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

[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

[Mark R.]

As the guy who "started" this thread, albeit with no inkling of the discussion that would take place, I find it interesting to see how various folks interpret the information. My interest is in how the Luftwaffe performed against a new threat flying a somewhat unique aircraft (though I am going to look at USAAF P-40s and Spitfires in the same manner). I found the trends, e.g. higher losses in Dec 42 and Jan 43 dropping by more than half for the remainder of the campaign - with no comparable drop in US fighter group operational tempo - to be very interesting. Yet the kills versus claims were most accurate when the US losses were highest. I dont leap to the conclusion that pilots are not telling the truth. Pilots are part of organizations governed by regulations and overseen by a chain of command. Don Caldwell and Juha are closer than most in describing these dyanmics. In my mind, probably because I have heretofore been interested only in ground combat, I am not looking at how a nationality does or how a particular airframe performs. Tunisia, for my purposes, offers a quantifiable theater with manageable numbers of airplanes to track down using primary sources (which are pretty good for the USAAF if you know where to find them). So, for anyone who took offense at a percieved suggestion that Luftwaffe fighters aces werent entirely honest, please accept an apology for any unintended slight. I must admit that the only reason I plan to concentrate on the USAAF rather than the Luftwaffe or RAF for that campaign is that I am predominately an English speaker (though my "aviation" German is fairly good having been born in Heidelberg and lived for some time in Schweinfurt) and the US National Archives is only 30 miles from my home. I will post my follow-on research if anyone would like to take a look at it because I do welcome the comments and thoughts that all have provided. That said, anyone who would like to help me with the Luftwaffe side of the house, especially in terms of air to air losses for zerstorers,transports, bombers, and such, I would welcome the help. I am pretty set for information on German single seat fighters once Die Jagdfliegerverbande der Deutschen Luftwafe Teil 11/II comes out. That is an excellent reference source and overall series IMHO.

Cheers,

Mark R.

[Russell]

Hi all.

Re Tunis losses of P-38s. The three fighter group histories are probable 95 % OK, but I can recall talking to Joel Owens in 1990, about the lack of reports evidence etc for what his squadron did in Feb 43. Hoever I havent found anythingat the intelligence operationa commend levels. What is totally lacking is the PR Group. The is one very belated listing for a F-5 that was lost to II JG 2, but I would suggest that leaves a good 10 to 20 short, There are references to 3PRG lost one but no details etc. I would suggest lone P-38's at a very high altitude are likley to be PR aircraft.

Russell

[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!

[Jim P.]

Ultimately, your statement is exactly correct. While many of us like exploring the exacting details of claims/vics of air/ground battles - myself included; and in spite of my criticism of those that want absolute resolution of same to the point of making disparaging remarks about motive to the various combatants; in the end, the ultimate outcome of WW-II was a given. Once the Soviet Union, the British Empire and the U.S. were all aligned against the Axis forces, the end result was inevitable. It all boiled down to resources and industrial capacity. The Axis was, in the end, overwhelmed by resources & numbers they couldn't begin to match. End of story.

[Six Nifty .50s]

I read this thread with interest, but I don't think that appeals for political correctness are helpful. Wars are started and finished by highly motivated people, not machines. Warfare brings out the best and worst in the participants, so why pretend that some of them are not dishonest?

As any decent police officer knows, greed, power, and a burning desire to be popular are common human impulses. I wonder how many readers of this forum would rather study pure statistics and just avoid the human aspect altogether.

[Jim P.]

No one is pretending - and it has nothing to do with 'political correctness'. As I said in my original response, document the claims, the losses, match up where possible and move on to the next air battle. Overclaiming was/is a fact, from all combatants, from all sides - get over it. Claims are just that, CLAIMS. Calling anyone from anyside a liar, dishonest or whatever, particularly if they're deceased and can't defend their actions is what is dishonest. It just seems totally preposterous to me that here we are 60-70 years after the fact passing judgement on life and death events that we can't possibly comprehend. And video games don't count. Air combat as it was in WW-I or WW-II does not and will not ever happen again. All these guys had big brass cojones going face to face with, or wading into a melee with numerous opponents. Nowadays it's done with a missle from several miles away - not to take anything away from the courage and skill of modern day pilots. The other guys have missles too. There were no heads-up displays or such back then, and even the NF radars were rudimentary at best compared to today. That the officialdom from the RAF, the USAAF, the LW, the USSR or any other participant credited a CLAIM was not, ultimately, the fault of the claimant. The other stuff is just so much BS.

[krichter33]

Excellent post Jim, I agree.