Pilot losses in air combat

[Augenstein]

I decided to put up an entirely new thread for this. What do people think of pilot losses in aerial combat, I personally think that there are far too many KIA in comparison to WIA when an a/c is shot down (approximately 2/3 is KIA), in my opinion this isnt realistic. For example the highest scoring fighter ace in WWII Erich Hartmann was shot down 18 times, for some reason I dont see anything similar to this happening in BTR... this is why most of the experienced Axis pilots are KIA by early 1944.

[otisabuser2]

Think we need some figures on this.

You say of those casualties in game, 2/3 are KIA vs 1/3 WIA.

Do you have any idea what percentage of destroyed aircraft result in a casualty ?

This is something I have never kept track of in games [:(]

[von Shagmeister]

This point has been bought up numerous times in the past over on JC's site.

http://p081.ezboard.com/fbtrbombingther ... =1&stop=20

My own personal opinion is the ratio of KIA:WIA is too high, the real life figures seem to bear this out. As Augenstein says many pilots were shot down numerous times (many Axis pilots surviving 10+ times) and survived, in BTR at the moment the statistical chances of being shot down numerous times and surving is negligable. As ever common sense must be used when looking at the figures (ie a pilot has a much higher probability of surviving a single MG calibre round through the cooling system at 20K than multiple cannon strikes on the cockpit at 500 feet).

Regards

von Shagmeister

[otisabuser2]

Thanks Shaggy,

I've cut and pasted you figures from that thread, as non-members may not be able to access that.

I think that too many pilots are KIA in BTR. From research I've done and figures I have seen I think a ratio of 2:1 (WIA:KIA) would be more realistic. Off the top of my head (as it's been a while since I looked into this) in BTR the present ratio is about 5:8 (WIA:KIA)

Again, we also need to qualify what the ratio would be between a plane being damaged vs a casualty resulting. This is a more complex issue, I think.

regards Otis

[von Shagmeister]

Again, we also need to qualify what the ratio would be between a plane being damaged vs a casualty resulting. This is a more complex issue, I think.

Hi Otis,

If you check the link above this issue is mentioned in the thread as well.

Figures relate to RAF Fighter Command during BoB. Basically 46% of a/c losses result in aircrew casualties (KIA/MIA/WIA) with the KIA:WIA ratio being ~equal. Therefore ~50% of pilots should bale out uninjured. At the moment aircrew casualties are running much higher nearer 80% of a/c losses with about 2/3 of all casualties being fatal.
von Shagmeister

[otisabuser2]

Ahhh ! Yes, missed that bit. Sorry VS.

I've just logged back on after trying out some research. Took Alfred Price's books ( Hardest Day and Battle of Britain Day ), which detail losses and damaged RAF planes for 13th August and 15th Sept. These are detailed enough that I could check pilot fate and eliminate data from non-combat non-aerial losses.

The sample is quite small, but was almost identical for both days. 15th Sept; 28 planes destroyed, 35 damaged. 11 pilots KIA, 15 WIA, one PoW and 36 others OK.

13th August 28 planes destroyed, 26 damaged. Pilots KIA:WIA:OK = 11:18:25

This is very similar to Shaggy's stats.

However, things were looking different when I broke down the figures between destroyed and damaged aircraft:-

For the 2 days, there were 61 damaged planes with only 8 pilots wounded. That gives a 13% ratio.

For the 2 days there were 56 destroyed planes, with 22 KIA, 24 WIA and 10 unhurt.

So for destroyed planes the chances are 39% KIA, 43% WIA and 17% OK.

