Which Plane Did The Luftwaffe Shoot Down The Most? | Top 20 Allied WW2 Aircraft Claimed
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 31 янв 2023
- Have you ever asked yourself what was the plane shot down the most by the Luftwaffe in WW2? And then immediately asked yourself what were the other 19 most shot-down allied planes? If so, this is the video for you.
I've gone through the Luftwaffe claims provided by Tony Wood in his Combat Claims & Casualty Lists as well as various other sources for German Ace's aerial victories to produce this video. Is it a perfect list, no that's almost impossible to achieve, but it does give us a nice idea of which aircraft were claimed the most by the Luftwaffe.
Source: Tony Wood's excellent database on Luftwaffe claims during WW2. (don-caldwell.we.bs/jg26/claims...)
🧥 Want to get a great deal on an authentic leather flying jacket? Check out the range from Legendary USA here: calibanrising.com/flying-jacket/
💗 If you'd like to support my channel please follow this link for more details: calibanrising.com/support/
You can also now find me on Patreon: / calibanrising
🎁 Grab one of my unique WW2-themed designs. great on t-shirts, hoodies or mugs: bit.ly/3GLPNBJ
📰 You can also support me by subscribing to one of these great aviation magazines: calibanrising.com/magazines/
💰 Want to start an online business with RUclips?
This RUclips channel is no accident and the success I've had so far was no mere fluke, it's all been planned out and executed in a very meaningful way. However, I can't take credit for knowing how to do all that, I had to learn and I learned from the best!
Listen to my advice for building a successful RUclips channel: • How Does Phil From Cal...
📕 Welcome to my channel where I share my love of history and aviation. I first fell in love with military aviation when reading Biggles books as a boy, then I studied history at university. I like finding interesting stories and sharing them with others.
I also followed this passion into the real world and managed to get a Private Pilot's Licence on 10th May 2014.
🕹️ My gaming equipment for getting footage:
Joystick: amzn.to/2TP6h40
Rudder Pedals: amzn.to/38c3YAx
Elevator Trim: amzn.to/3oQWNn8
Head Tracking: amzn.to/34Qpvwd
3D print your own gaming controls
Get an Enders 3 Pro like me: amzn.to/3dFXts3
Go over to authentikit.org/
Wishlist: amzn.to/385dXHD
⏱️ Timestamp:
0:00 intro
Images: other than where stated, images used in the video have been found on commons.wikimedia.org/
#aviationhistory#history
Liked the video? Keep the good times rolling by buying me a pint! 🍺 Tip with a Super Thanks or via PayPal: bit.ly/47p3xNT - Your support means a lot! Also check out my new channel membership.
Very good documentary. Pleasantly and thoughtfully presented. Thank you very much Caliban.
I like the P 47. The truth is, and you know it as well as I, that most attacks are by surprise, so that having a tough airplane give you a big advantage.
The P47 Thunderbolt had high speed and high altitude capability giving at the advantage of “zoom and boom.“
Fighting with mostly about surprise and ambush, not so much about the glorified dogfight.
I agree with your suggestion, given any fighter plane in World War II, I would choose to be in a P 47. Hands-down.
My favorite quote on the P47, How do you perform evasive maneuvers,? You take the seatbelt off and run around the cockpit".
When a Yorkshire veteran of the 39-45 war was asked about evasive action whilst he was flying the P47, he said „ no problem, just run around in the cockpit, there is plenty of room“!
It would be very interesting to compare the kills claimed by the Luftwaffe to the aircraft actually lost by the allies.
And the reverse.
Allies also lost aircraft to the Japanese making that job a lot harder.
The Nazis regime had a very well oiled propaganda machine. Their aces were probably built up to be super human as they were members of the master race after all. I can't help feeling that their aerial victory scores were as exagerated as their high opinion of themselves.
Czech military historian Railich did so in his series on czech pilots in RAF and it seems that time, place and tactical situation has a huge effect on accuracy of claimes. For instance even thou Luftwaffe has somewhat of an reputation for overclaiming. During 1941/2 RAF fighter pilots were overclaiming by sometimes ridiculus numbers and while Luftwaffe also overclaimed a bit (JG 2 seems to be worse then JG 26) its nowhere near as bad as RAF was at the time.
I'm investing in a lot of reference books at the moment (most of them out of print) , so I may be able to put something together for the RAF in the ETO at the very least....could take me a while though!
The USAAF kept track of the number of aircraft lost on combat missions, but that could be due to many circumstances such as running out of fuel, ground fire, mechanical failure, accidents etc.
One of the reasons the Allies didn't have aces with such massive kill numbers is because the Allies pulled their top aces and made them flight instructors to pass on that knowledge and experience to the rookies. The Germans left their aces on the line and eventually Math caught up with them and most were lost.
Indeed. And it showed because the Allies were able to provide a constant stream of competent pilots, which the Luftwaffe, Reggia Aeronautica, IJNAF and IJAAF were not.
Rotations are an American thing as they could afford it.... the rest of the nations be it Allied or Axis flew "until death or glory" , Britain had tours as well but pilots were often called back after the first tour so technically same shit..
Ppl also forget that being good at your job/profession doesnt make you automatically a good teacher/instructor, seen it so many times irl and i work in aviation...
It depends more on the character, ability to explain and PATIENCE (extremely important) of the instructor, rather than raw level of knowledge.
Sometimes you NEEDED "Experten" to test a new warplane. In the last 5 months, Jan-May AV-gas was So rare only 3 or 4 groups of Nazi-flyers were flying.--the Arado 234s of Recon, the Me-262s of Reich-Defense, the long-nose FW-190Ds trying to protect the jets on take-off/landings[--and failing often], and transport aircraft, trying to shuttle-around Staff & docs of those trying to mitigate the coming war's End in the ETO. A father-in-law, flew a P-47 from the fall/winter of '44 - 5/45, and his unit flew ground-attack missions from re-taken French Fields, barely seeing a German plane except for on Bodenplatte, but he lost comrades to accidents and the VERY-GOOD Flak, sometimes fed by Flak-helfers that @ the 88 and below calibers, could be German Schoolgirls of 14 on up. Germans used "UPs" where it could be, your "turn" as a Novice-pilot, might be IN an Experten's plane.
