Luftwaffe victory claims - 6

[Richard T Eger]

For commentary on the forthcoming book "Luftwaffe Night Fighter Claims: Combat Claims by German Pilots 1939-1940", by John Foreman & Simon Parry, which replaces the book that was to be written by Michael Balss, plus discussion of the collection of Emil Nonnenmacher collection of original Abschussmeldungen, the reader is referred to the topic "Books on nightfighters - 8" on the "References & Reference Materials" forum.

Regards,
Richard

[Richard T Eger]

From within a thread on 12 O'Clock High!:

Matt Price
Too many victories
Tue Oct 21 00:55:38 2026
168.132.10.51

Hello Gianpiero,
I have seen the photo before, although it isn't available to me at this time. Given that, I'm only having an educated guess but there are two other possibilities-
a)Most likely, can you see if all the victory bars have "Heads" or not? Up arrows were airvictories, down arrows strafing victories. But the Luftwaffe only officially counted airvictories. Many pilots, especially Bf110 crews, would have marked ground victories- Therefore it could easily be Spiess.
b)Gunner victories? Did Bordfunkers ever have their kills marked on the tail?
c)As most rudders tended to be not current, the chances that someone marked anticipatory victories is pretty low. Thanks.

[Richard T Eger]

From 12 O'Clock High!:

Hawk-Eye
Lt Franz von Werra's fake victories?
Fri Oct 24 08:52:39 2026
195.93.72.17

In a Swiss TV-program on Werra's whole life including childhood they interviewed also James Leasor, co-author (with Kendal Burt) of the book which made him famous : "The One That Got Away". The film with Hardy Krüger starring came soon afterwards. Leasor said very clearly that Werra invented some of his victories and added that this is not a terrible crime. Interesting!

Are we able to assess, or to know, approximately what proportion of the German fighter pilots PURPOSELY inflated their number of victories in order to get fame, rewards, decorations and promotions, and in what proportion they did so? As we all know overclaiming was heavy and systematic at the same time within the RAF, especially 1940 (September 15, Battle of Britain Day : 185 vs approx. 40-45 real fighter victories), which was justified and good for morale and political reasons.

[Richard T Eger]

From TOCH!:

Rabe Anton
Ones That Didn't Get Away
Fri Oct 24 15:30:29 2026
198.26.120.13

Your posting concerning Franz von Werra, author James Leasor, and the self-inflation of Luftwaffe aerial victory claims exposes a number of points crying out for comment.

• First and perhaps most importantly, consider your source and author. The One That Got Away was first published in 1957. 1957!!! Just twelve years after war's end and long before any significant commercial publications on the GAF, indeed, long before German archives were in any state to be researched. Hence, it is virtually certain that Leasor, et al., made up a good story based on newspaper articles and perhaps a few interviews——hearsay evidence, in other words. That is not to say that Leasor's BASIC FACTS were not correct. Perhaps they were. But it seems very doubtful that Leasor should be considered an authority on Franz von Werra's aerial victories when he could not have had access to the kind of documentation available today!!!
• If The One That Got Away should be skeptically regarded as a book, any movie version finding its way to commercial television on a Swiss channel two generations after initial ought to be regarded as near-fiction.
• Bottom line here: Why should you think that James Leasor
should get any credibility whatever in remarking that Franz von Werra was a prevaricator, a deliberate and calculated liar?
• Please note carefully that the issue of deliberately exaggerated claims among GAF fighter pilots (or, indeed, RAF pilots in 1940) is a very different matter. I think you will agree that fighter pilots belong to the human community (though THEY may not think so!!!) and thus are heirs of The Garden: Why should their ethical standards exceed those of the human community at large? As I have written before on this board, I am inclined to think that as the heirs of a long and exceptional Junker military tradition, the standards of honor, discipline, and professionalism among Luftwaffe flying personnel in the early war years were somewhat higher than in other nations. I can already hear Don Caldwell and others chambering rounds to attack this proposition. Those who doubt the "grip of honor" on the German officer corps, however, should take a long, hard look at Walter Goerlitz's classic study The German General Staff. They might also ponder the implications of the highest German document security marking: Nur Durch Offizier! I doubt, however, that even German expectations of truthfulness prevented sometime inflation of claims, be it for selfish reasons, for the good of the unit, or for national morale.
• Of course "over-claiming" was evident in the RAF during the Battle of Britain! But the over-arching question here is, Where did the figure of 185 victories for the RAF on 15 September come from? And why? As you noted, the newspaper reports of 185 victories on that day could hardly have been derived by adding up carefully verified claims emanating from each pilot and unit. My point is that this kind of braying by "the establishment" (in large measure the media) for the perceived public good at a time of national crisis is not quite the same as self-aggrandizement of the kind Leasor so cavalierly attributed to Franz von Werra.
• Finally, you have asked, "Are we able to assess, or to know, approximately what proportion of the German fighter pilots PURPOSELY inflated their number of victories. . . ?"
Doesn't a brief reflection make this question rhetorical? Just HOW are we supposed to know (1) the exact degree of inflation, and (2) the reasons for it? As with so many who write to this board, it seems to me that you have somewhat unrealistic expectations of documentation, analysis, and historical precision.
• Folks who are interested in claims verity should get hold of an analysis of GAF night fighter claims done by Bomber Command in 1943-44. This was based on a comparison of German claims found in captured documents versus actual BC losses on the same nights. With all factors taken into account, BC concluded that the GAF claims totals as a whole corresponded closely with operational reality.