So although 60% bail out, only 17% bail out uninjured.

regards Otis

[Hard Sarge]

Morning
not disagreeing with any of the numbers, like Is said in another post, my Pilot losses look to be 2/3 KIA and 1/3 WIA

I just want to warn about using this pilot or that pilot as to what may or may not of happen

now good old Erich, he was "never" shot down, no man ever was able to claim him as a Victory

(that least is from his words)

now he did run out of gas at least twice had either bailed out (with a ton of Stangs chasing him) or crashed landed

he did fly though a lot of exploding planes and end up damageing his own plane, and he was forced to crash land his plane

Muncheberg went down, when a Spit exploded in front of him and he lost a Prop Blade to a peice of the Spit

Emil Lang, had moved from the East to the West, and was having a great month, when in a fight, he dropped down to treelevel height doing 400 mph, a shell hit his wing and one landing gear dropped, the sudden drag flipped the plane into the ground

but, still again, we can ask JC for details on how the game figures who lives and who dies in combat and what we can do to make the odds better or different
(there are already other parts of the combat system under disscussion)

[otisabuser2]

Anyone have any official figures for chances of bailing out/ chances of injury/fatality ?

I suspect the chances of KIA vs WIA are generally higher in BoB period due to limited aircraft armour and lack of self-sealing tanks. Spitfires and Hurricanes were too likely to catch fire and the fuel tanks were inches in front of the pilot.

regards Otis

[HMSWarspite]

Where do you get this from? Both Spit and Hurri had some pilot armour, and sealf sealing tanks. Whilst (having the unfortunatly placed fuel tanks) catching fire would tend to produce nasty burn injuries for the pilot (as opposed to a wing tank fire, which would give a little time to bail out relatively OK, before the wing failed, and probably making escape impossible (g forces and so forth preventing bail out), I have never seen figues that made Spit or Hurri more prone to burning in the first place.

I am searching for collated stats of the BoB, but haven't found what we need yet. However, lots of imteresting sites found in passing:
http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/calendar.html (day by day summary from RAF web site - could collate the casualties from this, e.g. 13 Aug, 11 Hurri, 2 Spits, lost 6 Hurri, 2 Spit pilots safe, 2 Hurri wounded - therefore 3 KIA/MIA, 2 WIA, 8 OK).

If anyone thinks it is worth it, we could go through day by day (from mid July to end Oct)

Trying to follow up the Guinea Pig club as well (East Grinstead burns unit)

[otisabuser2]

Opps, my mstake Hardest Day covers 18th August ( not 13th ) that's why our figures differ. Sorry.

[otisabuser2]

Where do you get this from? Both Spit and Hurri had some pilot armour, and sealf sealing tanks. Whilst (having the unfortunatly placed fuel tanks) catching fire would tend to produce nasty burn injuries for the pilot (as opposed to a wing tank fire, which would give a little time to bail out relatively OK, before the wing failed, and probably making escape impossible (g forces and so forth preventing bail out), I have never seen figues that made Spit or Hurri more prone to burning in the first place.

Pilot armour was being introduced during the Battle of France. Perhaps what I should have stated, is that generally planes in the BTR period were better armoured than in BoB ?

Self sealing tanks were begining to be issued in BoB. Dowding himself regretted that they were not introduced sooner. Again, by BTR they were the norm.

I suggest therefore that planes in BoB may have been more likely to be destroyed with a resulting pilot death. I have no figures for this, just trying to explain why those in Alfred Price's books seem rather high.

Any figures from a wider sample can only clarify matters.

[HMSWarspite]

ORIGINAL: otisabuser2
Pilot armour was being introduced during the Battle of France. Perhaps what I should have stated, is that generally planes in the BTR period were better armoured than in BoB ?

I wouldn't challenge this - certainly on the allied side, whilst maybe not formally more armoured, P47, P38 etc have to be tougher than Spit and Hurri (or 109 for that matter).

Self sealing tanks were begining to be issued in BoB. Dowding himself regretted that they were not introduced sooner. Again, by BTR they were the norm.

I suggest therefore that planes in BoB may have been more likely to be destroyed with a resulting pilot death. I have no figures for this, just trying to explain why those in Alfred Price's books seem rather high.

Any figures from a wider sample can only clarify matters.