Ace was not a "stellar" achievement but yes, the Americans pulled their most experienced pilots and rotated out air crews after a certain number of missions (successful or not). They had the depth of manpower to do so. By the time America was bombing Germany, the Germans did not have the luxury of letting their most experienced pilots stay on the ground. Both German and Italian air training remained good throughout the war and ANY military would have considered a late war pilot from either country a competent pilot (though Italy ended it's participation far earlier than Germany). The German fighter planes were top notch even late in the war losing more to attrition than quality of pilot or aircraft. Had America not been providing pilots and planes, even before their official entry to the war, Britain would not have had the depth of qualified pilots to produce the victory that the Battle of Britain was.
I think another reason is there wasn't enough Germans to go around. You send up 200 planes and the enemy only sends up 50, not everyone is going to be an ace.
That loss rate for the Lagg-3 is insane. I never would have guessed. It really earnt the "guaranteed varnished coffin" name.
I think some of the commenters here are forgetting how air doctrine affected things. The Luftwaffe was essentially a tactical airforce, intended to act as flying artillery to aid their army win short, sharp wars, as the German military knew that they couldn't sustain a protracted war. Up until the close of the campaign in France, 1940, it very much seemed as if they had chosen wisely, and their pilots were able to be rested and be joined by well-trained new recruits during the "Phoney War/Sitzkrieg" between the fall of Poland and the campaign in France. Unluckily for them, the British were not interested in a "gentleman's agreement" that would allow Germany to retain Europe and the British their empire, and were determined to fight on as long as they possibly could.
It wasn't apparent at the time, but with the benefit of hindsight, the odds were against the Luftwaffe winning the Battle of Britain, having defensive advantages that I'm sure you all know. The RAF, unlike the Luftwaffe, was focused on two things; the aerial defence of the UK, and the defence of the rest of the British Empire, and only envisaged fighting a ground war in Europe as part of a multi-national alliance.
Knowing that in the event of aerial attack on the UK, the bulk of the action was likely to be over south-eastern England, the RAF built rotation of squadrons and fighter pilots into their thinking.
In any credible scenario where Britain was likely to be invaded by an enemy army,, that army would very likely already have gained control of Continental Europe, and thus, there would be no immediate help for the UK. we weren't keen on the Soviets, nor they on us, and the USA had been determinedly isolationist for years. If we had to fight for our homeland, we knew that we couldn't absolutely rely on help from anywhere but the rest of the Empire, and logistically, that'd be slow and difficult to realise, at best.
In summary - Germany went into wars expecting quick, decisive victories, and up until the Battle of Britain, that's what they got. Even when they invaded Russia, at first it seemed as if they were going to achieve another quick victory, despite their underestimation of how difficult the logistics would be, and their underestimation of the Soviet forces, due to its poor showing in the Winter War against Finland. It turned out that the air force the Germans had (largely, but not entirely, from necessity) was not the air force they needed for the war they actually got - and their notions regarding training and crew rotation reflected that.
Too bad pilot skill / experience isn't a factor. The USA Pacific theater showed that experience mattered on both sides.
WW2 was a numbers game and a lot of green pilots met a grizzly end prematurely for sure. There were still some very skilled pilots in the Luftwaffe, Polish RAF devisions and RAF in general. Initially in the pacific, it was the Japanese that had the advantage with experienced and highly skilled pilots. Due to thier campaigns in China. That changed by the end of the war to America's advantage as they were all eventually plucked from the sky woth imrpoved aircraft and specific tactics against the Zeros.
The Thatch Weave, rule 9 of the Dicta Boelke.
@@trn8061 grisly. the other is a bear. and yes you tend to wonder about flight training.
@@trn8061 nipon had many way better fighters than the zero they just lost skilled pilots due to slow attrition and inability to train pilots to there previous high level
The P-47, because of its weight, which was because of its enormous engine, had the ability to dive, using its superior weight and engine, to escape anything the Germans threw at it. Unless it was already flying at low altitude.
The P-47 was used as medium range escort fighter for the American bombers but it could not accompany them all the way to their target, like during the two Schweinfurt raids.
It was also used as a fighter bomber, and after having dropped its bombs, it could still wreak havoc with its 8 50 cal machineguns, four in each wing.
As in all aerial combat, most fighters that were shot down, never saw their enemy coming because the most succesful method of attack was from above and behind. But if the P-47 was in a superior position at the start of the fight, its machineguns would make mincemeat of any German fighter.
USAAF fighter ace over Europe, 'Gabe' Gabreski, commented on how his P-47 had serious technical issues one time, filling the cockpit with smoke and Gabreski could only navigate it back to base by flying rather slow and low. He said that if a German Bf-109 had spotted him at that time, he would have been shot down for sure.
Gabreski also commented on the maneuverability of the P-47.
When under enemy fire, he said, the best way to take evasive action in a P-47 was to undo the straps and run around the cockpit.
I've seen claims that "only" 31,000 Il-2s were produced, but that the number "suddenly" increased to 36,000 when the production numbers for the Bf 109 became known ;-)
"Quantity is a quality all it's own" -Stalin
Il-2 is the T-34 of the air.
That's amazing!
Thank you for the tremendous work it took to produce this video. It's excellent!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Nicely done!! Love your videos. Keep up the good work.
Plus senior German pilots from very early on in the war always had a wingman keeping him tidy, so he could focus on finding victims
That's why Commonwealth pilots adopted finger four tactics a direct copy of the German schwarm. The Vic three even with a fourth weaver was suicidal
Appreciate your honesty in regards to claimed victories and salt which just goes to show how muddied the true facts of history can be.
Agreed, the battle of Britain illustrates this perfectly. Compare each side's Claims on a certain day to the other's actual losses they are way off.
Now that was a cool Video! I stopped playing WarThunder years ago but i remember that the I-16 and Spitfire were amongst my favourit fighter plane because they (especially the I-16) could turn on the spot.
Amazing video, mate.
I really appreciate your efforts!!!
Thanks a lot!
Brilliant video, many thanks for sharing.
