combat claims..

Yep. There are many references to this (but I’m at work and can’t access). Bear in mind a handful of factors …
The majority of air combats were (and still are) hit and run, the old “dive from out of the sun” held true often enough. The majority of airmen shot down (forget the data, but it’s high 70/80%) never saw their opponent. And the head-on attacks of bomber formations were similar, one pass through and dive away.
This sort of environment makes it relatively easy to have a leader and wingman fighting unit. The German’s emploiyed the schwarm, a loose structure of 4 aircraft, 2 x leaders and 2 x wingmen. The allied airforces borrowed this after meeting it in action!
As mentioned above, German philosophy was to let the experten have the first chance, not only because of the logic of better liklehood of a favourable outcome but also because the experten became big deals (and got deferred to) – the night fighter experten in particular were the “pop stars” of 1940’s Germany.
Just re. night fighters – the experten got the best boxes (in the early system) and as the wild boar environment became the norm, got to work with the best ground controllers.
This all added up to the best getting the best opportunity. To become one of the best you needed luck or above average flying and markmanship ability (that would bring you though over time).

I’m sure I read somewhere, fairly recently, that the Luftwaffe “aces” were supported by the rest of the flight, squadron, whatever, so that if there was an opportunity, the expert got the kill. Obviously that couldn’t happen in a dogfight where I gather the sky goes from packed to empty in a few seconds.

Anybody else seen this?

There is the idea that German aces racked up such high scores due to flying against inferior pilots (and aircraft) on the Russian front.

By the time the Germans invaded the Soviet Union they had already wiped out the airforces of every country in Europe except the UK. Do you think that might mean they destroyed quite a few planes?
The vast majority of the Soviet aircraft destroyed in the first few hours of barbarossa were lined up neatly beside their runways and thousands were destroyed on the ground. Actually that was a good thing as they were mostly obsolete Polikarpovs… not much use against Me-109s, so that probably saved the lives of quite a few Soviet pilots.

There is the idea that German aces racked up such high scores due to flying against inferior pilots (and aircraft) on the Russian front.

Also, one or two might have included victories scored in the Spanish Civil War, I think.

That was true in opening year of the Russian campaign,( certainly a relief that the Luftwaffe didn’t count air to ground I think !!) but certainly by the beginning of 1943 the aircraft of the VVS were on a par with German types, and by early 1944 the skill level was on the rise while the Luftwaffes was on the decline. Not to mention the overwhelming numbers being faced…sure more targets…but a damn side more chance of being shot down by some novice VVS pilot as well.

Dave

In the bottom of “spitfire into battle” by Duncan Smith there’s an appendix called “Notes on Allied and German combat claims in Second World War”. I dont know if u all have read it, but it basically says that the divarium between the german and allied claims can be explained only by diffent systems … What I get while reading is that it seems he’s trying to justify the divarium at all costs, and cant accept that the germans had more aerial victories [and] is the number of victories so important to determine who’s better?

Alex

Further to my post above … I don’t think anyone can seriously challenge the fact that the great Luftwaffe aces had higher victory tallies than their opponents – essentially because they had more opportunity (sorties and targets). Whether this concept passes to the Luftwaffe in general I don’t know – but given their “need a witness or proof” claims system I’m inclined to support that assertion. In other words, I find Mr Duncan Smith’s argument, as reported by you, specious.

As to whether a high score makes you “better”. I’d rather argue “better” in terms of relative performance vs your peers (who have essentially the same opportunities). So who are the peers of the Luftwaffe Aces? Well, by definition your opponents do not have the same opportunities, their position is the inverse of yours at any given time or place. And we need to allow for the German preference to allow greater opportunity to their experten – the argument being that you’ll get more kills by offering the lambs to the experten than to your own learners – you can argue that one forever. So I would say the only valid comparison against which to judge the performance of a Luftwaffe ace is relative to another Luftwaffe ace. Lastly, I’d make it relative to time in the air in the same/similar environment – ie. verified claims per sortie, by front (East/West, night/day).

And IMHO the same follows for any other airforce.

cheers Don

It might be that verifying the shoot-down with the intelligence officer was more difficult for the RAF; there might be half a dozen claims all about the same German bomber, so maybe the resultant scoring system is slightly more accurate after confirmation was established? Of course during the Battle of Britain it was useful for the public to think that 60+ enemy aircraft were shot down yesterday… But how many aircraft were actually confirmed as lost by both sides for the BoB period, compared with the claims?

By the last year of the war the Luftwaffe did not have
The aircraft were, for the most part, old but updated designs being built from sub-standard and/or non-strategic materials, powered by sub-standard fuel, often thrown straight into battle without being fully tested for faults and with obvious defects that once would have ruled them out of use until they were considered safe (Me163 and its occasional tendancy to explode on take off, for example).
They may have had good weapons (variations on the basic design still being used today, for example?) but did they have the ammunition to use in them?
As to its pilots being mostly experienced veterans… The experienced pilots were either in commanding positions and generally, for the most part, out of the battle or they were still gaining that experience; newly trained pilots were arriving and dying in stages over the following month. I recall an interview, in Aeroplane (I think), with a former LW pilot on the western front, who commented that it became difficult keeping the paperwork up to date since there was no-one for him to confer with about which airfield they were at when they lost so-and-so, and the difficulties they experienced when having to move fields since they invariably had more valuable spare aircraft than pilots to ferry them (what with most of the action taking place at low level with little chance to bail out, I suppose). To see how desperate the high command was witness the grabbing at straws effect of Hitler Youth being trained to fly He162 jets straight out of gliders…

Yes, a ranking system for fighter pilots is always going to be based upon the number of aircraft they have shot down (or, for bomber crews, the number of missions flown). And from a propaganda point of view it was important (witness the Memphis Belle, for example, or the trade in original German fighter pilot photos on Ebay), but it did not make so much of an impact in Britain – I doubt I could name the top three highest scoring British pilots off the top of my head.