RA

[Richard T Eger]

From TOCH!:

John Vasco
OK, Rabe, let's lock horns...
Fri Oct 24 19:03:11 2026
195.92.67.67

on a major moot point concerning von Werra. Where exactly were the aircraft on the ground that he claimed to have destroyed? I agree with all you say, but it is pertinent to question certain things from time to time. As I have done, for example with ZG 26's fatuous claims on 11/8/40, and various claims for Erpr. Gr. 210 aircraft by RAF pilots that were pure fantasy (there, I've balanced both sides!)

Alfie Price does an excellent job in his book on 15th September 1940, and also goes a long way towards explaining how multiple claims for the same aircraft occurred sometimes.

All my best to you, Rabe,

[Richard T Eger]

From TOCH!:

Hawk-Eye
Reply : Leasor spoke 2026-2002 and...
Fri Oct 24 20:20:46 2026
195.93.64.10

A misunderstanding was caused by myself for I was not clear enough so I apologise. On the other hand I had not enough time yet to watch the program entirely. This Swiss TV-program (length 1 hr 43 minutes) was made 2026 and it was made with typically Swiss thoroughness, seriousness, honesty and meticulousness – like a top-class Swiss watch (usual disclaimer : I am NOT a Swiss, not at all).

The fact that precisely the German-language Swiss TV-network SF1 made this program is quite understandable for Franz von Werra, called “Buschi”, and his 3 years older sister Emma, called “Moritz” (he called her “Mo”), were borne in the small town of Leuk in the German-speaking part of the beautiful high-mountain alpine canton of Valais (in German : Wallis) in Switzerland – most of the highest Swiss Alps’ peaks, over 4 000 m, are to be found in Valais - and IIRC they still have some relatives in the old von Werra-castle and in the town there. In the cemetery Werra has his symbolic grave with a fine granite slab “Fliegerhauptmann und Ritterkreuzträger Franz von Werra” etc. (Air Force Captain and Knight’s Cross Holder…). They became German because they were adopted by a German couple when they were very young children, as a result of their parents’ financial ruin. They discovered this adoption when they were aged about 13-16. Well, all this private-life part is rather complex.

James Leasor was interviewed all right but he was a very old man already, approx. 70-80 or more, probably 2026 or 2026, so he had plenty of time to discover the real genuine authentic truth on Werra’s victories – for I bet he never ceased to be interested, yes thrilled, by his subject and he kept himself well-informed. As I said, he added that “this is not a heanous (???) offence” – I didn’t quite get that word “heanous”, perhaps someone could write the correct version for me. The book appeared 1957 and the film was made 1957 too (you don’t seem to know this film – it was a resounding success all over the world).

