Percentage of Verfiable Victories of Various Aces -INSTRUCTIONS.

[Rob Romero]

CAVEAT: I’ve started what I think is a fun and potentially important thread: While I recognize this endeavor will be imperfect (in some cases greatly), it may provide a SENSE of the actual success of various aces. Hopefully, it will expand and eventully (perhaps WELL into the future) provide us with a fairly comprehensive and reliable database. I am relying on the contributions of others and cannot vouch for the accuracy or even the sincerity of their submissions –I am relying on the web community to keep tabs and bring debatable data to light. Perhaps in cases of great controversy, a range could be established (i.e., pilot X claimed 100 aircraft and from documents/records it is possible to veryify that he shot down 40 with another 30 Possible and of these ‘Official’ Victories 10 were really only Damaged etc.).

INSTRUCTIONS: TO MAKE THIS PROCESS EASIER, PLEASE COPY THIS CHART AND THEN MAKE YOUR ADDITIONS/CORRECTIONS IN THE FORMAT ALREADY USED. IF YOU STONGLY DISAGREE WITH ANOTHER POSTER, PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE THEIR CALCULATION, BUT RATHER PASTE YOUR REVISED FIGURES BENEATH AS A BASIS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH/DEBATE –THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS!

WWI Aces
74 of 80 Claims ( 92.5%) Manfred von Richthofen
35 of 36 Claims ( 97.2%) Francesco Baracca - KIA 19 Jun 1918
33 of 40 Claims ( 82.5%) Lothar von Richthofen
31 of 57 Claims ( 54.4%) James McCudden (Possibly 36 of 57 Claims 63.2%)
17 of 17 Claims (100.0%) Edmund Nathanael (German-Jewish Ace)
14 of 22 Claims ( 63.6%) Hermann Göring (Possibly 15 of 22 Claims 68.2%)
14 of 15 Claims ( 93.3%) Max Immelmann (2-3 additional Verifed Victories)
?? of 72 Claims Billy Bishop (Ooops did I jus open a can of worms?!?) ;-)
?? of 48 Claims Werner Voss

What about Voss guys –that should be easy for those of you who have Franks’ book.

WWII Aces
??? of 101 Claims Josef ‘Pips’ Priller -largely verified by Johnnie Johnson (38)
100 of 151 Claims (~66.2%) Hans-Joachim Marseille (158) 151 Afrika + 7 Battle of Britain
~80 of 352 Claims (~22.7%) Erich Hartmann –Ace of Aces? –based on claims of Russian Researcher
25 of 40 Claims ( 62.5%) Richard Bong USAAF PTO Ace of Aces.
21 of 28 Claims ( 75.0%) Gabby Gabreski USAAF ETO Ace of Aces
15 of 64 Claims ( 23.4%) Saburo Sakai –top scoring surviving IJNAF ace
9 of 31 Claims ( 29%) Heinz Knocke (–research continuing @ heinzknokewebsite.com)

Also does anyone have a sense of Walter Schuck (206) Hermann Graf (212) and Alfred Grislawski (133) verifyable victories from Christer Bergström’s recent cross referenced works?

Thanx,

Rob Romero

[Rob Romero]

CAVEAT: I’ve started what I think is an interesting and potentially important thread: While I recognize this endeavor will be imperfect (in some cases highly), it may provide a SENSE of the actual success of various aces. Hopefully, it will expand and eventually (perhaps WELL into the future) provide us with a fairly comprehensive and reliable database. I am relying on the contributions of others and cannot vouch for the accuracy of submissions –I am relying on the web community to keep tabs and bring debatable data to light. Perhaps in cases of great controversy, a range could be established (i.e., pilot X claimed 100 aircraft and the documents/records STRONGLY SUGGEST he shot down 40 with another 30 Possible and of these ‘Official’ Victories 10 were really only Damaged etc. and 5 were Phantom (No Historical Basis) Claims).


So far the results reflect well on Jasta 11 –it seems the unit maintains an exceptional degree of integrity in making –and bestow even further credit on their ‘meister’ Manfred von Richthofen. This contrasts with a liberal outlook on claiming, allegedly taken by some JGs in WWII. Perhaps this is due to MvR’s mantra to “Bring them down burning!” rather than just shoot them down.

MvR’s Jasta 11 ‘Bloody April’ 1917 Boys
33 of 33 Claims (100.0%) Kurt Wolff *
30 of 30 Claims (100.0%) Karl Allmenröder *
74 of 80 Claims ( 92.5%) Manfred von Richthofen
25 of 30 Claims ( 83.3%) Karl-Emil Schäfer
33 of 40 Claims ( 82.5%) Lothar von Richthofen
195 of 213 Claims ( 91.5%) WOW! OFF THE CHARTS!

I’m a bit perturbed by the low percentages attained by such legendary figures as Udet and Bölcke –any explanations?



