# highest kill ratio



## nimrod.michaeli (May 14, 2009)

what is the highest kill ratio ever

i will assumed either p-51 or hellcat

what is that ratio

what was the highest killing ration during vietnam

whats the ratio


----------



## Negative Creep (May 14, 2009)

In the Pacific the Hellcat was 19:1 and the Corsair was 11:1. Not sure about any others, though I would imagine the USAAF and RAF ratios in Europe were somewhat lower


----------



## Doughboy (May 14, 2009)

Hellcats 19:1 kill ratio(in ww2).


----------



## TheMustangRider (May 14, 2009)

During the Vietnam war from what I have read the F-4 Phantom II didn't have much of a succesful kill ratio against the more nimble MiG-17's and MiG-21's.


----------



## Soren (May 14, 2009)

Highest kill ratio ever ? Try the F-15 Eagle.

As for during WW2, I believe maybe the Me-262.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nimrod.michaeli (May 14, 2009)

what was mustang killing ratio

what about wildcat kliling ratio
fw 190 killing ratio

me 109 killing ratio


----------



## Negative Creep (May 14, 2009)

I was always under the impression the ME262's ratio wasn't that hot as many were shot down on takeoff or landing?


----------



## Doughboy (May 14, 2009)

Mustangs kill ratio was 11:1


----------



## Soren (May 14, 2009)

Negative Creep said:


> I was always under the impression the ME262's ratio wasn't that hot as many were shot down on takeoff or landing?



Many were shot down while landing taking off, but even that taken into account the kill/loss ratio is around 6:1. Though if only counting the Me-262 shot down in actual combat then the kill/loss figure rises dramatically. How high I am not sure.


----------



## Negative Creep (May 14, 2009)

Fair enough, I stand corrected. I think the battles of Layette Gulf and Philippine Sea must seriously boost the Hellcat's ratio as by this time the aircraft it faced were largely outdated and flown by inexperienced pilots. Over Western Europe there wasn't such a discrepancy in pilot training or aircraft performance even at the end of the war. Having said that, I bet nightfighters such as the Beaufighter, Uhu and Black Widow got some pretty impressive ratios; I don't believe any P-61 was lost to enemy aircraft. Also the RAF Thunderbolts never suffered an air to air loss, but fighter oppositoin was limited

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Doughboy (May 14, 2009)

Soren said:


> Many were shot down while landing taking off, but even that taken into account the kill/loss ratio is around 6:1. Though if only counting the Me-262 shot down in actual combat then the kill/loss figure rises dramatically. How high I am not sure.


It downed 500 allied planes and it was shot down 100 times....So that would be a 5.9:1 kill-to-loss ratio.


----------



## Erich (May 14, 2009)

should check in the LW Bf 109 kill ratio against the Soviets in 41-43


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 14, 2009)

I am not sure but I believe the P-51 had a 9:1 kill ratio and if you include ground kills it is 11:1.

I believe the Bf 109 had a 12:1 against Russian aircraft.


----------



## ToughOmbre (May 14, 2009)

WW II has got to be the F6F as has been previously stated.

19:1 

Me-262? Too small a sampling since only about 250 ever saw combat. How many kills could they have had? 

TO


----------



## Erich (May 14, 2009)

TO roughly 400 kills possibly to the Me 262 units. over 500 alone are accredited to JG 7 but that is too high


----------



## ToughOmbre (May 14, 2009)

Erich said:


> TO roughly 400 kills possibly to the Me 262 units. over 500 alone are accredited to JG 7 but that is too high



Erich, this from Wiki, sounds reasonable.....

The Me 262 had a negligible impact on the course of the war due to its late introduction, with 509 claimed Allied kills (although higher claims are sometimes made) against the loss of more than 100 Me 262s.

TO


----------



## Erich (May 14, 2009)

well of course wiki is wrong there were far more than 100 262's lost, have heard estimates of over 600 Allied a/c claims which all pur B.S. in my studies on this crate for over 40 plus years.

the 100 losses alone could be attributed to just the US 8th AF.

E ~


----------



## Soren (May 14, 2009)

Around 1,200 Me-262's were destroyed, by strafing, bombing etc etc.. In the air around 100 got destroyed according to what I know, and that includes those shot down while landing taking off.


----------



## drgondog (May 14, 2009)

Soren said:


> Around 1,200 Me-262's were destroyed, by strafing, bombing etc etc.. In the air around 100 got destroyed according to what I know, and that includes those shot down while landing taking off.



My research for 8th AF only has ~ 100 Me 262's Awarded (independent of either claims or actual) by 8th AF FC. The ratio's for Mustangs was ~ 10.7:1, the P-47's ~ 7.5:1 and the P-38's were ~ 2.6:1 

These are 1.) Air Awards as recorded first by 8th AF VCB, then revised by USAF Study 85., 2.) reflect air combat awards against both known air combat losses and 'unknown cause' for which enemy aircraft were noted in the area.. this ratio does include mid air collisioons between 8th AF fighters during a bounce, or a collision with a Luftwaffe fighter or its debris. 

The losses due to accidents caused by weather or loss of engine power, etc - or flak, or collisions with ground during strafing, or mechanical failures, coolant loss, etc are not part of the air to air ratio.

All 8th AF.

I'm researching8th AF losses to Me 262s but these are almost impossible to glean from official Luftwaffe records - which were mostly lost at the end of the war.


----------



## Negative Creep (May 14, 2009)

The Finnish Buffaloes gave a very good account for themselves as well


----------



## Erich (May 14, 2009)

Bill I agree with the 100 plus given to the 8th AF alone, and then we have RCAF/RAF, 15th AF, etc............

JG 7 records are not as complete as one would hope nor are KG 54 when operating as a fighter and bomber unit with the jet

we need to get together my friend hopefully in June, my own dear Father had a quad-bypass several days ago and he looks and sounds like crap-ola. may have to go down south again before months end


----------



## R Leonard (May 14, 2009)

For USN USMC fighters

The FM-2 credit to loss numbers were 422 to 13, or 32.46 to 1
The F6F-3, -3N, -5, -5N credit to loss numbers were 5163 to 270, or 19.12 to 1
The F4U-1, -1C, -1D, -2, -4, FG-1, -1D credit to loss numbers were 2140 to 189, or 11.32 to 1
The F4F-3, -4 credit to loss numbers were 905 to 178, or 5.08 to 1

Rich


----------



## drgondog (May 14, 2009)

Erich said:


> Bill I agree with the 100 plus given to the 8th AF alone, and then we have RCAF/RAF, 15th AF, etc............
> 
> JG 7 records are not as complete as one would hope nor are KG 54 when operating as a fighter and bomber unit with the jet
> 
> we need to get together my friend hopefully in June, my own dear Father had a quad-bypass several days ago and he looks and sounds like crap-ola. may have to go down south again before months end



E- you have all you can handle - the door is open and we have a lot of wine and 18 year old macallan


----------



## Juha (May 15, 2009)

Hello
in Finnish Air Force service Brewster B-239 achieved 25:1 kill ratio in 1941-1944, acccepted claims : air-combat losses.

Juha


----------



## TheMustangRider (May 15, 2009)

As Erich said if 100 Me-262s can be attributed to the 8th Air Force alone, it means that more than 100 Me-262s must had been lost in combat against the other air forces that had the Luftwaffe surrounded during the last months of the war; I have read claims from RAF pilots and VVS pilots which downed Me-262s.


----------



## timshatz (May 15, 2009)

I think Soren got it right the first time. The F15 has no losses in air to air. I think the same is said for the F16 as well. I think both of them have over 100 kills with no losses.

So, the loss rate doesn't exist for them because there are no air to air losses. Technically, they have no loss rate.


----------



## Soren (May 15, 2009)

Lets us not forget that because 100 Me-262s were claimed shot down doesn't mean that many were actually shot down, it's probably lower as usual with all claims. But there's no doubt that 80 to 90% of all Me-262s shot down were so by the USAAF as it was predominantly these guys who met them, and shooting one down which was attempting to land or take off counted just as much as one hit at 30,000 ft.

I believe it most reasonable that around 100 Me-262 were lost in the air, with ~1,100 more being destroyed on the ground by various means.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 15, 2009)

drgondog said:


> E- you have all you can handle - the door is open and we have a lot of wine and 18 year old macallan



I am on my way!


----------



## renrich (May 18, 2009)

It certainly appears that the FM2 was the kill/loss ratio champ in WW2. Nice surprise.


----------



## JoeB (May 18, 2009)

Soren said:


> Lets us not forget that because 100 Me-262s were claimed shot down doesn't mean that many were actually shot down, it's probably lower as usual with all claims.


Right claims and actual losses seldom agree, but in that case they were relatively close. I counted incident by incident in Foreman and Harvey's "Me 262 Combat Diary" around 150 aerial credits by Allied fighters v Me 262's, vast majority USAAF, large majority P-51, and around 120 Me-262's actually lost in those same combats. Allied claims in that theater and time period tended to be among the more accurate in WWII. Around a dozen USAAF fighters were certainly or pretty certainly lost to jets counting in the same book, but a number of other cases are possible. In a number of other cases the book just notes losses, to some cause not necesarily jets or necessarily air combat, that might correspond to jet claims. But it doesn't seem likely a large % of those were really due to jets, with losses to operational, AA, and air combat with LW piston fighters happening all the time also. The air combat outcomes of Me-262 v. USAAF fighters was clearly heavily in favor of the USAAF fighters, in the particular circumstances, whatever the exact ratio.

