PDA

View Full Version : Complete list of Luftwaffe victories claimed in ww 2 NOTE: 1200+ P51 shot down ......



Sintubin
06-17-2006, 12:01 PM
I noted last Adolf Galland kills were B 26. This man was a real unbeliavable pilot.
....and please, all note the incredible number of russian planes shoot down !! I have few doubts on why 1C team hate so much FW 190.


All in all some 1200 P51 kills reported.
I have to find the number Americans addmited agains Germans and how many they claim to have shoot down


Nice statistic
Friedrich Karl tutti Muller killed many spits

Thats why red hates me

i am a ace without nowing it



http://math.fce.vutbr.cz/safarik/ACES/luftwaffe.wartime...victory.credits.html (http://math.fce.vutbr.cz/safarik/ACES/luftwaffe.wartime.aerial.victory.credits.html)


Have fun BTW look at some alt details

Bremspropeller
06-17-2006, 12:02 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Sintubin
06-17-2006, 12:03 PM
Aded the list )

Monty_Thrud
06-17-2006, 12:22 PM
There was far too much over claiming going on, on both sides.

I wouldn't take these too seriously if i were you

...btw, whats with the porn link on that web page?...near the bottom

LStarosta
06-17-2006, 12:40 PM
How can you take a list with porn seriously?

MB80
06-17-2006, 12:45 PM
Are these confirmed or also unconfirmed kills? If they were taken from LW records, no propaganda origin, you can take away 5-15% for shure.

SeaFireLIV
06-17-2006, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by Sintubin:
I noted last Adolf Galland kills were B 26. This man was a real unbeliavable pilot.
....and please, all note the incredible number of russian planes shoot down !! I have few doubts on why 1C team hate so much FW 190.


All in all some 1200 P51 kills reported.
I have to find the number Americans addmited agains Germans and how many they claim to have shoot down


Nice statistic
Friedrich Karl tutti Muller killed many spits

Thats why red hates me

i am a ace without nowing it



http://math.fce.vutbr.cz/safarik/ACES/luftwaffe.wartime...victory.credits.html (http://math.fce.vutbr.cz/safarik/ACES/luftwaffe.wartime.aerial.victory.credits.html)


Have fun BTW look at some alt details



It`s a pity really. This could have been a good informative post, but it`s so obviously a thinly veiled flame troll post.

Anyway...

The reasons why the Germans had so many kills are many.

1. Most Germans learned their skills and tactics in the Spanish Civil war.

2. Most Russians were taken by surprise on the Russian Front. Many Russian aircraft were on the ground at the time of the initial attack. many russian pilots were completely green. many of the good commanders who may have commanded the airforce had been purged by stalin.

3. The Germans never had a break, unlike the Americans and Brits, literally fighting through the whole war. Any break they had was very small.

4. Many German pilots PROTECTED their Aces to the point of almost blowing a mission just so that their `Adolf gallands` could come home with another 2-4 kills.

That`s the unbiased truth.

Capt.LoneRanger
06-17-2006, 02:12 PM
Reminds me to the reports the US-Pilots and crews made during WW2 about the German submarines they sank.

It was counted after the war, the US-Pilots alone sunk 700% of all submarines Germany ever built between 33 and 45!

ploughman
06-17-2006, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
Reminds me to the reports the US-Pilots and crews made during WW2 about the German submarines they sank.

It was counted after the war, the US-Pilots alone sunk 700% of all submarines Germany ever built between 33 and 45!

Let's face it though, having the Yanks sink 7 times the number of operational units in your fleet is going to have an absolutely crushing effect on your navy's morale. Given those sorts of losses I'm suprised the Kriegsmarine even put to sea.

berg417448
06-17-2006, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
Reminds me to the reports the US-Pilots and crews made during WW2 about the German submarines they sank.

It was counted after the war, the US-Pilots alone sunk 700% of all submarines Germany ever built between 33 and 45!


Reminds me of the kill claims both sides made during the Battle of Britain.

Or Dieppe:

DIEPPE 19 AUGUST 1942
During this battle the RAF claimed 120 Kills against actual Luftwaffe losses of 40.
Luftwaffe claims awarded were 113. The RAF actually lost 48 aircraft in Air-to -Air Combat.



Overclaiming was common and done by everyone.

Hurri-Khan
06-17-2006, 02:58 PM
Kinda reminds me of winterwar's soviet claims.. VVS reported that they shot down 362 finnish planes. The actual number was 35 (roughly 1/10th of claims). 362 was around 3 times the FAF fleet strength.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


>>>-H-K--->

Sintubin
06-17-2006, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by Monty_Thrud:
There was far too much over claiming going on, on both sides.

I wouldn't take these too seriously if i were you

...btw, whats with the porn link on that web page?...near the bottom

no Porn link too see where ??

Sintubin
06-17-2006, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sintubin:
I noted last Adolf Galland kills were B 26. This man was a real unbeliavable pilot.
....and please, all note the incredible number of russian planes shoot down !! I have few doubts on why 1C team hate so much FW 190.


All in all some 1200 P51 kills reported.
I have to find the number Americans addmited agains Germans and how many they claim to have shoot down


Nice statistic
Friedrich Karl tutti Muller killed many spits

Thats why red hates me

i am a ace without nowing it



http://math.fce.vutbr.cz/safarik/ACES/luftwaffe.wartime...victory.credits.html (http://math.fce.vutbr.cz/safarik/ACES/luftwaffe.wartime.aerial.victory.credits.html)


Have fun BTW look at some alt details



It`s a pity really. This could have been a good informative post, but it`s so obviously a thinly veiled flame troll post.

Anyway...

The reasons why the Germans had so many kills are many.

1. Most Germans learned their skills and tactics in the Spanish Civil war.

2. Most Russians were taken by surprise on the Russian Front. Many Russian aircraft were on the ground at the time of the initial attack. many russian pilots were completely green. many of the good commanders who may have commanded the airforce had been purged by stalin.

3. The Germans never had a break, unlike the Americans and Brits, literally fighting through the whole war. Any break they had was very small.

4. Many German pilots PROTECTED their Aces to the point of almost blowing a mission just so that their `Adolf gallands` could come home with another 2-4 kills.

That`s the unbiased truth. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Sources & Literature

1.
2. Wood, Tony: Tony Wood's Combat Claims & Casualty Lists, http://tonywood.cjb.net/.
(O.K.L. Fighter Claims, Chef für Ausz. und Dizsiplin, Luftwaffen - Personalamt L.P. (A) V Films &Supplementary Claims from Lists.)



Yes the SOURCE ARE ?OT TREU ?? lol

Sintubin
06-17-2006, 03:40 PM
Yes we now P-51 won tha war http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

berg417448
06-17-2006, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by Sintubin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sintubin:
I noted last Adolf Galland kills were B 26. This man was a real unbeliavable pilot.
....and please, all note the incredible number of russian planes shoot down !! I have few doubts on why 1C team hate so much FW 190.


All in all some 1200 P51 kills reported.
I have to find the number Americans addmited agains Germans and how many they claim to have shoot down


Nice statistic
Friedrich Karl tutti Muller killed many spits

Thats why red hates me

i am a ace without nowing it



http://math.fce.vutbr.cz/safarik/ACES/luftwaffe.wartime...victory.credits.html (http://math.fce.vutbr.cz/safarik/ACES/luftwaffe.wartime.aerial.victory.credits.html)


Have fun BTW look at some alt details



It`s a pity really. This could have been a good informative post, but it`s so obviously a thinly veiled flame troll post.

Anyway...

The reasons why the Germans had so many kills are many.

1. Most Germans learned their skills and tactics in the Spanish Civil war.

2. Most Russians were taken by surprise on the Russian Front. Many Russian aircraft were on the ground at the time of the initial attack. many russian pilots were completely green. many of the good commanders who may have commanded the airforce had been purged by stalin.

3. The Germans never had a break, unlike the Americans and Brits, literally fighting through the whole war. Any break they had was very small.

4. Many German pilots PROTECTED their Aces to the point of almost blowing a mission just so that their `Adolf gallands` could come home with another 2-4 kills.

That`s the unbiased truth. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Sources & Literature

1.
2. Wood, Tony: Tony Wood's Combat Claims & Casualty Lists, http://tonywood.cjb.net/.
(O.K.L. Fighter Claims, Chef für Ausz. und Dizsiplin, Luftwaffen - Personalamt L.P. (A) V Films &Supplementary Claims from Lists.)



Yes the SOURCE ARE ?OT TREU ?? lol </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Your source is a porn site! LOL!

Sintubin
06-17-2006, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by berg417448:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sintubin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sintubin:
I noted last Adolf Galland kills were B 26. This man was a real unbeliavable pilot.
....and please, all note the incredible number of russian planes shoot down !! I have few doubts on why 1C team hate so much FW 190.


All in all some 1200 P51 kills reported.
I have to find the number Americans addmited agains Germans and how many they claim to have shoot down


Nice statistic
Friedrich Karl tutti Muller killed many spits

Thats why red hates me

i am a ace without nowing it



http://math.fce.vutbr.cz/safarik/ACES/luftwaffe.wartime...victory.credits.html (http://math.fce.vutbr.cz/safarik/ACES/luftwaffe.wartime.aerial.victory.credits.html)


Have fun BTW look at some alt details



It`s a pity really. This could have been a good informative post, but it`s so obviously a thinly veiled flame troll post.

Anyway...

The reasons why the Germans had so many kills are many.

1. Most Germans learned their skills and tactics in the Spanish Civil war.

2. Most Russians were taken by surprise on the Russian Front. Many Russian aircraft were on the ground at the time of the initial attack. many russian pilots were completely green. many of the good commanders who may have commanded the airforce had been purged by stalin.

3. The Germans never had a break, unlike the Americans and Brits, literally fighting through the whole war. Any break they had was very small.

4. Many German pilots PROTECTED their Aces to the point of almost blowing a mission just so that their `Adolf gallands` could come home with another 2-4 kills.

That`s the unbiased truth. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Sources & Literature

1.
2. Wood, Tony: Tony Wood's Combat Claims & Casualty Lists, http://tonywood.cjb.net/.
(O.K.L. Fighter Claims, Chef für Ausz. und Dizsiplin, Luftwaffen - Personalamt L.P. (A) V Films &Supplementary Claims from Lists.)



Yes the SOURCE ARE ?OT TREU ?? lol </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Your source is a porn site! LOL! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats why i post it

LOOK FOR JOKE

PraetorHonoris
06-17-2006, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
1. Most Germans learned their skills and tactics in the Spanish Civil war.

