Luftwaffe Kills in Tunisia Compared to Recorded USAAF P-38 losses

[Johannes]

Hi guys

On average only two in three claims end up with an actual crash, not just Luftwaffe pliots who on average were no worse, and probably a lot better than Allied pilots. But if you check Jg26's claims against allied losses they are very well matched, when you check Jg2's claims against allied losses the difference is so marked that one can only conclude co-operative fraud, also when both Jg26 and Jg2's claims are matched against Allied losses the 2 to 3 rule goes out of the window, but Allied losses are 1 in 2 claims. This is not based on any prejustice against any one pilot(how could it be when by statistics you know only of a problem, not who the problems are) it's just stating that Jg2 as a whole were not making accurate claims, in fact it is fraud as much as British MP's expense claims.
Afrika is the place where it can all be highlighted due to so few units. Regarding high claims being unbelievable you only have to look at how long it took, how many sorties and how many times they were themselves shot down to know that mathematically it is not only possible, but probable for there to be a few "100" plus guys in the West, these guys flew till they were dead, crippled or captured!
The fact that some Allied aces were themselves fraudsters doesn't detract from the fact that it was more wide spread in the Luftwaffe than first thought, and going by the Luftwaffe system you couldn't do it alone. Rudorffer who was a childhood hero of mine was able to do this by his rank, also he flew for the Staff of II./Jg54 in Russia possible with only one conrade for company (Kurt Tangermann) thus the opportunity was there, just compare there claims record together. I think it doesn't even come down to the individual, sometimes it would be a whole staffel, but on the other foot sometimes a whole staffel is extremely honest, and hurray to these guys!

Regards

Johannes

[Nick Beale]

Given that tens of thousands of people flew a fighter in the Second World War, I'd be surprised if there weren't a few frauds (and a few saints) in that number - every kind of person, in fact. But you just don't need deliberate fraud to explain most overclaiming. You could never prove it but after a career working in offices I wouldn't be surprised if the difference between JG 2 and JG 26 wasn't simply how each organisation interpreted and applied the rules before submitting a claim to the Abschusskommission.

I've posted research on I./JG 2's combat record in Italy (again about a 2:1 claim/kill ratio) but the thing I found hardest to account for was the unit's gaining a hotshot reputation with both sides within days of entering combat, which its overall results don't necessarily support.

A final point: even if (say) Hartmann "only" shot down 70 or 80, that is a spectacular performance when you recognise that most pilots never shot down any.

[Andrew Arthy]

Hi,

Nick's post reminded me of the following ULTRA decrypt from NA HW 5/240:

--- START:

From I./J.G. 2 to 1./J.G. 2 on 22 April 1943:
“1.) Criticisms of combat report on Hptm. Hepe’s victory of 16 April.
A) What parts flew off the Spitfire?
B) Did the Spitfire show trail of smoke on being shot up (if so, what colour?)
C) The eyewitness report still outstanding must be compiled on these lines and agree exactly with the gunner’s statements.

2.) Criticisms of the combat report and eyewitness account of Uffz. Hennig.
A) What parts flew off the Spitfire?
B) Did the Spitfire show trail of smoke on being shot up (if so, what colour?)
C) Position of the eyewitness with regard to gunner during the attack.
You are referred to the Geschwader’s directive concerning the compilation of reports by gunners and eyewitnesses and the correct completion of the pro-forma ‘Report of aircraft shot down and destroyed’. Late arrival and incorrect compilation of all these reports may endanger the chances of recognition by higher authorities.”

--- END

The paperwork must have been completed satisfactorily, because Hptm. Hepe was officially credited with this victory. Uffz. Henning also claimed a Spitfire shot down, and these were the only claims for fighters in this combat. 616 Squadron reported two Spitfires lost to enemy fighters at Brest, so it seems that this was one occasion when J.G. 2 was not engaged in "co-operative fraud" ...

Cheers,
Andrew A.