In general though, comparing raw claimed killed ratio's is of very limited meaning. It's only useful IMO to compare the relative success of fighters flown right alongside one another by the same or very similar air arm . So for example the fact that both F4U's and F6F's claimed around 15:1 v Japanese fighters in late 44-end of war is reasonable evidence that those two types didn't differ much in effectivness in fighter combat. But you can't directly compare those ratio's to say 8th AF 44-45 ones (the USAAF claims/credits would probably be more accurate) or USAAF ones in New Guinea in 1942 (quite inaccurate), and so on for numerous cases of all other air arms and situations. 

Joe


----------



## drgondog (May 20, 2009)

Soren said:


> Lets us not forget that because 100 Me-262s were claimed shot down doesn't mean that many were actually shot down, it's probably lower as usual with all claims. But there's no doubt that 80 to 90% of all Me-262s shot down were so by the USAAF as it was predominantly these guys who met them, and shooting one down which was attempting to land or take off counted just as much as one hit at 30,000 ft.
> 
> I believe it most reasonable that around 100 Me-262 were lost in the air, with ~1,100 more being destroyed on the ground by various means.



Soren the numbers for the USAAF 8th AF were awards not claims but the general comment that awards process were still usually overstated - but I did see quite a few 'claimed destroyed' were reduced to 'probable or damaged'


----------



## Jabberwocky (May 21, 2009)

Unfortunately Stormbirds werk number resource is offline at the moment. 

I believe that is about the most comprehensive loss list for Me-262s out there.


----------



## 88l71 (Jun 21, 2009)

R Leonard said:


> For USN USMC fighters
> 
> The FM-2 credit to loss numbers were 422 to 13, or 32.46 to 1
> The F6F-3, -3N, -5, -5N credit to loss numbers were 5163 to 270, or 19.12 to 1
> ...



OK, that makes no sense at all. The FM-2 was just a late-model F4F with a different manufacturer designation, should not be listed as a seperate type.

I've heard the Finnish Buffaloes edge out the Hellcat, but I've never heard the Buffalo's ratio when the kill/loss ratio for Buffaloes in the Pacific is factored into the total.


----------



## Marcel (Jun 21, 2009)

88l71 said:


> OK, that makes no sense at all. The FM-2 was just a late-model F4F with a different manufacturer designation, should not be listed as a seperate type.
> 
> I've heard the Finnish Buffaloes edge out the Hellcat, but I've never heard the Buffalo's ratio when the kill/loss ratio for Buffaloes in the Pacific is factored into the total.



It is about 5:1.


----------



## R Leonard (Jun 21, 2009)

The US Navy kept track of the FM-2 results separately from the F4F results. Evidently they felt there was sufficient difference between the types to do so. My view, regardless of the intervening years, is that if that is the way the practitioners of the time chose to keep their statistics, then so be it. Not my job to question their process. One could, of course, complain to the USN that they keep their stats wrong, but I seriously doubt the response would be much more that a polite, "Thank you for your interest in Naval Aviation history."

As an aside, my father flew just about every fighter in the USN inventory back then, and then some, about 86% of his wartime hours, his 12/41 through 8/45 fighter hours were:

F4F-3 = 30.9
F4F-4 = 383.6
F6F-3 = 178.6
F6F-5 = 14.6
F7F-2N = 1.0
F4U-1/1D = 49.1
F4U-1C = 4.0
F4U-4 = 5.3
F3A-1 = 2.4
FM-1 = 25.1
FM-2 = 60.4
FR-1 = 3.3
P-40E = 0.7
A6M2 = 4.6
A6M5 = 4.9

When in conversation, referring to "Wildcats" he meant F4F's. He aways referred to FM-2's as "FM's;" just as "Yorktown" meant CV-5 and the other one was always referred to as "CV-10".

And to forestall a question, the USN had no need to track FM-1 (which was much more like an F4F than the FM-2) statistics as there were no scores for FM-1 pilots. Not to say FM-1 drivers did not see any action, they did, they simply did not see air-to-air action. A couple of the CVEs involved in the Tarawa invasion carried mixed F4F-4/FM-1 in their VC Rons.

Rich

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## claidemore (Jun 22, 2009)

USN might have kept seperate statistics, and pilots might have referred to them by different names, but for purposes of this discussion, the F4F and FM2 should be grouped together. The FM2 is just an improved variant of the basic Wildcat design, made by another manufacturer. 
Otherwise we have to split up the 109s, the Spitfires, the FW's etc. 
Different story if there is a major redesign, like Typhoon to Tempest, or FW190 to Ta152.


----------



## R Leonard (Jun 23, 2009)

> USN might have kept seperate statistics, and pilots might have referred to them by different names, but for purposes of this discussion, the F4F and FM2 should be grouped together. The FM2 is just an improved variant of the basic Wildcat design, made by another manufacturer.



Says, who? You? I don't recall voting on who decides what in this thread. There were no ground rules laid out except the basic question regarding, if I may quote:

"what is the highest kill ratio ever
" i will assumed either p-51 or hellcat
"what is that ratio"

The USN did not differentiate in its reporting the various stripes of cats, if you will, lumping F4F-3's and F4F-4's into the same count. One might argue that if you are looking for sincere differences between types then there is a larger difference between the F4F-3's and -4's than between -4's and FM-2's. The was also no differentiation between F6F-3's and F6F-5's, not between F4U-1, 1D, -2, -4 and even the FG-1 and -1D, all are simply noted as F4U/FG. One would have to research the complements of the squadrons in question in order to determine which was which, a rather thankless task especially when some squadrons were mixed F4U and FG.

Your pronouncement about what is cogent and applicable may work for you, and even others, but in the context of the official service record is, not to cause offense, and just in my opinion, somewhat presumptuous. I suggest you write the USN and get it straightened out to your satisfaction. I could supply you with an address if you wish.

Rich


----------



## renrich (Jun 23, 2009)

Rich, What a fascinating resume for your father shows up in his fighter hours. It must be(or must have been) quite an experience talking to him about it. I once spent quite a bit of time with Jim Swope. I bet they knew one another.


----------



## JoeB (Jun 23, 2009)

claidemore said:


> Otherwise we have to split up the 109s, the Spitfires, the FW's etc.


Perhaps, but OTOH if you don't split up 109 or Spitfire by model or period, you're not only talking a range of pretty different a/c technically within each general subheadings ('Spitfire' or '109'), but you are also equating claims by Spits in say 1941 over France that were perhaps 5:1 overstatements of actual German losses, with claims in 1944-45 that were much closer to the truth. Similarly for 109 you'd be equating relatively accurate 1941 East Front claims with several:1 overstatements ca. 1944-45. There is or might be some official ratio for that whole series of a/c as a trivia fact, but it has hardly any real world meaning. Of course the same factors (varying claim accuracy, varying type of opponents etc) make comparison of claimed kill ratio's between types questionable in many cases, but the longer period of time and wider variation of circumstances you cover for one 'type', the more those factors make the numbers *internally* inconsistent even for that one 'type'.

Joe


----------



## R Leonard (Jun 23, 2009)

renrich said:


> Rich, What a fascinating resume for your father shows up in his fighter hours. It must be(or must have been) quite an experience talking to him about it. I once spent quite a bit of time with Jim Swope. I bet they knew one another.



He got around a bit, Gilberts Raid, Lae-Salamaua Raid, Tulagi Raid (first two of his six total credits), Coral Sea, Midway, and Solomons are where he flew combat; all in F4F-3's and -4's. I knid of shorted him on F4F-3 hours, VF-42 became a fighter squadron in March 1941, prior to that it was VS-41 a SBU squadron aboard Ranger. He went into VS-31 in January ’41, his first squadron assignment after earning his wings in Nov ’40, and just in time for the change. With the new designation they received shiny new F4F-3's. Dad's first log book went down on Yorktown, so the only F4F-3 hours I can report are the ones they (the VF-42 types) could reconstruct after they got back to MCAS Ewa after Midway. So, the F4F-3 hours only account for the period from 1 May 42 to squadron's arrival at Ewa after Coral Sea. Actually, as of 30 April 42 he had accumulated 635.3 hours which appears on a squadron report to ComAirBatFor of that date. How many of those were in F4F-3, who knows.

Oh, yeah, he knew Jim, Swope, they were in VF-11 together on Guadalcanal during the Solomon’s campaign. Don’t have many pics from the time in the Solomons, but I do have some from when the squadron was at NAS Maui. See below. Last time I remember seeing Jim Swope was at Charlie Stimpson’s place in California, but that was a long, long, time ago. Didn't he go into the mining/prospecting business?

First picture is (L- R) Leonard, Vogel, Swope, Gaston examining a target sleeve at NAS Maui.

Second picture is (L- R) Swope, Maxwell, White at an elbow bending at the von Tempsky ranch on Maui.

Third picture is everyone at the von Tempsky's that particular date (L- R all at once, not not by rows) Quady, Johnson (hand on head), Cady, Leonard, Hiebert, Graber, Ogilvie, Vogel, Maxwell, Gaston, Stimpson, Flynn, Fenton, Cooke, Flath, HS White, Gilbert, Swope, Holberton, Ricker, Slagle, Cary.