MOST Germans? You sound as if the whole Luftwaffe was in Spain http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
It was never more than 140 aircraft.

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/spanishcw.html


Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
2. Most Russians were taken by surprise on the Russian Front. Many Russian aircraft were on the ground at the time of the initial attack. many russian pilots were completely green. many of the good commanders who may have commanded the airforce had been purged by stalin.

Ground kills were not credited, since only air-to-air victories were counted.
As for the Russians being green... Your first point was Spain, remember? MAny Russians there, too ... there was the Winter War... and the Invasion of Poland... the Nomohan battle...
The Purges were over years before Barbarossa (1938)

Most pilots were green in 1941, however. Not all of them.
And the war lasted longer than a few months. In late 1943/44/45 the Sowjets (not only Russians...) were usually better trained, while the decline of the Luftwaffe started way earlier.


Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
4. Many German pilots PROTECTED their Aces to the point of almost blowing a mission just so that their `Adolf gallands` could come home with another 2-4 kills.

Every Rottenflieger had the task to protect his Rottenführer. Nothing special.
If you think there was any special protection for aces - proof it.

PBNA-Boosher
06-17-2006, 04:16 PM
Downloaded every PDF! Good find!

Sintubin
06-17-2006, 04:17 PM
It is good site

regardles of porn link

AndyHigh
06-17-2006, 04:39 PM
Anybody knows what that 5 number place code means? Like 81 466 for a P-39 claimed on 20.6.1944 by Erich Rudorffer.

luftluuver
06-17-2006, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by AndyHigh:
Anybody knows what that 5 number place code means? Like 81 466 for a P-39 claimed on 20.6.1944 by Erich Rudorffer. Map co-ords?? The Germans had a grid system.

Jaws2002
06-17-2006, 05:02 PM
10/10 for the site http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
1/10 for presentation http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Udidtoo
06-17-2006, 05:23 PM
Inexplicable....the best men, planes, tactics, weapons and still........twice

LStarosta
06-17-2006, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by Udidtoo:
Inexplicable....the best men, planes, tactics, weapons and still........twice

Hahahaha

anarchy52
06-17-2006, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by berg417448:
Or Dieppe:

DIEPPE 19 AUGUST 1942
During this battle the RAF claimed 120 Kills against actual Luftwaffe losses of 40.
Luftwaffe claims awarded were 113. The RAF actually lost 48 aircraft in Air-to -Air Combat.

Claims:
RAF: 91 + 44 probable = 125
USAF 31st FG: 2 + 3 probable
Luftwaffe claims: 67 (JG2) + 38 (JG26) = 106
Actual losses in the operation Jubilee were:
RAF: 106 + 14 writen off
RCAF: 13
USAF: 4 MIA + 1 KIA (I guess that makes at least 5 AC lost)
Luftwaffe: 48 (including destroyed on the ground) + 24 damaged

Makes you wonder how RAF would do if the roles in BoB were reversed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

References: http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/dieppe.htm
Osprey Dieppe 1942
http://www.ww2.dk/

Overclaiming was indeed common (especially over enemy territory), but LW didn't overclaim that much in general, and especially not in the case of Dieppe. AFAIK LW did not award kills for aircraft destroyed on the ground.

P.S. IIRC 8th AF bombers hold the absolute record in overclaimed confirmed kills.

SeaFireLIV
06-17-2006, 06:14 PM
Wow. This is what I call German Luftwaffe propaganda 60+ years on!




Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
MOST Germans? You sound as if the whole Luftwaffe was in Spain http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
It was never more than 140 aircraft.

The point I`m making is that these Germans brought valuable experience they taught other green pilots ie, Best formation flying (not close together like the Brits and Russians), best way to attack (out of the sky, from high, etc). It`s a big advantage as proven.




Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
Ground kills were not credited, since only air-to-air victories were counted.
As for the Russians being green... Your first point was Spain, remember? MAny Russians there, too ... there was the Winter War... and the Invasion of Poland... the Nomohan battle...
The Purges were over years before Barbarossa (1938)


Rubbish, the Purges started in 1934 with the assassination of Sergey Kirov. In 1936, stalin appointed Nikolai Yezhov as head of the NKVD where 13 other political members were killed off. In 1937 more members of the Communist party that Stalin didn`t like were wasted under pretended accustations. Then in 1938 more members killed off.

Starting 1937 and going into 1938, Stalin decided to purge the RED ARMY. 30000 members of the armed forces were purged. Years before Barbarossa? Hardly, by the time the Germans attacked, the Russian armed forces were realing and almost literally leaderless. And he still wasn`t finished turning on the NKVD.


Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:

Most pilots were green in 1941, however. Not all of them.
And the war lasted longer than a few months. In late 1943/44/45 the Sowjets (not only Russians...) were usually better trained, while the decline of the Luftwaffe started way earlier..

Wrong again.
By the late war, many of the best Luftwaffe pilots had already racketted up 2-3 figure scores earlier in the war. The later war years saw a declining experienced pilot based, leaving the original `Aces` to keep up the scores, even though those Aces were slowing dying off. More LW pilots later in the war never made the huge numbers of the early ones due to more experienced Allied pilots and numbers.


Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
Every Rottenflieger had the task to protect his Rottenführer. Nothing special.
If you think there was any special protection for aces - proof it.

Why? You obviously came out with a load of propaganda **** that I`ve just debunked. Proving to you that the Germans paid more attention to their Aces than other nations would be a waste of my time. But I do have the references from my books.

You should try and read some instead of spouting what you dream of in your wishes.

tigertalon
06-17-2006, 06:30 PM
Don't forget one of the most if not the most important point that enabled germans to pile such astronomical number of kills: NOT having aerial superiority (in, say, last two years of war).

There were american fighter pilots that flew 50 escort missions over Germany and they never even saw a german fighter... On the other side, germans met opposition in large numbers almost whenever they took off. Such an enviroment was deadly for rookies and happy hunting grounds for aces.

tigertalon
06-17-2006, 06:45 PM
Viermott¶ters means "four engined bomber killers", not "four engined bombers".

Monty_Thrud
06-17-2006, 06:54 PM
Wtf (http://tonywood.cjb.net/)..i do appologise but vot ist dis...from the btm http://tonywood.cjb.net/.

PraetorHonoris
06-17-2006, 06:58 PM
SeafireIV,

My point about the Sowjet pilots in Spain was, that they undoubtly had the chance to improve their own tactics just like the Germans. And that a lot experienced pilotes were availble 1941 due to several military engagements since 1936 (Spain, Nomohan, Poland, Finland)

As for the purges... the great trials were finished by 1938, the greatest trials against the Red Army generals was in 1937. There were further purges in the lower ranks, but the great purging was finished years before the invasion.
Of course, it would have been interesting to see the Sowjet forces being purged massively during the Winter War...
Actually, the Red Army was ready to march into the CSR with 37 Infantry divisions, 7 Cavalry Divs, 19 armoured brigades and 3 mechanized divisions standing at ready at the borders by September 1938.

Both, Marian Zgorniak (Military History Professor at Uniwersytetu Jagiellonskiego) and Williamson Murray (Professor and Officier, now at the Institute of Defense Analysis) agree in their works (Münster 2002 and Princeton 1984), that the Red Army was capable of delivering devastating blows - by 1938. Zgorniak is more reliable stressing the offensive capabilities as he had access to Sowjet archives, while Murray naturally had not. (Just as a sidenote)
Sure, the army was weakened by the purges, but it was far away from being inoperative.

Hartmann e.g. started scoring in late 1942 and most of his kills were in 1944.

You obviously have the time of accusing me of spouting propaganda and you have no time to look up the references, you claim (but don't cite...)... that's telling a lot.

=

joeap
06-17-2006, 07:13 PM
The point is PraetorHonoris, you and Seafire make some good points, and the site Sintubin posted was interesting. Sorry, trolling remarks like "1C hate the FW-190 cause of all the Russian planes shot down" is just BS. Not saying there are not problems, but man blue has some trolls as bad as some of the red. Wouldn't you say? You seem reasonable and had good points I say again. (I tend to fly both, usually offline BTW).

PraetorHonoris
06-17-2006, 07:20 PM
I agree with you, actually it's hard to deny it... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

However, in western countries, people tend to think the Sowjet pilots were mere cannon fodder, which they were not. The power of the Red Army is diminished, often for diminishing the power of the German forces.
(on the other hand, there are right wing people, who exaggerate the power of the Red army in order to justify the invasion as preemptive strike. Not me, just for clarification)

darkhorizon11
06-17-2006, 10:33 PM
Is this another one of those threads that has no strong sources or proof but because its pro-LW it has to be true and accurate?

Cause theres really gettin' annoying and no one really cares... thats why only 5 or 6 different people post in these topics now. Its pretty old.

waffen-79
06-17-2006, 11:33 PM
Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
I agree with you, actually it's hard to deny it... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

However, in western countries, people tend to think the Sowjet pilots were mere cannon fodder, which they were not. The power of the Red Army is diminished, often for diminishing the power of the German forces.
(on the other hand, there are right wing people, who exaggerate the power of the Red army in order to justify the invasion as preemptive strike. Not me, just for clarification)

Funny thing is everyone says LW experten had so many victories because they catch by the VVS by surprise or they were green pilots(VVS).

And no one says the same about the LW loses in '44 and early '45 that mostly were caused by Bomber Defenses and because they were green pilots. You gotta remember many aces died fighting the Bomber Raids in late '43.

jermin122
06-17-2006, 11:54 PM
The reasons why the Germans had so many kills are many.

1. Most Germans learned their skills and tactics in the Spanish Civil war.

2. Most Russians were taken by surprise on the Russian Front. Many Russian aircraft were on the ground at the time of the initial attack. many russian pilots were completely green. many of the good commanders who may have commanded the airforce had been purged by stalin.

3. The Germans never had a break, unlike the Americans and Brits, literally fighting through the whole war. Any break they had was very small.

4. Many German pilots PROTECTED their Aces to the point of almost blowing a mission just so that their `Adolf gallands` could come home with another 2-4 kills.

Don't you think these factors should be simulated in IL2? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

The_Gog
06-18-2006, 12:59 AM
I am in possession of a list (work in progress) of all Luftwaffe kills from 1938 to 1945.

The thing with the Luftwaffe kill list is that for the most part, all of the claims have been substantiated from other sources, unlike allied claims, especially US and Russian ones which are farsical.