WWI Aces
74 of 80 Claims ( 92.5%) Manfred von Richthofen
46 of 48 Claims ( 95.8%) Werner Voss
35 of 36 Claims ( 97.2%) Francesco Baracca - KIA 19 Jun 1918
33 of 33 Claims (100.0%) Kurt Wolff *
33 of 40 Claims ( 82.5%) Lothar von Richthofen
32 of 45 Claims ( 71.1%) Fritz Rumey
31 of 57 Claims ( 54.4%) James McCudden (Possibly 36 of 57 Claims 63.2%)
30 of 30 Claims (100.0%) Karl Allmenroder *
30 of 62 Claims ( 48.4%) Ernst Udet
27 of 54 Claims ( 50.0%) Erich Lowenhardt
25 of 44 Claims ( 56.8%) Rudolf Berthold
25 of 48 Claims ( 52.0%) Josef Jacobs
24 of 44 Claims ( 54.5%) Bruno Loerzer
28 of 31 Claims ( 90.3%) Paul Billik
26 of 28 Claims ( 92.9%) Friedrich von Roth
25 of 30 Claims ( 83.3%) Karl Schaefer
23 of 40 Claims ( 57.5%) Oswald Boelcke
22 of 43 Claims ( 51.2%) Paul Baumer
17 of 17 Claims (100.0%) Edmund Nathanael (German-Jewish Ace)
14 of 22 Claims ( 63.6%) Hermann Göring (Possibly 15 of 22 Claims 68.2%)
14 of 15 Claims ( 93.3%) Max Immelmann (2-3 additional Verifed Victories)
11 of 40 Claims ( 27.5%) Franz Buchner
?? of 72 Claims Billy Bishop (Ooops did I jus open a can of worms?!?) ;-)
What about Voss guys –that should be easy for those of you who have Franks’ book.

WWII Aces
??? of 101 Claims Josef ‘Pips’ Priller -largely verified by Johnnie Johnson (38)
100 of 151 Claims (~66.2%) Hans-Joachim Marseille (158) 151 Afrika + 7 Battle of Britain
~80 of 352 Claims (~22.7%) Erich Hartmann –Ace of Aces? –based on claims of Russian Researcher
25 of 40 Claims ( 62.5%) Richard Bong USAAF PTO Ace of Aces.
21 of 28 Claims ( 75.0%) Gabby Gabreski USAAF ETO Ace of Aces
15 of 64 Claims ( 23.4%) Saburo Sakai –top scoring surviving IJNAF ace
9 of 31 Claims ( 29%) Heinz Knocke (–research continuing @ heinzknokewebsite.com)

Also does anyone have a sense of Walter Schuck (206) Hermann Graf (212) and Alfred Grislawski (133) verifyable victories from Christer Bergström’s recent cross referenced works?


INSTRUCTIONS: TO MAKE THIS PROCESS EASIER, PLEASE COPY THIS CHART AND THEN MAKE YOUR ADDITIONS/CORRECTIONS IN THE FORMAT ALREADY USED. IF YOU STONGLY DISAGREE WITH ANOTHER POSTER, PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE THEIR CALCULATION, BUT RATHER PASTE YOUR REVISED FIGURES BENEATH AS A BASIS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH/DEBATE –THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS!


Laurent Rizzotti’s DECIMAL SYSTEM:

Claims can also be divided into three categories (this applies mainly to large scale fights in WWII):

1) Verified: the Target is Identified and Went Down, or the Unit is Identified and has as many losses than the claims of its opponent.
2) Uncertain: Target not identified, at least one loss known but more claims than losses.
3) Invalid: the target is identified, or his unit, and wasn't destroyed though perhaps damaged

When you have one side claim 70 victories and shooting down 50 aircraft, you will probably have something like 10 valide claims and 60 Uncertain ones.

A method to try to get closer to the real score of WWII pilots will be to use the US method of using fractions for claims.

For example, in the above case, the 10 pilots having claimed identified targets (location and time corresponding, away from the main battle and so on) will be given full credit (1 claim = 1 victory) and the 60 other claims, corresponding to the remaining 40 losses, will be valued each 40/60 = 0.666 victory... This is as close as you can get in many cases.

THE DECIMAL SYSTEM MUST REMAIN AS AS SUB-CATEGORY TO VERIFIED CLAIMS –EXAMPLE BELOW

31 of 57 Claims ( 54.4%) James McCudden (Possibly 36 of 57 Claims 63.2%)



-Thanks Barrett for the sizeable contribution. A few years ago there was a lot of controversy concerning Hartmann’s Mustang claims –some people scoffing at them. However this view has evolved. The following is a copied post concerning :

Erich Hartmann's
victories over 4 USAAF P-51 Mustangs on June 24, 1944. The Mustangs were escorting B-17's on a mission to bomb Ploesti.