Glad you enjoyed it
Your comment "A pinch of salt" says it all,great video many thanks for all of your work to bring us these facts.Iam a big fan of the Wonderful Hurricane fighter along with the Stirling,Lancaster and Halifax,my old mate was a rear gunner in the Halifax.I also have to say the Mosquito is one of the best being made in my home county of Hertfordshire.
Thanks for watching Mike.
Not the easiest research to verify as claims and counter claims (denials too) would beca ‘bitter dog fight’ itself. However, you continued with this presentation and we all got an idea. Was only surprised that the DC 3’s Dakota’s was not on the list. Perhaps more was lost to anti aircraft guns / ack - ack. Bravo on another great presentation 😊
Thanks CT. A quick look at the DC-3/Li-2 shows less than 50 claims. However I haven't really cleaned up the formulas that part of the database yet, so it could be more.
Outstanding. Keep them coming.
Thanks, will do!
Excellent Video, thank for all the effort..
Thanks for watching mate!
Great channel.
Thank you!
This is the first time I have seen any discussion like this and it is good. There is one thing I would have liked to see, the comparison of the ranking based on the length of service. An example I pick is the P47 that was in service in Europe in early 1943 - nearly a year before the P-51, putting it as about 40 months and the P-51 at about 18, just under half that time. The Jug was also in the war when the balance of power was more on the German side, that was going away by the time the P-51 came on line. Some of the same can be said of the B-17 vs the B-24. I will point to something else on this. There are many pictures and stories of P-47's and B-17's that came home all shot up, but they brought the crew back. Admittedly some of the crewmembers on the B-17's did die in these but some came home. I have never sees an B-24 or P-51 come home all shot up. The reason on the 51 is simple, the much over rated Merlin that died in 10 minutes if the glycol ran out. The AAF unwisely allowed them to do strafing runs that meant that one bullet from a .30 caliber could bring them down over hostile land. Yes, they were a FIGHTER, they were not a ground attack plane. The comparison - the P-47, the F4U and the F6F that had the radial that would not have worked in the P-51 because it was designed for the Allison and not the larger front R-2800, probably the best fighter engine ever produced. The Merlin had one terrible flaw. Also had the AAF put drop tanks on the P47's when they were available not a year later, how many B-17 crews would have been saved? We were in a war of attrition with Germany in the air. The B-17 that was not shot down today could go back in a couple days on another mission. The German pilot who was engaged by a P-47 today and shot down meant at the minimum one less BF-109 to be put in the air tomorrow, and if he is badly injured, for a few days, and if he is killed, he is no longer a threat. Had the P-47's been able to go further in 1943. we would have lost more fighter pilots, yes, there would have been more attrition on the Germans who were unable to make up the losses. It would have impacted other areas too. As an aside, the F4F is maligned and the F6F and F4U held in high esteem, but we need to remember that the F4F was taking on the best Japanese fighters when the balance of power was to the Japanese in fighter quality, numbers and pilot experience. The Great Marianas Turkey Shoot was against a force that had a far overall less experience level.
'......much overated Merlin...'? that doesn't strike you as being a rather crass remark presumably? Undoubtedly there were faults with the Merlin as there were with many of these high performance engines of whatever nation they were produced in, but where would we have been without the Merlin? the classic 'Armchair Expert' personified by this post.
Well, I wouldn't say the Merlin, in either Rolls Royce or Packard form ,was 'over rated', but I would agree that it was vulnerable in the ground attack role. Johnnie Johnson, the RAF's most successful surviving ace, in particular felt that using Spitfires in the ground attack role was folly. Presumably many P-51 pilots felt the same. After all, that's what did for Preddy - and his brother, tragically although in Preddy's case it was friendly AA fire. Then again, would he have survived if he was flying a P-47? We'll never know. Despite all that Spitfires and Mustangs made a considerable impact in the ground attack role.
The Mustang was in combat one year before the first P-47 combat mission, in the service of RAF. The first combat mission of the P-47 was in April 1942, the first P-51B was on December 1, 1943 - about 7+ months more than Merlin Mustang. While the liquid cooled engine was indeed vulnerable to damage than the P-47 oil cooler loss of either meant looking for a place to set it down. The lack of sufficient internal fuel was a design CHOICE by Republic, NAA chose (wisely) to introduce the wing mounted exernal bomb/fuel tank capability in the A-36 (operational two months after P-47C, followed by P-51A and P-51B. NAA also beat Republic with 85gal fuse tank (45% more internal fuel (july 1943) to P-47D-25 increase of 65 gal (21% increase over 305gal) in Dec 1944.
Fantastic analysis that made my day.....Ta chap! ✌
This is a pretty cool concept for a video!
I read somewhere (Maybe Flypast magazine) about survivability in the Lancasters and Halifax . You were more likely to make it home in the Lanc but bailing out if hit was less likely. So that's a dilemma. Do you take the plane that has a higher statistic of getting back to base or the one you can escape if it takes hits ?
You take the one you are assigned to. The people at the top make those choices for you.
About B-24: I have heard storys of B-17 crew members who claimed since the B-24 was available it was the best life insurance for their B-17 to be accompanied by B-24s because Luftwaffe pilots preferred to attack the B-24 after realizing the B-17 had better arcs of their defence guns and were seen as far more dangerous to engage. And because both planes could carry a quite comparable amount of bombs both were seen as nearly equally valuable targets to destroy.
The higher rate of destroyed B-17s comes from the simple fact that they were in service for already a long time before the B-24 arrived. But when you look just at the periode of time when both 4-engined bombers were both in service there were far more B-24s shot down and it is estimated that if the war had lasted a year longer the number of destroyed B-24s would have outreached the number of destroyed B-17s.
The fact it was suffering losses at a higher rate mitigates the fact it was in service for longer longer than the B-24.
The b24 had a much larger bomb load than the b17
Outstanding video and presentation
Thanks buddy!
Great video!
Favorite airplane shot down was Spitfire.. I did not know that many were shot down.
As he says, take the numbers with a grain of salt, for both sides since it is victories claimed not actual. You would be safe and most likely closer to the real number if you divided each in half. Pilots are notoriously over optimistic about their abilities. It's just human nature.
