Erich Hartmann: 352 victories or... 80?

[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?

[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.

[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.

[Kari Lumppio]

Hej!

My guestion of the Soviet losses stemmed from the fact that the "did not return" category losses are often of the same level as combat losses. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that more than half or so of the "did not return" were caused of loss of orientation, bad weather, loosing instrument in clouds etc.

Juri Rybin has done extensive work of the Northern airwar. Valtonen's book gives numerous examples from late 1944 where German claims well exceed the real Soviet losses. The same is true vice versa and Rybin takes a lot of flak from his Russian colleagues because he has also written so. Mombeek's JG5 book uses (I guess) data from the same source and again there are many cases of german claims without real losses (or "no data found"). Was JG 5 the only Luftwaffe unit overclaiming? If II/JG54 did not overclaim then FinnAF nor Finnish AAA did not shoot down any Soviet plane during the Summer 1944 Soviet offensives. Should I believe that?

IMO there has to be discrepancy of the combined total of Luftwaffe claims Christer gave and the total what was submitted from the unit level. Is the total claims number correct and where is it derived from? Has Luftwaffe higher level corrected the claims to correlate with the real Soviet loss numbers? That would procide a circular reference. You are the expert here and I would like to learn more.

Taking FinnAF as analoque, it seems higher echelons were well aware of overclaiming but did not take measures against that (and why would they? to raise spirit of the corps?). It looks to me that only when the kill race went overboard spring 1943 some action was taken to reduce the overclaiming (with some success). My interpretation is that this was done to avoid unnecessary aircraft/pilot losses because of the "hunting sport".

Cheers,
Kari

PS About the famous authors missing from this forum. You suggest that I make my own guesswork. Frankly, I do not have the faintest idea of what authors you are talking about. That was why I was asking the first place. I was just curious as I would like to know what I am missing. OK with me if you want to keep your secrets.

[Kutscha]

I only see some hugely over inflated ego of their own self importance with a rather large insecurity paranoria thrown in for good measure, who does much whinning like a spoilt child.

I don't think someone has to worry about desperate people ruining their reputation for they are doing such a good job of it all by themself. Did such a good job of it on another board he had his name replaced with 'user deleted by request'.

[Christer Bergström]

Soviet losses stemmed from the fact that the "did not return" category losses are often of the same level as combat losses. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that more than half or so of the "did not return" were caused of loss of orientation, bad weather, loosing instrument in clouds etc.

Was JG 5 the only Luftwaffe unit overclaiming?

If II/JG54 did not overclaim

Is there a discrepancy of the combined total of Luftwaffe claims Christer gave and the total what was submitted from the unit level?

Is the total claims number correct and where is it derived from?

Kari, you have very good questions, they deserve an answer, and I can give you the answers.

But I'm afraid there are too many trolls here - too many people focused on my person instead of the subject as such - so I will leave the discussion. Drop me an e-mail instead, and I'll send you a personal reply. (But don't expect me to give you any names; I will stick to the WW II related questions.)