Fourth picture is (L- R) Ricker, Cady, Flynn, Fenton, Stimpson, Ogilvie, Swope (boys will be boys, don't know who supplied the wings behind Fenton) at the von Tempsky's

Fifth is a picture of the squadron officers taken on Maui, dated 29 Jan 43. L- R First row - Rickabaugh, Ward, Stone, Flynn; Second Row - Wesley, Quady, Cady, CM White, Fenton, Vogel, Leonard, Hiebert; Third row - Parker, Cooke, HS White, Maxwell, Graham, Swope, Slagle, Graber, Johnson, Gilbert; Fourth row - Dayhoff, Ricker, Stimpson, Holberton, Cary, Ramsey, Ogilive, Flath.

Last picture is VF-11 pilots taken near the end of the Solomons tour in April 43. L- R seated/crouched - Cary, Gilbert, Schild, Wesley, Ramsey, HS White, Copolla, Jones; L - R standing - Parker, Hiebert, Holberton, Leonard, Ogilvie, Flath, Wall, Ivie, Gaston, Cady, Work, Martin, Cooke, CM White, Stimpson, Swope, Vogel, Masoner, Quady, Hubler, Pressler, Hubbard, Pimentel, Johnson, Viall.

Squadron group photos from NAS Maui and Guadalcanal official USN; all the rest from my personal collection.

Rich

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## renrich (Jun 24, 2009)

I have read often about the campaigns you mention your father was in, lately in Lundstrom's books which are the best I have seen. I know those pilots in those days were just men who were doing their duty but they almost seem like mythical figures to me. If one reflects seriously about the odds they went against and the circumstances under which they operated, and the results of their efforts, they have to rank at the top among the men who served the US in all our history. Your relationship to one who was there is remarkable. I once asked Swope which was most difficult, landing a Wildcat on a carrier or a modern jet? He said no question that the deck landing of the Wildcat was most difficult. I think his last job in the Navy was as project officer on the F111B. I met him in Dallas through a mutual friend and spent a week with him in Grand Junction, CO, with the idea of mining microscopic gold in the Mancos Shale. That was about 1990 and I lost track of him after that. I remember vividly when Jim and I went to the air port at GJ and looked at the shell of a Grumman Tiger( F11F, I think) which was parked out on the outskirts of the field.


----------



## claidemore (Jun 25, 2009)

JoeB said:


> Perhaps, but OTOH if you don't split up 109 or Spitfire by model or period, you're not only talking a range of pretty different a/c technically within each general subheadings ('Spitfire' or '109'), but you are also equating claims by Spits in say 1941 over France that were perhaps 5:1 overstatements of actual German losses, with claims in 1944-45 that were much closer to the truth. Similarly for 109 you'd be equating relatively accurate 1941 East Front claims with several:1 overstatements ca. 1944-45. There is or might be some official ratio for that whole series of a/c as a trivia fact, but it has hardly any real world meaning. Of course the same factors (varying claim accuracy, varying type of opponents etc) make comparison of claimed kill ratio's between types questionable in many cases, but the longer period of time and wider variation of circumstances you cover for one 'type', the more those factors make the numbers *internally* inconsistent even for that one 'type'.
> 
> Joe



Question is, how far do you go in splitting up the different models? I agree there is a considerable difference between the Mk1 Spitfire (1050hp) and Mk IX (1600 hp), and a huge difference for the Spitfire XIV (2050 hp) with an entirely different engine on a different airframe. 
In the case of the F4F and FM2 though, the difference in hp is about 150 at takeoff power, and a slightly bigger tail. 
If we were doing an in-depth analysis (which as you point out would be difficult and probably not produce a meaningful result) looking for the most accurate figures we could, splitting the FM2 from the F4F4 might be appropriate. I just don't think 32-1 for the FM2 (eyebrow raising though that stat is!) gives a clear picture to the initial generalized question posted here. The 6.9 or 7 to 1 overall figure often quoted for the Wildcat series is outstanding as it is.
Why not throw in the Ta152, where there are strong arguments that it has an 11-0 kill/loss ratio, possibly the only WWII fighter with 0 air to air losses, making it the hands down winner?


----------



## TenGunTerror (Jun 30, 2009)

Negative Creep said:


> I bet nightfighters such as the Beaufighter, Uhu and Black Widow got some pretty impressive ratios; I don't believe any P-61 was lost to enemy aircraft. Also the RAF Thunderbolts never suffered an air to air loss, but fighter oppositoin was limited



I believe a P-61 was shot down by a BF110 and if I'm wrong, one was shotdown by a friendly aircraft due to misidentification, not sure if this counts with the ratio.


----------



## uberninja (Jul 1, 2009)

he 162, killed one lost none, therefore 1:0 kill:death ratio


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 1, 2009)

uberninja said:


> he 162, killed one lost none, therefore 1:0 kill:death ratio


You sure about that???


----------



## Soren (Jul 1, 2009)

A He-162 was shot down, so it's a 1:1 ratio. But that doesn't say squat about the capabilities of the a/c. 

The Ta-152 had a 11:0 kill ratio, so it tops the list for WW2 a/c.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 1, 2009)

Soren said:


> A He-162 was shot down, so it's a 1:1 ratio. But that doesn't say squat about the capabilities of the a/c.
> 
> The Ta-152 had a 11:0 kill ratio, so it tops the list for WW2 a/c.



I think the Brewster 239 holds that title hands down. Take half of the clamis away to dispute any calls for overclaims and you're still talking about 33 to 1. Offically you're looking at about 66 to 1 from what I understand. I'm sure JoeB will have something to say on this as well.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## renrich (Jul 1, 2009)

Eleven to one for the TA 152 is the same as the Corsair's. The Hellcat had fifteen to one. How come the TA152 which barely got into the war gets to be the champ?


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 1, 2009)

renrich said:


> Eleven to one for the TA 152 is the same as the Corsair's. The Hellcat had fifteen to one. How come the TA152 which barely got into the war gets to be the champ?



imho it's useleess compare claims, but soren writed eleven to zero


----------



## renrich (Jul 1, 2009)

Thanks Vincenzo, I missed the zero. I agree with you on the claims question though.


----------



## Soren (Jul 1, 2009)

I agree regarding the comparison of claims as well as I wrote in post #46.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jul 2, 2009)

In terms of limited engagements the Ta-152 wins, but it never participated in a full scale battle in numbers, only a few top German aces really got to fly it.


----------



## Juha (Jul 11, 2009)

Hello 
Finnish AF got 44 Brewster B-239, 2 were lost in accidents before 25 June 41. 18 or 17 lost in air combat or went missing, 1 or 2 shot down by AA (WO Kinnunen’s fate is a bit unclear, Finns were sure that he was hit by Soviet Yhämäki hvAA, according Soviets he was shot down by a La-5) 5 on ground and 3 in accidents by 4 Sept 44. B-239 pilots claimed 476 victories by 4 Sept 44, so a kill ratio of 26:1.

The vast majority of claimed 476 kills by Finnish Brewster B-239 pilots were against fighters, which incl 48 Hurricanes, 41 LaGG-3s, 45 MiG-3s, 27½ Yak-1s, 23 La-5s, 13 "Spitfires" (Yak-1s and 7s in reality), 4 P-40s and 2 Yak-7s.

IMHO the real kill ration was ca 13:1. So not bad for the much maligned Brewster.

Here is the claim accuracy of 16 top FAF aces up to 1 July 44, the order is from top downwards and the order is the number of claims that can be confirmed from Soviet sources, where might well be some gaps. So the order isn’t the same you can find in other claim lists, in fact the order is very different indeed incl some notable drops and ups. Only the third place is same as in accepted claim lists. After % the main types used. Brewster B-239 is BW. The list isn't of course the absolute truth, there are still certain uncertainties.

76,2% FR, FA, MT
31,4% FR, BW, MT
48,2% FR, BW, MT
50% GL, FA, MT
68% CU, MT
22% BW, MT
55,6% FR, BW
80,6 MS, MT
52,3 FR, BW, MT
75,6% FR, BW
36,0% MS, MT
87,2% FR, BW
55,8% MT
70,1% FR, BW, MT
76,5 % FR, BW
59,5% MT

Juha

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Timppa (Jul 11, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> imho it's useleess compare claims, but soren writed eleven to zero


¨

In Willi Reschke's book there is a loss list. It shows 2 Ta-152's as shot down:

```
Date       Unit     Aircraft Type  Cause               Location    Rank     Name      Fate
14 Apr 45  St./301     Ta152    air combat-Tempest   Ludwigslust   Ofw.  Sepp Sattler  KIA
24 Apr 45  St./301     Ta152    air combat-Yak9      E. of Berlin  Olt.  Hermann Stahl MIA
```
According to Shores the victorious Tempest pilot was Wt. Off. W.J. Shaw. He was one of the 4 Tempest pilots of 486 squadron who met Reschke, Sattler and Auffhammer.


----------



## CloCloZ (Jul 15, 2009)

Timppa said:


> ¨
> 
> In Willi Reschke's book there is a loss list. It shows 2 Ta-152's as shot down:
> 
> ...



It seems that Reschke's tales are amongst the most unreliable stories ever heard on WWII, although I'm now surprised to know that in his book he (at last!) admits that Sattler was shot down at Ludwigslust (and not "crashed for unknown reason", as usually said from German side)! 