All 4 P-51 are confirmed.
Hartmann's Staffel shot down 6 P-51 including 4 Hartman's
It were 2 P-51B and 1 P-51C from 52 FG at:
9:40 Lt .Fisher
9:45 Lt. Robinett
1:00 Lt. Burwell
Propably Burwell and Robinett were shot down by Hartmann
Then they meet 4 P-51 from 325 FG and shot down 3 of them including 2 Hartmann's kills.
P-51s Pilots :
Lt. Mueller
Lt. Osterhus
Lt. Hanson
This Info is from excellent polish book "Elita Luftwaffe" (by Robert Michulec)

[Laurent Rizzotti]

Still on the same subject, in a study about the Battle of Leyte published by the USN Historical Branch in 1953, the following method is proposed.

When Japanese losses are not known, the number of real losses will be estimated to be 64% of US claims. For the ground losses, this calculated number will be again multiplied by 60% to have the operationnal losses.

So real losses were estimated as :
_ 64% of the air claims (by aircraft or AA)
_ 64*60 = 38.4 % of the ground claims

[Rob Romero]

Thanks again Laurent,

however, I'm interested in producing a database on verifiable victories. There have been instances of suspcious or highly questionable claiming, or honest but gross (by a factor of 10!) overclaiming, so I'm more interested in discovering/determining what is knowable or probable, rather than what is possible.

Rob Romero

[Blenheim]

Hi Rob Romero,

The subject of accuracy in victory claims is a thorny one and, in my view, unlikely ever to be totally resolved in any meaningful sense, either on an individual basis or one more widely based. But there is certainly room for adjustment in some of the claims that we see listed in all sorts of sources and which apparently have been taken as “good” (I use this word in the sense of acceptable to all concerned at the time) by researchers and other interested parties.

We are all aware of the many reasons for a claim being made which is eventually revealed to be incorrect, even if it is allowed by the claimant’s authorities, and in many cases the claim was made in all good faith and in the belief by the pilot concerned that he had shot down the aircraft claimed. But all the good faith in the world cannot alter the simple fact that in the turmoil of a life or death combat, nobody can be absolutely certain that they have shot down a particular aircraft in every case. Very often detailed research will show which claims are true and which are not and even if this is not the case it can often be shown that an overall total is overstated. For instance, on 13th August 1940 eight pilots of 5./JG 77 claimed fifteen Blenheims shot down and these claims were confirmed. But there were only eleven Blenheims present in the action in the vicinity of Aalberg Airfield and although all were lost, it is possible, probable even, that some of them were shot down by flak. In this case it is extremely unlikely that anybody will ever be able to say which Bf 109 pilot shot down which Blenheim and which was a victim of the flak, but we can at least reduce the total claimed to a true figure. What we cannot do with any authority is say that such-and-such a pilot’s claims total should be reduced by one because the Blenheim he claimed on 13th August 1940 was shot down by flak, or by another pilot, but not by him. In other words we can correct the overall total for that battle but individual totals we cannot. No doubt there are many other instances where the same can be said although probably not as many where it will be as simple.

The idea, as is described by one of the correspondents in this thread, of assigning a percentage figure to a total of claims and hoping that this will allow you to arrive at a more acceptable figure in the case of a larger area such as a theatre or a large battle covering several days and hundreds of square miles is the coarsest of generalisations and like all such can never even approach a reasonable degree of accuracy but, in the event, is probably the only way in which to progress when considering large totals of claims such as for a whole theatre or a large and extended battle. The alternative would, I suspect, involve a research effort taking an unimaginable amount of time with no guarantee of success. However, this sort of detailed research is possible in connection with more limited areas as shown above.

Therefore, and this is merely a very sketchy thought which would require considerable development, and I am happy to discuss it with you, it seems to me that the way to go on this idea of yours (that I agree is very important from the point of view of historical researchers such as us) is to have a sort of central point, one person who might be regarded as a sort of “repository” of claims research, in whose person is gathered everything and anything in the way of research that can correct any of the possibly false claims which abound, and to whom other people can send the results of their research for collation into an overall database. (Was that or was that not one Hell of a sentence for the poor old English language?) Rob Romero, you have already said you are interested in producing a database of verifiable victories and would thus seem to be the obvious person to fill the role of “repository”, and perhaps, if we can collect enough people who each work at one area (be it one aircraft type, one fighter unit, one theatre or what have you) it might be possible for you to start to construct such a database. I am prepared to contribute whatever I find regarding Bristol Blenheims shot down, so there is a small start.

Those are my thoughts, anybody else have any ideas to offer? Please let’s hear them and, Rob Romero, now you’ve started this, let’s hear your thoughts on what I have offered above. I am of the opinion that what you have said, and the responses it has drawn, can only assist the cause of the researches we are all interested in, and I for one am prepared to help you with the database you mention, albeit in only a small way and concerning one type of aircraft.

All the best,

Blenheim

PS There are two threads on this subject. To which should we post?