Erich Hartmann: 352 victories or... 80?

[chris schmitz]

Well i think that it is not overcredited what german fighter pilots shot down,because i thik for the folloing reasons:

First most of the german fighter pilots flew most of the war and allied pilots where sent to the trainingschools.
Secons allied aces couldnt gain more earialvictories because the germans shot them out of the sky.
and i think that is to much to say that the nearly 100 germans to gain more than 80 earialvictories to question there integrety of claiming that.
Why is it not possible to say that the allies dont wanne give in that the claims are wright,why are they not making up something because in the sky the individual fighter pilot of the germans where much better than what allied fighter pilot ever will be,its the numbers that made the difference................

sorry i am an german,i hated the politics of the war,but not the soldiers who fought them and to say..........aaarrgghhhh what ever

[Boandlgramer]

very simple calculation made by christer.

if we take the claims of the german luftwaffe: 25.000 westallied AC destroyed in combat
add the claims of the flak : 10.0000 ac

= we have a number of 35.000 ac


now lets take the losses of the USAAF for europe/africa ( just first line losses: combat and accident)
25.022 ac


add the british losses of the bombercommand ( same as above)
8963 ac
add the fighter commands losses ( don´t know the exact )nummer
3500 ? ac

(not included the french/ dutch etc. ac´s lost in combat )

we have a number about 37500 ac.


claims made by the germans ( luftwaffe & flak ) 35.000 ,
the westallied lost 37.500 .
does it prove the luftwaffe had no overclaims ?

hell, of course not.
just to show christers calculation above is simple , very simple.

but may i got it extremly wrong .

[Graham Boak]

Let's note that, as a general rule, accidents made up as many losses as aerial combat. So a simple equation such as Boandlgramer's does not work. This evidence - if taken as gospel, and there seems to be too many assumptions for my taste - would imply something like a 2:1 ratio between claims and kills.

On other matters, there is not surprisingly a difference between claims made after the introduction of effective gun cameras and those made before. There is a difference in "reality" between claims made during times of intense fighting, where multiple units are involved, and where the battle takes place over the other side's territory, as opposed to low-intensity combat with few participants over your own soil. So if you must compare, then compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges, not just picking whichever fruit suits your own arguments.

[Boandlgramer]

graham, it was my intention to show , that it is not possible to do such a simple calculation ( see christer bergström´s post above)

[Christer Bergström]

Boandlgramer, I'm afraid you didn't read my post as close as you perhaps should have done.

You compare "the losses of the USAAF and RAF for europe/africa ( just first line losses: combat and accident)" with "claims of the german luftwaffe and flak".

Then you say that "it is not possible to do such a simple calculation ( see christer bergström´s post above)".

That of course is correct, because of what Graham Boak points out - "accidents made up as many losses".

But my figures for Soviet losses were more precise than your figures for US & RAF losses, and thus more suited for a comparison with German claims. Whereas your figures included "combat and accident" losses, my figures explicitly dealt only with combat losses. I quote my first post:

"the USSR lost a total of 46,100 aircraft in combat between 22 June 1941 and 10 May 1945."

(Due to the same source, Krivosheyev, the Soviets lost 106,400 aircraft between 22 June 1941 and 10 May 1945, of which 46,100 were lost in combat.)

But maybe you didn't misread me? Maybe you mean that it still is not possible to do such a calculation as I did in my post?

I think we can agree that the German overclaims ratio indicated by MB seems to point at an actual number of only something like 16,000 Soviet aircraft shot down by German forces - see my first post. (If you don't agree, then please give me your alternative assumption.)

Boandlgramer, then please explain to us all: Considering the latter, how can it be wrong to ask for the reasons to all the other maybe 30,000 Soviet aircraft combat losses? How come that is not a justified question in your eyes? Please explain how you think when you say that "it is not possible to do such a simple calculation"?

After all, a combat loss is per definition caused by an enemy of flesh and blood. . . You can't have 30,000 combat losses (two-third of all combat losses) without any enemy serviceman being involved in any of those losses.

PS: Due to official USAAF statistics, the USAAF lost 14,621 aircraft in combat - to enemy aircraft or to enemy AAA - in Europe and the Mediterranean during WW II. I think that figure - and not your "all causes loss figure" of 25,022 losses - could be compared with Axis claims. Don't you agree?

[Kari Lumppio]

Dear Christer!

When you write about Soviet combat losses is it combat losses (=recorded expressly as such) or combat losses + "did not return" ?

"Did not return" inevitably contains also noncombat losses.


Regards,
Kari

PS I really would like to know what famous authors do avoid this forum because of the reasons you site? I have always been too plain-language speaking, but would like to think that at least I am not scaring anyone away.

[Christer Bergström]

When you write about Soviet combat losses is it combat losses (=recorded expressly as such) or combat losses + "did not return" ?

Krivosheyev's work on Soviet losses isn't that detailed when it deals with all aircraft losses in WW II.

"Did not return" inevitably contains also noncombat losses.

Of course. Krivosheyev's figures probably contain that cathegory as well. Do you find it plausible to assume that 65% of all combat losses during the whole war in fact were accidents which occurred over enemy territory when there was no "friendly witness" to see the circumstances? I don't think so. That was my main point. I think you understood that.

I really would like to know what famous authors do avoid this forum because of the reasons you site?

Well, suppose they would not like me to list their names here? Suppose I choose to respect their integrity? Suppose you make your own guesswork?

I have always been too plain-language speaking, but would like to think that at least I am not scaring anyone away.

I think you understand that I was not talking about being frank, but that I was talking about desperate personal attacks on the verge of - and sometimes crossing the border of - slander, with the clear purpose of bringing down the personal reputation of a person as a person. It all stems from envy. I think it is obvious to everyone here that envy plays a certain role in several posts on TOCH, and that some of the most obsessed people here reveal their envy through such desperate posts.

Only a few minutes ago, I again received two e-mails from people who urged me to refrain from talking to people on TOCH because it is a free-fire zone for envious mudslingers, and they think I should not allow myself to become a target to such obsessed people. I think they are right.

[Franek Grabowski]

Originally Posted by Boandlgramer

graham, it was my intention to show , that it is not possible to do such a simple calculation ( see christer bergström´s post above)

I do not think Graham reffered to your post.
Anyway I suggest another comparison. Several claims of Billy Bishop are put in doubt by historians, so having in mind that US claims in recent Gulf War seem to be very accurate, I think it is correct to conclude US fighters are fare superior comparing to the Britons.