The spitfire mkV put the RAF at a severe disadvantage for a while until newer variants were released.
Incorrect. The FW190 put the RAF (and Spit V) at severe disadvantage
Appreciate your honesty in regard to claimed victories and salt which goes to show how muddied the true facts of history can be. Great channel.
I appreciate that
Love your Video. My Favorite is FW 190
These aircraft were great, but it was the skill and tenacity of the pilots on all sides that made these aircraft Legendary.
Gunther Rall said in an interview. Whenever we flew into the air, we always found targets, In most cases, we were always out numbered. He even said, speaking to American pilots who flew 50missions, never got a air victory.
Very interesting, thanks for the video.
Glad you enjoyed it
Thank you for your hard work.
So nice of you
My grand Uncle flew Lancasters all through 1944---1945 and has told me years ago that although he was attacked by night fighters on 5 occasions the attack that put him and his crew in most danger was when an American Anti Aircraft battery opened fire on them as they crossed the English coast on way back R I P uncle Dixie
Friendly fire isn't...
There were American AA batteries in England?
You made an error regarding Yak-1 production numbers. 37k was the combined production run of all major versions: Yak-1, 7, 9 and 3. IIRC around 10k Yak-1s got produced.
Very Interesting, Thank you
Do you have any videos about General Pattons Airforce especially the planes that were ground support and trains?
Responce of German commander during BoB The RAF fighters we shot down 2 days ago, we met them again today. And Luftwaffe ALWAYS engaged Spitfires (Better image) As you said 'claimed'
"we met them again today' - love that!
Proves the Westland Lysander was clearly invincible!
That's an Awesome comment. Being ugly is a measure of combat survivability it would seem.
No, it proves that they just ran out of them.
Fantastic video
Thanks! 😃
Very cool video, thank you. The percentage destroyed out of the numbers built is astounding on some of the aircraft. Deathtraps, some of them.
Glad you enjoyed it
Some of it is tactical employment. Early on, the loss rate of the Mosquito, with low level raids, was high. When it was swapped to high level, one of the lowest. And some planes were unlucky to be outclassed at the point in time they were in combat, but would have been fine if the combat had been a year earlier.
important to also recall more airplanes went down to flak and AA than fighters...so there is that
Claims are just that,but interesting
Good work!
Thanks!
Great video
Thank you so much for the time, effort and analysis, going through the available sources, materials, cross-referencing dates, etc, etc... 🙏🙏 Well, there are several aircrafts that I would like very much, the P-47 Thunderbolt 'the jug' being one of the heaviest single-engine aircraft, using the same engine of the B-17, the pilot must have been feeling like a living god when flying one. Just a curious question, the Hawker Typhoon was not in the list?
The P-47 used the Pratt & Whitney R-2800, where as the B-17 used the Wright R-1820. Just FYI.
Most Typhoon losses were due to flak. Ground attack was a very dangerous business.
sorry but it didn't....B-17's used a Wright R-1820 single row radial engine approx. 1200 HP while the P-47 used Pratt & Whitney R-2800 double row radial Wasp engine approx. 2000 HP.
The B-17 used a Wright 1760 (CID) Cyclone 14 cylinder. The P-47 the Pratt & Whitney RP-2000(CID) 28 cylinder engine. I have flown BOTH. The Wright Cyclone is at least 4 and likely feet larger in diameter than the RP-2000. One is a BOMBER/TRANSPORT engine, the other is a FIGHTER engine. The tiny pre-War F3F Grumman Navy carrier borne bi-plane fighter was equipped with the big Wright Cyclone engine. Later with a P&W.
Walkercolt EVERY spec you quoted is WRONG WRONG ALL F'N WRONG !!! B17 used the wright R 1820 and it was a 9 cylinder, the P47 used the PW R2800 twin row 18 cylinder the F3F wild cat, which was NOT a biplane but a monoplane, used either the Wright R1820 or the PW R1830 , which were the first aircraft engine to use a 2 stage supercharger, Geeeese get your $hit together and facts straight !!!
Egon Meyer shot up Johnson's P-47 several times but didn't shoot it down. Johnson made it back to his base in England. Yet Meyer claimed 3 P-47s that day. Just an example of how dubious were the German claims.
Meyer didn’t shoot down Johnson’s P-47 because he had run our of 20mm ammo ( perhaps shooting down the other aircraft). He only had 7.92MM ammo left which the P-47 was able to absorb.
Everybody’s claims were dubious.
Not a good example. First of all, its a perfectly legitimate claim in that there actually was a real target and it was actually shot up. Second, Johnson's P-47 was a total write off when it got back to base. There is a mistaken assumption that a kill is a plane that is totally destroyed at the time and place it is claimed. There is another mistaken assumption that a kill only is a kill if the pilot is killed.
@@dorothyburry42 I always presumed kills required the plane to fall from the sky. If they made it back to base and were write-offs, they could be used for parts.
That said, the Me-262 that Chuck Yeager claimed was taking off, and crashed on the runway.
There is no evidence that Mayer claimed Johnson on this day. He fought in other area. Most of his kills recently checked and confirmed
Are in the 2682 Lancasters the missing 600 4mots already included? Or should they be added likewise at the Halifax? Ty
The numbers for the claims for Lancs are with those extra numbers included. So originally I had 2155 claims in the list and I added 527. for the Lancaster.
Great job
Great video, thanks! But why 'infamous' Dambuster raid?
It might have been a subconscious choice of word. I recently read Max Hasting's book on Operation Chastise and the chapter about the aftermath is pretty eye-opening. A very precise operation skillfully pulled off, but there is that other side of the story too.
@@CalibanRising Yes, from memory, there was a Polish POW camp which incurred great loss of life, and the raid was costly to 617 itself. I just thought that the concept, dedication, skill and relative success of the operation deserved a more complimentary adjective!
@@kevelliott Agree, History tends to remember and celebrate the audaciously successful actions, and often regardless of human cost.
More than 1,600 civilians perished, including more than 1,000 POWs and foreign slaves.