People should not get confused with the propaganda departments of the various combatants and the actual air-forces claims, they were very different in accuracy.

Luftwaffe kill claims are the best documented and proven of all nations in WW2 and are considered, by people who know anything on the subject, the most reliable claims out there.

F19_Olli72
06-18-2006, 01:32 AM
Did you notice something? In the 1941 pdf by far most represented kills are DB-3s and SB-2s. Now, considering that Jorma Sarvanto got six of those in 5 minutes in a Fokker DXXI, i suppose they were'nt much of a big deal to down with a 109. For example...over 60 of the about 100 total kills on 8.7.1941 are SB-2s and DB-3s, often german invidual pilots got several on the same sortie.

Also regarding the argument that Soviet pilots were also in Spain:

According to Hugh Morgan in "Soviet Aces of WW2" it wasnt until the late 41/early 42 that some leaders like Prokryshkin started to teach the rookies more activly. In the first 18 months of the war on-type training was limited to one hour or two in Yak 1 or Lagg-3.

On september 1942 there was orders for fighter regiments to patrol close to enemy airfields in pairs. Prior to that the normal combat formation was the old fashined 3 plane formation. And a manual with this more modern formation tactics did not appear until late 1943. In the beginning, Prokryshkin had special permission by his commander to use the new tactics.

JG52Karaya-X
06-18-2006, 01:35 AM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
How can you take a list with porn seriously?

No the real question is how can you take a list WITHOUT porn seriously? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

JG52Karaya-X
06-18-2006, 01:47 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Why? You obviously came out with a load of propaganda **** that I`ve just debunked.

Got proof? The "me-knows-better" thing doesn't work...


Proving to you that the Germans paid more attention to their Aces than other nations would be a waste of my time. But I do have the references from my books.

So? We're all eager to know what these books are! Post a list or quit the "it's-true-because-I-say-so" BS


You should try and read some instead of spouting what you dream of in your wishes.

Boy, you've got an ego there... You might try some of your advice on yourself, m'kay?

Oh and btw for bringing you back to the big-boys reality: Please don't ever think that I actually GIVE a rats *** about what you post because, believe it or not, YOU are just AS biased as some of the people who are labelled luftwhiners in here

AndyHigh
06-18-2006, 02:41 AM
So how the grid system worked? Is the number after ":" altitude or part of the drid system?

On some claims there is different kind of "coordinates" with letters.



Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AndyHigh:
Anybody knows what that 5 number place code means? Like 81 466 for a P-39 claimed on 20.6.1944 by Erich Rudorffer. Map co-ords?? The Germans had a grid system. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Udidtoo
06-18-2006, 03:33 AM
Originally posted by The_Gog:
I am in possession of a list (work in progress) of all Luftwaffe kills from 1938 to 1945.

The thing with the Luftwaffe kill list is that for the most part, all of the claims have been substantiated from other sources, unlike allied claims, especially US and Russian ones which are farsical.

People should not get confused with the propaganda departments of the various combatants and the actual air-forces claims, they were very different in accuracy.

Luftwaffe kill claims are the best documented and proven of all nations in WW2 and are considered, by people who know anything on the subject, the most reliable claims out there.


Your going to have to help me out here with some clarification. It would appear that your telling us that Luftwaffe claims = irrefutable fact. Anyone else' claims = total BS........I'm afraid I'm going to have to take that with a rather substantial grain of slat. you see those claims were for the most part staked by the same folk who said " C'mon Europe, we're just after a little Lebensraum"....I mean hey, they wouldn't have an agenda now would they.

Opps, you've already explained it now that I read it again both on and between the lines.
" and are considered, by people who know anything on the subject, the most reliable claims out there.".. I see. If I take your statements as fact then I would be someone who "knows anything" and if I arch an eyebrow and wonder if they all didn't make out whatever suited their needs at the time to keep the home front happy and content...well then I guess that would put me in the group that....what? don't know shat?

That line of reasoning has been done here to the point of sickening. You use the word farcical. I'll tell you what's a farce. People saying that the good old boys who brought us " After the showers there will be some nice matza balls for everyone" wouldn't fudge just a smidge on combat claims. Ya, they were all about truth and honor. Insert a large picture of Spock here with the biggest friggen eyebrow he every made. How's that for farcical?

Nubarus
06-18-2006, 03:39 AM
Could have been a good thread if it wasn't for the whining that came with it......

Too bad.

Udidtoo
06-18-2006, 03:50 AM
Care to be specific Nub?

WOLFMondo
06-18-2006, 04:48 AM
Luftwaffe claims are not irrefutable at all. I'd like to see a list that the RAF made of Luftwaffe kills using Luftwaffe records and comparing them with there own losses.

From the comparison claims I have seen even some of the more prominant Luftwaffe aces made up kills. Like Emil Lang, claiming 3 Spitfires at one point but RAF sortie and loss/claim records prove beyond doubt these were 100% made up claims.

SeaFireLIV
06-18-2006, 05:31 AM
Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
Please don't ever think that I actually GIVE a rats *** about what you post because, believe it or not, YOU are just AS biased as some of the people who are labelled luftwhiners in here

Why should I care what you think, I wasn`t even talking to you. Oh, another LW ( I wish Germany won the war) pretend-pilot. Oh and there is no such thing as "Luftwaffe claims = irrefutable fact". Though LW kill claims were quite well checked they were still well open to falsehoods. Another demonstration of LW player`s wishful thinking.

joeap
06-18-2006, 05:43 AM
Originally posted by jermin122:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The reasons why the Germans had so many kills are many.

1. Most Germans learned their skills and tactics in the Spanish Civil war.

2. Most Russians were taken by surprise on the Russian Front. Many Russian aircraft were on the ground at the time of the initial attack. many russian pilots were completely green. many of the good commanders who may have commanded the airforce had been purged by stalin.

3. The Germans never had a break, unlike the Americans and Brits, literally fighting through the whole war. Any break they had was very small.

4. Many German pilots PROTECTED their Aces to the point of almost blowing a mission just so that their `Adolf gallands` could come home with another 2-4 kills.

Don't you think these factors should be simulated in IL2? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok smart guy, those factors are true, but how would 1C or MS or any other company simulate those factors?? We could simulate manufacturing defects but eraly war red (USSR) would whine as would late war blue. It would be up to us in the community to do the stuff you mentioned. Make missions pitting experts in German planes and invite noobs online to try to takeoff under air attack. Make the blue flyers fly 72 hours straight without sleeping and force the noobs to protect the high ranks. Unless you have another way.

joeap
06-18-2006, 05:49 AM
Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
I agree with you, actually it's hard to deny it... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

However, in western countries, people tend to think the Sowjet pilots were mere cannon fodder, which they were not. The power of the Red Army is diminished, often for diminishing the power of the German forces.
(on the other hand, there are right wing people, who exaggerate the power of the Red army in order to justify the invasion as preemptive strike. Not me, just for clarification)

Yes, your point is taken, I myself don't diminsh either the German forces who lasted longer in Russia than Napoleon while a few of their comrades tried to cut the Atlantic, help in North Africa and more and more defend Germany from the air. Nor the Soviets who came back after catastrophic losses and bacme the masters of oerational level warfare taught in the US army today!! Also, my own opinion based on my reading and judgement is that the LW had one of the most trustworthy claim systems around. Claims in the records, not propaganda that every side spouted on the radio and saw each adversary's air force destroyed completely every few months. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

luftluuver
06-18-2006, 05:50 AM
Originally posted by AndyHigh:
So how the grid system worked? Is the number after ":" altitude or part of the drid system?

On some claims there is different kind of "coordinates" with letters. Andy the number after the ':' is altitude.

In the West, letters were used. Go to this site for a map for the West, http://jg26.vze.com/ It is the one starting 'RLV'.

With a much larger area in the East, I imagine the Germans had to use numbers instead of letters. Am guessing but would say the 1st number is for the N-S and the 2cd number is for the E-W.

JG52Karaya-X
06-18-2006, 06:47 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Why should I care what you think, I wasn`t even talking to you. Oh, another LW ( I wish Germany won the war) pretend-pilot. Oh and there is no such thing as "Luftwaffe claims = irrefutable fact". Though LW kill claims were quite well checked they were still well open to falsehoods. Another demonstration of LW player`s wishful thinking.

I was not claiming in any way that LW claims are 100% correct - because they aren't. Every side overclaimed. My only point was your way of selling us your personal version of history as seen in the course of this thread.

danjama
06-18-2006, 06:55 AM
Originally posted by Sintubin:
I noted last Adolf Galland kills were B 26. This man was a real unbeliavable pilot.
....and please, all note the incredible number of russian planes shoot down !! I have few doubts on why 1C team hate so much FW 190.


All in all some 1200 P51 kills reported.
I have to find the number Americans addmited agains Germans and how many they claim to have shoot down


Nice statistic
Friedrich Karl tutti Muller killed many spits

Thats why red hates me

i am a ace without nowing it



http://math.fce.vutbr.cz/safarik/ACES/luftwaffe.wartime...victory.credits.html (http://math.fce.vutbr.cz/safarik/ACES/luftwaffe.wartime.aerial.victory.credits.html)


Have fun BTW look at some alt details

your a funny guy

Bremspropeller
06-18-2006, 07:06 AM
Free chix for all.


Oh and Luftwaffe roXx0rz you all.

Nubarus
06-18-2006, 07:50 AM
Originally posted by Udidtoo:
Care to be specific Nub?

Do I really need to do so?

The thread starts with a whine already, maybe a bit hidden to you but this will end in a flame thread anyway.

VW-IceFire
06-18-2006, 08:03 AM
Interesting and fascinating but the only way to actually have solid and accurate kill counts is to compare kill claims with losses and relative locations of where the kill was to have taken place. Overclaiming was rife on all sides and while strict accounts were required to officially grant a kill there was still plenty of overclaiming. Its like kill stealing online...if we all got points for shooting the already dead plane we'd have 100s more points for shooting down the same already dead and stricken aircraft.

I also strongly object to the "hate the FW190" because it shot down so many planes. Rediculous. This is the kind of biased BS we put up with far too much around here. Knock it off.

One of the best fighters in the whole game is the FW190. The D-9 is probably the fastest, meanest, most agile fighter you can fly. Faster than the Mustang at nearly all altitudes, accelerates faster than the Tempest, Mustang, and Thunderbolt, and packs enough ammo to shoot down large numbers of allied aircraft if given the chance. The people who knock it are the ones who can't fly it.