I will do a summary of the web site I quoted (will be RAF only of course, but should be informative)

[HMSWarspite]

OK, summary of losses by RAF on the RAF BoB web site, from 1st Aug (before which they rarely break down pilot fate) to end Oct 1940

Aircraft Losses, 'PILOT:OK/safe', 'KIA/MIA', 'WIA', 'n/k'
813 63 297 6 447

Now, that may not look much use (and I was hoping for a more complete breakdown), but the way it is written and coming as it does from daily reports, what we often get is 'x a/c lost, of which y pilots are safe'. This means that often n/k means KIA/MIA. However sometimes they do the opposite (x a/c lost, y pilots missing or killed), i.e. the n/k are OK/safe!. I have guessed (day by day) which is the more likely way to go, which gives us:
813 425 348 6 34 (the residual 34 are from days with no breakdown)

The 6 WIA is solely a consequence of rarely giving the wounded status. I guess 'safe' means down in one piece, but possibly wounded. The only consequence I would draw directly from this data is 348/813 KIA/MIA (42.8% - and it is noticable that the highest KIA/MIA day is earlier, when the fighting is over convoys e.g. 8/8/40 - 4 Spit, 13 Hurri lost, for 1 OK, 14 KIA/MIA, 1 WIA, 1 n/k. After 13/8, usually no worse than 50:50). If I exclude data before 11/8, we get
768 424 334 4 6
i.e. 334/768 KIA/MIA (43.5%) (which shoots that theory down - I guess they weren't far enough off shore!)

So c 43% of aircraft lost resulted in loss of the pilot KIA (either slowly or quickly!)
The Safe column must include WIA (but no way to split on this data). If I had to guess I would go

43% KIA (of which, over own territory, very low =MIA, over water, 90%=MIA, over enemy, say 50% = MIA in that they would taje weeks or months to confirm death, and we haven't got a 'delayed status' option have we?)
25% WIA (guessed as just under half of those who bail out are wounded - of which, over own territory, 100% = WIA, over water, would depend on who rescued, would convert to MIA if enemy capture, and 99% MIA over enemy territory, cos excape for wounded would be v tricky!) This number is the one most up for debate, and given that WIA means from 1-99 days out of action, (that is WIA can mean barely more than a scratch) I don't think is an unreasonable guess?
Remainder (32%) bale out OK, and get whatever the normal fate is, (100% OK for home, etc)

[otisabuser2]

So, we all agree that KIA in real life should be about 33% to 40% of destroyed planes.

The guys who have recorded this in game, state it about twice that, nearer 66%.

[:)]

[Augenstein]

Something has to be done about this, this should be one of the priorities to be fixed in the new edition.

[kkoovvoo]

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

Aircraft Losses, 'PILOT:OK/safe', 'KIA/MIA', 'WIA', 'n/k'
813 63 297 6 447

Sorry, what does it mean "n/k"?

The pilots seems to be handled the same way like in War in the Pacific - there are also at least 2/3 of pilots lost when ac is destroyed. Toughness of airplane (armor) and place were the plane was lost ( over sea/own base/enemy base) seems to have only minor impact whether the pilot is lost or not.

[Hard Sarge]

in Witp/UV/BoB/BTR
I think we got a system where you get a die roll to see if the pilot lives or dies when the plane is shot down, then you got a die roll to see where the pilot lands

so, you got to see if you bail out, then find out where you bailed out to

not sure if the system can be changed or not

[kkoovvoo]

yep,
and then you get a roll whether the pilot is wounded or not.
and if wounded you get die roll how many days he will have WIA status (from 1-99). [:D]

It just needs to be calibrated.

When is the proper time for players request if not now?

[harley]

Consider also that BTR as it stands will WIA a pilot for no more than 99 days.

In effect, any pilot who takes more damage than 99 days should be retired - KIA as it were.

The figures you're all quoting don't quote the return to service dates of any of the WIA pilots. Some would return after a few days, yet others would end up undergoing years of plastic surgery and never fly again. (what was the name of the UK doctor that pioneered growing the skin off the end of the nose?)

So you have to ask - for any Airforce when is WIA really WIA? A pilot who needs treatment for a minor wound that was patched up on the base, then given a few days leave might not make it to the official records.

[otisabuser2]

You've got a point Harley.....[&o]

So KIA should be marginally higher to reflect serious wounds that prevent further flying ?

Can't beleive that with all that has been written on aviation, that someone has not produced some hard figures on this somewhere.