Air War Publications - www.airwarpublications.com

[Don Caldwell]

Hello all --

IMHO Juha's post is "spot on", and his last paragraph summarizes my position perfectly -- claim accuracy is of historical significance, but attempts to determine the motivation of the claimants at this late date are pointless, trending toward insulting. In my belief that more data are always good, I've included enough in my new book (now at the publisher) to allow theater-wide estimates of the accuracy of the claims of the RLV day fighter force versus US 8th and 15th AAF fighters and bombers and also the accuracy of USAAF fighter claims vs the RLV day fighters. Here are my paragraphs introducing the subject:

"Special mention of victory claims will be made here. It is the author’s contention that while ‘losses’ are real – broken hardware on the ground – ‘claims’ are only notional – by definition, a matter of opinion. The proper metrics for evaluating combat performance in a given air campaign are thus the two sides’ losses, not their victory claims. Yet, during the war, victory claims had legitimate uses beyond mere propaganda. Victory claims were a widely used measure of a unit’s effectiveness. Given the chance to score, the best fighter units had the most victory claims. Skilful upper-level commanders knew this and gave their better units greater opportunities by assigning them the most critical tasks. Ironically, these superior units had a higher percentage of invalid claims than lesser units, but that’s the nature of the fighter pilot: the best ones were highly aggressive and self-confident, leading to victory claims that later evaluation could not substantiate.

"Post-war interest in victory claims and their accuracy remains high. Other researchers have compared the claims of individual pilots with enemy losses to calculate an ‘overclaim rate’ for those pilots. Similar estimates have been made for some combat units (Allied fighter groups and German Jagdgruppen). It would be of interest to extend such estimates to entire air forces and campaigns. Tables B–E contain sufficient data to permit claim accuracy ratios to be estimated for the RLV force versus 8th and 15th Air Force bombers and fighters (separately) as well as for both the 8th and 15th Air Force versus the RLV force. Figures for losses specifically to enemy aircraft were required for the calculations; these had to be distinguished from other causes. Details of how these figures were obtained are found in the discussion for Table C. Losses of 8th Air Force fighters after D-Day could not be split between strategic and tactical missions, and the RLV claim accuracy ratio versus fighters was not calculated past May 1944. Summarising the Table B results, the overclaim ratio versus bombers was 1.39; versus fighters, 0.97. Claims versus fighters were thus ‘perfect’, proving that the Luftwaffe confirmation process worked well when the number of claims was relatively small and crashes could be found and counted."

Note that the numbers in this quote cover only the RLV force versus the 8th AF -- for the rest you have to see the book. I hope this whets the appetites of some of you. Day Fighters in Defence of the Reich should be out in a few months (I have no better luck at predicting exact dates than Jochen.)

Horrido!

Don

[Rob Romero]

-Mark thanks for your thorough research. It is welcome by many to be sure.

I would add . . . that these "dishonest", "unreliable", "overclaimer" and similar derogatory epithets tend mostly to be thrown at German pilots. Perhaps as a faint effort to vent frustration over the fact that there were so many successful German fighter pilots, whose reputation must be tarnished by suggesting that many of those 'kills' did not (could not) actually happen...

In my case the focus stems not from a desire to denigrate experten, but rather from my admiration of and intense interest in the Jagdwaffe, which due to prolonged combat exposure produced –IMHO- the finest combat pilots the world has ever seen. However, this interest has led to a desire to make a more than superficial examination of their claims, be they accurate or otherwise. Though the samples provided are too small to make generalities about particular pilots, a few famous experten such as Bühligen (112), Grasser (103), Ubben (110), Friedrich-Karl Müller (140), Goltzsch (43) & especially Rüdorffer (224) -cough, cough- do stand out negatively. Conversely the reputations of, Heinz Bar (221) Anton Hafner (204) and Crinius (114) have not suffered from this examination. If that’s offensive to the sensibilities of some; O.K. –then let’s say we take personalities out of it! By examining combats where it was possible to isolate units to combats where firm losses or lack thereof have been determined by Mark, the results reflect particularly poorly on JG 2 (22.7%); the other four units scored in a rather consistent range of 63.6% to 76%. That one unit (JG 51 @ 76%) was making claims at a rate almost 3½ times more accurately than JG 2 might have been of interest to the Luftwaffe high command, don’t you think? And it should be of interest to historians as well.


JG 51 19/25: 76.0%
JG 27 -2/-3: 66.7%
JG 53 19/29: 65.5%
JG 77 -7/11: 63.6%
JG 2 -5/22: 22.7%

[Kryten]

I have always considered individual claims to be nothing more than an interesting statistic and often a nationalistic flag to wave for those with an agenda.

the real decider in all air campaigns has and will always be who controlled the battle space at the end , whether through sheer force of numbers or technical superiority it's the strategic outcome that will in reality decide which force was most effective!

An example of which is the huge disparity between the recorded losses of Soviet to Axis aircraft, yet in the end it was the Soviets who achieved air superiority over thier Axis counterparts!

the ability to to produce enough effective aircraft and crews nearly always out weighs the tactical advantages of the foe that cannot!