Sergio_101
06-18-2006, 08:15 AM
Ok guys, using http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/usafserials.html (http://home.att.net/%7Ejbaugher/usafserials.html)
as a reference I am coming up with less than
50% of the total shot down than are claimed
as actuat P-51 kills.
In fact most are accidental losses.

In trying to corelate shoot down/kill dates
I am getting about 20% matches so far.

Not very good, but close to what I would expect.

Just confirms that there was extreme over claiming
on the part of the Luftwaffe.

Sergio

csThor
06-18-2006, 08:16 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Oh and there is no such thing as "Luftwaffe claims = irrefutable fact". Though LW kill claims were quite well checked they were still well open to falsehoods. Another demonstration of LW player`s wishful thinking.

I had been waiting for this kind of self-righteous nonsense, though I must admit I hadn't thought you'd post it, Seafire. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I don't think any person with all of its marbles still in place would think a LW claim equals a kill. You are the one who brought that up - and I dare to say just to stir up trouble. Or should I start quoting Dr. Alfred Price about the RAF's claims in the Channel region for the second half of 1941? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I think this website is a well-made collection of historical documents (or better: a compendium of those). It should be treated as a historical source and not to p*ss at someone else or to feed one's bias.

Kurfurst__
06-18-2006, 08:21 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Why should I care what you think, I wasn`t even talking to you. Oh, another LW ( I wish Germany won the war) pretend-pilot. Oh and there is no such thing as "Luftwaffe claims = irrefutable fact". Though LW kill claims were quite well checked they were still well open to falsehoods. Another demonstration of LW player`s wishful thinking.

Well people should just read the titles and understand what these lists are : claims lists reported by the pilots. Whereas even filing a claim had strict prequisitions, it was still just a claim that was either confirmed or refused - a process that would often take months and even years. The pilot's themselves often kept a double record of their own claims filed and those which were confirmed of these.

It's also worth noting that the Germans don't refer to these as 'kills' but Luftsieg - aerial victory. And without doubt, a guy who issued his claim for his Luftsieg probably shot up an enemy plane anyway, thus he had all right to call himself the victor. The number of Luftsieg claims would tell how much the guy was victorious in air combat, not how many enemy aircraft he actually wrecked beyond repair - something very difficult to judge since say 'shot down', belly landed aircraft could be salvaged, repaired, cannibalized etc...

The confirmation process and burocracy was for the high command to get a clearer picture, it's foolish to think they spent huge efforts just to because they wanted to boost pilot's ego.


I don't think any person with all of its marbles still in place would think a LW claim equals a kill.

I certainly know one, Hop2002 is very busy doing that on as many discussion forums as he can - obviously these lists of claims/victories are thorn in the side for some. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

If I recall correctly he says that 'almost every LW claim was confirmed as a matter of fact'. Problem is he can't even understand the terms of those Tony Wood lists, nor read the title which says 'claims'.

LStarosta
06-18-2006, 08:21 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Free chix for all.


Oh and Luftwaffe roXx0rz you all.

j00r biesed.

Bremspropeller
06-18-2006, 08:29 AM
No, I got balls, which you don't.

csThor
06-18-2006, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Ok guys, using http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/usafserials.html (http://home.att.net/%7Ejbaugher/usafserials.html)
as a reference I am coming up with less than
50% of the total shot down than are claimed
as actuat P-51 kills.
In fact most are accidental losses.

In trying to corelate shoot down/kill dates
I am getting about 20% matches so far.

Sergio

Questions to be asked:

a) Were you considering a simple misidentification? For example in the P-51 list I can see three entries of claimed "Mustangs" which cannot be Mustangs (without scrolling down) - January 7 1943 by Hans Phillip of Stab I./JG 54, February 15 1943 by Hannes Trautloft of Stab/JG 54 and February 23 1943 by Gerhard Kriegel of 6./JG 54. All of these men were fighting on the Eastern Front at this time so they cannot claim "Mustangs" as there were none at the EF. It's obvious that the list wasn't cleaned from obvious misidentifications.

b) The lists presented there are claims - not victories granted by the RLM. This means the list just shows which pilot thinks he shot down a particular plane on that date. It doesn't say if this claim was granted or refuted.

c) Have you taken a look at the sources of the page you linked? Neither qualifies as "primary source" (= an original document) so I assume he's presenting a compendium of information gained form books and mostly E-Mails. Not to be dismissed easily, but not as "hard" as one might think.


Not very good, but close to what I would expect.

Just confirms that there was extreme over claiming
on the part of the Luftwaffe.

Biased opinions are useless when trying to make an accurate comparison. Want to start a search on USAAF claims vs Luftwaffe losses? Shouldn't be any better ... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Xiolablu3
06-18-2006, 08:45 AM
I think the RAF had the strictest kill confirmation procedure as far as I can tell (I could be wrong tho)

It looks like US pilots could claim kills on their own, with no gun camera and noone to confirm it.

It looks like German pilots claimed a 'victory' ie a win over the enemy plane, without always shooting it down.

As far as I know, RAF kills had to be either confirmed by gun camera or witnesed by another pilot. As many planes didnt have gun cameras in the first half of the war, many times a pilot would shoot down an enemy and have no way to confirm it. Therefore he would loose the kill. Also he had to shoot down the plane, unlike the Gemran claims.

This is what I have gathered from reading this board etc. Is this correct?


I have also read from a book by WCo Duncan Smith that a captured German pilot in 1943 had such bad morale in the Med theatre (He was flying FW190 vs Spitfire VIII's) that they would take off, try and avoid combat and fire their guns into the sea so that they would not get court martialled for avoiding combat. He said the RAF fighters were faster and more manouvrable than his FW190 and to fight them was suicide. Of course this is just from a book, so there is no way to check it.

berg417448
06-18-2006, 08:52 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by berg417448:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
Reminds me to the reports the US-Pilots and crews made during WW2 about the German submarines they sank.

It was counted after the war, the US-Pilots alone sunk 700% of all submarines Germany ever built between 33 and 45!


Reminds me of the kill claims both sides made during the Battle of Britain.

Or Dieppe:

DIEPPE 19 AUGUST 1942
During this battle the RAF claimed 120 Kills against actual Luftwaffe losses of 40.
Luftwaffe claims awarded were 113. The RAF actually lost 48 aircraft in Air-to -Air Combat.



Overclaiming was common and done by everyone. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

These are at best 2.5:1 overclaiming not 7:1 :P

I think the USA was one of the worst at overclaiming. I have read about the massively inflated bomber gunner figures. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those Bomber gunners were the worst at overclaims.

But please do not fall victim to your national pride.

June 1940 RAF fighters claimed 250 Bf109s destroyed and probably destroyed... yet in reality only about fifty German fighters had been lost to direct RAF fighter action, a ratio of five claims to one loss.

HellToupee
06-18-2006, 08:52 AM
Originally posted by anarchy52:

Makes you wonder how RAF would do if the roles in BoB were reversed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


after the BoB the roles were reversed with raf flying over enemy territory often tied to bombers with enemy choosing when and where to hit them.

Kurfurst__
06-18-2006, 09:25 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I think the RAF had the strictest kill confirmation procedure as far as I can tell (I could be wrong tho)

What was the RAF's process of a kill to be confirmed? Considering the amuont of "Destroyed" and "Probably Destroyed" on single days of the BoB, I have doubts they had strict requirements.

I am not sure how authoritive it is (plenty of experts and veterans were helping), but the classic Battle of Britian film hows the process in the RAF, an officer debriefing the pilots after mission, who tell how things happened and what did he observe; then the officer summarily decided on the spot wheter the it was granted as Dest/PDest/Damaged or refused. They also known 'shared' victories (the LW didn't, such would not given to the pilots, but the unit as whole). Sounds pretty basic for me.

As for the Luftwaffe, afaik they couldn't even file a claim without gun camera or wingman confirming the hit.

From Axishistory Moderator's post :

The German's recorded victories in one of three categories: Abschuss (Destroyed), Herausschuss (Seperation), and endgueltige Vernichtung (Final Destruction.) These three categories were used for assessing "points" towards awards. Only an enemy aircraft in an Abschuss was counted towards the pilot's overall victory tally. A pilot that brought down and enemy plane with a Endgueltige Vernichtung or Final Destruction of a damaged aircraft was not awarded credit for the "kill", however he did earn "points" for the aircraft's destruction.

Following the policy of "one pilot-one kill", the investigating authorities would determine if the claiming pilot was solely responsible for the destruction of the enemy plane. Every Abschuss had to be observed by a witness: either a ground observer or the encounter, the pilot's wingman, or a Staffelmate. Witnesses were necessary unless the victor's aircraft had been fitted with a gun-camera and the destruction of the plane or the vanquished pilot's bailout had been recorded on film, if the wreckage of the downed pilot or other crew crew member had been captured by German forces. In effect: No witness or tangible evidence - no victory.

Every Abschuss had to be confirmed by the Oberbefehlshaber der Luftwaffe or Commander in Chief of the Air Force. Jagdwaffe pilots were at all times required to note their geographical position as well as the type and number of the aircraft in enemy formations engaged. Naturally, the victor was required to log the exact time of a kill, while he maneuvered for a tactical advantage over the remaining enemy aircraft! In addition, he had to observe other actions in the air in order to be able to witness victories by his Staffelmates. Upon landing, the claimant prepared his Abschuss report for review by the immediate supervisory officer, who either endorsed or rejected the claim. If endorsed, the pilot's report to the Geschwaderstab, or Wing Staff, which, in turn, filed its report and sent both to the Reichsluftfahrtministerium (RLM), or Air Ministry. After checking all the papers that were submitted, the official confirmation was prepared and sent to the unit. This very long bureaucratic proceedure sometimes took as long as a year! During 1944, another authority was created: the Abschusskommission, which received all reports on crashed aircraft remains found by search units. This commission checked conflicting claims between antiaircraft batteries and fighter pilots, and awarded credit for the victory to one claimant or the other. This system ensured that no more credits would be awarded than wrecks found.

The German system of confirming aerial victories was very effective in keeping human errors and weknesses within limits. Despite this, the Oberkommando der Luftwaffe, or Luftwaffe High Command, considered the large victory totals during the early days of the Russian campaign as incredulous. On many occasions, they accused the Jagdgeschwader Kommodores of exaggerating the victory scores. In effect Goering was calling the frontline pilots liars. This was one of the grievances that brought about the Mutiny of the Fighters, or the Kommodores' Revolt Conference, in Berlin during January, 1945.