@@kevelliott it was a masterpiece , but costly in percentage casualty rate for 1 thing
Considering almost all USAAF P-51 aces over NW Europe ended up being shot down by AA on strafing missions, it would also be interesting to include the AA claims to these numbers to get total claims on allied aircraft and not just air to air claims.
Otherwise great video.
Interesting point. Also of note is that AA was within the purview of the Luftwaffe with more than a million personnel manning the AA units. This suggests that many kills were not necessarily credited as air to air kills.
Roughly 1/3 of operational losses would be to AA, 1/3 to accidents in combat zone, and 1/3 (max. 1/2) to aircraft. Depending on theatre and period of war, of course.
Also a LOT of "Blue on blue" kills: the top American ace in the Euro theater was shot down by his own. Shooting at low-flying aircraft is a snap decision.
@@terraflow__bryanburdo4547 That would be the top P-51 ace, George Preddy, not the top overall ace, Gabreski, IIRC..
Good Video/Info.
Glad it was helpful!
Great video👍👍!! But how many aircraft fell to AA fire?
An interesting question is does the 80:20 rule apply to fighter pilots and their victories?
I believe something similar does, but I think its closer to 90-10. About 10% of pilots became aces, everyone else was just a target.
A huge amount of luck and circumstances comes in. The luftwaffe was essentially broken by 1944. Dad's first tour (42 - 44) saw his squadron turnover 100% of its aircrew. Second tour (44-45) I think saw nobody lost to German fighters. Clearly that is a very small sample! But display an essential truth: Germans could always find targets, whereas Allies found it ever more difficult.
Two weeks ago, i got to ride in the gas-tank seat position of a P51 D. It was something i never thought would happen, but did.
great work...
Thanks a lot
FANTASTIC AND SUPERBLY INFORMATIVE VIDEO!!!!!!! WELL DONE!!!!!!!❤
Who thinks $1,200 for a leather jacket is considered quite affordable?
They way I explained it to my wife was that it's the same as me not buying that second coffee each day. I would have said I'd buy less beer but she'd never have believed that!
Then buy one made in China or India. Actually, for that quality, in 2023, it's about right.
Its 1.58 New Zealand Dollar, for every US dollar, so for me 1200 becomes 1894.99 NZD 😲😢
8:05 I must admit the P-47 is my favorite one for that exact reason: not only it's a most potent and highly versatile warplane, but it has no match when it comes to help achieving the number one task of any pilot. And this task is: return to base alive.
This is why, if I have had to go to fight in WW2 as a fighter pilot (not in a simulator but for real), the Thunderbolt would have been my weapon of choice. 😎
Me262 here. Four cannon make even a tiny hit lethal.
Yes but the 47 do not go over Germany as the p 51
@@bingrasm Yes it did.
@@cvr527 the p 47 was used more like a ground attack bomber, not as an interceptor like the p 51, the p 4+7 cannot go escolting the bombers to Berlin and come back attacking everything in Path, the p 51 could. The p 47 was a sturdy heavy beast not having the manoverability of the p 51.
@@bingrasm The P51 was a long range escort fighter. It was not! An interceptor. The Spitfire was an air superiority interceptor. It is far too easy and common to misrepresent and confuse the roles of WWII aircraft.
Would love to see the win loss ratio for every aircraft, I think I only heard it for the Mustang, which had about a 5:1 kill ratio.
I'm glad you emphasised that these were 'claims'. I find it strange that figures for other air forces are often disputed but many seem to just accept German claims as gospel despite the facts. And you don't have to look to far or do too much research to discover that the Luftwaffe pilots massively over-claimed. During the Battle of Britain the Luftwaffe claimed, and were awarded, over 30% more victories than the RAF actually suffered. And this wasn't just propaganda as they actually based their strategy on these claims despite many of them not only being bogus but impossible to verify anyway, contrary to the myth that the Germans were meticulous in confirming victories. On a day when Walter Oesau claimed, and was awarded, three Hurricanes destroyed over the Channel the RAF didn't lose a single Hurricane. As for Hans Marseille's claims.....
Hurricanes, partiularly the IIA, were frequently mistaken for Spits by the Luftwaffe. Similarly, Oscars were usually mistaken for Zeros by the Brits in Malaya. It would be interesting to know which aircraft had the highest percentage lost in accidents, some were much more accident prone than others.
Good suggestion Bernard!
I was in the RAF (1947/48/49/50) and I found out, that the Spitfires, took the Luftwaffe's Messersmitt 109 &110 & FW190 while the "slower" Hurricane's, took the German Bombers - (Heinkel, Junker 88's) - I remember has a 11 years old kid during the Blitz in 1940, coming home from School, and the "Local Paper" seller standing on the "Corner" had put a Big Placard up, in front of the "Old Horse Truff" which said "105 German Planes shot down today". Memories of a little 11 year old Brummie, I was in the RAF myself, only, 7 years later. It would do the young Lads of today, the world of good. (fact)
I've noticed on these enemy planes shot-down listings Axis forces are always given as claims and Allied defined as kills
And I've noticed that history is "defined" by the winners.
what combat flight sim r u using to film these videos? ubisoft il2? I love it
Yep. I'm using Il2 Great Battles and also IL-2 1946. It's a great plane set.
Most commendable research.
Thanks for watching
Overclaiming went as far as 10 to one, and was often at least two or three to one. Come on, we are all aviation buffs here, everyone here knows that!
Yes, overclaiming is a problem. However when I compared the claims for the top 20 aces with the official scores, I WAS surprised at how close there were. Some were only one or two out.
@@CalibanRising currently reading Shore's books on the Western Desert/Tunisia air war AND a Father/Son writing Due named 'Horvath' who were writing about II/JG 52 (THE fighter unit with the highest scoring German Aces: Hartmann, Batz, Barkhorn, Lipfert) and their claims during the Siege of Budapest. It seems when there are several/many 'experten' in the battle, accurate claiming goes right out the window. Marseille was a pretty good claimer (up to around 70% depending on the furball) but when other JG27 aces were involved in the fighting, the claims were often 3 to 4 times higher than reality. The famous big scoring days he had in September 1942, were cases in point: of lotsa hungry hunters in the air at the same time.