I've examined the whole issue on that dogfight here, at the best I could do having so fragmentary info:
Ludwigslust aerial combat

BTW: the often declared 11:0 kill/loss ratio for Ta152 is, well ... not true! 
*The true Ta152 ratio is likely about 2:1* (seven victories and four losses), as I explained in the last part of that page ("Part Two: the Myth").
And remember that almost 50% of pilots that flown her were German aces, so it's not a great achievement at all ...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 16, 2009)

CloCloZ said:


> And remember that almost 50% of pilots that flown her were German aces, so it's not a great achievement at all ...



How so? Could you have done better? Its pretty easy to judge sitting in a comfy recliner.


----------



## river (Jul 16, 2009)

Hi,

What about the kill ratio for the HE-219?

From what I have read, its first few missions were successful, but not sure if this success continued, nor how many 219s were shotdown.

river


----------



## CloCloZ (Jul 17, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> How so? Could you have done better? Its pretty easy to judge sitting in a comfy recliner.




It's not a great achievement for the plane, not for that German aces: they already proved to be good.
It's the plane that (used at low and medium altitudes, where it wasn't designed for) never proved to be as nearly as good as is often said.
2:1 ratio, having been flown by a lot of aces, is a really poor result even in a difficult TO as war-end ETO (difficult TO doesn't prevent good pilots to have the better to enemies at least in kill ratio, even when overwhelmed in number and in some cases even riding inferior planes, think about Finnish Winter War).


----------



## Juha (Jul 17, 2009)

Hello Clo
I’m very buzy now, 2 projects under work and deadline approaching faster than I’d like, so I read only a part of the text in your link and looked the map overlays. Looked interesting but I’ll have time read all only after I have got the projects ready and the last 15% is always the most difficult one with much cross-checking and trying to solve the most problematic details.

Strangest thing in Ta-152 story IMHO has been the claim that its kill ratio was 11:0 when even Reschke story shows that Stahl, whose wingman Reschke was during his last flight, was very probably shot down by Yaks, Reschke last sawing him flying straight course in slight dive followed by firing Yaks. And he never returned from that sortie.

Juha


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 17, 2009)

CloCloZ said:


> It's not a great achievement for the plane, not for that German aces: they already proved to be good.
> It's the plane that (used at low and medium altitudes, where it wasn't designed for) never proved to be as nearly as good as is often said.
> 2:1 ratio, having been flown by a lot of aces, is a really poor result even in a difficult TO as war-end ETO (difficult TO doesn't prevent good pilots to have the better to enemies at least in kill ratio, even when overwhelmed in number and in some cases even riding inferior planes, think about Finnish Winter War).



Okay I see where you are coming from. Not sure if I agree, but I understand what you are saying.


----------



## VG-33 (Jul 18, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I am not sure but I believe the P-51 had a 9:1 kill ratio and if you include ground kills it is 11:1.
> 
> I believe the Bf 109 had a 12:1 against Russian aircraft.



It's not the *kill ratio* but the *clame ratio*. Even if we are speaking obout confirmed claims, it's change nothing. The facts that the plane is confirmed by the own pilot's side, does not mean there was a real shot from the archives of the other side.

Considering that the particular overclaim can easily reach from 1.2-1.5 to 1-15, 1-20 in some paricular cases, conversation about claims (confirmed or not) to losses isn't of any kind of historical interest without the confirmation from the archives of the other side. 

Regards


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 18, 2009)

VG-33 said:


> It's not the *kill ratio* but the *clame ratio*. Even if we are speaking obout confirmed claims, it's change nothing. The facts that the plane is confirmed by the own pilot's side, does not mean there was a real shot from the archives of the other side.
> 
> Considering that the particular overclaim can easily reach from 1.2-1.5 to 1-15, 1-20 in some paricular cases, conversation about claims (confirmed or not) to losses isn't of any kind of historical interest without the confirmation from the archives of the other side.
> 
> Regards



We have nothing else to go by, so as far as I am concerned they can be said to be _kill ratios_...


----------



## VG-33 (Jul 19, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> We have nothing else to go by, so as far as I am concerned they can be said to be _kill ratios_...




An example, the Mustang is supposed to have a _kill rate _ of 11, and 19 for the Hellcat.

But if Mustang pilots overclaimed their victories about 2 times and Hellcat pilots about 4 times, it appears that the *real kill rate* was better for the Mustang than for the Hellcat.

So it's better to call real kill rate = kill rate
And the confirmed claims rate = claim rate

In order to avoid confusion between myths and reality: kill rate = claim rate/ oveclaim


I don't understand what don't understand...

Regards


VG-33


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 19, 2009)

VG-33 said:


> I don't understand what don't understand...



Don't get an attitude with me mister! Who said I do not understand something! Get off your horse!

I understand very well what you are saying! I am saying that unless we have proof otherwise, we have to go by the claim rates!


----------



## VG-33 (Jul 19, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I understand very well what you are saying! I am saying that unless we have proof otherwise, we have to go by the claim rates!



 But we're in 2009 now! You've got a lot of overclaim examples, and even from mid 70 ies works (from Mal Tedder and Gen W Coppens from instance _revue Icare_) it was obvious that Luftwaffe overclaimed about 3 times during BoF and BoB, and Armée de l'air and RAF for 2 times. 

Quoting all my sources would make an extremly long list, but you have

Christopher Shores works 
Patrick Loreau and Nikolaï Abrosov for Spain
Bernard Baëza and Henry Sakaida for Japanese losses
Patrick Faucon for Armée de l'Air etc...



Well, in final words you have enough examples to call _cat_, a cat...

Regards

VG


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 19, 2009)

VG-33 said:


> But we're in 2009 now! You've got a lot of overclaim examples, and even from mid 70 ies works (from Mal Tedder and Gen W Coppens from instance _revue Icare_) it was obvious that Luftwaffe overclaimed about 3 times during BoF and BoB, and Armée de l'air and RAF for 2 times.
> 
> Quoting all my sources would make an extremly long list, but you have
> 
> ...



Where did I say they were not over claiming???? Every one knows the Luftwaffe over claimed. Who didn't? The RAF over claimed, the VVS over claimed, the USAAF over claimed, and guess what? Your beloved French air force over claimed as well.

The only people who will ever know the factual truth are the pilots themselves (and that is neither you or me!) and mistakes can still be made in that. 2009 ain't going to change that buddy! So until someone comes up with a way to find out the 100% actual truth, we can only go off of claim rates. Sure we can talk about claim rates and what the real kill rates probably were, but neither you or me will ever know the 100% truth.

So, I don't know what the hell your problem is, and why you are barking up my tree on the subject! I never said anything to dispute what you said. Until a claim is found to be false, it is a kill. That is all we can do until it is proven wrong. Can we scrutinize them? Of course we can, we do that all the time on these forums. Can we prove them or disprove them? No...

All I stated was what I believed to be the generally accepted claims. Are they 100% true? Of course not, only fools believe that because claims never will be.


----------



## renrich (Jul 19, 2009)

As Chris says, all nationalities overclaimed and not just pilots but bomber crews, especially. Truth to be told, often the pilots claimed a kill but were wrong because of bad visibility and many other factors. There were just too many times that a pilot did not have a clear view of what was happening from start to finish of a fight and unless the EA disentegrated in in his view or he saw it go into the ground AND he was the only fighter pilot of his air force who was around in the area, a claim could be too optimistic.


----------



## Soren (Jul 19, 2009)

Only two Ta152 losses are listed in Reschke's book. But further in the book when describing the incidents in detail it is clear that both were lost due to mechanical physical failures, as Reschke points out that one started diving without reason, no'one on its tail, no enemy a/c around, no smoke, no radio response, nothing... just crashing straight into the ground. 

The Ta-152's on the other hand shot down 11 enemy a/c for sure, despite what Cocloz claims.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 19, 2009)

VG-33 said:


> It's not the *kill ratio* but the *clame ratio*. Even if we are speaking obout confirmed claims, it's change nothing. The facts that the plane is confirmed by the own pilot's side, does not mean there was a real shot from the archives of the other side.
> 
> Considering that the particular overclaim can easily reach from 1.2-1.5 to 1-15, 1-20 in some paricular cases, conversation about claims (confirmed or not) to losses isn't of any kind of historical interest without the confirmation from the archives of the other side.
> 
> Regards


VG - independent of the accuracy of the USAAF claim to award process, the ratios Chris cited for the Mustang in the 8th AF are suprisingly understated.

Based on LW losses reported, and also taking into account aircraft which crash landed but pilot ecaped OK, the LW losses are close to 8th AF 'awards'. The LW would not account for suchcrash land damaged aircraft as 'lost'


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 20, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Based on LW losses reported, and also taking into account aircraft which crash landed but pilot ecaped OK, the LW losses are close to 8th AF 'awards'. The LW would not account for suchcrash land damaged aircraft as 'lost'



i've many doubt on this (that lw losses reported versus 8th are near at 8th claims)


----------



## CloCloZ (Jul 20, 2009)

Soren said:


> Only two Ta152 losses are listed in Reschke's book. But further in the book when describing the incidents in detail it is clear that both were lost due to mechanical physical failures, as Reschke points out that one started diving without reason, no'one on its tail, no enemy a/c around, no smoke, no radio response, nothing... just crashing straight into the ground.
> 
> The Ta-152's on the other hand shot down 11 enemy a/c for sure, despite what Cocloz claims.