When a German fighter pilot scored a victory, he would call "Horrido" on the radio. This distinctive announcement of victory alerted his fellow pilots to watch for a crash or a flamer, as well as notify ground stations, which helped to confirm many victories.

A victory report :

http://members.aol.com/dheitm8612/victory.htm

Accompanied by Witness report

http://members.aol.com/dheitm8612/witness.htm

'No idea on the US procedure.

csThor
06-18-2006, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I think the RAF had the strictest kill confirmation procedure as far as I can tell (I could be wrong tho)

It looks like US pilots could claim kills on their own, with no gun camera and noone to confirm it.

It looks like German pilots claimed a 'victory' ie a win over the enemy plane, without always shooting it down.

As far as I know, RAF kills had to be either confirmed by gun camera or witnesed by another pilot. As many planes didnt have gun cameras in the first half of the war, many times a pilot would shoot down an enemy and have no way to confirm it. Therefore he would loose the kill. Also he had to shoot down the plane, unlike the Gemran claims.

Incorrect. The RAF and the USAAF had the problematic "shared kill procedure" (i.e. 1/3 kill or 1/2 kill). This throws much of your post out of the window already. Secondly I remember the RAF having some kind of "Gentleman's word" for claiming kills, meaning sometimes a pilot was granted a kill just for saying "I claim one". As this is an unconfirmed thing for me, though, we should treat that part as unconfirmed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

About the LW kill claim procedure:

a) 1 claim = 1 kill. There were no shared kills.
b) You needed a witness (either in the air or on the ground) to claim a kill. If you didn't have one you won't be granted a kill. Later guncam films were allowed as evidence for a kill.
c) Written combat report is required to claim a kill (there's an example from Adolf Galland floating through the internet).
d) For claiming a kill an enemy plane had to show serious damage (explosion, tearing off parts, dark smoke and fire etc) or the pilot had to be seen taking the parachute. (Often smoking planes returned to their base, though. That's an obvious problem of "Eyeball Mk 1" as only halfway reliable sensor package http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif).


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I have also read from a book by WCo Duncan Smith that a captured German pilot in 1943 had such bad morale in the Med theatre (He was flying FW190 vs Spitfire VIII's) that they would take off, try and avoid combat and fire their guns into the sea so that they would not get court martialled for avoiding combat. He said the RAF fighters were faster and more manouvrable than his FW190 and to fight them was suicide. Of course this is just from a book, so there is no way to check it.

The only Fw 190s flying in Italy were fighter bombers. They were neither trained in air-to-air combat nor were they instructed to seek it. In fact they were Kesselring's only daylight striking unit and he wasn't keen on seeing them waste time and ressources for air combat (he had his Bf 109 fighter units for that).

EDIT: kurfürst

The division between Abschuss, Herausschuiss and Endgültige Vernichtung was only viable from mid-1943 on and only for the units in France and Reich Defense and only when dealing with enemy 4-engined bombers. The point system and the differentiation between Abschuss, Herausschuiss and Endgültige Vernichtung was developed specifically for the Reich Defense - it was not used in the East or the Med.

berg417448
06-18-2006, 09:34 AM
Allegedly the Soviet VVS claim procedure was the most strict:



To get an individual claim, you had to:

1) have an , independent witness, not part of your flight or part of that combat engagement (ground observer, another flight nearby, etc.).
2) OR, have the wreckage of the victim on the ground
3) AND demonstrate that your actions alone were responsible for the claim.


But I do not know how closely this was actually followed.

Pirschjaeger
06-18-2006, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by berg417448:
But I do not know how closely this was actually followed.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

luftluuver
06-18-2006, 10:17 AM
There was a certain schwarme in NA that padded their claims. One of the members was an experten. It was broken up and pilots transferred to other units when the fraud was discovered.

It is in the book 190s in NA.

The German claim system broke down in the East when there were in retreat.

Kocur_
06-18-2006, 10:20 AM
On purges:

Purges in RKKA, resulting in killing ~35.000 Red Army officers is a myth, invented by Khrushchev to justify catastophy of German invasion and huge cost of final victory. Naturally there were huge losses in Communist Party during "Great Terror", but that was not the only time, when Soviet citizens were arrested and murdered. The trick is that ever since 1917 only common people were being enslaved and murdered and during 1937-38 communist 'elite' was touched too. Thats why those two years are so 'popular' in the west - left wing activists remember their comerades.

The number of 34.079 is actually number of RKKA officers, who were DISCHARGED from Red Army due to ALL causes, including age, health, natural deaths, drinking, etc., politically-related discharges AND arrests - in 1937-38.

There were 24.573 officers discarged in 1937 and 1938 due to usual and political causes. Of them ~11.000 were back in the army in 1939 to 1941 (and have in mind, that in 1937 there were ~206.000 officers in Red Army and the number grew rapidly towards 1941).
9.506 officers were actually arrested. Of them 3.188 were sentenced to any punishment, rest of them were freed. Of those sentenced 1.431 were back in the Red Army in 1937-39, more later (incl. eg. Rokossovski).
So out of more than 200.000 Red Army officers in 1937, 1.757 were actually lost in purges - that makes 0,85% of the original number.
Those who were actually killed were Red Army secret police members, prosecutors, political offiers etc., also many high state offcials had military ranks, incl.chief of Aeroflot. The only real military personnel who was killed were ignorants, who made career during civil war, usually by repressions against rebelling peasants, and occupied highest places. Simply put: Stalin liquidated most of useless top of career ladder, to make place for the 'young wolves' - Red Army commanders, who commanded Red Army few years later and finally war against Germany.

Xiolablu3
06-18-2006, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by berg417448:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by berg417448:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
Reminds me to the reports the US-Pilots and crews made during WW2 about the German submarines they sank.

It was counted after the war, the US-Pilots alone sunk 700% of all submarines Germany ever built between 33 and 45!


Reminds me of the kill claims both sides made during the Battle of Britain.

Or Dieppe:

DIEPPE 19 AUGUST 1942
During this battle the RAF claimed 120 Kills against actual Luftwaffe losses of 40.
Luftwaffe claims awarded were 113. The RAF actually lost 48 aircraft in Air-to -Air Combat.



Overclaiming was common and done by everyone. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

These are at best 2.5:1 overclaiming not 7:1 :P

I think the USA was one of the worst at overclaiming. I have read about the massively inflated bomber gunner figures. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those Bomber gunners were the worst at overclaims.

But please do not fall victim to your national pride.

June 1940 RAF fighters claimed 250 Bf109s destroyed and probably destroyed... yet in reality only about fifty German fighters had been lost to direct RAF fighter action, a ratio of five claims to one loss. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I deleted this post cos it was very gay. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif BUt you replied before I had!!

I sometimes have a habit of writing very gay posts, then seeing the light afterwards and editing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Ruy Horta
06-18-2006, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
That`s the unbiased truth.

hehehe

really?!

horseback
06-18-2006, 12:28 PM
You will probably be as shocked as I was when I found Kurfurst, of all people, making clear sense, but he's absolutely right here:
It's also worth noting that the Germans don't refer to these as 'kills' but Luftsieg - aerial victory. And without doubt, a guy who issued his claim for his Luftsieg probably shot up an enemy plane anyway, thus he had all right to call himself the victor. The number of Luftsieg claims would tell how much the guy was victorious in air combat, not how many enemy aircraft he actually wrecked beyond repair - something very difficult to judge since say 'shot down', belly landed aircraft could be salvaged, repaired, cannibalized etc...

The confirmation process and burocracy was for the high command to get a clearer picture, it's foolish to think they spent huge efforts just to because they wanted to boost pilot's ego. Similarly, Allied pilots were usually interviewed after a sortie by their Squadron Intelligence Officers, and there was an attempt to rationalize the various and sometimes conflicting reports of the mission. These were sent, with copies of the pilots' original written reports, the IO's synthesis and recommendations as to claims and so on up to higher levels, where they were further compared to other units' reports, and attempts were made to rationalize the 'snapshots' of information from each report into a coherent whole.

The accuracy of this system depended a lot not only on the IO, but often on an individual pilot's eloquence, or at least his coherence, as well as the consistency his account had with those of his fellow pilots.

The difference was that after 1941, Allied pilots in the West were mostly operating over German held territory, which complicated the claims verification process-the LW being notoriously uncooperative in handing over loss figures, confirming crash sites, numbers of killed and wounded aircrew, etc.

Early in the war, ie, up to late 1943, there is no doubt in my mind that Allied air forces based in Britain at least were a bit more than generous in awarding credit for aerial victories, for reasons of morale and public consumption (okay, propaganda). This would be especially true of bombers' gunners.

It would not surprise me a bit to find out that high-level Allied intelligence officers kept a second set of books providing a more realistic picture of the air war, considering how much of the German's 'mail' we were reading in the form of Ultra intercepts and the like. The fact that claims weren't adjusted postwar may have something to do with the fact that it would only embarrass good men who'd made their claims in good faith (and the money was badly needed for other, far more important things).

However, by late '43, Allied fighters were starting to become much more successful when they were able to make contact, and there was a clear trend towards greater accuracy in their claims, which led to a stricter standard for allowing them. The same restrictions applied though: over enemy territory, in combat, you are usually unable to follow your victims' path to the ground, or come back later to point out the crash site.

BUT if you put several rounds into your opponent, causing him to leave the area smoking, or missing parts, in obviously bad shape, you did win that fight, whether he had the ability to make it back to base or put his a/c down so that it was recoverable, or left a smoking crater in some farmer's beet field.

I wouldn't say that every claim meant an aerial victory or an enemy aircraft rendered hors de combat, but I agree that the great majority of the claims made in good faith do indicate an enemy a/c out of the fight for the day.

To sum up, early in the war, ALL SIDES OVERCLAIMED ATROCIOUSLY, and gradually improved their claims confirmation process as well as they were able, at least at the command level. The Germans, at least over Western Europe, were able to put together a fairly accurate and reliable system, not least because they could count wrecks. The Allies had to rely on the increasing experience & professionalism of their pilots and Wing/Squadron Intelligence Officers.


It's not always a matter of dishonesty when you don't have all the facts at hand-in wartime, you have to make your best guess, and be ready to live with the results.

cheers

horseback

Sintubin
06-18-2006, 03:01 PM
But my question did you guys liked the link i posted ??

+

Thx for the manny reply's here lol i never thought that it would be 4 pages long thx al

RCAF_Irish_403
06-18-2006, 03:22 PM
To The Original Poster: Fishing Expedition is a Home Run! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

AndyHigh
06-18-2006, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
With a much larger area in the East, I imagine the Germans had to use numbers instead of letters. Am guessing but would say the 1st number is for the N-S and the 2cd number is for the E-W.

