highest kill ratio

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Well, this could interesting...

[Daviducus2]

http://www.clipartof.com/images/emot...ng_popcorn.gif

[JoeB]

Not to take sides in any personal pissing matches , but I'd put in my usual two cents about claims or credited victories v actual losses on the other side. The key point is not that claims or credits tended to exceed real losses. The key point is that the *degree* of overstatement was highly variable, between air arms, and even for the same air arm in different theaters and periods. So it's almost entirely meaningless to compare claimed/credited kill ratio's unless it's claims by the same or very similar air arm in the same period. Otherwise 100 credits by one AF in one theater and period could typically mean 75 real enemy losses, and 100 credits could typically mean 12 enemy losses in another AF, time or place. There are historical examples everywhere within that range for fighter claims/credits, or even outside it.

There is therefore no valid basis for taking claims from different AF's, or greatly different times and situations even for the same AF, at face value relative to each other. Either we know the claim accuracy from enough relevant examples documented from both sides, same AF, same theater, same period of time, or we can't compare them reliably.

And, besides data, different researchers' methods and assumptions, and sometimes biases, can lead to different answers for the claim accuracy, even when data exists from both sides. That's the other problem, in some cases (not saying any cases here) there turns out good reason for skepticism about what people have said they've found about claim accuracy.

Joe

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Good info there Joe.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by JoeB

Not to take sides in any personal pissing matches , but I'd put in my usual two cents about claims or credited victories v actual losses on the other side. The key point is not that claims or credits tended to exceed real losses. The key point is that the *degree* of overstatement was highly variable, between air arms, and even for the same air arm in different theaters and periods. So it's almost entirely meaningless to compare claimed/credited kill ratio's unless it's claims by the same or very similar air arm in the same period. Otherwise 100 credits by one AF in one theater and period could typically mean 75 real enemy losses, and 100 credits could typically mean 12 enemy losses in another AF, time or place. There are historical examples everywhere within that range for fighter claims/credits, or even outside it.

There is therefore no valid basis for taking claims from different AF's, or greatly different times and situations even for the same AF, at face value relative to each other. Either we know the claim accuracy from enough relevant examples documented from both sides, same AF, same theater, same period of time, or we can't compare them reliably.

And, besides data, different researchers' methods and assumptions, and sometimes biases, can lead to different answers for the claim accuracy, even when data exists from both sides. That's the other problem, in some cases (not saying any cases here) there turns out good reason for skepticism about what people have said they've found about claim accuracy.

Joe

Totally agree.

I am emerging from a 3 year 'immersion' in looking at daily LW losses as posted and referencing many sources - but mostly Walter Grabmann, "The German Air Defense 1933-1945', Schmid "The GAF vs the Allies in the West 1943-45 (USAFHRA K113).. as well as the usual excellent unit and LW histories by Goyat/Lorent, Prien et al. as well as about 3000 US Encounter Reports. I have also examined in detail all the US Fighter Group Histories as well as the MACR's to arrive at the type losses. Very few of the unit histories come anywhere close to the data I have compiled on the 355th and 4th FG but Kent Miller has done the best job of publishing the broad summary. I can point out quite a few errors but his work is excellent and represents the single best reference for 8th AF FC.

Tony Woods Lists for the same battles are interesting. We know the US bomber claims are way overstated but so far the Fighter claims range from ~ 80-100% depending on whether you wish to discount the 8th BC claims entirely.

Erich and I took a couple of the big ones like April 24 and Nov 26 and Nov 2 and hashed them out pretty well to get the perspectives.

Summary - Overclaims yes, massive (2x) no.. at least for the period of my key interest, namely 1943 through 1945. We will never be able to get our arms around objective loss counts for LW post Nov 1944 but interstingly enough that isn't quite as important to 8th AF Ops as so much of LW was shifted form West to East in February, 1945.

I freely admit none of these constitute the holy grail but in composite they lay out the big air battles - notable for excellent roll ups on both LW and 8th AF-

Having said that I feel well positioned to debate 8th AF FC statistics with just about anybody - and recognize I have a long way to go to declare 'Done".

[Soren]

lol Cocloz, I did bring forth a reference, the most accurate one there is, Reschke's own book (Wilde Sau). And that is despite your completelæy ridiculous dismissal of it as a reliable source. You see Reschke actually flew the a/c and was around when these losses occured, and thus he has first hand information on the subject, completely unlike the dubious references you bring forth.

Also why do you call Hermann a Ta152 fan ? He's a writer & researcher, not a fan. And his knowledge is mostly on the technical aspect of these a/c, not unit histories. Oh and btw, where in his book does he conclude anything even approaching what you're claiming in your article ?

[CloCloZ]

Originally Posted by Soren

lol Cocloz, I did bring forth a reference, the most accurate one there is, Reschke's own book (Wilde Sau). And that is despite your completelæy ridiculous dismissal of it as a reliable source. You see Reschke actually flew the a/c and was around when these losses occured, and thus he has first hand information on the subject, completely unlike the dubious references you bring forth.