The fact that they used authentic Hurricanes and war footage makes it the more attractive. Werra’s smooth belly-landing was well reconstructed and they skilfully used authentic photographs of the AC (which was almost intact) too; of course the TV program contains many extracts from the film. Nothing prevented the authors from reading i.a. the Allied interrogation protocols of top German POWs like Galland and many more. They knew a lot 1957 already – not every tiny detail like a RLM shade, “Werknummern”, who exactly shot down whom and the number of rivets… 12 years after the end of the fighting, and 17 years after Werra was taken prisoner, virtually no German airman had any reason not to tell everything he knew on the air war; WW II really was over, it was a new time : cold war with the USSR imperialism. To make it short, “The One That Got Away” is one of those many British-made aviation films, visibly made by aviation enthusiasts AND experts with the highest possible quality (I am NOT British – certainly not).

At least 3 old comrades of Werra’s were interviewed and gave some explanations : Jochen Schröder, borne 1918, “Me-pilot” – Viktor Mölders (1914), 109-pilot – Kurt Müller (1912), “Me-pilot”. I don’t remember if they all were in the same POW-camp in England together with Werra, probably so (?). All were very old men already – my estimation lies around 80 or more – but spoke very clearly and in an intelligent way.

This Swiss TV-program is the contrary of fiction. It was very thoroughly researched, in fact one of the best-researched ones on air war (and similar topics) I ever saw. I think there is not one single stupid statement on aircraft, aviation etc., which probably is absolutely unique in the world. Too bad it doesn’t deal with airpower only, it is more a comprehensive biography of Franz von Werra, the POW-episode and his escape playing a major part. Every day I can hear on all FRENCH radio and TV networks that “the aircraft are parked on the runway” and “the Concorde landed on the tarmac” (after the last flight from New York), aircraft have a “rear aileron” (their fin), etc. Nothing of this kind here. In many US aviation films we can see AC of a certain type suddenly becoming another type but being the very same one according to the story, for example an F-86 (Sabre) suddenly becomes an F-100 etc., or a green DC-9 becomes a red 747… You can see this nonsense all the time.

As for the last part of your posting, yes I feel that in many instances it is possible to cross-check both sides’ claims, as many people are doing right now actually. In many instances we clearly know that German fighter pilots’ CLAIMS were strongly exaggerated – possibly not the official RLM-confirmations. Many claims were not confirmed and many real victories could not be proved and were not confirmed so as a whole the total of German confirmed victories matches pretty well with known Allied losses, which is well-known.

The reasons for inflating your own claims? Vanity, the wish to be better than the other blokes, thirst of fame, medals, promotions etc. After all Helmut Wick was an NCO and his fake victories made him a major and potential colonel, and the “Geschwaderkommodore” of JG 2. “Fake victories”? For example on June 5, 1940, he claimed to have shot down five (5) French Bloch 152 fighters but actually he could not possibly have s/d more than one for the real losses were two but not in the same region. I the case of real aces – Wick was one – I feel probably they became addictive of the success after it started.

I don’t think the data on German night fighter victories may be extended to day fighters 3-4 years earlier. Everything was very different. In particular – except in very bad weather – most German night-fighter victories could be clearly seen from the sky and from the ground, and on German radar screens too, the latter even in bad weather.

Anyway – thanks for your interesting points of view and information.

[Richard T Eger]

From TOCH!:

Dénes Bernád
Why don't you do your own investigation?
Fri Oct 24 21:05:13 2026
204.101.53.233

Most Luftwaffe claims are available on-line, on Tony Wood's excellent web site. Additionally, you can check the multi-volume series on the Jadgfliegerverbände, by Jochen Prien et al., currently being published by Stuve Druck, as well as other pertinent publications.
For RAF and Armée de l'Air losses, there is also an abundant literature available either on-line, or in bookstores/libraries.
If you want to "dig in" even deeper, then you can do research in the respective archives.

So, you can turn this out in a study of your own and can decide for yourself the veridacity behind the allegation of "lies" and "deliberate overclaiming". Then you can publish your findings, including here. Assuming, of course, that you're actually interested in finding the historical truth.