I think I figured it out. After a bit of googling on the subject and scratching of my thick head I think the system in question is called "GRADNETZMELDEVERFAHREN". But, the system(s) has more than five numbers. After more scratching I assumed that maybe they just left out the code for the topmost grid, so called "Zusatzzahlgebiete" in which every grid position forms a large 10 by 10 degree area. Assuming that StabII/JG.54 and Rudorffer were fighting in Finland on 20.6.1944 that would then give "26 Ost 81466". I had found an excel converter called LUMA and typed the numbers in the GNMV fields, with following result for the claimed Airacobra:

http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?latlongtype=degree...ongmin=58&longsec=20 (http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?latlongtype=degrees&latdeg=60&latmin=37&latsec=30&longdeg=28&longmin=58&longsec=20)

About 10km SE of Viipuri (or Vyborg as known in Russia). Which would make very much sense considering the frontline positions then.

This page has the link for LUMA converter:
http://www.gyges.dk/reporting_grids.htm

Few more links on the LW grid system:
http://www.airwar39-45.nl/luftwaffe1.htm (chapter 4)
http://www.stormbirds.com/eagles/research/gradnetz/gradnetz.html

Rjel
06-18-2006, 04:51 PM
One aspect of over claiming by USAAF pilots during WWII that gets overlooked is the USAF undertook a study (USAF Historical Study no.85) in the 1950s to review claims made in combat by U.S. pilots. During these reviews, a great many piots saw their official score down graded, some to the point of losing their "Ace" status. See the study here -
http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/numbered_studies/1039707.pdf



Originally posted by Sintubin:
Yes we now P-51 won tha war http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

I think it's time to change that little chant to this -

The Bf109s and Fw190s LOST the war. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

The P-51 didn't win the war, it just helped push it to conclussion a little quicker. That German fighter pilots have said they feared seeing the P-51 means more than any revisionist opinions here.

Slickun
06-18-2006, 04:56 PM
1200 P-51's downed over Europe due to enemy fighters?

Nope. More like 450, IIRC. 1200 is BS.

Believe the country doing the dying, not the one doing the claiming.

Most countries keep pretty good books on A/C losses. It's easy, it didn't come back. Totally different from kill claims.

Sure, there is a fudge factor. Like, a plane doesn't come back, but no one knows why. Was it lost to a fighter, flak, got lost....quien sabe?

F6_Ace
06-18-2006, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by Hurri-Khan:
Kinda reminds me of winterwar's soviet claims.. VVS reported that they shot down 362 finnish planes. The actual number was 35 (roughly 1/10th of claims). 362 was around 3 times the FAF fleet strength.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


>>>-H-K--->


Hmm, I think Oleg has read this book when designing in-game VVS performance.

AKA_TAGERT
06-18-2006, 05:06 PM
Just as long as we can all agree that it does not mater one way or another, the only thing that maters is that the ALLIEDS beat the AXIS like a small puppy that piddled on the floor.

Bremspropeller
06-18-2006, 05:06 PM
25

tigertalon
06-18-2006, 05:08 PM
Gone fishin again Tagrget?

waffen-79
06-18-2006, 06:09 PM
LOL

Nowadays regular guys sitted on a chair in front of a pc wont admit that his beloved country lost a single plane to the enemy.

What makes you think that back then allied goverments said the truth regarding a/c loses, with so many political and propaganda issues.

People here tend to minimize the rol of axis powers in ww2, I see that like somekind of disrespect to the men that died fighting them.

Picture this, If they weren't MUCH of a problem, then why all the fuzz to bring them down??? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Both sides overclaimed... so what?

AKA_TAGERT
06-18-2006, 06:55 PM
Originally posted by waffen-79:
If they weren't MUCH of a problem, then why all the fuzz to bring them down??? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif Lest we forget
http://www.anders.com/pictures/public/04-views/24%20-%20Pearl%20Harbor%20Memorial%20-%20Hawaii%20-%209-8-2001_sm.jpg

csThor
06-18-2006, 09:23 PM
Originally posted by Slickun:
1200 P-51's downed over Europe due to enemy fighters?

Nope. More like 450, IIRC. 1200 is BS.


As I said before - those lists weren't cleared of obvious misidentifications (Mustangs in the East in Jan/Feb 1943 ???).

ElAurens
06-18-2006, 10:13 PM
The number of aircraft claimed or actually shot down are of no real consequence.

The simple fact is that the Axis Powers totally misunderstood/underestimated the Allied powers willingness and ability to fight, and the Allies overwhelming industrial superority.

Germany, Italy, and Japan lost the war before they fired the first shots.

Looking back with 20/20 hindsight, the Axis Powers never had a chance.

Thank God.

AKA_TAGERT
06-19-2006, 12:01 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
The number of aircraft claimed or actually shot down are of no real consequence.

The simple fact is that the Axis Powers totally misunderstood/underestimated the Allied powers willingness and ability to fight, and the Allies overwhelming industrial superority.

Germany, Italy, and Japan lost the war before they fired the first shots.

Looking back with 20/20 hindsight, the Axis Powers never had a chance.

Thank God. amen

WOLFMondo
06-19-2006, 02:46 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:


As for the Luftwaffe, afaik they couldn't even file a claim without gun camera or wingman confirming the hit.


Yet some aces still got away with making up claims and being awarded them.

Got track, will prove.
Luftwaffle claims are just as questionable as everyone elses.

JG52Karaya-X
06-19-2006, 03:02 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Yet some aces still got away with making up claims and being awarded them.

Care to tell us who you mean?

WOLFMondo
06-19-2006, 03:36 AM
Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Yet some aces still got away with making up claims and being awarded them.

Care to tell us who you mean? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Emil Lang, at least 3 of his claims are false.

9.7.1944 13:19 Spitfire Stab II./JG 26 Caen-Lisieux / Spitfire of 453 Sqn, RAF 161

9.7.1944 13:21 Spitfire Stab II./JG 26 Caen-Lisieux / Spitfire of 453 Sqn, RAF 162

9.7.1944 13:24 Spitfire Stab II./JG 26 Caen-Lisieux / Spitfire of 453 Sqn, RAF

RAF records show 2 Spitfires lost that day, neither to 453 sqd. One was over the UK and over 100 miles away from Langs fight and the other was lost to a P47 in a blue on blue accident.

According to both Luftwaffe and RAF records in that same engagement 453 sqd shot down 2 BF109's and damaged 7 more 109's and 190's for no loss themselves. All this took place 20 minutes before Langs Claims as well.

RAF records also state if a plane is damaged, none of the RAF aircraft involved were damaged.

Basically, he made the 3 kills up and got away with it. How many more did he make up?

So much for kills only confirmed with gun cam footage and witness reports.

F19_Olli72
06-19-2006, 06:01 AM
Just read about Romanias scoring system that was introduced early 1944 (individual 'kills' were adjusted retroactivly), by far the weirdest:

For a single engined plane it was awarded 1 'kill', for two- and three engined 2 'kills' and lastly for four- to six engined planes 3 'kills. So that meant that if a pilot shot down a P-38 and a B-17 he was an ace. However if one shot down four P-51s he still wasnt an ace. And most remarkably, the 'kills' were awarded even if there was no confirmation of the claim.

Kurfurst__
06-19-2006, 08:01 AM
These are nice claims wolfy, sans you don't have any source or reference to it, neither managed to prove how Lang 'made up' those claims.

What happened is that you made claims yourself - and how did Lang supposedly claimed 'of 453 Sqn'? How would he know the unit his opponent would belong to...? Misidentification issues, other Allied unit losses that day, faulty bookeeping of dates, hmm...?

And where's the proof that these claims, if they were made at all, were awarded to him - as you claimed ('Yet some aces still got away with making up claims and being awarded them')?

Obviously your story is a bit doctored or just made up. It sounds like exactly than the poor stories Hop2002 used to make up and spread.

WOLFMondo
06-19-2006, 08:15 AM
Made up? Its taken from the 2nd TAF volumes. Go buy it all 3 and read them yourself if you doubt me. In regards to the claims Lang made himself, I leave you to find that one, its from a site you yourself once posted here. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I investigated it after reading the 2nd TAF volumes incdientatlly as its mentioned in the 2nd of the 3 books.

Point is RAF records only record 2 Spitfires lost that day his claim was made. 1 was 2nd TAF and shot down a P47 (I wonder if he claimed it!?) and the other over the UK.

RAF records do state there was a fight in that area Lang was, about 20 minutes before his claims, invloving said RAF sqd but no planes lost.

I ain't going to say it again and I won't feed your trolling, go investigate yourself and you'll see I'm 100% correct.

csThor
06-19-2006, 08:38 AM
To accuse a dead man ov inventing kills is pretty much among the lowest levels I can think of. Submitting a claim relied on what the pilot(s) saw and we all know eyesight is faulty. Or should we start deciphering which allied claims are invented, too? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Before anyone makes a snide comment: the excessively inflated claims of the 8th USAAF gunners aren't because these folks had a vivid imagination or a Star Destroyer sized ego. They simply didn't know better. The same applies to most other pilots in all nations.
If you accuse anyone of "inventing kills" you're stepping onto thin ice as you have absolutely no evidence to prove your statement.

Kurfurst__
06-19-2006, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
According to both Luftwaffe and RAF records in that same engagement 453 sqd shot down 2 BF109's and damaged 7 more 109's and 190's for no loss themselves. All this took place 20 minutes before Langs Claims as well.

I just checked WMondo's story. According to Caldwell 453 Sqn claimed 2-0-2 Bf 109s in that engagement, and 2-0-3 FW 190s.

Considering that II/JG 26 didn't have a single Bf 109 in July 1944 present, the claims are curious. Considering that JG 26 on the whole did not report any lost or damaged aircraft that day, it's even more curious.

All in all this makes the statement of 'according to both Luftwaffe and RAF records in that same engagement 453 sqd shot down 2 BF109's and damaged 7 more 109's and 190's for no loss themselves' curious.
The LW says JG 26 didn't lost planes that day.

Of course one should know all LW and RAF/USAAF losses for that day, to clear up misunderstandings.


Its taken from the 2nd TAF volumes....Point is RAF records...