NOW...on the Western Front, a lot of German Experten who survived the war (some of whom flew substantially longer, in much more target rich environments than most Allied Pilots) ended up having victory tallies that were not that much higher than British/Commonwealth or US fighter pilots (low teens to high twenties to mid thirties, with a few who ended up in the 40s or above).
@@nickmitsialis Shores' books are fantastic. If you haven't got it already, try to get a hold of 'Air War for Yugoslavia, Greece and Crete, 1940-41'. It's an amazing read.
@@VenlyssPnorr I read it years ago at SF State's library
Perhaps it's time I checked it out again
There was a 2 engine British bomber called the Manchester used at the beginning of the war. there were only a few of them left in 1942.
The Manchester had unreliable engines and the flight characteristics left a lot to be desired . So they changed the power plants to Merlins added another two engines and the Lanc was born
You didn't have to shoot down a Manchester-just wait for it's engines to catch fire, and then claim it.
Just discovered your channel. I'm a pilot and lifelong and aviation geek. Liked and subscribed
Cheers Michael, I appreciate it!
As a quick Cut, the USAAF Statistical Digest published in December 1945 and available on line breaks down combat losses in a particular Theater of War by Aircraft Type (Heavy Bomber, Medium/Light Bomber, Fighter, etc.) over the course of the War, broken down by Loss Cause (Enemy Aircraft, Antiaircraft Artillery, Operational Losses, Lost on Ground due to Enemy Action). Checking the Air-Air Losses listed for the ETO and MTO for Heavy Bombers - B-17 and B-24 - the Luftwaffe claims presented in the video are about 3 times actual losses.
I'd imagine that a large number of Spitfires claimed were actually Hurricanes....
The least likely to be shot down was the de Havilland Mosquito.
My sources put the claims for the Mossie at around 200
and the invincible swordfish
@@airshark2764 Have you seen a Swordfish IRL?
They are YUGE, surprised they missed them at all.
I'm a huge fan the "Wooden Wonder" - one of my fave quotes is Herman Georing being asked "what do you want ?" as Mosquitos flew over Berlin - his answer - "a squadron of THOSE" !
@@CalibanRising Can`t give you a like for defaming MY favourate WWII Aircraft - evidence please!!!! The Video DOESof course get a DEFINATE tHUMBS UP! have you visited the Mossie Museum ? (I had a sneak peek whilst delivering there - Fantastic!)
The top 20 shot down are probably also the top 20 produced.
What game does the vedio footage comes from?
I was pleased to see that my three favourite aircraft from WW11 were not on the list. Those three being:
1) De Havilland Mosquito.
2) Hawker Typhoon.
3) Bristol Beaufighter.
As a schoolboy in the 70s, I made all of these from Airfix kits.
One thing about over claiming - is that it has never stopped.
In the Gulf War - the Allied Intelligence Officers were initially giddy with the number of tank kills the airmen were reporting - but - about the time they had reported destroying more tanks than the Iraqi's ever had - they became more dubious.
An Iraqi Brigade Commander interviewed after the war said that - yes - the aircraft had destroyed a number of vehicles over the course of the air campaign but then the ground war started - and they lost the whole Brigade in a day.
It isn't that these people are knowingly lying (for the most par) - it's just that things happen really fast in an aircraft and they may or may not see something that absolutely confirms what they claim.
Saburo Saki - in his first attack on B-17's - thought that he had set them on fire - because of all the fire he could see on the aircraft. What he was seeing though - was the Bomber's defensive fire - and he hadn't gotten any of them.
On some occasions, researchers with access to both sides records - have been able to determine what kills had really been made - because both sides KNEW how many aircraft they had lost - they just didn't know how many they had destroyed.
Another factor in this though was that a tremendous number of operational loses occurred that the parent units had no information on. The plane took off ... and never came back
There were a group of female ferry pilots delivering fighter aircraft from a California factory to the East Coast. One of them was delayed by problems with her aircraft so she took off later than the others. They completed their first stage to a base in Arizona - rested and went to bed. It was only in the morning - that the flight commander realized that the last girl had never shown up. Despite immediate efforts to find her - they never did. All they knew - was that she had taken off ... and then was never heard from again. Even flying over the United States - where there was no possibility of enemy action - they never found her.
This was common place. They may have been lost to enemy action, the weather, getting lost, mechanical failure pilot error or something else. No one ever knew.
They were flying mass produced aircraft with a service life measured in weeks if not days. A large number simply took off - never came back - and no one ever knew why.
.
15,000 pilots/air crew lost in mainland USA alone, even before transferred to overseas combat zones.
And yes, overclaiming is a universal, very human thing. You also see it in Ukraine.
Really good video. Surprised at the Spitfire loses, I would not have guessed that in a million years. Not surprised by the Lagg-3 though, it was a death trap, nor the IL-2 which flew in some of the most perilous combat situations imaginable.
To me that was very interesting. I’m curious to know the numbers for the Mosquito, Marauder, and Mitchell. Low and fast was probably great protection against fighters although a higher danger with AA fire. Very cool video, thanks!
Here are the figures I have for definite identifications -
Mosquito: 213 claims
Marauder: 62
Mitchell: 104
@@CalibanRising Thanks!
High and fast was the best protection, if you are talking Mosquito. On low level raids losses were quite high. Marauders had a low loss rate despite being mostly used at medium altitude, but there it was mission profile that was important as the Allies tended to try to avoid medium altitude daylight attacks on targets with lots of flak as the RAF had shown that this was problematic.
The PE-2 , once it dropped it's payload, could turn and fight. Surprising many German opponents.
That's called superior tactics. That is why RAF fighter command threw its 'Vic' formation out of the window and adopted the Luftwaffe 'Schwarm'.
I’ve been wanting to know for a long time: Do you have any data on which Soviet fighter shot down the most aircraft?
It's something I can research for sure. I'd have to guess a Yak 9 or La-5, What do you think?