Sorry, the numbers I reported are not MY claim, they are based on findings by researchers such as J-Y Lorant and even by a Ta152 fan such as Dietmar Harmann in his book.
About Reschke's tales, my page also explains why he unfortunately seems to be one of the least reliable witnesses of WWII, especially about Ta152 (again, these are not just my findings or my belief ...).

I reported all information in that page, of course you are free to ignore them and go on believing in fairytales, such as _"Ta152 shot down 11 enemy a/c for sure"_  or that "no Ta152 has been ever shot down", etc.
After all, myths are die-hard just because people want to believe in them, despite the evidence.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jul 20, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> i've many doubt on this (that lw losses reported versus 8th are near at 8th claims)



Doubt away - but take any of Prien's works, Caldwell, Muller, Goyat, etc and the documented losses on the cited days of engagement with 8th AF Fighter Command are close to awards actually assessed and credited by USAF Study 85.

I have no issue with your doubts - I do have issue that you rarely back up your 'doubts' or other statements with documented sources.

So, on one hand there is USAF 85 for all USAF, USAAF awards. Disprove them rather than express doubt?


----------



## Soren (Jul 20, 2009)

Again Clocloz, the page is written by YOU, and obviously you're a gamer and not a serious researcher, so you have a suspicious agenda.

Infact I see not a single shred of proof in your little article, just a lot of assumptions, nothing more.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 20, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Doubt away - but take any of Prien's works, Caldwell, Muller, Goyat, etc and the documented losses on the cited days of engagement with 8th AF Fighter Command are close to awards actually assessed and credited by USAF Study 85.
> 
> I have no issue with your doubts - I do have issue that you rarely back up your 'doubts' or other statements with documented sources.
> 
> So, on one hand there is USAF 85 for all USAF, USAAF awards. Disprove them rather than express doubt?



i've too little info 
can give me the 8th AF awards with the lw unit.

edit i remembered our previous discussion, it's useless start an other you've your position me my


----------



## CloCloZ (Jul 20, 2009)

Soren said:


> Again Clocloz, the page is written by YOU, and obviously you're a gamer and not a serious researcher, so you have a suspicious agenda.
> 
> Infact I see not a single shred of proof in your little article, just a lot of assumptions, nothing more.



*Unlike you, I reported ALL the references for ANY of my statements.*
You reported *NOTHING* for your 11-0 statement.
So, if I have a "suspicious agenda", you have NO CREDIBLE agenda at all.

And I never said I'm a researcher, *I just collected informations from various sources, including those of serious researchers* (e.g. Lorant) and even those of acritical Ta152 praisers like Harmann.
In fact, my statements about Ta152 kill/loss ratio are* NOT* personal "assumptions", they derive from published data.

My Ludwigslust's dogfight reconstruction is a different thing, I've been the first to admit it's just an hypotetical (albeit rationally reconstructed) scenario.
But Ludwigslust event don't change much about *Ta152 myth* issue (in fact, not accidentally I separated that page in two sections, the event and the myth).

BTW, are *YOU* a researcher? I'm sure you aren't.
You are an aviation enthusiast and maybe a gamer, just like me.
The difference between you and me is that *I look for information to support my assertions and share their references to submit them to scrutiny*, whereas *you just proclaim categorical statements without backing it with any reference and ignore any information that deny your biased beliefs*.

You could talk back to me just finding *better information* than mine.
Good luck, I think you badly need it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 20, 2009)

Well, this could interesting...


----------



## Daviducus2 (Jul 20, 2009)

http://www.clipartof.com/images/emoticons/xsmall2/1974_eating_popcorn.gif


----------



## JoeB (Jul 20, 2009)

Not to take sides in any personal pissing matches , but I'd put in my usual two cents about claims or credited victories v actual losses on the other side. The key point is not that claims or credits tended to exceed real losses. The key point is that the *degree* of overstatement was highly variable, between air arms, and even for the same air arm in different theaters and periods. So it's almost entirely meaningless to compare claimed/credited kill ratio's unless it's claims by the same or very similar air arm in the same period. Otherwise 100 credits by one AF in one theater and period could typically mean 75 real enemy losses, and 100 credits could typically mean 12 enemy losses in another AF, time or place. There are historical examples everywhere within that range for fighter claims/credits, or even outside it.

There is therefore no valid basis for taking claims from different AF's, or greatly different times and situations even for the same AF, at face value relative to each other. Either we know the claim accuracy from enough relevant examples documented from both sides, same AF, same theater, same period of time, or we can't compare them reliably.

And, besides data, different researchers' methods and assumptions, and sometimes biases, can lead to different answers for the claim accuracy, even when data exists from both sides. That's the other problem, in some cases (not saying any cases here) there turns out good reason for skepticism about what people have said they've found about claim accuracy.

Joe


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 20, 2009)

Good info there Joe.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 20, 2009)

JoeB said:


> Not to take sides in any personal pissing matches , but I'd put in my usual two cents about claims or credited victories v actual losses on the other side. The key point is not that claims or credits tended to exceed real losses. The key point is that the *degree* of overstatement was highly variable, between air arms, and even for the same air arm in different theaters and periods. So it's almost entirely meaningless to compare claimed/credited kill ratio's unless it's claims by the same or very similar air arm in the same period. Otherwise 100 credits by one AF in one theater and period could typically mean 75 real enemy losses, and 100 credits could typically mean 12 enemy losses in another AF, time or place. There are historical examples everywhere within that range for fighter claims/credits, or even outside it.
> 
> There is therefore no valid basis for taking claims from different AF's, or greatly different times and situations even for the same AF, at face value relative to each other. Either we know the claim accuracy from enough relevant examples documented from both sides, same AF, same theater, same period of time, or we can't compare them reliably.
> 
> ...



Totally agree. 

I am emerging from a 3 year 'immersion' in looking at daily LW losses as posted and referencing many sources - but mostly Walter Grabmann, "The German Air Defense 1933-1945', Schmid "The GAF vs the Allies in the West 1943-45 (USAFHRA K113).. as well as the usual excellent unit and LW histories by Goyat/Lorent, Prien et al. as well as about 3000 US Encounter Reports. I have also examined in detail all the US Fighter Group Histories as well as the MACR's to arrive at the type losses. Very few of the unit histories come anywhere close to the data I have compiled on the 355th and 4th FG but Kent Miller has done the best job of publishing the broad summary. I can point out quite a few errors but his work is excellent and represents the single best reference for 8th AF FC.

Tony Woods Lists for the same battles are interesting. We know the US bomber claims are way overstated but so far the Fighter claims range from ~ 80-100% depending on whether you wish to discount the 8th BC claims entirely.

Erich and I took a couple of the big ones like April 24 and Nov 26 and Nov 2 and hashed them out pretty well to get the perspectives.

Summary - Overclaims yes, massive (2x) no.. at least for the period of my key interest, namely 1943 through 1945. We will never be able to get our arms around objective loss counts for LW post Nov 1944 but interstingly enough that isn't quite as important to 8th AF Ops as so much of LW was shifted form West to East in February, 1945. 

I freely admit none of these constitute the holy grail but in composite they lay out the big air battles - notable for excellent roll ups on both LW and 8th AF- 

Having said that I feel well positioned to debate 8th AF FC statistics with just about anybody - and recognize I have a long way to go to declare 'Done".


----------



## Soren (Jul 20, 2009)

lol Cocloz, I did bring forth a reference, the most accurate one there is, Reschke's own book (Wilde Sau). And that is despite your completelæy ridiculous dismissal of it as a reliable source. You see Reschke actually flew the a/c and was around when these losses occured, and thus he has first hand information on the subject, completely unlike the dubious references you bring forth. 

Also why do you call Hermann a Ta152 fan ? He's a writer researcher, not a fan. And his knowledge is mostly on the technical aspect of these a/c, not unit histories. Oh and btw, where in his book does he conclude anything even approaching what you're claiming in your article ?


----------



## CloCloZ (Jul 21, 2009)

Soren said:


> lol Cocloz, I did bring forth a reference, the most accurate one there is, Reschke's own book (Wilde Sau). And that is despite your completelæy ridiculous dismissal of it as a reliable source. You see Reschke actually flew the a/c and was around when these losses occured, and thus he has first hand information on the subject, completely unlike the dubious references you bring forth.
> 
> Also why do you call Hermann a Ta152 fan ? He's a writer researcher, not a fan. And his knowledge is mostly on the technical aspect of these a/c, not unit histories. Oh and btw, where in his book does he conclude anything even approaching what you're claiming in your article ?




Sorry to burst your bubble but:

1) Reschke has been found to be *highly unreliable* (and, yes, that by serious researchers) and I reported all the references. For example, he reports three victories by Walter Loos on Ta152 that Loos himself denied! (just look at Pilots who flew the Ta152 - Luftwaffe Experten Message Board)
And, BTW, his tale about Ludwigslust dogfight is *plagued by inconsistencies* when compared not only to RAF reports but to other German witnesses reports too, from the number of planes involved to Sattler's flight path.
So, he is unreliable both about events he was involved in and about other pilots' events. In the light of those researches his tales are "good" just for people that stubbornly want to believe to them.