Flood

In fact most of the victories were scored until the first half of 1944, and by the end there were many cases of 16 years old pilots literally thrown in the sky with a bunch of hours, supposed to inflict damage to an endless armada of allied planes.. Still I dont get the diffidence of Duncan Smith and others about german scoring..

Alex

Is it true that part of the reason for the high German scores is that pilots included aircraft they destroyed in airfield strafing missions? Not sure if this would be enough to explain the difference.

The opposite Charley. As I understand from nmay sources, including the believable Mr Deighton, thank you Andy-in-Beds :p then the claims system was …

RAF, allow all claims including part-claims after debriefing Q&A as it is/was good for morale. This notwithstanding that in the BoB it wasn’t hard to verify over-land claims. Not sure re. strafing aircraft on the ground.

Luftwaffe … allow only claims where a second person (wingman or other) also verified the claim. If over friendly land, verify wreckage. Only in the air combat claims allowed.

USAAF … allow all claims (resulted in huge numbers of fighters being “shot down” by bomber crews o/a many gunners targeting same fighter, plus low quality german fuel in later years produced noticable smoke trails from fighters throttling-on after head on attacks at low throttle) and allow ground strafing. This latter made sense as an aircraft, whether offensive or defensive, destroyed on the ground was one less to meet in the air another day.

As to high Luftwaffe scores. The lack of rotation, ie. you fight until you are injured or killed or promoted (remember Galland?) was the key difference. Meant some pilots became very experienced and strong opponents. However don’t think that meant all pilots were old hands. The old hands got killed/injured too and new faces were always around. I have Campbell’s(?) great book on JG26 and the turnover there was astonishing. Page after page there are squadron photos of a dozen or twenty and KIA beside say 3/4 of the names. Very sobering.

It might be that verifying the shoot-down with the intelligence officer was more difficult for the RAF; there might be half a dozen claims all about the same German bomber, so maybe the resultant scoring system is slightly more accurate after confirmation was established? Of course during the Battle of Britain it was useful for the public to think that 60+ enemy aircraft were shot down yesterday… But how many aircraft were actually confirmed as lost by both sides for the BoB period, compared with the claims?

By the last year of the war the Luftwaffe did not have

great planes, great weapons, most of …(the pilots)… were experienced veterans…

The aircraft were, for the most part, old but updated designs being built from sub-standard and/or non-strategic materials, powered by sub-standard fuel, often thrown straight into battle without being fully tested for faults and with obvious defects that once would have ruled them out of use until they were considered safe (Me163 and its occasional tendancy to explode on take off, for example).
They may have had good weapons (variations on the basic design still being used today, for example?) but did they have the ammunition to use in them?
As to its pilots being mostly experienced veterans… The experienced pilots were either in commanding positions and generally, for the most part, out of the battle or they were still gaining that experience; newly trained pilots were arriving and dying in stages over the following month. I recall an interview, in Aeroplane (I think), with a former LW pilot on the western front, who commented that it became difficult keeping the paperwork up to date since there was no-one for him to confer with about which airfield they were at when they lost so-and-so, and the difficulties they experienced when having to move fields since they invariably had more valuable spare aircraft than pilots to ferry them (what with most of the action taking place at low level with little chance to bail out, I suppose). To see how desperate the high command was witness the grabbing at straws effect of Hitler Youth being trained to fly He162 jets straight out of gliders…

Yes, a ranking system for fighter pilots is always going to be based upon the number of aircraft they have shot down (or, for bomber crews, the number of missions flown). And from a propaganda point of view it was important (witness the Memphis Belle, for example, or the trade in original German fighter pilot photos on Ebay), but it did not make so much of an impact in Britain – I doubt I could name the top three highest scoring British pilots off the top of my head.

Flood

yeah sure, but bear in mind that Hartmann flew for something more than a year..

Alex

German pilots were not rotated through operational units like Allied pilots. If you are front line during the Spanish Civil War you stayed fron-line until you became head of the Luftwaffe or died. Therefore there were pilots flying in 1945 that had started their scores ten years or so before.

MH

There is the idea that German aces racked up such high scores due to flying against inferior pilots (and aircraft) on the Russian front.

Also, one or two might have included victories scored in the Spanish Civil War, I think.

I dont know, but it was done by americans (there are in fact american aces who destroyed only planes on the ground..). 43 views and only a reply… annoying topic? 😉

Alex

Is it true that part of the reason for the high German scores is that pilots included aircraft they destroyed in airfield strafing missions? Not sure if this would be enough to explain the difference.