Allied AC loss in all fronts

[Stormovik]

How many Allied AC lost in all fronts? West, Nort Africa and Eastern Front?

[kolya1]

Hi,

About the soviet losses :

In the East the soviets lost about 46,100 aircrafts in combat (Fighters, AAA, destroyed on the ground, and not returned)...

To all causes : 106,400 (includes all other causes among which accidents and, mostly, worn-out planes).

the 46,100 include : 10,000 bombers, 12,400 Shturmoviks, 20,700 fighters, and 3,000 training or civilian planes (probably includes transports).

the 60,300 non-combat losses include : 7,900 bombers, 11,200 Shturmoviks, 26,100 fighters, and 15,100 civilian or training planes.

In 1941 : combat losses : 10,600 (accounting for 57 % of combat types losses and 9 % of other aircraft losses).

In 1942 : combat losses : 9,100 (64,5 % and 50 %).

In 1943 : combat losses : 11,700 (50 % and 11,9 %).

In 1944 : combat losses : 10,400 (39,1 % and 12 %).

In 1945 : combat losses : 4,300 (37,3 % and 8,7 %).


I am using the figures given in Krivosheyev's on-line book, because they mostly correspond with what I found in other sources : in books or on the net...

P.S. : An important point concerning the human losses : I don't know much details about these but I would like to ask if somebody knows about Il-2 gunners'losses, because it has often been said that these were 7 or even 10 times heavier than those of the pilots, but I didn't find any evidence of this : veterans and regiments records state that from the time by which they received two-seat aircrafts, the losses in gunners were higher than those of the pilots but with a ratio of no more than about 2:1, which is partly explained by the lack of protection of the gunner, and partly because a plane can fly back with a dead gunner while it is more difficult to do that with a dead pilot...

So does anybody has overall figures that could validate or invalidate my impression that the 7 or 10:1 loss ratio is no more than a myth ?

[Kari Lumppio]

Privet Kolya!

Of the 7:1 gunner / pilot Il-2 loss ratio.

Does the 2:1 ratio change if you count wounded as losses too? Those would be losses for the flying unit and needing replacement. Though I think 2:1 would be closer to true numbers than 7:1.

What was the ratio of Il-2 gunner / pilot losses for the period when there was only field (depot) modified 2-seaters available? Or did those modified planes have any armour for gunner?

Cheers,
Kari

[kolya1]

Privet !

As for the loss figures, I don't find the sources very clear, but it seems they refer to "definitive losses" or something like that : MIA, KIA, and prisonners (although it remains possible that they include men (or women...) who were were so seriously wounded that they could never return to service).

And the general ratio for regiments operating since the beginning of the war seems to be about 1/2-3/5 of pilots and 1/2-2/5 of gunners, with a handful of ground personnel killed in air attacks or ground combat...

The majority of pilots is explained by the fact that until late 1942-1943, most of these units were equipped with single-seat aircrafts...

I don't know what were the figures for the "front-modified" planes, but as for your second question, AFAIK the front-modified aircrafts didn't have any armour for the gunner... (therefore the gunner losses were perhaps initially higher, though I could not find figures detailed enough to support this).

Later, the gunner was somewhat protected (there was a rear facing U-shaped shield in the rear fuselage, and somethimes an overhead aluminium plate, but he was not installed in the armored "bath tub" until the appearance of the much better IL-10) but he still had nothing that could compare with the armour which protected the pilot...

AFAIK, later in the war (at least 1944-1945, for 1943, I don't know..., there were still many german fighters in the East, at least in the first 6 months) most of the Il-2s lost were because of the flak rather than the fighters...

So, that is what I could find...

Kolya

[Jim Oxley]

Here's some info on the RAF:

On May 1, 1945 the RAF had on charge 9,200 aircraft in all theatres. It concisited of 1,079,835 officers men and women. Of this total 193,313 were aircrew.

From 1939 to 1945 the RAF lost 70,253 officers, NCO's and airmen killed or missing on operations. Of that number Bomber Command lost 47,268 were killed or missing on operations - with a further 8,305 Bomber Command aircrew lost in non-operational flying (training /accidents etc). An additional 1,570 ground crew lost their lives to other causes in Bomber Command.

Bomber Command lost 10,123 aircraft over Europe alone (from Max Hastings book Bomber Command).

According to John Killen (author of "The Luftwaffe") the RAF lost 22,000 aircraft, and the USAAF lost18,500 planes in the European conflict, from the North cape to the sands on Libya.

I have no figures for the Pacific Theatre.

[Boomerang]

Here goes with my first post.

According to the 1945 edition of Jane's All the World's Aircraft, RAF losses in Europe from 1939 - 1945 were:

Bomber Command = 9,163

Army Cooperation Command = 70

Fighter Command, including Air Defence of Great Britian = 3,558

2nd Tactical Air Force = 2,115

Coastal Command = 1,579

This gives a grand total for RAF losses in Europe of 16,485. Losses include failed to return and aircraft so damaged as to be unfit for further operations.

The same reference gives RAF losses for the Mediterrean and Middle East of 5,735, broken down by year (but not by type) as follows:

1940 = 133
1941 = 671
1942 = 1,189
1943 = 1,349
1944 = 1,853
1945 = 540

Grand total for RAF losses in Europe, Mediterrean and Middle East hence = 22,220

[Boandlgramer]

american losses 1941-45:

http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/afhra/w...d_pdf/t100.pdf


total 41,575 airplanes (combat and accident & 2nd line losses) all theaters


in europe and mediterranean theater of war = 27.694 ac

[Jim Oxley]

Good post Boomerang. Does that source also provide loss figures for Fleet Air Arm and the RAF in the Pacific?

[Jim Oxley]

Sadly that link is not working Boandlgramer.

[John Beaman]

Originally Posted by Jim Oxley

Sadly that link is not working Boandlgramer.

Jim, it is an Acrobat Reader link. Do you have a fairly recent version of that? If so, it should open automatically.