"Destroyed" Aircraft

[Droops]

I've been reading, in numerous threads about a number of subjects, about the lack of correlation between Allied claims of "destroyed" aircraft versus a lack of confirmation in the German records. This raises some questions in my mind that maybe some of you can answer. Its possible that there are no answers, but I'm still curious.

The main question is this: Was there a standard used for claiming that an aircraft was "destroyed?" Did it have to be seen as crashing into a thousand fragments? Or, would anything other than a landing (overturned plane, ground loop, loss of landing gear, etc.) qualify as "destroyed" in the minds of Allied aviators?

Did the Germans record flying accidents and damaged aircraft, or were there no such records kept?

Are there any instances where we KNOW that a German plane was lost, but there are no corresponding German records? An example would be appreciated, and it would be even more appreciated if the example used didn't contain a famous pilot.

Thanks in advance for the thoughtful responses.

VBR,

John

[Richard_Schrader]

John;
The British and Americans in WW1 did not require a German plane to be destroyed, to be claimed as a victory. If a German plane was seen to be out of control{a ruse used often), or seen to dive away or land it was also counted as "driven down", and was a victory.
On the German side if an aircraft was downed, and could be repaired, it was not listed as a loss.
Richard

[Droops]

Richard,

I understand the OOC claims, that makes sense. Most of us here realize (I hope!) that the OOC claims usually resulted in nothing but a happy enemy pulling out of the spin at low level and heading home.

However, there are times when a pilot comes home and reports that he "destroyed" an enemy aircraft. Its not an OOC claim, its a DES claim. My question is, what constitutes a DES aircraft? Was there a standard, or was that left to the discretion of the pilot?

Regards,

John

From what I've read standards varied throughout the war even on DES. There are examples of Germans not reporting a DES aircraft. I.E.- Taffy Jones reports having the riddled remains of one of Cobby's victims in their hanger - with no corresponding German loss recorded in their records.

What I have found fun are the recorded German losses with no corresponding allied claim !

John G.

[Richard_Schrader]

JohnG;
I have never read anything by Taffy Jones myself, but from what I gathered from some others, he is not too reliable.
As for German losses and no Alled claims, I hve seen that too. In 1916 Albert Ball shot down 2 planes of Jasta 2, one in August, and the other in September. Both pilots were killed far behind their own lines. Since Ball had no witnesses he did not get credit for the victories.
Richard

[Billy_Bishop]

There are different claim types among the RFC/RNAS/RFC, but I do believe question here regarded DESTROYED claims, not OOC.

Regarding DESTROYED claims, the aircraft had to be seen in falling in flames, crashing into the ground, falling apart, or the crew had to be seen jumping out.

HOWEVER, and this is the sticky part, the British did not always require seperate confirmation in the form of witnesses for a claim (ANY CLAIM) to be confirmed.

FYI only the Americans and Austro-Hungarians allowed FTL (Forced To Land)all the way to the end of the war.

VBR,

Al Lowe

"A kill is always a victory, but a victory is not always a kill"
Barrett Tillman

[Droops]

Its the 'crashing into the ground' part that is open to debate. A plane that turns over once it lands, does a ground loop, or loses its gear, could be considered to have 'crashed into the ground' at that point. However, the actual damage to the crashed plane could be minimal, and easily repaired.

Any thoughts about this possibility?

John

[Richard_Schrader]

John;
I think that there is a very good possibility. That may explain some of the British pilot's over scoring. It would not be their fault if in the heat of combat they did not have time to note how much damage was done.
Richard

[Billy_Bishop]

I'm sure that has a lot to do with it, along with comments from an 80+ year old former Rumpler pilot who said that if a compass could be salvaged, the aircraft would not be written up as "destroyed".

You can say what you want to about anything else this veteran said, but if you discount his entire statement, then WHY pay any attention to anything written or taped by other 80+ year old vets before they died?

VBR,

Al Lowe

[Michael]

And it may explain Bishop's claims during his raid. I suspect that none of them were high enough to sustain non-repairable damage.

Michael