Dénes

[Richard T Eger]

From TOCH!:

Hawk-Eye
Why so aggressive? (Last sentence) Besides...
Sat Oct 25 16:38:17 2026
195.93.73.17

Besides, what makes you think I'm not working on it? Why do you think I made the effort of recording this lenghty TV-program in German? I know Werra's WWII story by heart, I need not record it once more. Nevertheless the interviewees including Leasor and Viktor Mölders brought some new comments.

As for Werra's victories I feel Leasor probably is the by far best-informed person in the world. I can ask him, why not. This pilot obviously is the most important element in Leasor's life (except perhaps his private life : wife, children etc.?). As I said, you bet he is well-informed - state-of-the-art!

German overclaiming is very obvious already during the 1940 French Campaign - just look at Prien's tables, column "Bestätigt" (confirmed). Many are not "bestätigt" and rightly so. Once the French lost 3 Moranes, the Germans claimed 10 (!), etc. And once the Germans lost 2 Me 110s, 1 Squadron's Hurricane pilots claimed 10. Even many German claims which were confirmed don't correspond any actual loss. Conversely, in the same campaign, often in the very same combats, French fighter claims (totalling approx. 800 "certain" and "probable" ones) match German losses almost perfectly, like on 9 June when II./JG 27 lost 6 Me 109s to French fighters. This instance is interesting because of the relatively high number. The Germans for their part registered 6 losses but only 5 were confirmed by French HQ to their fighter pilots. This shows that under the very same conditions it WAS possible to file more or less accurate claims. I think that later (1941? 42? Not my domain.)German claims and RLM-confirmations became much more accurate, possibly because Göring et al realized what was going on, needed accurate statistics on enemy losses and didn't want EVERY single fighter pilot to walk around with the Knight's Cross around his neck (hence, too, the creation of the "Deutsches Kreuz", a KC "brake"), and certainly were angered by wrong claims. Certainly MANY German pilots never overclaimed on purpose. For my part I find Wick's and Balthasar's claims in May-June 1940 wildly exaggerated, RAF-style. On the contrary for ex. Galland's claims match at least French losses. As for his first 3 victories there was an initial dogfighting about them in the 1950s, sometimes even in the 1980s, but I think this matter is now settled, I think Galland wasn't a phoney - like many of his comrades who weren't either. Sure - Galland claimed a "Spitfire" South of Sedan and this was completely impossible because no Spit fighter (excluding 2 recce AC)landed in France before 1944 and they had not the range to reach Sedan. This Spit probably was a Dewoitine 520. Even Balthasar thought Galland's Me 109 was a fine Hurricane and he nearly shot him down...

[Richard T Eger]

From TOCH!:

rick dunn
FK XII
Sat Oct 25 04:47:40 2026
68.48.34.148

Rabe

The RAF study you cite was not for 43-44 but for Dec 42-Jun 43. I agree that it cannot be used as evidence for day fighters at other dates. Numerous factors such as fastidious leadership (Kammhuber), multi-place aircraft, one on one combat, radar and other ground tracking of results differentiate the combats studied from other circumstances. Having said that, I also agree that it does support some of the basic tenets of your argument.

With respect to day claims, I think there is evidence that German top leadership did not generally encourage overclaiming for propaganda purposes. Indeed Goering and others listened to BBC reports of Allied losses and made disparaging comments when German claims were out of line with admitted Allied losses. Under certain circumstances, times and places claims from almost all the combatants were outlandish. Under other conditions they were highly accurate and as with the night fighter combats studied by the RAF even understated.

The initial question concerned outright lying. In the case of US claims in the Pacific (which I have studied in some depth) it appears to me that pilots and their intelligence officers learned to "pencil whip" their reports so that action reports were more likely to result in confirmed victories. Whether this is "lying" or just individuals dealing with the beauracracy and "giving them what they asked for"may depend on your personal sensibilities.

There are many more sides to this question and probably few definitive answers.

RLD

[Richard T Eger]

From TOCH!:

Franek Grabowski
Ones That Didn't Get Away
Sat Oct 25 11:44:56 2026
213.25.54.73

Rabe, you wrote

> As I have written before on this board, I am inclined to think that as the heirs of a long and exceptional Junker military tradition, the standards of honor, discipline, and professionalism among Luftwaffe flying personnel in the early war years were somewhat higher than in other nations.