@@CalibanRising Yep, I was thinking one of those two. Yak-9 is my top choice. Of course, if you just rolled the Yak series into one (they're about as different as a Bf 109F and G, anyway), they'd win by a landslide. But I'd like to see how the Yak kills stack up against the big Western aircraft like the Spitfire and P-51. Those 35,000 Bf 109s all went somewhere, and most of them probably went to the Eastern Front.
@@PeacePetal In 1941-43. By the time after Kursk, we had only JG51(part), JG52 and JG54 (part) in the East. JGs 3, 27.53 and 77 were also there 'at the beginning' of Barbarossa, but they got diverted to the Western Desert, The Med and 'Defense of the Reich as time went on. (EDIT: Forgot to add a gruppe from JG53 that was in the East until it got messed up when Romania switched sides)
My guess would be Yak-1. Deployed in greater numbers than Yak-9 and over a longer period of time (the VVS flew them from the first month of the German invasion to the last day of the war.) Having said that I think the 37000 number quoted in the video is for all marks of Yak, not just the type 1.
I loved this video, and I know it's lot of work but I'd love to see the Allied equivalent to see which planes Germany lost the most
When I can get my hands on the right stats I will certainly do this. I think the top few might be fairly obvious, but on a list of top 10 there might be a few surprises.
Excellent and meticulous research. It keeps reinforcing that a P47 or Mosquito is the safest to fly in.
My favourite WW 2 aircraft was the P-51 D. I drew it as a kid in the 1960s. Of the adults I knew who served none were fighter pilots. Still it's lines spoke to me!
The Warhawk is even more beautiful.
@@scania1982 Fw-190 Dora 13 my fav
Personally, I love the Ta-152 H1, the me-262, and the p-51h
The German Strategy backfired, allowing the German aces to accumulate so many kills (glory-hounds) vs allowing them to train future pilots and make them successful as well. In addition, the Russians didn't give a damn about the individual. The Germans were better trained and had better planes in the beginning so the Russians were easy prey; the Russian Generals just needed bodies in the air. Once the playing field was leveled (with few exceptions) the tide turned, but never to the advantage the Germans had at the beginning.
I don't think it was glory-hounds so much as the attitude of the Reich that each man was required to continue flying until he was killed. Where the allied forces had a number of missions that each flyer was expected to complete to fill his service, the Germans had no such thing, pilots were expected to fight until they were killed. The few that survived ended racking up huge scores because their only alternative was to be dead.
@@fantabuloussnuffaluffagus it also meant that they never "fought fair." Only committing to battle when they had serious numerical, speed, altitude, or other advantages and were sure of both a kill and an escape route. Which i guess is fine in a war of attrition that you are winning, but they weren't. That mentality completely rules out strategically decisive but risky action.
@@dxb338 If you life is on the line, why would you "fight fair" I wouldn't. What you describe as not fighting fair is the smart play both tactically and strategically, if you're killed you can't fight another day.
@@fantabuloussnuffaluffagus to clarify, my point was since that Luftwaffe pilots basically had to fight to the death, the good ones only fought woth overwhelming odds. Great for your own personal survival, and for conserving materiel, but at a certain point only engaging when you can ensure local victory will damage the global war effort.
Of course theres no such thing as a fair fight or chivalry in war, i was just trying to illustrate the above point.
@@fantabuloussnuffaluffagus You can only fight so much before you slip up or crack, as some did as the war continued. They should have gotten rotations and been used to train other pilots. The ones who were not good instructors could have kept flying.
Very interesting stats on the P51 thats rarely covered.
Germans ran pilots into the ground. Allies send aces back to teach new pilots.
Good pilots/aces were not always good instructors.
Yay! You have read a 40 year old Time-Life picture book!
I assume the B-24 as there were more heavy bombers of that type built than any other: 18,000. So many that at wars end they were sent from factory straight to scaping. Over 1200 were lost in transatlantic deployment. About 800 were lost in training and other incidents. By 1945 the USAAF bombing offensive was so effective that very few new German pilots got to fly two missions. The German air defence strategy was an object failure. While over a 100,000 allied aircrew became casualties at no stage could the Germans prevent the US and UK heavy bombers striking at will. The German Air Force had been effectively destroyed by mid 1944 and unable to intervene with the Normandy landing which had been the allies main goal of strategic bombing.
One aspect of the B-24 was that it was a fairly unstable aircraft, requiring more “inflight management” than the B17, so it fatigued a pilot faster than Boeing’s wunderkinde. A few pilots said the B-24 was a “collection of airplane parts, flying in loose formation”…🤣
@@paulwillard5924 yes, why they were promptly scrapped at wars end. The RAAF had acquired 200 odd before the end of the War most barely use - war had moved too fast
Despite having no other heavy bombers they got rid of them.
On B-24 production, your figures are wrong by 30,000. There were 48,000 (nearly) B-24's built before the end of WWII. Production of them stopped in March 1945. My Grandmother BUILT THEM here at U. S. Bomber Plant Number One in Tulsa, OK. They built 21,000 here in Tussa. The USAAC had 18,000 but the Canadians got 10,000, the RAF 28,000 for reecee/anti-sub work and the rest were US Navy P4bY "Privateers" with a SINGLE tail fin. They were the largest "Lend-Lease" bomber the US had and second largest aircraft production numbers.
Where did the video footage come from?
The problem with German aces was that only the lead aircraft was allowed to shoot at enemy aircraft, the other planes in the group were their to protect the leader, that is why German ace scores are so concentrated in a relatively few pilots......
Excellent video!
I did a study of the numbers some years ago, and found that the "real" numbers shot down by Luftwaffe aircraft were probably around 40,000 (vs. nearly 70,000 claimed), ~25,000 to the Bf 109 alone! Around 110-120,000 Allied aircraft were lost in ETO and NA to operational causes, and one "would normally expect" around 1/3 to AA, 1/3 to accidents in combat zone, and 1/3 to aircraft (max. 1/2). That said, everybody overclaimed - often wildly.
Very interestingly, all major WW2 combat aircrafts had as many or nearly as many non-operational losses as operational losses. USA alone lost 15,000 pilots/air crew in accidents in mainland USA even before transferred to combat zones!
After Russian sources the Soviets lost 60% of their aircraft in non-combat accidents.
