Terminology Issue - Kills Vs Claims vs Victories

[flyinghilly]

In reading a lot of articles about fighter combat and the activities of the gunners in bombers the terms kills, claims and victories seem to be interchangeable when discussing the number of aircraft shot down.  Does anyone have any understanding as to how these various ways of describing that someone had shot down an enemy aircraft came about.

Most of the more professionally prepared texts avoid the word 'kill' - For example Chris Rudge in his book 'Air to Air' refers to combat claims, 'Aces High' by Shores refers simply to ''claims'.

Pilots themselves that I have spoken with frequently mention that they never though of killing someone - their target was simply another aircraft and since you can't 'Kill' an aircraft the term is not really appropriate in my mind

I know that the RAF did not create the concept of an 'Ace' - this concept was created by the press however the pilots did compare tallies and refer to each other as aces - so it has become a generally accepted term for a pilot with more than 5 accepted claims.

Even the Luftwaffe referred to them as 'aerial victories'.  The Luftwaffe's aerial victory confirmation procedure was based on directive 55270/41 named "Confirmation of aerial victories, destructions and sinking of ships" (German: Anerkennung von Abschüssen, Zerstörungen und Schiffsvernichtung)

Does anyone know where the term 'kills' with respects to fighter pilots claims came from - perhaps it was perpetuated by the US press looking to sensationalise an event.  Did the US pilots talk about 'kills'

Why am I asking about this - I'm working on a documentary and the assistant producer has created a voice over mentioning 'the number of kills' - personally I would much rather avoid the word and simply talk about combat claims. 

Does anyone have feed back on this or a better understanding

 

[Dave Homewood]

It's a good point because an aircraft can be shot down, thus becoming a victory and a claim will be made, but the pilot or crew may not actually be killed, so calling it a 'kill' is a grey area.

[rodm]

Hi flyinghilly,

the term "kill" appears to be from the American vernacular, and I have, for example, never seen it used in any sense in official British or German documentation pertaining to the claiming of aerial victories during the Second World War.

If it is indeed a term of American origin, then it is a case of establishing whether or not it was or is used in an official sense by the American military. Books cannot be trusted on this issue because the author(s) may have borrowed a post-WW II euphemism rather than used the original terminology.

In the RAF during WW II, the term "combat claim" or "air combat claim" is appropriate, while the German term "Abschuß" is itself a hunting euphemism, as the original word does not specifically translate as "aerial victory"; one original (pre-WWII) English translation of the noun being "to fall" or "descend" (according to my antiquated "Flügel's German Dictionary").

Thus, in my mind, with the voice-over(depending on the context to which the voice-over applies), the use of the word "kill" may not be appropriate on two counts:

1. it may not be a contemporary word ever used to describe the act of shooting down or claiming to have shot down an enemy aircraft, and

2. air combat claims were just that - claims, and should never be confused with actual losses inflicted in aerial combat by one combatant against another.

Cheers

Rod

[Dave Homewood]

The original British term in WWI was to 'force down' an aircraft, I believe.

I have been searching Papers Past for any references to aerial victories being referred to as 'kills', and so far the earliest reference I can find is in a review of a film about the Royal Air Force called "Love Never Dies" (had not heard of this film before, I'd love to see it) from 1930.
paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19300520.2.54?query=ace%20kills

However something I have discovered is the hunt community, as in the people who hunt hares or fox on horseback with dogs in the ancient traditional British way, refer to their victories over the animals as 'kills' if the various news reports are anything to go by, and I wonder if the term - like 'Tally Ho' - worked its way into RFC/RAF vernacular from the horse and hound world?

The term 'kills' was in common usage in the NZ press when writing about aces during WWII, so by then it seems to have been well established into the vocabulary even in New Zealand.

[rodm]

thanks for the further clarifying points.

The press/media aside, I have not seen the term "kill" used in RAF WWII documentation, but do see that the term (along with "bagged" "scored" et al) was part of RAF fighter pilot vernacular, and have noticed the term occasionally used in published wartime fighter pilot memoirs, such as those by Paul Richey and George Beurling, with the term applied in context of a hunting euphemism. Having said that, both Richey and Beurling use the term "bagged" (i.e. "bagged a hun") more often than the term "kill".

I would still contend that the use of the term "kill" in relation to aerial victories is not appropriate for general use in a voice-over as it was never an official term, and it doesn't have much credence outside of period slang, just as it wouldn't be appropriate to create a documentary voice-over that constantly refers to the enemy as Huns, Eyties, Krauts or Nips!

