Allied victories vs. German records

Frank Olynyk put it very nicely one time here on the aerodrome, and I have quoted him.

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. [b]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.

To see the complete message, go to http://www.billybishop.net/zone/bishopR.html

[Darryl]

Hello all,

Firstly, my apologies for this rehash, but I have not the time at the moment to rewrite the thing in the current context.

To wit:

Here, for what it is worth, is my take on the records.

British and Commonwealth claims are wildly overstated. This is I believe, firstly due to the practice of allowing shares of victories as a full credit, secondly, to the normal factors affecting air to air combat (speed, confusion, difficulty in keeping aircraft in sight, adrenalin, perception, selective recall on writing a report later, to name a few) and lastly and in a minority of cases, lack of good faith in claiming. There is ample demonstration of all these factors to be found later during the Battle of Britain.

German claims also exhibit all of these factors (excepting shared claims which were not generally given), albeit on a smaller scale. The main reason for the better matching being ‘home ground’ advantage and a relative ease of habeas corpus.

I am far more willing to accept confusion as the primary cause for false claims than elsewise. The sky is a large place but things move around it with startling rapidity. Your eyes are wont to play tricks and if you take your eyes off another aircraft, even in the circuit, it takes a few seconds to pick it up again.
This given that the other guy is NOT manoeuvring to kill you!! It is quite easy to lose someone and then mistake another aircraft for the first one.

The British records are mostly intact and nicely collected at Public Records Office, Kew, which is an amazing place. Even so, it can be hard to find the information you are searching for and even harder to be assured that you have all that is relevant to your quest. (reports can often be found filed under the wrong Squadron!! Eg, 2AFC CITARs in 2Sqn section).

The German records are incomplete due to the ravages of time, the pillaging of the Russians and what Barrett so marvellously referred to as the “Lancaster and Halifax rebuilding programme 1944/45”.

[Darryl]

............
The above points can be demonstrated by a couple of instances. The first is a small battle which you would ordinarily expect to be within easy comprehension of all present during the proceedings.

A recon flight of 2 AW FK8’s of 2 Sqn was set upon by 6 Pfalz scouts near La Bassee. The pair was separated and McGlashan/Cripps were attacked by 2 of the Pfalz. Allport/Hammond bore the brunt with the other 4. They only report, however, being in combat with 6.

Other 2 Sqn aircraft were in the area and a lone FK (B211 Hommersham/ Broadbent) dived into the fight apparently to help Allport/Hammond (A/H).
A/H reported being dived on by one Pfalz which was fired upon and levelled out, bursting into flames. Kuett of Jasta 23 was wounded this day and Jasta 23 was in this fight, so this could be him. A second Pfalz (??) was flying parallel to them, overtaking them to cut off their retreat. They fired at it and it fell to pieces.

At this time Gossner of J23 claimed an AWFK destroyed West of La Bassee or Armentieres depending on your source. This was probably B211 which broke up in mid air after the dive to help A/H. 2Sqn only lost one aircraft this day.

Whilst it should be fairly difficult to mistake an FK for a Pfalz, A/H make NO mention of help in their report. The aircraft flying parallel and faster is entirely consistent with the other FK pulling out of a dive and falling apart. A/H make NO mention of other allied aircraft in the fight. If they had fired at it and seen it break up, they would certainly be inclined to believe it was German in the middle of a fight! Just another German aircraft diving on them. After all, their partner rejoined them after this fight was over and they were the only two aircraft assigned to that particular photo recon. B211 probably dived down at the first Pfalz which was attacking them, firing, which made it just another in the line of aggressors.

So from this one fight we possibly have 1 FK claimed as both a German AND a British victory and one Pfalz which may or may not have been destroyed by fire!!




In another case I have been looking into a victory claimed by a crew who certainly did not claim everything they fired at. They had a witness and a precise location where the Fokker crashed in flames. Later service records put the pilot’s integrity beyond doubt and I am inclined to believe, on balance, that the victory occurred. No German records appear to show a loss on that day anywhere near that area.

I hope that the above demonstrates that confusion and lack of records are, in many cases, the cause of problems.


Regards to all

Darryl

I am curious about Graeme's list if it includes Aust-hung records...were these records as detailed as German one's for Losses?

If they were not, then Barker is getting a raw deal in that list.