We had more aircraft left at the end of the War than possible if the German claims were only one third of the OFFICIAL 133,243 claimed Allied aircraft destroyed air-to-air and by Flak. And where were all the pilot's bodies??? They say they killed 98,000+ pilots-we didn't have that many pilots! Where were THEIR aircraft after the War??? The claims of "We destroyed them on the ground" don't wash and don't wear because there should be SOME wreckage left. It's very strange, the Japanese losses and kills are with-in 3 to 5% of our losses and kills. If Japan could track aircraft (and pilots) that disappeared over 40,000 square miles of OCEAN, why can't the Germans count noses???
At 18:15 The Petlyakov Pe-2 is imo the most beautiful twin-engined aircraft ever built! Even before the Messerschmitt Bf 110, De Havilland DH.98 Mosquito, Lockheed 14 Super Electra, Lockheed P-38 Lightning and Mitsubishi Ki-46 Dinah.
What video game are you using for your footage?
Il2 Great Battles and IL2 1946 for the less common aircraft. 😀
Hi Caliban.. I'm curious. How do the numbers of aircraft /claimed/ to be shot down by Luftwaffe pilots compare to what the Allies /actually/ lost? Not unique to them as everyone did it, but is there any evidence they claimed more than they actually shot?
Second question. Which was shot down most as a percentage of those manufactured? IOW it's more likely a type would be shot down if there were more of them.
They claimed 36% of the Lancasters. But the Bomber command reported 3300 lost Lancasters, which is close to 50% of the production run.
Which makes the German claims rather plausible.
Of the 15000 P47 around 10000 were deployed overseas.
5222 were lost (50%), 1723 of these were lost to accidents not related to combat. Again making the claim of 1310 by the German fighters rather plausible.
@@HaVoC117X 36% is nowhere near 50!! If the total production run /had/ been 6600, 50% would be 3300 and 36% would be 2376 over 900 different!
@@HaVoC117X 5222 is actually 52%. less 1723 lost in accidents leaves 3499, considerably more than 1310. Nor does the 3499 state which theatre they were lost in.. Europe or Pacific. Combined with your other comment re Lancasters, I think your concept of plausible needs a lot of work.
@@julianmhall
As you figured out yourself, the Luftwaffe claimed hell of a lot less than the enemy had lost in action. Sorry, that I had ruined your expectations, that the Luftwaffe was hilariously over claiming. Seems like they were not. If the Luftwaffe only shot down 1310 P47, this leaves enough aircraft to be lost to other causes, like Flak, the Japanese or unknown. Which makes their claims plausible. Same for the Lancasters.
Sorry that I rounded up the numbers, I thought a clever boy like you could work around that to get to the point. You must suffer from autism or something like that.
🧥 Have you always wanted a distinctive and authentic leather flying jacket? Check out the fantastic range from Legendary USA here: calibanrising.com/flying-jacket/
I think the B17 was lost in so many numbers because the USA could only do daytime sorties unlike RAF bomber command.
British Lancaster's flew far many more missions & delivered far more bombs at 608,612 long tons in 156,000 sorties.
Between 1939 and 1945, Allied planes dropped 3.4 million tons of bombs on Axis powers of which 2.7million tons where from RAF bomber command.
from what I read B-17 sorties stood was around 8700 & B24 at a bit less but delivered more bombs.
Avro Lancaster maximum bomb load 18,000 lbs Maximum specialist bomb load 22,000 lbs while B-17 4,800 lb mind at least a B17 isn't cramped like a Avro Lancaster I suppose.
B-24 Liberator was a much better bomber then the B-17 Falling fortress in my eye as maximum 12,800 lbs is a respectable payload.
B-24 had greater range, speed & was a slightly smaller target in all aspects at length 63' 9''>74' 4''
wingspan 110' >113' 9''
Height 18' 8'' & 19' 1''
The B-24 Liberator was smaller then the flying fortress yet held more bombs the bomber of the USSAF I'd say could be compared to British command unlike the B-17.
Look at RAF figures then in time & load delivered then you will shocked how Britain lost far less bombers for operations carried out.
I'm too old for that look tho some say i DO look a bit like Tom Cruise. . .🤣😂
Yup, and I got two of them now. 10⭐
@ARNI Julian That should be "WOULD only do day light sorties" instead of "COULD only do day light sorties".
@@earlwyss520 Valid point the USA couldn't do day light sorties.
''Would'' is my mistake.
The Luftwaffe were notorious for greatly over-claiming kills for propaganda, such as Marseille and his 15 RAF aircraft in one day. There was also the Spitfire prestige were Germans claimed Spitfires when in reality they had shot down other aircraft. This should have been cross referenced to aircraft actually listed as shot down.
Agreed. Pilots lie and sometimes they're just mistaken. Recorded losses never lie.
I've exchanged comments with loads of pro-Nazi nerds who regard all the claims of the likes of Marseille as 100% genuine. Decades have passed, and some people still believe the propaganda of Dr. Goebbels about Nazi supermen. If the Germans had really been capable of such victories, we'd all be speaking German by now.
Marseille claimed 17, and most of them were South African P-40s.
@@raypurchase801 I always give the example of the Ju-88 pilot of KG-30 that was credited with sinking the aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal in September 1939. Big propaganda sensation, but red faces in Berlin when the carrier was seen in port without damage.
@@billballbuster7186 A Pucara pilot claimed to have sunk the Canberra during the Falkands War.
Of course, former Stuka pilot Eric Rudel was living in Argentina at that time.
Some of his claims were a bit exaggerated too.
@@TTTT-oc4eb A bit hard to shoot down 17 aircraft without running out of ammunition.
Plus there's the phenomenon of the "empty sky", as reported by many aces in their autobiographies. Engage in fighter v. fighter combat, every aircraft splits off and goes in different directions, two minutes later you're alone except for your wingman.
@Caliban Rising You forgot to put the sources in the description unfortunately.
Ah thanks for letting me know Pablo. It's essentially data from Tony Wood's investigations into the LW.
well done cal
Cheers Martin.
I am shocked by some of these figures. So many brave people on both sides. It is hard to imagine what they went through.
even the Nazis had a mother somewhere...