A very controversial statement! And how about those German pilots attacking civilians in fields in Poland and England (I don't know of France and Benelux but probably also there as well)? I don't know how to add a footnote here but for example a German pilot (likely I/JG53) shot up people in field west of Lympne on 2.09.1940 ~8.25.

> I can already hear Don Caldwell and others chambering rounds to attack this proposition. Those who doubt the "grip of honor" on the German officer corps, however, should take a long, hard look at Walter Goerlitz's classic study The German General Staff.

Perhaps yopu should have a closer look at war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Germans. A significant number of 'ex-officers' were later notables both in NSDAP and SS and came from the same long and exceptional Junker military tradition. Remember that ordinary officers didn't react for crimes they must have seen or being aware of, not to mention several of them were responsible as well.
And as to their thruthfulness, remember Nuremberg - they didn't know anything and only Hitler was responsible.

> Of course "over-claiming" was evident in the RAF during the Battle of Britain!

It's worth to note that actual overclaim was similar for both sides. Also it must be stressed Germans overclaimed heavilly, and the claims are more-less accurate when they were able to count wrecks only. I think the only force in WWII able to establish more-less accurate claims verification without wreck counting was RAF and only in 1944/45. During the BoB they didn't care even to count the wrecks!

Also, comparing claims and losses, several people tend to forget that the total number of aircraft lost in combat operations doesn't reflect the number of them lost due to enemy action. Accidents, friendly-fire, weather took a significant percentage of aircraft which in stats usually appear as 'FB', 'FTR' or 'missing'. Only a comparison of data on 'pilot level' allows to draw conclusions but as we know there's almost nothing left for Lw in terms of narratives.

Finally, regarding deliberate overclaim - it did exist. For example it's mentioned by Doug Tidy (74 Sqn) in his article on BOB site (use google please), that there were few pilots who claimed their kills individually and in clouds, etc. What for? Presumably for fame, for gongs. Of course tracing such events is hard but not neccessarilly impossible. Personally I've got serious doubts about claims of Siegfried Schnell during 1941 but of course I can't say if he had bad intentions.

Franek

PS I agree entirely on sources/footnotes!

[Richard T Eger]

From TOCH!:

Ruy Horta
Re: Lt Franz von Werra's fake victories?
Sat Oct 25 08:05:02 2026
194.109.243.112

What is fake?

The word is poorly chosen in this conext since it implies intent, as in to fake your results.

The right way would indeed start by looking at the events of the day, compare them from both sides. If you do not find ANY possible correlation, it still does not mean that the there was intentful faking, it could still be a case of misinterpreting events and thus the word overclaiming comes into mind.

Of course Luftwaffe overclaiming or the debunking of Luftwaffe claims is a favorite past pastime of many people, most of whom bow out once you ask them to present facts instead of allegations. Interestingly they mainly present two cases.

1. The Battle of Britain
2. Marseille's 17 in a day

Add a dash of Johnny Johnson's "frequent faking unknown ace" which in all probability refers to Erich Rudorffer.

Of course the simple fact that during the Battle of Britain the tactical situation was such that it made claim verification hardest on the offensive force is easily forgotten. A fair comparison would thus be to look at the second half of 1941 to look at RAF vs Luftwaffe claim and loss numbers, the results of which will probably shock many of the debunkers.

Indeed Denés offers very good advice, and imho it doesn't even demand archival research to get a very long way. Just get a hand on a number of titles that are currently in print.

I'd say essential would be

1.
Jagdfliegerverbände der Deutschen Luftwaffe 1934-1945, by Prien, Stemmer, Rodeike and Bock.

You'd need the numbers 4 vol 1 & 2 and 5 to cover the West for the Battle of Britain and 1941.

2.
Fighter Command War Diaries, by John Foreman

You'd need vol 1 & 2 to cover the same period

3.
The Battle of Britain Then and Now, Ramsey (ed.)
or
Battle over Britain, Mason

(I prefer to use both, even if some consider Mason to be flawed by its age)

4.
Royal Air Force Fighter Command Lossed of the Second World War, Franks

With these books you could go a VERY long way into looking at the basic numbers. Of course getting your hands on various unit histories and biographies would fill in more detail, the scope would wide as well and make your work more difficult.