[Craig]

Why must it be an “either/or” answer? It is apparent that German records are incomplete, especially regarding shot-down but not killed/wounded/captured airmen, and it is even more obvious that the British couldn’t possibly have shot down as many Germans as they claimed.

Here’s a possible solution: since the British records are more or less intact, we can determine the ratio of POWs to KIAs. This proportion should be the same for the Germans, except that they were downed on THEIR side, and thus not captured - but were still shot down. So, if there were 3 British airmen shot down unhurt, and captured for every 5 killed or wounded, then we can expect that there were 3 Germans shot down unhurt for every 5 killed or wounded. (These figures are arbitrary, as I don’t know what the actual numbers are).
As I recall, those supporting the Brits on this issue place considerable weight on the “shot down uninjured” proportion of their claims. Figuring this out may help clear up THAT little bit of haziness.
So: does anybody know the british figures for killed/wounded/POW?

[Richard_Schrader]

Guys,
If we keep this up we will all be locked up in padded rooms trying to come up with formulas and perfect answers.
Richard

[Craig]

Cool! I could use the company . . .

[Graeme]

Hi All,

Sorry for picking up late but I've been raising a glass or two to the memory of our dear Albert.

For the sake of expedience I simply used the information from Above The Trenches, ie the number of victories quoted for each pilot and the number of claims for which the authors provided a German (or Austro-Hungarian) loss.

I have a few times in the past attempted to reconcile RFC etc claims on the Western Front with corresponding German losses but have given up in frustration. Times are not often quoted in German records and the occasions when the location matches that quoted in British records are so few and far between that the task becomes fruitless.

It is possible to positively identify some losses as being attributable to a specific pilot, for example von Bertrab being brought down by Mannock, but until we are able to positively compare records from every source, the matching of a German loss to an Allied claim must remain an art, not a science.

The fact that individual pilots sharing a victory each received a whole victory had no impact upon the number of enemy aircraft claimed - even if every member of a Flight claimed to have participated in the combat, only a single enemy machine was claimed, not six. Shared victories therefore had no part to play in over-claiming.

We are able, fairly reasonably, to discount the so-called "soft" claims (out of control, driven down etc) and by doing so reduce the total number of RFC etc victory claims by about half. Whether or not the claiming of aeroplanes in these categories amounts to institutionalised over-claiming is another matter.

The actual over-claiming is in the "destroyed" category where the aeroplane was reported to have broken up in the air, fallen in flames or crashed to the ground.

Between them, the Britsh & Commonwealth forces, the French, Belgians and Americans claimed something in the order of 8,000 "decisive" victories on the Western Front. Sources differ, but according to the tabulation in Casualties of the German Air Service, 1,389 pilots failed to return and 1,734 pilots fell into their own lines as a result of combat, a grand total of 3,123 pilots (and, presumably, aeroplanes). From this figure should be deducted those casualties occurring away from the Western Front leaving fewer than 3,000 casualties against claims for almost three times that number.

I have in the past (and with tongue firmly in cheek) sought to prove that the RFC etc actually scored no victories at all. This runs along the lines of: since the French, Belgian and USAS accreditation systems required evidence of the victory to be available, those countries' claims are obviously correct; French = 2,049 aeroplanes, USAS = 746 aeroplanes and Belgium = 110 aeroplanes = a total of 2,905 or about every German aeroplane lost in combat on the Western Front.

To state the obvious, simply because an Allied claim has no corresponding loss in German records, this does not mean another example of over-claiming since there are at least three possibilities:

1. The German records are incomplete
2. The German crew suffered no injury
3. The Allied pilot(s) over-claimed.

In archaeological terms, the truth is at a level we have not yet reached and we must therefore keep digging.

Anyone got a clean spade?

VBR Graeme

[Graeme]

According to The Sky Their Battlefield:

2,142 killed east of the lines (30.6%)
1,781 Pow (25.3%)
935 Kia (13.4%)
2,146 Wia (30.7%)

Total casualties east of the lines = 55.95%

Graeme

[PeterL]

Isn't the point that neither sides figures are to be relied upon? The records are not there to be found, however deep we dig. The German records are incomplete, the Allied records likewise. We have had illustrated here on the forum just last week an example of "leakage" from the PRO. This is a circular argument which serves no purpose and acheives nothing but the occasional bruised ego. The truth is not out there.

Peter L