very experienced pilots AND lots of kills.

Wasn't there a rule that after 50 mission (100?), a USAAF pilot will go back home as an instructor or something? This makes it difficult to have +300 kills ...


Salut