However for the German side I can say that a combination of Caldwell and Prien does add a lot a flavour. And for the RAF aces, you can add Aces High to add some real spice (as in looking at their claims).

But lets not forget that you'd need the bomber side as well if you want a full picture, this will widen the picture.

Even here there are standard works for the RAF, the Luftwaffe will be a challenge and must probably be done by Unit History (remember I am sticking to books, and staying away from the archive).

The Bomber Command War Diaries
and
The Bomber Command Losses books (multi volume)
and now I've seen
The Coastal Command Losses

================================================== =========

Did some basic comparing some days ago to press an unimportant argument. Both Prien and Foreman are detailed enough to offer day to day claims and losses, here are monthly figures and totals.

According to Jochen Prien the gross numbers are as followed:

For JG 2 and 26 between June 22 and December 31, 1941

100 killed
48 wounded
1 prisoner of war
-----------------
149 lost pilots

110 fighters lost due to air combat
168 total fighters lost

June 22 there were 166 fighter pilots available to JG 2 and 26 combined, which roughly means a 90% attrition at the end of the year. Against this the Jagdwaffe claimed 838 against the RAF.


Fighter Command figures (based on Foreman)

=================================
July
=================================
claims
221:75:105 (+4:2:2 ground)

missing/Destroyed
119 Spitfires
8 Hurricanes
1 Beaufighter

96 pilots missing
5 pilots killed
22 pilots wounded (+1 air gunner)

=================================
August
=================================
claims
160:73:96 (+14:1:13 ground)

missing/destroyed
110 Spitfires
20 Hurricanes
2 Havocs
2 Beaufighters

108 pilots and 6 aircrew missing
6 pilots killed
18 pilots wounded (1 died later)

=================================
September
=================================
claims
206:97:110 (+3:0:3 ground)

missing/destroyed
118 Spitfires
19 Hurricanes
3 Whirlwinds
1 Havoc

110 pilots and 2 aircrew missing
3 pilots killed
2 pilots wounded

=================================
October (Enter the Fw 190)
=================================
claims
101:32:46 (+6:1:2 ground)

missing/destroyed
52 Spitfires
11 Hurricanes
2 Beaufighters
2 Whirlwinds
1 Defiant
1 Havoc

53 pilots and 2 aircrew missing
7 pilots killed and 3 aircrew
7 pilots and 1 aircrew wounded

=================================
November
=================================
claims
22:13:38 (+2:1:4 ground)

missing/destroyed
44 Spitfires
15 Hurricanes
2 Beaufighters
1 Whirlwind
1 Defiant
1 Havoc
1 Tomahawk

51 pilots and 3 aircrew missing
5 pilots killed
5 pilots wounded

=================================
December
=================================
claims
31:6:15 (+2:0:1 ground)

missing/destroyed
25 Spitfires
10 Hurricanes
4 Beaufighters
2 Defiants
2 Tomahawks

25 pilots and 3 aircrew missing
5 pilots killed and 1 aircrew
6 pilots and 1 aircrew wounded

=================================
July-December
=================================
claims
741:296:410 (+31:5:25 ground)

missing/destroyed
468 Spitfires
83 Hurricanes
11 Beaufighters
6 Whirlwinds
5 Havocs
4 Defiants
3 Tomahawks

443 pilots and 16 aircrew missing
32 pilots and 4 aircrew killed
60 pilots and 3 aircrew wounded

add

Bomber Command Figures (based on Martin Middlebrook & Chris Everitt)

=================================
July-December daylight ops
=================================

7/8 July to 10 November (given period)

112 aircraft lost

rest of days 1-6 July and 11 November to 31 December gave rough a count of 25+

for sake of argument it makes for 140 bombers lost on daylight ops (majority Blenheims).

================================================== =========

Now make up your own mind what to think of these numbers.

IMHO it does not make for a strong case for the debunkers.

Ruy Horta

[Richard T Eger]

For commentary around a forthcoming claims list based on Hans Ring's private collection, the reader is referred to the topics "Books detailing Luftwaffe claims - 3" and "Books detailing Luftwaffe claims - 4" on the "References & Reference Matrerials" forum.

Regards,
Richard