Cheers

Rod

[Dave Homewood]

I agree with you Rod.

[smithy]

Mar 14, 2017 11:13:27 GMT 12 Dave Homewood said:

The original British term in WWI was to 'force down' an aircraft, I believe.

Hi Dave,

In terms of the British side of things in WWI, forced down, or more often "driven down", was a description mostly used around the early to mid WWI period to describe a combat where the enemy aircraft was forced to break off, dive and make for its lines. It didn't necessarily mean the destruction of the aircraft. Later in the war (late 1916/1917) there seems to have been an attempt at more standardisation of claims with: "destroyed" - where the aircraft was seen to crash or was on fire; and "driven down out of control" - where the aircraft was observed to leave the combat in an uncontrolled manner.

The term "kill" in relation to air combat is originally an American idea coming out of WWII. One of the reasons why it's really very difficult to contrast or rate "aces" or even victories between differing air forces in WWI and WWII especially, is due to the differences in terms of defining what constitutes a victory and the various differing classification systems for levels of victories from air force service to air force service.

Always a bit of a tricky business!

[Dave Homewood]

But the term kill was obviously in use, including in NZ newspapers,as early as 1930 as I demonstrated with the link above. It's pre-WWII.

[smithy]

Not "officially" though Dave. The British air forces (including NZ, Oz, Canada, SA) were officially reticent about talking about "kills" but obviously the papers love that kind of stuff, the more blood, thunder and glory kind of stuff the more issues you could shift ;-) I'm still pretty certain that it was the yanks who were the first to start talking about "kills" within military administration.

[suthg]

I have on hand an ORB Form 451 (AIR 27/1934) from 486 RNZAF Squadron flying Tempest V's in June 1944, and they talked about the Buzz bombs as "Divers" and specifically once as "kill" however, when talking of ME109's, they refer to them as "attacked and destroyed" - 8th June F/L J.H. McCaw led 9 othyer aircraft while ""... Beamont & No. 3 Squadron "attacked and destroyed" 3 M.E. 109G's - 1 each by W/C Beamont, F/L Moore & F/O Whitman""

18 June - F/O O.D. Eagleson & F/O N.J. Powell left at 19:35 // 20:55

"F/S Eagleson destroyed a diver 5/10 miles N. of Base & attacked 2nd Diver S. of Rye. Divers wings riddled & it was loosing (SIC) speed & height rapidly. Pilot unable to make further attack but kill since confirmed."

other times just as "destroyed" or "claim made" or "shot down".

Graeme

[rodm]

Hi Dave,

I think it is pertinent to place the May 1930 NZ newspaper article into context: it is a review of the following 1928 AMERICAN movie:

www.imdb.com/title/tt0019098/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_10

As a counterpoint, I do have a copy of an immediate post-war (June 1945) RAF interim report written by a No. 100 (Special Duties) Group Mosquito Squadron Commander, who had been part of a British interrogation team that travelled to Schleswig-Holstein in northern Germany to interrogate German night fighter crews shortly after the end of the war. The report was UNOFFICIAL and parts were written in a manner that I consider uneccessarily juvenile, especially considering the rank of the author. The author does, however, use RAF slang and vernacular throughout (whereas the official final report did not), including:

"...Schnaufer with 121 kills..."

PS - the Mosquito Squadron COmmander also tended to use the same language in his combat reports

Cheers

Rod

[isc]

Just looking at a random issue of Contact (May 1944) Biography "The Herrick Tradition" aircraft shot down are described as "downing two enemy aircraft" or "sighted two enemy aircraft and destroyed them both". 
(Feb 44), Group Captain colin F. Gray, O, DFC and two bars RAF27 1/2 enemy planes destroyed.
There are also the terms Possible, and Probable, I think these may have been maimly used by the gunners on bombers, the targets being night fighters, and due to darkness and circumstance an inability to confirm aircraft destroyed.   isc

[aircraftclocks]

Just been looking at documents created by the US air service in WWI and the term used is, victories.

The RAF document used at the time to report any actions, "Combats in the Air", offered the report filer 3 options as a "result", Destroyed, Driven down out of control or Driven down, with space after to add further comments. Comments like "one (In flames)" or 1.
The pilots making comments in the main text of their reports like, "which I shot down and which was observed to crash by ....", "He went straight down to the ground and crashed", "I watched him crash and burst into flames on the ground", "He went down and I saw him crash N.E. of ..."

