The numbers game

I have been reading the debate over Bishop et al. with interest. I understand the problem with claims from the British position over the German lines. It was pointed out that the claims system was supported by the chain of command; that in order for this "lax" system to be in place, there had to be high level acceptance. My question is whether anyone has ever found information that the inflated numbers of the Brits (and the French) were a way to justify Trenchard's (the allies) offensive policies. What comes to mind is our (U.S.) experience in Vietnam. One way to paint a good picture of the war (we're winning this thing)was body counts. This demand to make things look good at home created pressures to make their losses look bigger. Has anybody seen or heard anything to support this kind of behavior from the top of the RFC?
DD

[Graeme]

Denny

I think the over-claiming is the result of Trenchard's policy of taking the war to the enemy rather than its justification. Naturally there would have been a need to show that the RFC and RNAS pilots and observers were as good as their German counterparts. But it is perhaps indicative of a sense of unease by higher command that the reporting of casualties in the RFC Communiques was ceased during 1916 and that the mounting number of "Out of control" victories were eventually tallied on separate lists to those classed as "decisive".

As the tempo of the air war rose to its peak during the summer of 1918 (both in terms of the frequency with which combats took place and the number of machines involved), Out of control claims comprised fully half the total number of victory claims. Few of these appear in the RAF Communiques except where destruction was later confirmed (by other pilots, ground observers etc).

I suppose that since the practice of claiming these so-called "soft" victories was not suspended by higher command, that body stands accused of sanctioning the habit.

Still, gives us something to debate, doesn't it?

Graeme

Graeme: Thanks for the reply. It could support an argument that RFC command created an atmosphere for overclaiming.The row wasn't about the RFC communicating its own losses, it was about German losses. If we assume that two reasons for tallying kills are to gauge the effectiveness of your equipment and to judge enemy strength, then I can see where the RFC's lax system was modified. Somewhere along the line, someone had to ask how the decimated German air service was beating the beejeebers out of allied air services. Obviously, one way to get a better feel for the truth(?) was to seperate out decisive from OOC. We could choose to deduce from that, however, that the Allies were paying the price for a deeply flawed system created to put their deadly offensive policies in a positive light, then finally had the courage to change it. I am still wondering if anybody has ever seen information to support that overclaiming directives came from above. I guess it could start a debate (I have to get a squadron of happy faces). DD wink, wink

Dear all.It would appear that it wasn`t only the dirty rotters in the RFC who were guilty of overclaiming. MvR himself claimed 80 victories but modern historians can only find evidence of 50 or so.In the book Tumult in the Clouds (the WW1 version) the author says that it is possible that an aircraft an aircraft leaving the scene of a fight,for whatever reason, would be claimed by someone as a "kill".As proved in ww2 many a plane that looked like it wouldnot make it home often did! Regards andy the tyke

I would suggest that given the relatively small number of Allied aces' victories that correspond to (existing) German loss records, Richthofen's tally speaks even more highly of the man's skill as the top ace. After all, no Allied ace was able to better MvR's score, even with their much more lenient victory system. He was a remarkable fighter pilot.

At war's end, we ended up with lists and scores, each based on the criteria established by the military of the respective countries. Mannock has 73 victories, Fonck 75, Bishop 72 and Richthofen 80. The problem is that each figure represents the approved claims under the rules of the claimant's own country. Yet there's the list, so inevitably we want to compare them against one another to say who was the better killer. Oh, but wait--so the scores are "kills", right? So there must be a corresponding loss to each claim, right? Wrong. But surely that's the only fair way to compare them...and the fight is on, dragging in the accuracy of the records and suggestions of deliberate "overclaiming" and the personality of Billy Bishop.

I will say this. Richthofen's score was well-known after his death on April 21, 1918. Had the Allies had an X-Files conspiracy going, they certainly would have arranged for their top ace to have surpassed that number.

To my way of thinking the justification for Trenchard's offensive policy lies in the success of the reconn patrols that went out day after day gathering literally masses of crucial information by way of photography and note taking, and probably saved many thousands of lives on the ground by warning of impending German offensives, or by pin-pointing new trenches,blockhouses, gun emplacements and strong-points that stood in the way of British offensives. These patrols took casualties, yes, but some at least would always get back with the required information, so the losses were acceptable.

As to the offensive policy with regard to single-seater scouts: by going over the lines all the time they took a lot of the heat off the reconn's and art-obs machines, and also turned back or shot down many German reconn's before they even reached our lines.

My view is the British losses were justified by the number of lives saved on the ground.

As to over-claiming: In addition to any number of German aircraft that might have been forced down but where the pilot survived the crash or landing uninjured (and lots of British pilots survived these, but were then taken prisoner because they were on the wrong side of the lines),one has to realise the distinction between a 'victory' (where the enemy is either destroyed or driven from the field) and the later term of a 'kill' where the enemy is dafinitely destroyed. Also, it seems that if three British pilots fired at one German aircraft and it went down, then the RFC awarded all three pilots a separate victory. Doesn't help with accurate counting much, I agree. As to why? Good question.