2) Harmann is both a writer AND a Ta152 fan, as quite clearly demonstrated by his overpraising of that plane. So, for sure he doesn't conclude anything near to my conclusions!
Iin fact I'd never write things such as _"The pilots of the Tank also did not have to fear P47 Thunderbolts or Hawker Tempests, as several victories proves [...] it must actually have brought many P-47 and Tempests pilot to the point of desperation"_ (please note: 1 (one) downed P47, 1 (one) downed Tempest) ... 
Anyway, even such a fan reports a couple of losses that (added to others) *fully deny your unproven 11-0 statement* ...


----------



## drgondog (Jul 21, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> i've too little info
> can give me the 8th AF awards with the lw unit.



>I'll dig into my files and give you one example I have already published.

>In the meantime you dig up (or do the research and present your results) an example to support your thesis.

Summary

April 24, 1944 is on Mike Williams website - one that Erich and I (and several others) collaborated on as documented in overview. I have since completed the LW loss list to the extent that it can be completed... and will post tomorrow. The LW loss list was incomplete with respect to times but locations and types have narrowed down the probable killers and victims.

This was one in which two fighter groups of the 8th AF were engaged with a force of 200+ German fighters in a very concentrated area around Munich in a specific time span - permitting conclusions regarding 'claim to award to loss'

The Battle Over Munich – April 24, 1944

Plus OberstLeutnant Joerge Deutsch's and Frank Olynyk's further additions. I have about seven of these but this will serve for the moment. I did not include Tony Wood's consolidated LW list for 4-24 Awards as this page is getting a little crowded! If you have trouble finding it I will post it later. For Frank O's list, strip out the stuff that is not in a 50 mile radius from Munich as the others (Worms, Lake Constance, etc) were on the inbound run and not relevant to this documentary.

Now Vincenzo - go forth and present yourown research and perspectives


----------



## Timppa (Jul 21, 2009)

CloCloZ said:


> *Unlike you, I reported ALL the references for ANY of my statements.*
> You reported *NOTHING* for your 11-0 statement.
> So, if I have a "suspicious agenda", you have NO CREDIBLE agenda at all.



CloClo, I see you have now been introduced to Soren's "discussion" style. I think he is just a troll, with a Third Reich axe to grind. Just put him him on your ignore list, he really has nothing to contribute.

Your analysis of the Ta152 vs. Tempest fight is quite good.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Soren (Jul 21, 2009)

Timppa said:


> CloClo, I see you have now been introduced to Soren's "discussion" style. I think he is just a troll, with a Third Reich axe to grind. Just put him him on your ignore list, he really has nothing to contribute.
> 
> Your analysis of the Ta152 vs. Tempest fight is quite good.



You're the troll here Timppa, with your own clear bias to deal with, as you have so solidly proven over and over again. 

But you and Clocloz can go ahead and believe in your fairytale fantasies all you wish, I couldn't care less. 

But next time bring forth a reliable source for once, not just some guy who never flew during the war and bases all his conclusions on rumors. In short: Try to contribute!


----------



## Soren (Jul 21, 2009)

CloCloZ said:


> Sorry to burst your bubble but:
> 
> 1) Reschke has been found to be *highly unreliable* (and, yes, that by serious researchers) and I reported all the references. For example, he reports three victories by Walter Loos on Ta152 that Loos himself denied! (just look at Pilots who flew the Ta152 - Luftwaffe Experten Message Board)
> And, BTW, his tale about Ludwigslust dogfight is *plagued by inconsistencies* when compared not only to RAF reports but to other German witnesses reports too, from the number of planes involved to Sattler's flight path.
> ...



Listen up Clocloz/FalkeEins, it's you who wrote the hogwash on that forum isn't it ? And unsurprisingly no links or accurate references are given to the wild claims made there. I wonder why ? 

But you've openly declared Reschke a liar, fine, but I'd sure like to see the evidence you claim to have which will prove this! Why is it that I suspect you have absolutely nothing of the sort ?

Sure gotta love it when people start pouring dirt on the brave men who actually took part in that horrible war some 64 years ago. I mean, what do they know right ? They only lived and fought in the battles we talk about so often. 

I think Reschke should've been invited to this discussion. I'd sure like to hear what he has to say.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 21, 2009)

Quit hijacking these threads with your bullshit childish flame wars.

All of you need to play nice! Some of you have already received warnings before stating what will happen if you don't. I don't care who started it!


----------



## CloCloZ (Jul 21, 2009)

Soren said:


> Listen up Clocloz/FalkeEins, it's you who wrote the hogwash on that forum isn't it ? And unsurprisingly no links or accurate references are given to the wild claims made there. I wonder why ?
> 
> But you've openly declared Reschke a liar, fine, but I'd sure like to see the evidence you claim to have which will prove this! Why is it that I suspect you have absolutely nothing of the sort ?
> 
> ...





_"no links or accurate references"_ ...

I know that you dislike what I said with *a lot of links and references* on that page (unlike what you did) but *at least you should try to pretend you read that page *...

About Reschke, I didn't say he is a liar, I said his reports are just unreliable tales on many accounts. I don't know if he is a liar, still wants to defend Tank's and Ta152 reputation or just has bad memories, the fact is that his tales very often _"doesn't stand up to scrutiny"_.
And, better,* it wasn't just me to have said that, but researchers such as Lorant*. Again, if you had really read my page you had easily discovered that.

So, it's quite "odd" that at first you ask for _"serious researchers"_ and when I point out that I used data from researchers (Lorant and even Harmann) you ignore that and go on babbling about _"no references, no links, no serious researchers, just your assumptions"_ ... 

It's quite obvious Timppa is fully right.
So I'll let you peacefully continue to believe in what you want to believe, in spite of any evidence.
Only thing I'm sure it will disturb you: that page and all its links and references  will stick around ...
But, after all, *I wrote that page just for smart people, not for trolls!*


P.S.: I'm not FalkeEins (I don't even know him or her), so please don't try to involve me in squabbles you probably had with other users (and it's now quite easy to me to understand why ...).


----------



## drgondog (Jul 22, 2009)

Soren said:


> Listen up Clocloz/FalkeEins, it's you who wrote the hogwash on that forum isn't it ? And unsurprisingly no links or accurate references are given to the wild claims made there. I wonder why ?
> 
> But you've openly declared Reschke a liar, fine, but I'd sure like to see the evidence you claim to have which will prove this! Why is it that I suspect you have absolutely nothing of the sort ?
> 
> ...



As many of you know - Soren and I have had a LOT of spririted debates.

I will be the first to say he has brought out the best (and worst) of me.. but will further say that even if I feel he has a point of view that does not match mine he is a very sharp individual and we find ourselves 'agreeing to disagree' where the past was 'Patience Hell - kill the SOB"

I have found Reschke somewaht uncredible on the claims side but only because I had access to the actiual losses. By the same token questioning him on actual LW losses takes on the same dimension.

I have no stomach for assertaining a warriro's persepctive as BS when the ones that question it weren't there to question it or validate it.

Investigate, research, make your own determinations but back it up!


----------



## drgondog (Jul 22, 2009)

>I'll dig into my files and give you one example I have already published.

>In the meantime you dig up (or do the research and present your results) an example to support your thesis.

Vincenzo - this is the kind of research you need to duplicate to remotely approach a dialogue of matching claims to awards......

Summary

April 24, 1944 is on Mike Williams website - one that Erich and I (and several others) collaborated on as documented in overview. I have since completed the LW loss list to the extent that it can be completed... and will post tomorrow. The LW loss list was incomplete with respect to times but locations and types have narrowed down the probable killers and victims.

This was one in which two fighter groups of the 8th AF were engaged with a force of 200+ German fighters in a very concentrated area around Munich in a specific time span - permitting conclusions regarding 'claim to award to loss'

The Battle Over Munich – April 24, 1944 The Battle Over Munich – April 24, 1944

PlusI added OberstLeutnant Joerge Deutsch's and Frank Olynyk's further additions. 

I have about seven of these 'specific research tasks completed -but this will serve for the moment.

I did not include Tony Wood's consolidated LW list for 4-24 Awards as this page is getting a little crowded! If you have trouble finding it I will post it later. For Frank O's list, strip out the stuff that is not in a 50 mile radius from Munich as the others (Worms, Lake Constance, etc) were on the inbound run and not relevant to this documentary.

Now Vincenzo - go forth and present yourown research and perspectives


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jul 23, 2009)

From my understanding of research over the past few years, the combat record of the Ta-152 is not as clear cut as some would like to make out. Several of the Ta-152 "kills" are less than certain, and there are at least one, probably two, combat losses of the Ta-152.

In contradiction to Walter Reschke's book, Walter Loos stated in a 1979 interview that he never shot down an enemy aircraft while flying the Ta-152. This potentially rules out three of the 11 kills, two Yak-9s on 24-Apr-1945 and another on 30-Apr-1945. 

There is also some contradiction as the whether Josef Keil claimed a P-51 or a P-47 on 10-Apr-1945, and the claim doesn't match USAAF ETO loss lists, although its impossible to rule out RAF or USAAF MTO units. 

Still, a positive K/L ratio during the mid-1945 period is an impressive achievement, given the pressure that Luftwaffe units were under at the time, both in term of numerical disadvantage and pilot experience.


