Olham

Perhaps you read the first post again to remember the question. The question was not, if the German Jastas had any chance to win. I think it is out of question, that they hadn't.

Well, if you think about the unbalance of the sheer number of Entente pilots and aircraft (Britain, France, Canada, Australia and finally America) compared to just German numbers, it was impossible from the beginning, that German Jastas could have gained air superiority over enemy terrain. They were in the defensive most of the time. Hasse Wind, do you know how well (or not) the German two-seaters could do their recon and bombing tasks?

Never thought of that, Flyby, but you are absolutely right. No need to download it; I watched it in YouTube.

I was impressed that these Royal Engineers, who are not the youngest any more, took the challenge on and managed to dismantle this one big mine. A good example, I guess, for other engineers to follow.

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!

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!)

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.

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.

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

If I count correct, he grew 90 years old, which is quite an age! He flew aircraft in films even, like in "Sink the Bismark". He must have had an exciting life. Rest in peace, old aviator!

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.

I like this Al Forbes painting, cause we don't see Erdkampf-Flugzeuge (ground attack aircraft) so often.

Each time I have a pilot who lasted so long, that he has collected many confirms and medals, and more than anything: hours, then I feel he is getting heavy. His achievements are a burden; his many hours make me feel an old veteran instead of a light-hearted young rookie. And mine has "only" 80 hours on his account now - I wonder how Lou, Creaghorn or Hasse Wind must often feel with far "older" pilots. Apart from these 3 fellers - is there anyone out there, who feels the same?

Yeah, I guess that's what they call job sharing?

Hihihi - the benefits of getting old, eyh? Thank you all.

Anything for the sake of joyfull OFF-flying, LIMA - cheers!

Haha, that's great! Though I actually did above joke as an entertaining attempt of defense of your tactics. I absolutely trust in you devs, that you have your reasons for working so secretly on what shall become the next generation of the best WW1 flight sim ever. Damn, it looks so neat - as if you could put your hand on the wing and touch it! This beautiful model should lure some more people into it's seats. No idea what you want to improve, but I trust in Sandbagger there.

If you watch the motorbike rider (Idiot No. 2), you would think, even a wild boar could get a driving license. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_olItR1dTA&NR=1

Anyone can do it without the blanket, Wayfarer - but to hit the tree flying blindfolded, is not so easy surely!

Hihi, I bet the crazy guy will never try it again after that. I bet it got pretty expensive for him.

I can only ditto, what Creaghorn said. The Herr Prop-Wasche damage mod is a lot more fair. Of course - when the Flak shoots off a wing, you will still be lost.

Well, I know your works so far good enough to know, that you will come up with something great. And I guess it's not a bad idea to leave the competitors in the foggy about your progress.

You know what the man with the ladle will do next, Hasse Wind, don't you? He'll hit the boy with it. So better be prepared for another of Pol's teasing announcements about soon coming releases, any time between tomorrow and eternity.

Shiloh, the correct path for the pilot files is: CFSWW1 Over Flanders Fields > campaigns > CampaignData > pilots The pilot's number will be the ingame Log number plus 1 (so ingame pilot No.2 would have folders for Pilot No.3). Just change the Jasta-Number, as you TaillyHo said already. After another mission, you will find it changed in the log.