Bob

[Dan_San_Abbott]

Gentlemen;
In regards to MvR's and other German pilot's victory claims.
1. They were all confirmed by two witnesses, which was a basic requirement of recognition of a victory claim.
2.The pilot's word of the claim is not sufficient to award the victory.
3. When the victory is confirmed the acknowledgement was published in the monthly Nachrichtenblatt listing.
4. Because the researcher can not find the validating documents of a loss on the Allied side, he or she concludes it did not happen. Part of this is lazy research!
5. Most of MvR's victories have the names and units of the crews and aircraft serial numbers. Try any of the above requirements with Billy Bishop victories.
6. Most of German victories were easy to validate because the action for the most part took place over German occuppied France or Belgium.
In defense of RFC/RAF claims of OCC and multiple claims. In the official British history, "WAR IN THE AIR", in Vol.IV it tells of an action where the RAF squadron were stacked with Dolphins at 20,000 SE.5as at 17000 and Camels at 12000. With this sceniaro I can readily see the opportunity for 3 claims of an OCC with German fighter runnying for home, possible wounded or with engine problems, etc a Dolphin pilt claims him,an SE pilot aswell as the Camel driver and the German pilot gets home with reparable damage to him and the Alb. D.V and the Germans say there was no loss! The ascertion that some of you are making that these pilots made this claim dishonestly and the intelligence people who study the pilot's reports delibertly awarded the victory to all three pilots knowing they were false claims. You cannot apply the honor system of today's society with the honor system of the people of early to mid 20th Century. Those of today for the most part do not understand or accept the concept of patriotism, duty and honor and country.
Blue skies,
Dan-San Abbott

Well said, Dan. Battle is confusing and hectic. During the spring and summer of 1918 especially, with the Amerika Programme in effect and swarms of aircraft battling it out, I'm sure multiple claims were made for the same aircraft as you surmise.

Perhaps the most troubling statistic is the many claims for aircraft obviously destroyed--wings falling off, going down in flames, seen to crash, coming apart in the air--for which there is no corresponding German loss in the records. I'm left with the conclusion that either the pilot flat-out lied or the German records are inaccurate. And apparently there are lots of such discrepancies.

[Frank_Olynyk]

I have said it before here, and I will say it again. NOBODY has ever attempted to match the complete list of Allied claims with the complete list of German & Austro-Hungarian losses. To use the list of victims in Above the Trenches to praise one ace, and denigrate another is flat out wrong. The reason we have such a high proportion of matches for German claims is that we have a high proportion of the times for German claims, and basically all the times for British losses, together with the information known to the British at the time about the circumstances of the loss. For the Germans we have a very low proportion of times of losses available, and no collection of the circumstances of those losses. The basic list of German losses does not even include the aviation unit. Matching claims and losses in these circumstances is at best extremely difficult, time consuming and tedious.

What has been attempted is to review a few of the famous, high scoring aces, Mannock, McCudden, Bishop in particular. Claims and victims for almost any other ace are on a hit-or-miss basis. The difference in the length of the victims list for Mannock and McCudden, and for Bishop, is striking. That is the basis for the "Bishop controversy". Did Bishop lie? NOBODY KNOWS. He can't be asked, and he never said so. Under the circumstances, to say that he lied, or that he was 100% honest, is a leap of faith that cannot be justified by the evidence. At some point in historical research you have to say "I do not know", accept it, and leave it at that.

The British divided claims into two types, Decisive, and Indecisive. In 1918 the Combat in the Air forms allowed three specific categories: Destroyed, Out of Control, and Driven Down Out of Control. The first two were considered Decisive, the latter was not. Destroyed claims included aircraft seen to crash, seen in flames, seen to break up in the air (and "break up" can be strong or weak; "wings folding up" is strong, while "pieces falling off" is weak), or the crew jumping out at altitude. Out of control claims can also be strong or weak, and frequently weak claims were not accepted. A strong claim might be that the victim was last seen at a low altitude (under 1000 feet) out of control and diving. Or that the plane was seen tumbling, somersaulting, or other fantastic gyrations, for a substantial distance. Too many out of control claims are for aircraft diving steeply, which disappear in the clouds/haze/mist. These I would characterize as weak, better left as Indecisive, and Driven Down Out of Control; and in some units that is how they were handled. If a pilot states that the victim was last seen under control, he never makes a claim for an out of control. The wording of the claim is important; "absolutely OOC" is better than "diving steeply". Whether someone would deliberately choose positive phrasing rather than neutral, or even negative, is doubtful (the culture of those times, not ours), but possible. Prove it? Never.

Frank.

My regrets to the knee-jerk reaction guys. The initial question was about information regarding command decisions. If, in fact, anybody has seen information on why the systems developed the way they did. Information about a conspiracy or not a conspiracy would be helpful. Hrmmphing off the stage isn't. Nothing happens in a vacuum. Is there a paper trail?