Also why do you call Hermann a Ta152 fan ? He's a writer & researcher, not a fan. And his knowledge is mostly on the technical aspect of these a/c, not unit histories. Oh and btw, where in his book does he conclude anything even approaching what you're claiming in your article ?

Sorry to burst your bubble but:

1) Reschke has been found to be highly unreliable (and, yes, that by serious researchers) and I reported all the references. For example, he reports three victories by Walter Loos on Ta152 that Loos himself denied! (just look at Pilots who flew the Ta152 - Luftwaffe Experten Message Board)
And, BTW, his tale about Ludwigslust dogfight is plagued by inconsistencies when compared not only to RAF reports but to other German witnesses reports too, from the number of planes involved to Sattler's flight path.
So, he is unreliable both about events he was involved in and about other pilots' events. In the light of those researches his tales are "good" just for people that stubbornly want to believe to them.

2) Harmann is both a writer AND a Ta152 fan, as quite clearly demonstrated by his overpraising of that plane. So, for sure he doesn't conclude anything near to my conclusions!
Iin fact I'd never write things such as "The pilots of the Tank also did not have to fear P47 Thunderbolts or Hawker Tempests, as several victories proves [...] it must actually have brought many P-47 and Tempests pilot to the point of desperation" (please note: 1 (one) downed P47, 1 (one) downed Tempest) ...
Anyway, even such a fan reports a couple of losses that (added to others) fully deny your unproven 11-0 statement ...

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Vincenzo

i've too little info
can give me the 8th AF awards with the lw unit.

>I'll dig into my files and give you one example I have already published.

>In the meantime you dig up (or do the research and present your results) an example to support your thesis.

Summary

April 24, 1944 is on Mike Williams website - one that Erich and I (and several others) collaborated on as documented in overview. I have since completed the LW loss list to the extent that it can be completed... and will post tomorrow. The LW loss list was incomplete with respect to times but locations and types have narrowed down the probable killers and victims.

This was one in which two fighter groups of the 8th AF were engaged with a force of 200+ German fighters in a very concentrated area around Munich in a specific time span - permitting conclusions regarding 'claim to award to loss'

The Battle Over Munich – April 24, 1944

Plus OberstLeutnant Joerge Deutsch's and Frank Olynyk's further additions. I have about seven of these but this will serve for the moment. I did not include Tony Wood's consolidated LW list for 4-24 Awards as this page is getting a little crowded! If you have trouble finding it I will post it later. For Frank O's list, strip out the stuff that is not in a 50 mile radius from Munich as the others (Worms, Lake Constance, etc) were on the inbound run and not relevant to this documentary.

Now Vincenzo - go forth and present yourown research and perspectives

[Timppa]

Originally Posted by CloCloZ

Unlike you, I reported ALL the references for ANY of my statements.
You reported NOTHING for your 11-0 statement.
So, if I have a "suspicious agenda", you have NO CREDIBLE agenda at all.

CloClo, I see you have now been introduced to Soren's "discussion" style. I think he is just a troll, with a Third Reich axe to grind. Just put him him on your ignore list, he really has nothing to contribute.

Your analysis of the Ta152 vs. Tempest fight is quite good.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by Timppa

CloClo, I see you have now been introduced to Soren's "discussion" style. I think he is just a troll, with a Third Reich axe to grind. Just put him him on your ignore list, he really has nothing to contribute.

Your analysis of the Ta152 vs. Tempest fight is quite good.

You're the troll here Timppa, with your own clear bias to deal with, as you have so solidly proven over and over again.

But you and Clocloz can go ahead and believe in your fairytale fantasies all you wish, I couldn't care less.

But next time bring forth a reliable source for once, not just some guy who never flew during the war and bases all his conclusions on rumors. In short: Try to contribute!

[Soren]

Originally Posted by CloCloZ

Sorry to burst your bubble but:

1) Reschke has been found to be highly unreliable (and, yes, that by serious researchers) and I reported all the references. For example, he reports three victories by Walter Loos on Ta152 that Loos himself denied! (just look at Pilots who flew the Ta152 - Luftwaffe Experten Message Board)
And, BTW, his tale about Ludwigslust dogfight is plagued by inconsistencies when compared not only to RAF reports but to other German witnesses reports too, from the number of planes involved to Sattler's flight path.
So, he is unreliable both about events he was involved in and about other pilots' events. In the light of those researches his tales are "good" just for people that stubbornly want to believe to them.

2) Harmann is both a writer AND a Ta152 fan, as quite clearly demonstrated by his overpraising of that plane. So, for sure he doesn't conclude anything near to my conclusions!
Iin fact I'd never write things such as "The pilots of the Tank also did not have to fear P47 Thunderbolts or Hawker Tempests, as several victories proves [...] it must actually have brought many P-47 and Tempests pilot to the point of desperation" (please note: 1 (one) downed P47, 1 (one) downed Tempest) ...
Anyway, even such a fan reports a couple of losses that (added to others) fully deny your unproven 11-0 statement ...

Listen up Clocloz/FalkeEins, it's you who wrote the hogwash on that forum isn't it ? And unsurprisingly no links or accurate references are given to the wild claims made there. I wonder why ?

But you've openly declared Reschke a liar, fine, but I'd sure like to see the evidence you claim to have which will prove this! Why is it that I suspect you have absolutely nothing of the sort ?

Sure gotta love it when people start pouring dirt on the brave men who actually took part in that horrible war some 64 years ago. I mean, what do they know right ? They only lived and fought in the battles we talk about so often.

I think Reschke should've been invited to this discussion. I'd sure like to hear what he has to say.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Quit hijacking these threads with your bullshit childish flame wars.

All of you need to play nice! Some of you have already received warnings before stating what will happen if you don't. I don't care who started it!

[CloCloZ]

Originally Posted by Soren

Listen up Clocloz/FalkeEins, it's you who wrote the hogwash on that forum isn't it ? And unsurprisingly no links or accurate references are given to the wild claims made there. I wonder why ?

But you've openly declared Reschke a liar, fine, but I'd sure like to see the evidence you claim to have which will prove this! Why is it that I suspect you have absolutely nothing of the sort ?

Sure gotta love it when people start pouring dirt on the brave men who actually took part in that horrible war some 64 years ago. I mean, what do they know right ? They only lived and fought in the battles we talk about so often.

I think Reschke should've been invited to this discussion. I'd sure like to hear what he has to say.

"no links or accurate references" ...

I know that you dislike what I said with a lot of links and references on that page (unlike what you did) but at least you should try to pretend you read that page ...

About Reschke, I didn't say he is a liar, I said his reports are just unreliable tales on many accounts. I don't know if he is a liar, still wants to defend Tank's and Ta152 reputation or just has bad memories, the fact is that his tales very often "doesn't stand up to scrutiny".
And, better, it wasn't just me to have said that, but researchers such as Lorant. Again, if you had really read my page you had easily discovered that.

So, it's quite "odd" that at first you ask for "serious researchers" and when I point out that I used data from researchers (Lorant and even Harmann) you ignore that and go on babbling about "no references, no links, no serious researchers, just your assumptions" ...

It's quite obvious Timppa is fully right.
So I'll let you peacefully continue to believe in what you want to believe, in spite of any evidence.
Only thing I'm sure it will disturb you: that page and all its links and references will stick around ...
But, after all, I wrote that page just for smart people, not for trolls!


P.S.: I'm not FalkeEins (I don't even know him or her), so please don't try to involve me in squabbles you probably had with other users (and it's now quite easy to me to understand why ...).

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

Listen up Clocloz/FalkeEins, it's you who wrote the hogwash on that forum isn't it ? And unsurprisingly no links or accurate references are given to the wild claims made there. I wonder why ?

But you've openly declared Reschke a liar, fine, but I'd sure like to see the evidence you claim to have which will prove this! Why is it that I suspect you have absolutely nothing of the sort ?

Sure gotta love it when people start pouring dirt on the brave men who actually took part in that horrible war some 64 years ago. I mean, what do they know right ? They only lived and fought in the battles we talk about so often.

I think Reschke should've been invited to this discussion. I'd sure like to hear what he has to say.

As many of you know - Soren and I have had a LOT of spririted debates.

I will be the first to say he has brought out the best (and worst) of me.. but will further say that even if I feel he has a point of view that does not match mine he is a very sharp individual and we find ourselves 'agreeing to disagree' where the past was 'Patience Hell - kill the SOB"

I have found Reschke somewaht uncredible on the claims side but only because I had access to the actiual losses. By the same token questioning him on actual LW losses takes on the same dimension.

I have no stomach for assertaining a warriro's persepctive as BS when the ones that question it weren't there to question it or validate it.

Investigate, research, make your own determinations but back it up!

[drgondog]

>I'll dig into my files and give you one example I have already published.

>In the meantime you dig up (or do the research and present your results) an example to support your thesis.

Vincenzo - this is the kind of research you need to duplicate to remotely approach a dialogue of matching claims to awards......

Summary

April 24, 1944 is on Mike Williams website - one that Erich and I (and several others) collaborated on as documented in overview. I have since completed the LW loss list to the extent that it can be completed... and will post tomorrow. The LW loss list was incomplete with respect to times but locations and types have narrowed down the probable killers and victims.

This was one in which two fighter groups of the 8th AF were engaged with a force of 200+ German fighters in a very concentrated area around Munich in a specific time span - permitting conclusions regarding 'claim to award to loss'

The Battle Over Munich – April 24, 1944 The Battle Over Munich – April 24, 1944

PlusI added OberstLeutnant Joerge Deutsch's and Frank Olynyk's further additions.

I have about seven of these 'specific research tasks completed -but this will serve for the moment.

I did not include Tony Wood's consolidated LW list for 4-24 Awards as this page is getting a little crowded! If you have trouble finding it I will post it later. For Frank O's list, strip out the stuff that is not in a 50 mile radius from Munich as the others (Worms, Lake Constance, etc) were on the inbound run and not relevant to this documentary.

Now Vincenzo - go forth and present yourown research and perspectives