I'd imagine a book on the 2nd TAF would only deal with the 2nd TAF not the ADGB (ex-Fighter Command) or USAAF operations.

csThor
06-19-2006, 08:43 AM
I'd be careful, Kurfürst. JG 26 wasn't the only Bf 109 user in the Normandy region at that time. One would have to look up pretty much every Bf 109 Gruppe to look for losses/claims on said date.

luftluuver
06-19-2006, 08:49 AM
He would know our dearest Kurfurst since grid UU and UA were in German held territory. Examination of the wrecks would give the squadron code letters.

If you want confirmation of the grid locations go to http://jg26.vze.com/ It is in the heading beginning RLV. Notice that Caen is on the left border of grid UU.

A list of Lang's claims can be found here, http://www.luftwaffe.cz/lang.html in which it is stated 453 Sqd.

WOLFMondo
06-19-2006, 08:52 AM
Regardless Kurfy, the RAF lost no planes in that area in that day so draw your own conclusions. I'm sure you can tell me who the other Gruppes were flying the 109 on that day in that area since your the expert on that.


Originally posted by csThor:
To accuse a dead man ov inventing kills is pretty much among the lowest levels I can think of. Submitting a claim relied on what the pilot(s) saw and we all know eyesight is faulty. Or should we start deciphering which allied claims are invented, too? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Before anyone makes a snide comment: the excessively inflated claims of the 8th USAAF gunners aren't because these folks had a vivid imagination or a Star Destroyer sized ego. They simply didn't know better. The same applies to most other pilots in all nations.
If you accuse anyone of "inventing kills" you're stepping onto thin ice as you have absolutely no evidence to prove your statement.

This whole thread is a minefield for what your saying. All I'm saying is that the Luftwaffe claims mechanism is just as flawed as all the others, despite the protesting by certain forum members. This whole thread is disputing kills by dead men. Sorry if I point something out that doesn't fit your blue vs red mentality.

No evidence? RAF records are not evidence now? I'm stating what I've read. Nothing more.

Or should we start deciphering which allied claims are invented, too? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Be my guest. I'm not a red vs blue DF server guy. I don't take one side or the other. As it happens I prefer German planes. Does this change your outlook on my motives? Not that I actually have any.


Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Its taken from the 2nd TAF volumes....Point is RAF records...

I'd imagine a book on the 2nd TAF would only deal with the 2nd TAF not the ADGB (ex-Fighter Command) or USAAF operations.[/QUOTE]

No, it doesn't but no ADGB aircraft would be flying over that part of France. However, as it happens, one of the two Spitfires lost on that day was an ADGB Spitfire, but over the UK. The other was to a P47.

I don't know of any USAAF Spitfires in that area either and I know where your going with this but I can't see how someone can claim 3 Spits and mistake them for another aircraft. There pretty distinct, you have to admit.

Kurfurst__
06-19-2006, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by csThor:
I'd be careful, Kurfürst. JG 26 wasn't the only Bf 109 user in the Normandy region at that time. One would have to look up pretty much every Bf 109 Gruppe to look for losses/claims on said date.

Exaclty my thoughts, that's why I said

'Of course one should know all LW and RAF/USAAF losses for that day, to clear up misunderstandings.'

It can be very easily be that there were multiple engagements, and the reported 109s/spits were from other units.

Unfortunately we don't have any such information - I am sure there were more losses on both sides than just 2 Spits lost on that day. Misidentification of similair planes is a big factor here.

Kurfurst__
06-19-2006, 09:08 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
I don't know of any USAAF Spitfires in that area either and I know where your going with this but I can't see how someone can claim 3 Spits and mistake them for another aircraft. There pretty distinct, you have to admit.

I guess the same way 453 Sqn mistook FW 190s for Bf 109s - if they engaged II/JG 26 at all, that is, and it was not an other unit, since both sides claimed stuff that wasn't even there - which raises doubts that it was JG 26 vs. 453...

Ironically, most LW claims from the BoB are for Spitfires, obviously they mistook many Hurricanes. They could mistake Typhoons for them, because of the wing shape.


No, it doesn't but no ADGB aircraft would be flying over that part of France.

That's curious because at other times, when it comes to the ADGB's 150 octane Spitfires and Mustangs, people suddenly claim they were all over the place from Norway to Belgium, chasing the LW instead of the V-1s. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

AFAIk there were several Spitfires Sqn used to bomb sub pens, for example - not sure to whom they belonged to.

WOLFMondo
06-19-2006, 09:12 AM
Please prove that ADGB planes were over Caen that day because I can't. I doubt any ADGB planes would be over Caen. ADGB and 2nd TAF command was clearly divided in there area of operation.

The 2nd TAF records only show 453 over Caen that day. No other sorties were in that area, even then no other Spitfires were lost that day apart from the previously mentioned. I'd have to check on Typhoons lost but mistaking Spits for Typhoons or vice versa? I doubt it. Typhoon couldn't be any more different in shape.

Please take your 150 grade argument to someone who cares :P

berg417448
06-19-2006, 09:21 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Please prove that ADGB planes were over Caen that day because I can't. I doubt any ADGB planes would be over Caen. ADGB and 2nd TAF command was clearly divided in there area of operation.

The 2nd TAF records only show 453 over Caen that day. No other sorties were in that area, even then no other Spitfires were lost that day apart from the previously mentioned. I'd have to check on Typhoons lost but mistaking Spits for Typhoons or vice versa? I doubt it. Typhoon couldn't be any more different in shape.


Aircraft ID in combat was often tough. I don't think the Typhoon looks much like a FW-190 but I'm sure you remember that the Typhoon's worst enemy when it first went into combat was RAF Spitfires who shot a few of them down believeing that they were FW-190s.

WOLFMondo
06-19-2006, 09:31 AM
I have no trouble beliving that and the amount of blue on blue accidents of US aircraft shooting up RAF aircraft was actually very high.

I do have trouble with beliving a 190 can be mistaken for a 109. They both have a distinct shape and being the two only LW single engined fighters of any numbers, I have a hard time beliving pilots could mistake them if they have long enough to aim there guns on them and fire long enough to take one down.

I think this thread does prove on thing, even using official records, things are not always clear cut and all sides over or mis claimed, deliberatly or not.

csThor
06-19-2006, 10:15 AM
Oh I guess it's not that hard to take one plane for another. I mean for me a LaGG-3 is a LaGG-3 and a Yak-1 is a Yak-1. I have trouble understanding how someone can mistake it for a MiG-3. But the LW did - during "Citadel" (July 1943) JG 51 and 54 claimed a lot of "MiG-1" or "MiG-3" when there were none present at the front! In WW2 air combat - something none of us really knows unless one is a veteran - things were different from our armchair flying. We can ID planes by their texture (which didn't work back in WW2 for obvious reasons). Especially in high-speed dives it is certainly possible to mistake a wing shape for another.

BTW my words about picking apart Allied claims was irony (or sarcasm - choose which you like better). I'm not that fuddy-duddy, but I simply don't like anyone accusing any pilot of inventing kills (unless there is hard evidence). To me there are historical facts and data, but what people try to make out of them is another pair of shoes.

horseback
06-19-2006, 11:38 AM
Re: the difficulty of identifying enemy aircraft.

Ignoring for the moment the fact that Axis pilots were no doubt handicapped by crappy monitors and cheesy videocards, the enemy is rarely forthcoming with clear data about his aircraft's planforms & side views, much less relative performance data, empty & loaded weights, etc.

Even with photographs, it is very hard to get a clear idea of an aircraft's dimensions and proportions. Modellers will remember how badly 'off' the first models of the F-117 Stealth fighter were, and the first 1/72nd scale MiG-29 models from Hasegawa and Fujimi in the mid-late 80s varied significantly from each other as well as the real thing, and these people had clear, focused photos and videos to work with.

Try to draw an accurate outline of any WWII fighter using only gun camera film, then correct it with the assistance of the pilot who fired the rounds. If anyone actually familiar with the fighter could identify it from your drawing, I would be greatly surprised.

RAF's Fighter Command spent a number of months convinced that the radial-engined fighter the Germans were operating across the Channel was the Curtiss Hawk 75 by using the same method I just described.

cheers

horseback

p1ngu666
06-19-2006, 11:50 AM
if your looking for the real decline of the luftwaffe, look at its ability and achivement of offensive action, aka not hero dogfighter planes.

early war they where really good, the best. but that faded quickly...

offhand, the last successful bombing action on the western front was the tip and run raids, and they where rarely did much damage, waay more bark than bite. (discounting the v1 and v2)

there photo recon and inteligance gathering was poor, the luftwaffe became obsessed by fighters, so even if they had achived a stalemate, they didnt really have a solid offensive capacity.

so at the end theyve got tons and tons of fighters, and few bombers. i think even half the ju88's produced where fighter types.

so they shot down alot, but they wherent making any or negilble progress to winning the war.

and on kill claims, the luftwaffe thought in BOB the raf was down to its last 50 spitfires, and they would tell the aircrew that.. ofcourse there was always more than 50 spitfires... and german inteligance worked out the raf had minus spitfires at the end of the battle http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

if the roles where reversed, then the spitfire was probably the better escort fighter (slightly), the 109 was a better interceptor cos of the cannons. the raf bombers of the time ud likely want to use, bit of a mixed bag..
main advantage would be the power operated turrets...

a good rule of thumb is to devide claims in half, think thats what the raf chiefs of staff did. on average i think its actully fairly acurate

waffen-79
06-19-2006, 11:54 AM
more bark than bite?

say that to the poor bomber crews http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

csThor
06-19-2006, 12:11 PM
pingu - You're drawing conclusions which have no base and are grossly oversimplified.

a) There was no "obscession" with fighters - the RLM (and Hitler) insisted on an increased bomber production before any increase of fighter production could come forth - until late 1944! The problem was simply that newer (better?) bomber types weren't there - the development was either hampered by moronic requirements (He 177 and dive capability) or they were simply outdated when they had become ready for testing or they never got past the prototype stage. Germany could not design and produce a fleet of heavy bombers - not in 1937 and certainly not in times of war. There's a pre-war study of RLM that a fleet of heavy bombers as proposed by General Wever (first Chief of Staff of the LW, KIFA in 1937) would use up half of Germany's fuel reserves within a month.
For the war situation with a lot of enemy fighters operating over the battlefield the use of fighter-bombers (Schlachtflieger) was the only viable alternative. Germany could not win the war through a strategical victory as it could not take out the enemy's economical base (the USA and SU's factories behind the Ural), but it if could inflict horrendous losses on the Allies there was certainly the chance that the course of war might have changed here and there. Imagine a failed "Overlord" - would there be a second invasion soon or would it (perhaps) take years to overcome the losses?
So the Wehrmacht as a whole tried to inflice intolerable losses on its enemies hoping to force them into a negotiated peace.

b) The information fundament for the Battle of Britain was faulty right from the start. A certain Major im Generalstab Josef Schmidt (later Generalleutnant and CO of I. Jagdkorps) was tasked to create an intelligence report on the RAF fighter command. He was neither qualified nor the right character to fulfill such a task (he was too ambitious and created a paper that said what his superiors wanted to read). The result was a faulty collection of airfield information, absolutely no indication of the air defense structure including the use of RADAR, lack of information about economical targets and last but not least hardly any aerial pictures of the sites in question.
Additionally G¶ring was operating after the maxime: Fingers in your ears and chant "It's all working according to plan. It's all working according to plan."

p1ngu666
06-19-2006, 12:12 PM
the british managed to convince the germans that tip and run was unprofitable, when it actully had a bad effect on morale.

lw then switched to night tip and run, then the losses got higher due to various reasons, navigation, and mossie NF's being the main ones.

in the dark your unlikely to see your attacker, and ofcourse some 190 with bombs and drop tanks, cruising along is going tobe slower than the mossie, just park up on the guys 6 and 4 hispanos do the job..