Documents written by Americans, "As a result of this combat we brought down one enemy aircraft", "One tri-plane Fokker shot down in flames just before reaching the objective", "Three enemy aircraft down, one in flames, one crashed and one out of control"

Overall, very professional.

[smithy]

Mar 15, 2017 23:46:59 GMT 12 aircraftclocks said:

Just been looking at documents created by the US air service in WWI and the term used is, victories.

The RAF document used at the time to report any actions, "Combats in the Air", offered the report filer 3 options as a "result", Destroyed, Driven down out of control or Driven down, with space after to add further comments. Comments like "one (In flames)" or 1.
The pilots making comments in the main text of their reports like, "which I shot down and which was observed to crash by ....", "He went straight down to the ground and crashed", "I watched him crash and burst into flames on the ground", "He went down and I saw him crash N.E. of ..."

Documents written by Americans, "As a result of this combat we brought down one enemy aircraft", "One tri-plane Fokker shot down in flames just before reaching the objective", "Three enemy aircraft down, one in flames, one crashed and one out of control"

Overall, very professional.

Good post!

The "Combats in the Air" form is the Army Form W.3348 which dates back to RFC times and still includes the "driven down" classification, although it seems some squadrons seem to have ignored this designation later in the war in claims and only classified as "destroyed" or "driven out of control" - the inference being that the DOOC classification was a hold all for any claim other than destruction from crashing or an aircraft being aflame. That's not to say some squadrons didn't continue using this form of claim classification, our Aussie brethren in 2 Sqn AFC continued to use this until war's end.

Sorry if I've digressed slightly but an interesting discussion!

[Dave Homewood]

So perhaps the term 'Kills' was actually invented by Hollywood, circa 1930?

[smithy]

Mar 16, 2017 10:41:30 GMT 12 Dave Homewood said:

So perhaps the term 'Kills' was actually invented by Hollywood, circa 1930?

Could be Dave. You certainly don't see it in WWI RFC/RNAS/RAF official documentation, and although the USAS isn't my thing, but I'd be highly surprised if they used it. They tended to copy British claim protocol as Aircraftclocks has given examples of above.

You also don't see it in early to mid WWII official RAF documentation. I'd imagine that possibly the reason for it creeping into ORB and combat reports late WWII is due to RAF's squadrons exposure to US terminology arising from closer operational cooperation. Saying that it doesn't seem to have been a "formally" accepted term. It's certainly not used in high level RAF communiques.

[Dave Homewood]

Hold the phone, here's a 1918 new report which uses the term 'Kills'

paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/SUNCH19180520.2.57?query=pilot%20kills

[smithy]

Sorry Dave, but once again not an official air force/service communication but a newspaper reference. During WWI, in the RFC/RNAS/RAF, you just don't see any references to kills in any official squadron, wing, brigade, etc communiques or documentation.

[rodm]

Hi Dave,

going back to your earlier post, you identified the key issue that the term "kill(s)" in relation to air combat derived from traditional hunting vernacular. I think the issue becomes - was the term ever used officially within the various Allied Air Services, or was it simply service slang that also happened to be adopted by the press.

In this thread, we are trying to understand the etymology of the word "kill" in relation to air combat, but we have only a limited sample of material in which to base judgements on, making it difficult to understand the true history of the word.

For example, with regard to the 1930 NZ newspaper article, because the piece was a review of an American film, we cannot know if the kiwi writer's use of the term "kill" derived from common usage within the Commonwealth in that particular context, or if it was a repitition of the word as presented in the film itself.

The difficultly for me is understanding exactly with whom, where, and when the word "kill" became to be widely used in relation to air combat - we have just not seen enough data on the subject. I would suspect, without substantiation, that it was the English officer class in the RFC/RNAS sometime during WW I.

The other point is determining if the term "kill" was ever used officially or if it was only slang. If it was the latter, then did the word remain in fashion, so to speak, i.e. if, for example, it was used unofficially by the RFC/RNAS in WWI, did widespread unofficial usage continue into WWII and for the entirety of WWII. This, I certainly don't know the answer to. I have simply seen the word used more in relation to American air combat than British and Commonwealth air combat.


Cheers

Rod

[Dave Homewood]

Mar 16, 2017 11:54:28 GMT 12 smithy said:

Sorry Dave, but once again not an official air force/service communication but a newspaper reference. During WWI, in the RFC/RNAS/RAF, you just don't see any references to kills in any official squadron, wing, brigade, etc communiques or documentation.

You miss my point, it was not Hollywood circa 1930 that coined the term, it was in use in the media in 1918.