Percentage of Verifiable Victories of Various Aces –Updates & Recommendations

[gilles]

In my opinion, these figures does not measure any "pilot claim veracity". It only indicates what archives exist and what have been researched.

Already I think it is safe to say that we can reach a historical conclusion! So far the results reflect exceedingly well on Jasta 11 -it seems the unit maintained an exceptional degree of integrity in making claims –and bestows even further credit on their ‘meister’ Manfred von Richthofen. Perhaps this is consequent to MvR’s mantra to “Bring them down burning!” At 82.5% Lothar comes out as a relative braggart! LOL This contrasts with a liberal outlook on claiming, allegedly taken by some JGs in WWII.
These results will also undoubtedly place an even greater gap between Jasta 11 and any rival unit in terms of its status as an elite unit (is Bölcke already starting to tarnish Jasta 2’s luster? -he was still nevertheless a great combat leader and a father of air combat tactics).

Richthofen’s Jasta 11 ‘Bloody April’ 1917 Gang
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
11 of 12 Claims ( 91.7%) Sebastien Festner
25 of 30 Claims ( 83.3%) Karl-Emil Schäfer
33 of 40 Claims ( 82.5%) Lothar von Richthofen
206 of 225 Claims ( 91.6%) Jasta 11 - EXCEPTIONAL CLAIM VERACITY!

It's not really surprizing if one considers that:
- british archives have been researched for years
- Jasta 11, the most famous german unit, has been researched for years
- Bloody April is one of the most well known event in WW1 warfare and has been researched for years.

I’m a bit perturbed by the low percentages attained by such legendary figures as Udet and Bölcke –any explanations - they make Göring look good!

I bet it is Boelcke's victories against french aircraft that cannot be confirmed. Available list of french losses deals not with destroyed aircraft but with human casualties (killed/missing/wounded).
I guess a book like "under the guns of the red baron" would have been impossible if MvR fought against french units.

I don't expect high percentage for british and french aces because, as DEM pointed, german records are incomplete.
Once I tried to check some Fonck victories. To my surprise I could not find german losses for aircrafts that crashed behind french lines : there is a smoking hole in the ground, and that is enough to confirm a kill I guess , but nothing in available german datas.

French victories have not been researched but due to confirmation rules (a wreck behind french lines or 3 witnesses), french historians consider that the tallies are generally accurate.

Gilles

[Craig]

Originally Posted by R Pope

In my eyes, all this rehashing of "scores" and trying to diminish the accomplishments of long-dead soldiers seems to be no more than mental masturbation.

Only if history is to be regarded as a Feel Good Fable. And it's NOT "trying to diminish the accomplishments of long-dead soldiers, it's "trying to ascertain what really happened".

[Rob Romeor]

Gilles comments on the veracity of the claims by the CORE ACES who were members of Jasta 11 in April of 1917.
Quote:

It's not really surprizing if one considers that:
- british archives have been researched for years
- Jasta 11, the most famous german unit, has been researched for years
- Bloody April is one of the most well known event in WW1 warfare and has been researched for years.

While this record might not be surprising, it IS remarkable in that 206 Verified of 225 Claims ( 91.6%) is an exceptional if not unparalleled verification rate in terms of the history of aerial combat. (It should be noted that most of these 225 claims occurred well before and after ‘Bloody April’) I would not be surprised if the actual historical rate encompassing all eras were 1 in 3. There are numerous examples of heavy overclaiming sometimes by a factor of 10. I think any serious historian would acknowledge that the ‘intensive’ research of Jasta 11 has buoyed rather denigrated its reputation (as it might well have had the data shown otherwise), firmly entrenching it as THE elite fighter squadron of WWI.

At this nascent stage of the project, I expect MANY ERRORS and LARGE GAPS, however, IF this project is sustained and nurtured by our collective effective efforts, there will be progress –eventually, perhaps YEARS or even DECADES from now, the resulting database may be pretty well fleshed out (perhaps with exceptions (i.e., Allied Claims in WWI). However, even if there are large/huge gaps, the areas where there is enlightenment should prove of historic value, and I think that Jasta 11’s record is an example of this.

Rob

[Rob Romeor]

Addition – 1 WWII Ace Lt. Hans-Leopold Henkemeier (6VV)

Verifiable Victories of 24 WWI Central Power Aces / 2 WWI Allied Aces / 10 WWII Aces / 1 Korean War Ace


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 authenticity 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).

24 WWI Central Power Aces (Records of Some Aces are Easier to confirm due to more complete British Loss Records)
1) 74 of 80 Claims ( 92.5%) Manfred von Richthofen
2) 46 of 48 Claims ( 95.8%) Werner Voss
3) 33 of 33 Claims (100.0%) Kurt Wolff *
4) 33 of 40 Claims ( 82.5%) Lothar von Richthofen
5) 32 of 45 Claims ( 71.1%) Fritz Rumey
6) 30 of 30 Claims (100.0%) Karl Allmenröder *
7) 30 of 62 Claims ( 48.4%) Ernst Udet
8) 28 of 31 Claims ( 90.3%) Paul Billik
9) 27 of 54 Claims ( 50.0%) Erich Lowenhardt
10) 25 of 44 Claims ( 56.8%) Rudolf Berthold
11) 25 of 48 Claims ( 52.0%) Josef Jacobs
12) 26 of 28 Claims ( 92.9%) Friedrich von Roth
13) 26 of 40 Claims ( 65.0%) Franz Büchner (Possibly 34/40 Claims 85%) REQUIRES FURTHER EVALUATION –SEE BELOW
14) 25 of 30 Claims ( 83.3%) Karl-Emil Schäfer
15) 24 of 44 Claims ( 54.5%) Bruno Loerzer
16) 23 of 40 Claims ( 57.5%) Oswald Bölcke (Verifiable Victories (VV) OBSCURED by insufficiency of French loss records!)
17) 22 of 35 Claims ( 62.9%) Goodwin Brumowski positive or possible ID –Top Austrian WWI Ace
18) 22 of 43 Claims ( 51.2%) Paul Baumer
19) 17 of 17 Claims (100.0%) Edmund Nathanael (German-Jewish Ace)
20) 15 of 32 Claims ( 46.9%) Julius Arigi (15+ are Verified) Austrian
21) 14 of 15 Claims ( 93.3%) Max Immelmann (2-3 additional Verifed Victories)
22) 11 of 12 Claims ( 91.7%) Sebastien Festner
23) 9 of 22 Claims ( 40.9%) Hermann Göring Possibly 14 of 22 Claims (63.6%) or 15 of 22 Claims (68.2%)
24) 8 of 28 Claims ( 28.6%) Benno Fiala Ritter von Fernbrugg –Austrian

2 WWI ALLIED ACE RECORDS
1) 33 of 34 Claims ( 97.1%) Francesco Baracca - KIA 19 Jun 1918
2) 31 of 46.5 Claims ( 66.7%) James McCudden (46.5 Credited Kills / 57 Official Victories) (Possibly 36 of 46.5 Claims 77.4%)

1 WWI CENTRAL POWER ACE RECORDS REQUIRING FURTHER EVALUATION
Franz Büchner
11 of 40 Claims ( 27.5%) –as per Barrett (source Above The Lines?)
26 of 40 Claims ( 65.0%) –strict accounting as per Rammjaeger (this seems to utilize more up to date info than ATL)
34 of 40 Claims ( 85.0%) –a more liberal accouting by Rammjaeger

5 WWI ALLIED ACE RECORDS REQUIRING FURTHER EVALUATION
CAVEAT: It is difficult to check WWI Allied Claims against the incomplete Central Power Loss Records! Moreover, the actual ‘Official’ credits are being revised to include ‘Kill’ claims only (i.e., including not Out Of Control (OOC) etc.) If the situation is as bad as has been suggested, then perhaps we should limit our evaluation to Central Powers and Italian (?) aces?

Billy Bishop (55 Credited Kills / 72 Official Victories)
20 of 55 Claims ( 36.4%) -more recent evaluation of German Records than at billybishop.net/bishopP.html as per Al Lowe 6 Oct 98
2 of 55 Claims ( 03.6%) -It seems highly unlikely to me that such exaggeration would be tolerated by his squadron

Edward ‘Mick’ Mannock (38.28 Credited Kills / 61 Official Victories)
15 of 38 Claims ( 39.2%) -as per DEM 2 Oct 06

Eddie Rickenbacker (?? Claimed Kills / 26 Official Victories)
11 of 26 Claims ( 42.3%) including 2 “grounders” –2 Crash Landed?

Lanoe Hawker (3 Credited Kills / 7 Official Victories)
1 of 3 Claims ( 33.3%) -as per DEM 2 Oct 06

Raymond Collishaw (29.2 Credited Kills / 60 Official Victories)
0 of 29 Claims ( 00.0%) - as per DEM 2 Oct 06


10 WWII Aces
1) ??? of 101 Claims Josef ‘Pips’ Priller -largely verified by Johnnie Johnson (38)
2) 100 of 151 Claims (+66.2%) Hans-Joachim Marseille (158) 151 Afrika + 7 Battle of Britain
3) ~80 of 345 Claims (~23.2%) Erich Hartmann (352) -Ace of Aces? –based on claims of Russian Researcher
4) 74 of 121 Claims ( 61.2%) Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer -Top NJG Ace (much higher verification % has been indicated)
5) 25 of 40 Claims ( 62.5%) Richard Bong USAAF PTO Ace of Aces.
6) 21 of 28 Claims ( 75.0%) Francis ‘Gabby’ Gabreski USAAF ETO Ace of Aces
7) 15 of 64 Claims ( 23.4%) Saburo Sakai -top scoring surviving IJNAF ace
8) ~9.5 of 26 Claims ( 36.5%) Gregory ‘Pappy’ Boyington - PROPORTIONAL METHOD JoeB
9) 9 of 31 Claims ( 29.0%) Heinz Knocke (–research continuing @ heinzknokewebsite.com)
10) 6+ of 7 Claims ( +85.8%) Lt. Hans-Leopold Henkemeier –Source Andrey Dikov

Korean War
Nikolai Sutyagin
1.46 of 21 Claims (07.0%) PROPORTIONAL METHOD JoeB
5 of 21 Claims (23.8%) PROPORTIONAL METHOD with ‘Benefit of Doubt’ JoeB

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 PROPORTIONAL METHOD:

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 PROPORTIONAL METHOD MUST REMAIN AS AS SUB-CATEGORY TO VERIFIED CLAIMS UNLESS NO OTHER METHOD OF CALCULATION IS USED –EXAMPLE BELOW

31 of 57 Claims ( 54.4%) Pilot X (PROPORTIONAL METHOD 36 of 57 Claims 63.2%)


Already I think it is safe to say that we can reach a historical conclusion! So far the results reflect exceedingly well on Jasta 11 -it seems the unit maintained an exceptional degree of integrity in making claims –and bestows even further credit on their ‘meister’ Manfred von Richthofen. Perhaps this is consequent to MvR’s mantra to “Bring them down burning!” This contrasts with a liberal outlook on claiming, allegedly taken by some JGs in WWII.
These results will also undoubtedly place an even greater gap between Jasta 11 and any rival unit in terms of its status as an elite unit (is Bölcke already starting to tarnish Jasta 2’s luster? -he was still nevertheless a great combat leader and a father of air combat tactics).

Richthofen’s Jasta 11 ‘Bloody April’ 1917 Gang
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
11 of 12 Claims ( 91.7%) Sebastien Festner
25 of 30 Claims ( 83.3%) Karl-Emil Schäfer
33 of 40 Claims ( 82.5%) Lothar von Richthofen
206 of 225 Claims ( 91.6%) Jasta 11 - EXCEPTIONAL CLAIM VERACITY!


“Bring them down burning! Get the plane you are after and make it burn.”
-Manfred von Richthofen
“I hope he roasted all the way down.”
-Edward ‘Mick’ Mannock upon learning of MvR’s death.

[castiglione]

I'm surprised some people are surprised there was over-claiming.

Air combat, by its very nature was chaotic, so it was often to be absolutely sure what had exacxtly happened, especially when one is in an adrenalized state. People talk now about the unreliability of eye witness accounts. This is a case in point.

Plus, the claims put in by pilots is going to be colored by a lot of factors. Personality would probably play a role; some people are optimistic, others less so. Some people are completely self-centered and are egoists, others the polar opposite. This will affect how they perceive chaotic events unfolding around them. An overly optimistic and/or self-centered person may chase after an EA, fire on it and see it dive and conclude that they had shot it down; a pessimistic individual who is aware of others around him may do the same thing and conclude he gave the EA pilot a fright but that no material harm was done. Then you will always some bad apples who will falsify combat reports in order to make themselves look good or cover up questionable or despicable acts they may have committed. This has happened in every war.

As for Bishop's over-claiming and why his colleagues may have put up with it, it may have just been part of the culture; an officer submits his combat report and one is expected to accept his word for what happened. Another part of it may have been the members of his squadron closing ranks; WWI was not exactly a popular war. Why did Barker not "see through him"? I really doubt they spent their free time talking about the war. The probably had other things worry about when they became business partners. Plus, Barker was apparently not a great conversationalist and most of the fighting he took part in was in Italy.

And lastly, why "dredge up" some unpleasantness of the past? Because historians should be obsessed with discovering the truth in historical events, not perpetrating and legitimizing myths; that's for the folklore department.