HayateAce
06-19-2006, 12:38 PM
Can't understand why you sore losers don't put WW2 to rest. You seem to thrive on reminding us all that Germany lost the air war. Don't be ashamed, some beautiful and mighty eagles drove the stake through the luftwaffle heart.

"Problem with Luftwaffle: They didn't have a refly button."

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

http://www.todo-aviones.com.ar/usa/p51mustang/p51-m005.jpg

ElAurens
06-19-2006, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
Re: the difficulty of identifying enemy aircraft.

RAF's Fighter Command spent a number of months convinced that the radial-engined fighter the Germans were operating across the Channel was the Curtiss Hawk 75...
horseback

Well at least the Hawk and the FW 190 had similar roll rates.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

anarchy52
06-19-2006, 04:33 PM
There are planes in FB that look very similar from certain aspects eg:
Dora & P-51 at a distance showing squared wings
109 & P-51 at far distance where low LOD model of 109 shows square wings
109 & Spitfire (dead 6)
La-5/7 FW-190A (dead 6)
Spitfires & Tempests (brits just loved those eliptical wings)

I lowered my resolution in hope of achieving better visibility, but I lost the ability to ID planes from the distance so I switched back.
If I didn't know their default cammo I'd be having a hard time telling apart LaGGs and wide variety of Yaks.

Vike
06-19-2006, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
"Problem with Luftwaffle: They didn't have a refly button."

Ah,and maybe the USAAF had this button?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j32/Vike01/bf109k4r3.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Interesting thread nevertheless.

@+

Chuck_Older
06-19-2006, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by Sintubin:
I noted last Adolf Galland kills were B 26. This man was a real unbeliavable pilot.
....and please, all note the incredible number of russian planes shoot down !! I have few doubts on why 1C team hate so much FW 190.


All in all some 1200 P51 kills reported.
I have to find the number Americans addmited agains Germans and how many they claim to have shoot down


Nice statistic
Friedrich Karl tutti Muller killed many spits

Thats why red hates me

i am a ace without nowing it



http://math.fce.vutbr.cz/safarik/ACES/luftwaffe.wartime...victory.credits.html (http://math.fce.vutbr.cz/safarik/ACES/luftwaffe.wartime.aerial.victory.credits.html)


Have fun BTW look at some alt details

Yes. On one hand, 1200 P-51s were shot down by the "inexperienced young pilots of the luftwaffe" who therefore (of course) padded the US claims, by sending innocents to the slaughter, which "proves" that the US pilots were "inferior" (and of course, in turn offering a fair paradox in the bargain, because you can't really have that both ways) and on the other hand, German claims are never to be questioned. A nice unbiased idea!

And of course, the phenomenal rate of German victories had nothing to do with terrified Soviet pilots, sent out in TB 3 bombers alone, with no gunners and no escort, because they were more afraid of Commisars than of the Luftwaffe's guns

Perhaps I am missing the point here, but this seems to be a vaguely political comment, which is concerned with substituting one erroneous view of the air war with another erroneous view, which just happens to prove somebody's point. A different viewpoint isn't automatically the truth just because the orignal one was questionable

I can't say that I'm impressed here, Sintubin. This is just a thinly veiled complaint about the FW 190. If you want to just say that Oleg doesn't know what he's doing, just do it; you don't need to make a timebomb thread to do it. So, what else ya got?

Chuck_Older
06-19-2006, 07:04 PM
Originally posted by Vike:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
"Problem with Luftwaffle: They didn't have a refly button."

Ah,and maybe the USAAF had this button?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um, during the daylight bomber offensive, you do realise that the Luftwaffe pilot who bailed out over Germany did indeed get a chance at the refly button, because he landed on friendly soil, while a US airman doing the same ended up, much more often than not, being interred in a Luftstalag. You do know that, right? Making overly simplistic analogies can be funny, but you're not thinking that one through very well

AKA_TAGERT
06-19-2006, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
Can't understand why you sore losers don't put WW2 to rest. You seem to thrive on reminding us all that Germany lost the air war. Don't be ashamed, some beautiful and mighty eagles drove the stake through the luftwaffle heart.

"Problem with Luftwaffle: They didn't have a refly button."

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

http://www.todo-aviones.com.ar/usa/p51mustang/p51-m005.jpg http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Vike
06-20-2006, 05:08 AM
Originally posted by Vike:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
"Problem with Luftwaffle: They didn't have a refly button."

Ah,and maybe the USAAF had this button?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j32/Vike01/bf109k4r3.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Manu-6S
06-20-2006, 05:43 AM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Um, during the daylight bomber offensive, you do realise that the Luftwaffe pilot who bailed out over Germany did indeed get a chance at the refly button, because he landed on friendly soil, while a US airman doing the same ended up, much more often than not, being interred in a Luftstalag. You do know that, right? Making overly simplistic analogies can be funny, but you're not thinking that one through very well

IMHO we are wrong to believe that the majority of all pilots could really bail out after been damaged. I cannot prove this, but I think only a little percentage of pilot survived by bailing out.

Wounds, flames, incapacity to control the plane and/or themself: It wasn't so easy to escape the death like we use to do in Il2.

What was the percentage of the pilot successfully survived? 1/3? 1/5?

If think the number of whos could do "refly" was profitless.

Vike
06-20-2006, 06:07 AM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
[IMHO we are wrong to believe that the majority of all pilots could really bail out after been damaged. I cannot prove this, but I think only a little percentage of pilot survived by bailing out.

Wounds, flames, incapacity to control the plane and/or themself: It wasn't so easy to escape the death like we use to do in Il2.

What was the percentage of the pilot successfully survived? 1/3? 1/5?

If think the number of whos could do "refly" was profitless.

I agree;

Some months ago,i saw a documentary on the French TV called "Hitler's kamikazes" about those men who fly till the end of the WWII against Russian and American planes with a 60vs1 ratio.

As some of them survived they were asked about their story:

One of them told:
He was BnZomming against a four-motored bomber in his 109,without knowing where its escort was;
Then,during his attack,he was badly hit at one of his arms and was falling to the ground at "Ultra" high speed to escape whatever touched him.He managed to raise up his 109 nose for slowing down it,then he managed to bail out.The WWII was finished for him,and still today,he wonders how he could survive such a terrible situation.

-I think what he saw is what numerous Luftwaffe pilots saw as well.-

In the other hand,in this documentary,another old german pilot survivor talked about the huge destruction ability of the 30mm canon in his 109's nose.He told about a B-24 interception with it,and how the ALL REAR of the B-24,including the gunner,was made into pieces due to his +10 shells/sec canon...
He was still hurt by such HORROR,even 65 years after...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

And a third one (109 G6 pilot http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ) made this comment:
"They had THE planes,we had THE guns..."

The least i could say after seeing this doc,is the end of WWII was fought very harshly from both side.

@+

anarchy52
06-20-2006, 06:13 AM
For a more realistic view look at Bergstrom's articles on November '44 air battles. You'll notice that LW had a positive score in winter-spring '44 despite the allied numerical superiority.

However, allies could afford the battle of attrition while the luftwaffe couldn't. The consequence of being unable to find anough trained pilots is clearly visible in the outcome of air battles of late '44.

joeap
06-20-2006, 06:14 AM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:


Yes. On one hand, 1200 P-51s were shot down by the "inexperienced young pilots of the luftwaffe" who therefore (of course) padded the US claims, by sending innocents to the slaughter, which "proves" that the US pilots were "inferior" (and of course, in turn offering a fair paradox in the bargain, because you can't really have that both ways) and on the other hand, German claims are never to be questioned. A nice unbiased idea!

And of course, the phenomenal rate of German victories had nothing to do with terrified Soviet pilots, sent out in TB 3 bombers alone, with no gunners and no escort, because they were more afraid of Commisars than of the Luftwaffe's guns

Perhaps I am missing the point here, but this seems to be a vaguely political comment, which is concerned with substituting one erroneous view of the air war with another erroneous view, which just happens to prove somebody's point. A different viewpoint isn't automatically the truth just because the orignal one was questionable

I can't say that I'm impressed here, Sintubin. This is just a thinly veiled complaint about the FW 190. If you want to just say that Oleg doesn't know what he's doing, just do it; you don't need to make a timebomb thread to do it. So, what else ya got?

Don't waste your time Chuck, just another troll like Hayateace just switching colours. Good points nevertheless.

I must admit I found Hayateaces, and Vikes posts very funny. Good comeback Vike. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

waffen-79
06-20-2006, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by Vike:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vike:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by HayateAce:
"Problem with Luftwaffle: They didn't have a refly button."

Ah,and maybe the USAAF had this button?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif+1
"They had THE planes,we had THE guns..." http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Pirschjaeger
06-20-2006, 10:24 AM
Wow! I've been gone all this time and this argument is still going. I seem to remember this thread from 5 years ago. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

MEGILE
06-20-2006, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Wow! I've been gone all this time and this argument is still going. I seem to remember this thread from 5 years ago. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

It's like a joke you've heard 1 too many times

Slickun
06-20-2006, 12:50 PM
I think something like 60% were able to bail out successfully.

Many of the experten had multiple bail-outs.

JG52Karaya-X
06-20-2006, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by Vike:
http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j32/Vike01/bf109k4r3.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

This pic is bigger, so LW is teh win! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif