The Victories & Losses of the 15 top-scoring Jastas

[Olham 164]

This graphic was put together, because I wanted to know the proportion between the victories/kills

and the losses of the top scoring Jastas. I knew from several books, that this proportion is getting

much distorted in air combat sims (not only in OFF, but in all sims I know - it must be extremely

difficult, or even impossible, to simulate the scraps as they were: rather short; then one or both

groups withdrew instead of eliminating each other almost completely).

 

Before anyone says now, that this chart is a proof of the efficiency of German Jastas or their

pilot training: I do not think that it is so simple. The better early pilot training of the Germans,

and the fact that it was far from that on the British side, at least in the early months of the air war,

was surely one reason for the high kill numbers.

But why do the Germans have so few losses compared to their victories?

 

I guess some reasons are these:

 

a) The German fighters operated almost only over German held terrain. That results in very few

losses by forced landings; German pilots could put their aircraft down anywhere, and would find

help, instead of being arrested and becoming prisoners of war (POW).

 

b) Their major task was to intercept intruding reconnaissance and bomber aircraft; while these

had special tasks to fullfill, with a fixed flight path. British fighters did not have these duties, but

they had to fly into German held terrain and had to search for the enemy there; while the Jastas

often enough avoided scraps with them. It was just not their task to have duells with other fighters.

 

c) The British fighters were exposed to German Flak most of the time. The German fighters only

were, when they made a balloon attack, or when they had to fly escort. As far as I know, escorts

were not made very often; the German two-seaters could fly at very high altitude, and seem to

have operated without escort mostly.

 

Perhaps you have good additional reasons to add here?

 

 

Edited September 2, 2011 by Olham

[shredward 12]

Hallo Olham,

As I'm sure you know, this topic has been the source of many discussions at the Aerodrome, not all of them pleasant. If this thread gets ugly, I won't hesitate to shut it down; that being said, it is certainly worthy and of interest to our community. Marvelous graph! In answer to your question, I would point to the criteria for reporting losses. If a pilot came home shot up, but did not get invalided out, they generally were not recorded as a loss. A/C losses generally were often not recorded as losses unless they were unrecoverable.

Cheers,

the shredder

Edited September 2, 2011 by shredward

[Olham 164]

No, I honestly did not know - I'm not so deeply in The Aerodrome very often,

but I can imagine, as I have been involved in one dispute there, which was fruitless

and went so strangely crazy, that I left it.

Well, I hope the community here will not start any flaming war about this chart.

In that case I'd be prepared and most willing to have it shut down.

 

You are of course right about the aircraft losses; but I wanted to look only at the losses of pilots,

which I find rather low in proportion to their kills.

 

I had to correct some of the white dots - if anyone still finds a mistake, please let me know.

My brain is mostly scrambled eggs most of the time.

Edited September 2, 2011 by Olham

[Hasse Wind 46]

It's amazing how people can start fighting over such reasons. No wonder our history is so full of wars and bloodshed.

 

Anyway, that's a great graph! You already pointed out the most important reasons, I think.

 

I'll just add one thing. Throughout the history of war in the air, the kill numbers have tended to cumulate on certain elite units and their aces. A guy like Manfred von Richthofen or René Fonck or James McCudden was responsible for a huge number of victories compared to the majority of pilots on either side. For every Richthofen and Fonck, there was a large number of pilots who never won a single victory. When top aces were collected together to form elite units like Jasta 11 or Escadrille 3, they tended to get the majority of all kills in their areas of operation.

 

This is easy to see for example in OFF. Just look at the number of poor and average units compared to the number of elite ones. For example in Alsace you'll find many units, both French and German, that don't have many (or any) aces and whose performance in combat is less than stellar.

[Creaghorn 10]

i would say there are several reasons for it

 

1. many german pilots had a career as two seater pilots. so they were much more experienced and had much better SA compared to the allies who often threw in boys in fight with handful flighthours.

2. better developed tactics to fly as a group. the rookies have been protected, like in wolfpacks.

3. at least until mid 1917 it was more dangerous to be for a second in the line of fire of twin spandaus than on single vickers or lewis guns.

4. allies flew many more rotary types. that meant tougher handling of the AC and many more accidents

5. germans mostly flew until they died. allied pilots had a year or so and then were sent home and got replaced by new ones. so the experience and leadership for the germans was still there while the allies always had to train young pilots over and over again. the level was equalized from about mid 1918 to the end when most german top aces have been dead.

6. the allies carried the war into german territory and despite heavy losses this tactic was kept active until the end of the war. at last it paid off. it was kind of quality agains quantity.

7. because of the overwhelming numbers flying into german territory, the german jastas had many more options to choose when to fight and when to let the enemy pass. and when they chose to fight, then with the option of winning.

[Shiloh 12]

I don't expect you to do this Olham but it would be great to see the same graph for the allies and how the difference in overall strategy affected the ratios. For one I don't think you would find as many of these lopsided results. But no matter how good you are, if you could shoot down 2 and they send 5 more at some point the numbers are going to overwhelm.

[Olham 164]

Hasse Wind, the elite units existed on both sides surely, and they were often thrown into the hottest spots..

But my question (or what I wanted to ask) was mainly: why did they have so few losses compared to their

victories?

 

2. better developed tactics to fly as a group. the rookies have been protected, like in wolfpacks.

From reading "No Parachute", I got the impression the British did that too, at least from mid-1917 on?

 

3. at least until mid 1917 it was more dangerous to be for a second in the line of fire of twin spandaus than on single vickers or lewis guns.

4. allies flew many more rotary types. that meant tougher handling of the AC and many more accidents

5. germans mostly flew until they died. allied pilots had a year or so and then were sent home and got replaced by new ones.

so the experience and leadership for the germans was still there while the allies always had to train young pilots over and over again.

the level was equalized from about mid 1918 to the end when most german top aces have been dead.

Good points IMHO.

[Pips 5]

Excellent graph Olham! Nicely done.

 

Interesting to look at the percentages of claims v's losses. In the same order (top to bottom, left to right) they are: 11%, 13%, 13%, 12%, 11%, 9%, 16%, 16%, 9%, 10%, 16%, 25%, 17%, 15% and 19%.

Jasta's 26 and 15 did extremely well with a loss rate of just 9%. Whereas Jast 7 suffered quite high losses for it's claims (25%).

 

Also interesting to note the very low rate of KIFA for all Jasta's. Speaks highly of the level of pilot training, and arguably the quality of aircraft they flew. I would hazard that the KIFA in the equilavent British units would be much higher.

Edited September 2, 2011 by Pips

[Hauksbee 103]

Perhaps you have good additional reasons to add here?

In the mornings, when the Allies were heading for the German lines, the winds were off the sea. That gave them a tail-wind inbound to the target, but head-winds on the return trip. Pilots and planes that were shot up found those head-winds a real handicap. Also, the Germans pursued homeward bound Allies. Many victories were not the result of white-knuckle dogfights, but simply picking off crippled stragglers.(BTW, that's a nice, clean graphic!)

Edited September 3, 2011 by Hauksbee

[33LIMA 972]

The high kill-to-loss ratio had also caught my eye but the other factor worth mentioning is that we're not comparing like with like here.

 

We're comparing figures for the SPECIALISTS (fighter pilots, whose speciality is getting kills) and within that again, the BEST (elite units), with figures (in that single speciality) which include ALL SKILL LEVELS and ALL SPECIALITIES (not just 'kill specialists').

 

We're comparing (reasonably) DEFINITE Jasta losses with CLAIMED allied kills (and while the German system was very good, it was not infallible, with some degree of over-claiming likely, on balance, from what I've read - Goering a case in point, maybe an extreme one)

 

We're comparing (definite) Jasta PILOT casualties with (claimed) Allied AIRCRAFT casualties, excluding from the former any aircraft loss which didn't 'damage or lose' the pilot.

 

When you also take into account all the factors already mentioned - especially the fact the Jastas sensibly fought mostly over their own Lines, with the wind mostly in their favour - the disparity is probably about what would be expected, bit like the Bermuda Triangle, perfectly capable of mundane rational explanation, without the need to invoke any mysterious factor; unlike, for example, the UK's coalition government, the War in Iraq etc etc :)

[Hasse Wind 46]

 

We're comparing (reasonably) DEFINITE Jasta losses with CLAIMED allied kills (and while the German system was very good, it was not infallible, with some degree of over-claiming likely, on balance, from what I've read - Goering a case in point, maybe an extreme one)

 

 

Regarding Göring's kills, Peter Kilduff examined all of them when writing his book about Göring's WW1 career. He came to the conclusion that out of Göring's 22 credited victories, four are questionable. So it appears that the system worked pretty well even in Göring's case.

 

Wow, how wrong it feels to defend even the early, pre-Third Reich career of Göring!

[Rugbyfan1972 1]

Olham,

 

That is a very interesting and informative graph that you have made, like Shiloh I would be interested if you could do one for the 15 highest scoring addied units. I would however like to suggest one addition to your german graph and to the allied if you can make one for them as well, could you post the dates the Jasta/squadron became active ane when it ceased being active (assuming this was not 11am 11/11/1918).

 

Keep up the good work.

[Olham 164]

Pips, the pilots who had flying accidents in combat (collisions) are counted to KIA.

The KIFA numbers are only those accidents without combat.

 

Good point, Hauksbee.

 

LIMA, I have only listed the CONFIRMED kills. The authors wrote, that for some Jastas

the true victory numbers might have even been higher, according to documents.

This graphic does NOT compare German and British pilot losses - 1. because I did

not find according numbers for the British, and 2. because I just wanted to compare

the German victories (aircraft downed) to the German losses; to see the percentage,

as Pips has worked out above.

Hasse Wind, you don't defend Goering, but the German claims & confirmation system.

 

Rugbyfan, I would like to do such a graphic for the Entente, or just the British.

If you can guide me to their numbers of confirms and their losses, I will do so.

You mention an important point - how long the Jastas were in service.

It is rather obvious, that Jastas which were formed only late 1917 or even in 1918,

would have smaller numbers. The Jastas in my graphic are all rather early ones.

 

Jasta 1 was formed on 22 August 1916.

Jasta 10 was formed on 28 September 1916

Jasta 18 was formed on 30 October 1916

Jasta 27 was formed on 5 February 1917

 

All units have served until the last day of the war.

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

Very good graph Olham, nice and concise. This has always been an interesting, and sometimes heated, topic of discussion, and as folks can already see there are many variables that must be kept in mind when delving into it. Just to give a taste of what an elite British unit tallied during the War here are the stats for the illustrious 56 Squadron, (courtesy of Alex Revell's High in the Empty Blue)

 

Victories:

Enemy Aeroplanes Destroyed ... 210

EA Driven Down Out of Control .. 185

Obs Balloons Destroyed .............. 6

 

Total of 401 Squadron Victories

 

 

Losses:

KIA .......................................... 44

WIA and died of wounds ............. 3

WIA ......................................... 19

POW and died of wounds ........... 1

POW and wounded .................... 8

POW ....................................... 20

KIFA ......................................... 3

Injured IFA and died of wounds .... 1

Injured IFA ................................ 11

 

 

As can be seen by just this above example, how you decide to use this information affects the analysis. If you take 56 Squadron's total victories of 401 and place it against it's actual losses of 47 KIA, 29 POW, and 4 KIFA, you end up with just under a 20% loss-to-victory ratio, which puts this RFC unit in amongst the best Jastas, (just imagine how much lower the KIA and POW count would be if these pilots hadn't been working miles behind enemy lines with the wind in their faces when trying to make their escapes in a tough fight). Another particular point that must be kept in mind is that the Allies did not have the benefit of being able to verify the vast majority of their claims as the Central Powers flyers could, because over half of Allied 'kills' went down well behind enemy lines and were not seen to crash. Without a witness to note where the plane hit the ground it was not counted as destroyed but rather as driven down out of control. And this has been one of the points of contention that has started more than a few arguments on this subject: How to count a 'kill'.

 

Great thread going here Gents, but be watchful of your steps navigating the minefield.

 

.

[Olham 164]

Lou, and everyone - I do not intend to have a "who was better" kind of debate.

 

Also I don't like to speak of "kills", simply because not every aerial victory resulted in killing the pilot.

A "victory" means to me rather an enemy aircraft brought down.

Even a forced landing was a victory IMHO.

 

If you, Lou, or anyone else can give me the numbers of victories and the losses, for the top scoring

15 British units, I will be glad to make a second graphic. I couldn't find such numbers yet.

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

Olham, I know you are not intending a "who was better" debate here Sir, and neither am I. My only point with my post was to caution that there are a myriad of ways to interprut the information at our disposal. And I also prefer the term 'victory' to 'kill', however I used both above because so often folks look at them as interchangeable. I do not have the numbers you are requesting but I am sure they are available over at the Aerodorme in one of the numerous threads concerning this topic, (but I do not visit there anymore).

 

.

[Olham 164]

... I am sure they are available over at the Aerodorme in one of the numerous threads concerning this topic, (but I do not visit there anymore).

I guess your reason might be the often weird debates they have over there?

I had got into one such debate, but left it soon, when I realised how sick it went.

I felt like writing in big bold letters "HEY GUYS, WW1 IS LONG OVER - COULD WE LEAVE IT THAT WAY?"

 

I would much prefer to get such data from someone here, who has the book about that.

I just don't trust data, which would be posted in the forum over there.

For the German numbers, I was easy, as I have both the GRUB STREET books "The Jasta Pilots"

and "Above the Lines" (thanks again for the tip, JFM!)

[33LIMA 972]

Regarding Göring's kills, Peter Kilduff examined all of them when writing his book about Göring's WW1 career. He came to the conclusion that out of Göring's 22 credited victories, four are questionable. So it appears that the system worked pretty well even in Göring's case.

 

Wow, how wrong it feels to defend even the early, pre-Third Reich career of Göring!

 

Interesting; most writers, even recent ones, still seem to like to take a swipe at 'Der Dicke'. 'Give a dog a bad name' and all that.

 

If 4 out of 22 is a representative overclaim rate, then it's still high enough, especially if (unlike MvR) Goering doesn't have some unconfirmed but probable kills that were uncredited, to balance out the overclaim.

 

Applying even Killduff's modest 'Goering overclaim rate' to the stats would narrow the gap a bit. On balance, I doubt very much that unconfirmed-but-actual kills balance out the overclaim effect; it's sufficient credit to the German WW1 system that it kept overclaiming down as much as it did. The French had a pretty tight system too, some sources say. I don't think it matters that the RFC didn't (or couldn't because of the tactical situation) operate a really tight kill confirmation system - the British were right in a sense, it wasn't kill tallies that ultimately mattered, it was the results the working planes (2-seaters) achieved. Their losses were the price they paid to get the photos taken, the targets spotted and the guns ranged - which the RFC/RAF did, and kept on doing, even during Bloody April. I'm glad that Peter Hart's recent book on that subject gave due prominence to the 2-seaters; they deserve a lot more attention - and thankfully, provision of 2-seaters, for both sides, is also one of OFF's strengths, due to get even better with P4.

Edited September 3, 2011 by 33LIMA

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

Well said, LIMA. The two-seaters were why the fighters were there in the first place.

 

Olham, my reasons for leaving the Aerodrome had to do with the lifetime bannig of another member. A banning I felt was unfair and biased.

 

.

[Hasse Wind 46]

In Göring's case, I think it's obvious that many writers are letting the later career of Göring affect their views about his career in WW1. But that is not how to write history in an objective way.

 

And yes, the role of bomber and reconnaissance aircraft is often completely forgotten when discussing WW1 aviation history. It's all about fighters and aces, most of the time. That's why I'm flying two-seaters more than fighters in OFF.

 

Olham, maybe this French site is helpful with the French statistics:

 

http://albindenis.free.fr/Site_escadrille/page_centaine.htm

[themightysrc 5]

Some interesting and cogent remarks thus far.

 

I think there's a sober and rational analysis to be had by looking at aerial warfare in WWI in a holistic/macro way. Whilst it's easy to get sucked into the excitement and perceived glamour of the individual aces, the air war wasn't about that in the slightest - except perhaps for public consumption for morale purposes.

 

As has been stated, the purpose of flying was to return information for the armies (at least initially). No more, no less. Get your observation planes in the right place in theright numbers, and you gain a strategic and tactical advantage for the ground forces. That's why Jastas existed - to stop this. It's also why the RFC was so committed to carrying the fight into German territory: after all, if your scouts are over your lines into German areas, then German two seaters stand less chance of performing their work. I would hazard a guess that the percentage of two seaters brought down by the Jastas would be higher than that for Entente squadrons, since the Entente squadrons appear to have spent much time shielding their own observation planes (which naturally Jastas would make a bee line for!). As already noted, German two seaters tended to fly much higher than their Entente counterparts, perhaps a recognition that height was the best form of defence against Allied scouts.

 

All of these points tend to feed into a wider analysis of air strategy in WWI, in my opinion. Because the Entente strategy was to get over the lines and establish supremacy there, and to enable their observation planes, inevitably the response was to try and counter this in the most effective and economical way possible - as the Germans did, quite successfully, until 1918, when the numbers overwhelmed them and the apparent quality of their pilots began to drop off due to losses.

 

It's a fascinating subject, and one that should be utterly devoid of rancour. I'm at a loss to read that it's led to blazing rows elsewhere, and I can only conclude that CA forums are apparently a much more learned and discerning community.

 

One last thought: Olham, do you have the stats on what sort of aircraft the Jastas brought down? My suspicion is that as a percentage, they took down more two seaters than scouts, compared to their Entente counterparts - for the reasons I've outlined - but I'd very much like to see evidence, although I do seem to recall that MvR's tally of 80 had a very large percentage of two seaters.

 

Cheers,

Si

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

Outstanding assessment Si, very well stated. As to MvR's 2-seater kills, IIRC it is somewhere around 48 of his total.

 

.

[Flyby PC 23]

It's a very complex thing to make sense of, but I think you need to look closely at the roll of aircraft when deployed.

 

I know the RFC, through Hugh Trenchard, were pushed to maintain a very aggressive stance, taking the war to the enemy - whatever the circumstances and cost. This is why many inexperienced pilots were exposed to dangers beyond their abilities. British pilots were considered more expendible, not because of governmental stupidity, but rather cold blooded determination. Unfortunately for RFC pilots, the information they brought back was considered so valuable it was to be bought at any price, and intelligence of the enemy movements was considered worth the tragic loss of life. I shall avoid the immotive references to "lambs to the slaughter", because I don't believe it was like that.

 

As I understand it, (and I could be wrong in this), the rage of the 'Fokker Scourge' in the UK in 1916 was not primarily the loss of life or inadequate training, nor indeed any profligacy of the Air Ministry with pilots' lives, but the essence of the scandal was that brave RFC pilots were being asked to fulfil these duties while not getting the quality of aircraft they needed to do the job. The BE2 was just not up to the job.

[Olham 164]

I don't think it matters that the RFC didn't (or couldn't because of the tactical situation) operate a really tight kill confirmation system -

the British were right in a sense, it wasn't kill tallies that ultimately mattered, it was the results the working planes (2-seaters) achieved.

Their losses were the price they paid to get the photos taken, the targets spotted and the guns ranged - which the RFC/RAF did, and

kept on doing, even during Bloody April.

That is a good point.

Maybe for the overall tactical situations and successes, the fighters in those days were still rather marginal.

 

Thanks for the link, Hasse Wind - I knew it, but forgot to check there.

The French fighters are a different matter again compared to the British though,

cause they also did not cross the lines so often and so offensively.

 

Good statements, Mighty, and I also think, that we must be an outstanding forum if it comes to debates - very grown-up here, and very fair.

I just looked into "The Jasta Pilots" again, but didn't see such stats divided into two-seaters and fighters.

But that isn't too important for my question anyway, because attacking two-seaters with rear gunners must have also been dangerous;

and my major question is, why they had comparably small losses.

I must admit by the way, that I belong to those who are mainly fascinated by the fighters, although my intelligence (if there is some) knows,

that the two-seaters did all the most important stuff for winning the ground war.

So I'm one of those, who despite better knowledge tend to romanticise the air war. That's the child in me, I guess.

 

Thanks for MvR's stats, Lou!

[themightysrc 5]

"But that isn't too important for my question anyway, because attacking two-seaters with rear gunners must have also been dangerous;

and my major question is, why they had comparably small losses."

 

I think that many of the posts thus far have fed in elements which go some way to giving you a largely definitive answer:

 

1. German pilots were generally better trained and more experienced (and hence developed better tactics)

2. German pilots fought largely on their won side of the lines, and hence were less likely to be captured

3. They chose their fights carefully - AG Lee is clear on this, as are other authors - and worked at picking off two seaters and stragglers

4. Two seaters were dangerous, but were plodders and underarmed compared to German scouts

5. Until mid 1918, they chose the battleground; the RFC were responding to a strategic directive

 

There's more to it than that, but I think it's enough to explain why the Jastas (well, some of them) were so effective.

 

My 2d.

 

Cheers

Si