----------



## Focke Wulf Meister (Jul 23, 2009)

The best kill-to-loss of any fighter in the Second World War (26-to-1) was garnered by an aircraft that is widely considered the worst fighter of the war - the Brewster B-239 (U.S. Navy designation F2A) used by the Finnish AF against the Ruskies. Although it barely saw service with the U.S. Navy, the little Brewster was used to great effect by the Finns. 

According to chuckhawks.com, "Although the Soviets had the advantage of numbers and some of its fighter aircraft were technically superior, for the most part Soviet pilots were mediocre. The best Russian flyers were thrown against the Luftwaffe, which was understandably considered the bigger threat. 

Also, the bulk of the modern Soviet fighters were employed in the attempt to stem the German invasion. This meant that the Russian pilots on the Finnish Front mostly had to make due with out-dated types such as the I-15 biplane fighter. Furthermore, the experienced, skilled, and determined Finnish pilots refused to bow to their Soviet rivals."


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 23, 2009)

i never put in doubt that in several "battles" awards are near to real loss.
however i'm happy to read the docs

sorry i've reply a 90th topic


----------



## JoeB (Jul 24, 2009)

drgondog said:


> The LW loss list was incomplete with respect to times but locations and types have narrowed down the probable killers and victims.


Bill, if I summarize correctly you give German fighter (a/c) losses as 60 and the awards, of 'destroyed' to three 8th AF groups as 12 (4th), 20 (355th) and 23 (357th), total 55. "Mighty 8th War Diary" by Freeman gives the total of awards to the P-51 groups was 64 so implying 9 for the 354th and 363rd, then 4 for P-38 groups, 2 to P-47 groups and a surprisingly modest 20 for bombers, given their relatively heavy losses. I just add that to point out that as far as credit/loss accounting, there wouldn't be a large overclaim (by most standards), even assuming 60 was the total German loss to all those units, even including the bomber credits at face value.

My main question though is how we know the LW losses to be 60 if we don't know all the specific pilot names, a/c or units (unless I'm mistaken the loss list is much less than 60)? Is that broken down by unit but without the more detailed info in some cases, or is there some general German summary that separately just gives the total?

Joe


----------



## drgondog (Jul 25, 2009)

JoeB said:


> Bill, if I summarize correctly you give German fighter (a/c) losses as 60 and the awards, of 'destroyed' to three 8th AF groups as 12 (4th), 20 (355th) and 23 (357th), total 55. "Mighty 8th War Diary" by Freeman gives the total of awards to the P-51 groups was 64 so implying 9 for the 354th and 363rd, then 4 for P-38 groups, 2 to P-47 groups and a surprisingly modest 20 for bombers, given their relatively heavy losses. I just add that to point out that as far as credit/loss accounting, there wouldn't be a large overclaim (by most standards), even assuming 60 was the total German loss to all those units, even including the bomber credits at face value.
> 
> *Yes - if that in fact was to' roll up - but that isn't the way I approached it as noted below, nor does the above summary reflect current data. Freeman is simply wrong in comparison to Olynyk and USAFHRC.
> 
> ...



Joe - I'm not sure which records you looked at, or whether you looked only at what I posted?

On a general note for 9th AF and RAF Mustangs, the 354FG scored one air claim north of Ingolstadt, the 363rd did not score and the RAF did not score.

From USAFHRC (latest)

The P-38 Group air awards were 20th FG= 5, 55th=1 
The P-51 Group air awards were 4FG=12, 352nd=1, 355th=20, 357th=22
The P-47 Group air awards were Zero



The LW loss list I posted above specified both pilots and units and in most cases the Werk No of the fighter recorded as destroyed in the Augsburg to Munich to Leipzig area - 45 Fighters, pilots and crews in a 50 mile radius of Munich where this battle took place. It doesn't touch the JG 11 losses to 4th, 20th and 55th from Worms to Lake Constance before 1215 on inbound leg.

What is not in that Loss list are the fighters that crash landed but not specifically written off.

Roger Freeman did a very nice job in Mighty 8th as well as 8th War Diary - but there are many instances where he is at variance with USAF 85 in fighter claims and losses. Kent Miller for example is a much more relaiable source for both.

Caldwell and Muller(Luftwaffe over Germany) referenced 60 fighters lost, referencing Prien among others, as well as noting that 3 German fighters fell to B-17 gunners over Munich as well as citing 39 KIA, 12 WIA - in the 60 total combat losses for the day, including Worms/Lake Constance battles.

Summary - USAAF/RAFFighter awards = 60, LW losses = 60 destroyed (but no knowledge of disposition of crash landed fighters - presumably not all repairable)including at least 3 to B-17s.

The 45 pilots/units/fighters cited in my list match pretty closely to the Mustang awards to the 352, 354, 355, 357 (The Munich claims) total of 45 but that leaves us with the 3 'known' losses to B-17s... so we have a variance of at least 3/45 for the award total to the fighters over Munich area.

Did I cover your points?

Tony Woods has 13 (8 with reference to award/film no. plus others in supplemental list ) Mustang awards given to German fighter pilots over Munich(plus a "P-47" which was impossible - for actual total losses in air combat of 6. This is not to denigrate Tony's compilation as I am sure that I will find comparable overclaiming on US side sooner or later.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 26, 2009)

JoeB - forgot to mention that the 357FG claimed (and was awarded) 9 Me 110s and one "Ju 88" but I can only find 9 Me 110s from ZG76 and no Ju 88's.. there were no other FG claims for Me 110's so the 357 claim to award on them at least was correct.


----------



## BiffF15 (Aug 15, 2010)

nimrod.michaeli said:


> what is the highest kill ratio ever
> 
> i will assumed either p-51 or hellcat
> 
> ...



Nimrod,

Excellent questions but let me ask one in return. Are you interested in kill ratio's as a sign of a great fighter alone or as part of a whole? 
There is more to the whole picture than kill ratio's alone, some aircraft were difficult to fly even though they achieved phenominal kill rates (Bf-109 lost 1/3 of all aircraft in accidents). The Bf-109 is a conversation all itself due to it's longevity and the number of kills scored by it. However, pilot versus pilot comparison also comes into play (pilot production towards the end of the war in both Japan and Germany suffered in quality). Or how about maintainability, as logistically some planes are much easier to fix in the field than others?

Biff


----------



## bodhibob (Oct 2, 2010)

My dad is Robert Bruce Ogilvie in some of the photos....... Bob


----------



## zooni (Apr 13, 2012)

The highest kill ratio has little to no meaning. The Hellcat with it's 13:1 kill ratio was fighting Mitsubishi Zeros. The Mitsubishi zero was a generation below the Hellcat and exactly why the some of the air battles where called turkey shots. The kill ratio only has merit when comparing two planes to one another and not determining the best plane, but it still has only small value. Would the Hellcat be 13:1 against a German w190 -- no way. Most German aces racked up hundreds of kills on the eastern front only to get switched to the defense of the fatherland on the western front to be shot down by P-51 flying in high numbers over Germany.

The best plane of WW2 was the P-51. Why you might ask. The P-51 had two things that were revolutionary. 1) laminar flow airfoils that allowed larger wings that gave it the incredible 2,300 mile range compared to the German ME 109 and W190 500 mile range. 2) It had a gyroscopic gun sight allowing even new pilots to be 50% more accurate. The Germans only used the Gyroscopic sights after inspecting a downed Ally plane and used them just before the end of the war.

The P-51 with it's 2,300 range and a the P-51 being as capable as the W190. Hundreds of P-51 could take off from all over Britain. When they flew over Germany the range of the German planes allowed only a fraction as many plane to intercept resulting in numerical mismatches. A majority of the Eastern front German aces where shot down in the first few months. The Number one German ace ever was forced to bail out on his fifth mission after running out of gas with 8 P-51 on his tail. 17% of all German planes where shot down in the first week that the P-51 was allowed to engage at will.

After the German planes had to return to base for fuel the P-51 would follow and bounce them (shot them on landing, taking off, or refueling). 1/2 of ALL planes killed by P-51 where on the ground resulting in no addition the kill ratio of air combat and a direct result of the P-51 incredible range. The P-51 had 1/2 of ALL ally kills in the WW2 Europe. The ridiculous range meant the P-51 was the only offensive fighter plane in Europe. To top it off it was cheap to make at 50k a pop. Only 1 P-51 fighter ace was ever shot down in the air and most where shot down by ground fire as the P-51 weakness was the air cooling system on it's belly.

If you don't believe me about how effective the P-51 was read the wiki on the top 50 German aces and see what plane shot them down (more than half where shot down by P-51). The 1943 P-51 with Royal Royce Merlin engine, Gyroscopic gun sight and incredible 2300 mile range won the air battle over Europe. The W190D (long nose) and ME 262 were great planes but had little effect on the war due to their late entry and the P-51 shot down most of the know ME 262 kills and hundreds on the ground where they get no credit. 

In order for Germany to beat the P-51 they would have had to produce a plane with a 2300 mile range to allow mass intercepts which they never did.


----------



## Thorlifter (Apr 13, 2012)

There are people on here that know the statistics much better than I, but I can't see how range is one of your major determining factors in making the P-51 the greatest plane the allies had. What does range have to do with firepower, survivability, rate of climb, maneuverability, etc. These are true combat statistics, not how far it can fly.

Also, the P-51 had far greater numbers and better trained pilots than the Luftwaffe, which sure helped the allies gain air superiority.

I do agree with you about kill ratio's not meaning it's the greatest plane, but the two reasons you give, IMO, certainly don't mean it's the greatest either. The P-51 was a fine aircraft and gets all the glory in the ETO, but many members on this board, myself included, believe the F4U was a superior aircraft in most aspects.


----------



## GregP (Apr 13, 2012)

The Hellcat's kill ratio was slightly over 19 : 1, not 13 : 1. It has the highest kill ratio of any WWII fighter, the Finnish Brewsters notwithstanding. To get a kill ratio for type, you don;t pick a single unit or country, you lump all the aircraft of taht type together. If you lump the Brewsters in service with all countries togetehr, they fade into the bottom of the list quickly, and we are left with admiration for the Finns who employed an obsoescent aircraft so well.

The same holds true for the FM-2 Wildcat. It gets lumped in with the other Wildcats.

As for the Ta 152 having only one or two combat losses, I have seen claims of anywhere from one to four losses in combat and from 7 to 10 victories by the Ta-152, making for a kill ratio of anywhere from 10 : 1 down to 7 : 4. If we split the high and low, we get 8.5 : 2 for a kill to loss ratio of about 4.25 : 1. Hardly inspiring to me.

many people take the highest number they can find and throw out all the lesser claims. That is false research.

You must also define kill ratio, and here is where it gets fuzzy. Is kill ratio:

1. The number of air-to-air victories against the number of air-to-air losses in combat with enemy aircraft?
2. The number of victories, including kills on the ground, against losses in combt, including losses to AAA, but not including operational losses such as running out of fuel or blowing a takeoff or landing?
3. The numebr of all kill versus the aggregate number of total losses including air-to-air losses, losses to AAA, operational losses, losses in training, but not including losses on the ground due to being bombed or straffed? What about losses because the fighter was parked next to another auircraft that caught fire and exploded?

There are more definitions, but you get the point. Next, once defined, are the data vailable for all the aircraft you want to compare? If so, where are the data?

I see above that it is purported that there were more P-51s than the Luftwafffe had planes. I might remind everyone that there 1,583 Allison-powered Mustangs built and 13,757 Merlin-powered Mustangs built, including post-war. During WWII, the total was about 12,500 and they were spread out among several theaters of war. That is, not all 12,500 or so made it to Europe. We also had quite a few here in the USA for training and some home defense should we be attacked. There were more than 30,000 Me 109s built during WWII, never mind the Fw 190s, of which there were 21,675 built during the war.

So I'm sure the claims that there were more Mustangs built than aircraft in the Luftwaffe is a false statement.

Of the great fighters, the P-51 is in there strongly, but so are the P-47, the Spitfire, the Me 109, the Fw 190, the Yak-3/9, and the La-5/7. Many would include the P-38 since it did so well in the Pacific. Personally, I am inclined to include the P-51, the Spitfire, the Me 109, and the La-7 as the best of the best, with the La-7 being right near the top. The Soviet fighters were superb from 1943 onward and by 1945, not many German planes could live long in the Russian air. That was mostly due to the Yak-3/9s and the Lavochkins.


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 13, 2012)

premise that are all claims rate, if i rememeber right the finnish G-50 in the continuation war get a 22:1 ratio


----------



## riacrato (Apr 13, 2012)

GregP said:


> The Hellcat's kill ratio was slightly over 19 : 1, not 13 : 1. It has the highest kill ratio of any WWII fighter, the Finnish Brewsters notwithstanding. To get a kill ratio for type, you don;t pick a single unit or country, you lump all the aircraft of taht type together. If you lump the Brewsters in service with all countries togetehr, they fade into the bottom of the list quickly, and we are left with admiration for the Finns who employed an obsoescent aircraft so well.
> 
> The same holds true for the FM-2 Wildcat. It gets lumped in with the other Wildcats.
> 
> ...


There were less than 20k Fw 190s produced, most likely around 19,4-19,5k. Of which ~12,5k were fighters, 5,6k were attackers (F-series) and 1,3k fighter bombers (G-series). These saw service from 1941-1945, many used in the east. In the late months many saw no service at all because they were either destroyed or simply not delivered. Whereas the Mustang entered late 1943.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 13, 2012)

Thorlifter said:


> There are people on here that know the statistics much better than I, but I can't see how range is one of your major determining factors in making the P-51 the greatest plane the allies had. What does range have to do with firepower, survivability, rate of climb, maneuverability, etc. These are true combat statistics, not how far it can fly.
> 
> Also, the P-51 had far greater numbers and better trained pilots than the Luftwaffe, which sure helped the allies gain air superiority.
> 
> I do agree with you about kill ratio's not meaning it's the greatest plane, but the two reasons you give, IMO, certainly don't mean it's the greatest either. The P-51 was a fine aircraft and gets all the glory in the ETO, but many members on this board, myself included, believe the F4U was a superior aircraft in most aspects.



Thor - some thoughts and facts to ponder. I have populated and checked my USAF 85 Victory Credits. The Following is a summary by aircraft. I also broke them out by time as many P-47 groups converted to Mustangs as well as all the P-38 groups.

The numbers for ETO/USAAF ONLY 1942-May, 1945 - 8th and 9th AF combined
Spitfire 15.0
P38 452.0
P-47 2,658.4
P-51 4,179.2
P-61 128.0

The 'crossover' point for the transisition from P-47 to P-51 as dominant ETO fighter occurred from Big Week to Big B, February 20, 1944 through March 8, 1944.

Between Feb 20 and Feb 29 the Jug (all 8th and 9th AF P-47s combined) outscored the Mustang 140 to 64.5. From March 1 through March 8 the Mustangs (4 FG's, one with two days experience (355th), two with one and three weeks experience (357/4th) and one with three months (354FG) - outscored all 11 P-47 Groups (56, 78, 352, 353, 355(six days), 356, 358, 359, 361, 362, 365) - 108 to 86. This includes the 9th AF Jugs 358, 362 and 365FG's which were flying Penetration and Withdrawal escort along with all the 8th AF Jugs,

By the end of March the tally for P-51s during March was 254 to 176 for the Jugs. April was 322 to 85 Mustang over P-47.

This does not include aircraft destroyed on the Ground by the P-51 in that period. From January through May the P-51 destroyed. count was 529 to 164.5 for the Jug

All in - 8th and 9th AF combined Jan 1 through May 31 leading up to control of the air over Normandy beaches
P-47 Destroyed 764.5 air and 164.5 ground. The P-51 destroyed 1142.3 air and 529 ground

It was the end of May, 1944 when the Mustang passed the P-47 in *total cumulative air victory credits in the ETO from the time the P-47 entered combat ops in ETO in March/April 1943 through May 1944.. with P-47s flying nearly 3.5x the sorties*.

Apologise for boring you guys with the stats
Regards,

Bill


----------



## drgondog (Apr 13, 2012)

Another Note - some repetitive - The Jugs (8th and 9th combined including 358th and 362nd) destroyed 244.5 to 71 from January 1 through Feb 19 (all 354FG-9th AF).

The Jugs were credited with 316 from Feb 20 (Big Week) through 3/31, Mustangs in four groups, (three very short term operationally) destroyed 318.5. These P-51 scores included the 4th, 355th and 357th with the 4th and 355th contributing only after March 3.

*In summary the Mustangs were greatly outnumbered by the number of P-47s during this period - but destroyed more German aircraft - most deep into Germany*

In April, the Jugs were credited with 85 and the 51s were credited with 322.7. It was in April that the Mustang CUMULATIVELY destroyed more ETO a/c in the air than all the P-47 FG's in the 8th and 9th AF during 1944. The P-51 had not yet surpassed the P-47 in air credits counted from beginning of 1943 and does not include RAF Mustang credits.

It was at the end of May when the Mustangs destroyed more than All the P-47s credits for 1943 through May 1944 Cumulatively.

Next, The P-47s weren't killing the 'tough guys' that were killing the B-17 and B-24 crews out of range of the Jug (MOST of the Tough Guys) eastward from the Munster/Hannover line. Having said this, the guys the Jugs were chewing up had defended very well against the RAF and USAAF over Holland, North Sea, France and Belgium as well as western Germany - but the guys in Central Germany where the bombers had to go were crushing the 8th AF BC deep penetrations.

The Jugs were hurting JG26 and JG2 (mostly) during Penetration and Withdrawal Support along with far western Germany based JG3 and JG27, but the Mustang was killing the LuftFlotte Reich guys chartered with defending Brunswick, Berlin, Kassel, Freidrichshafen, Augsburg, Schweinfurt, etc and reinforced by all the reinforcements flooding in from the East and MTO.

Last - while not affecting pilot strength, the Mustangs were chewing up the LW on the ground as well as rail, road and canal traffic on the way home - compounding logistics to and from airfields to bring LW Gruppe's up to strength.

We can agree to disagree which is what these debates are all about and I do respect opposing opinions - I once heldd a similar view until I started diving into the separation of Lowlands battles from Germany battles to get control prior to D-Day.

Last but not least it was the four gun 'lightly armed' P-51B/C that did this damage. The P-51D was dribbling in very late May and AFIK did not have any credits before the end of May.


----------



## Thorlifter (Apr 13, 2012)

I appreciate the stats, Bill. I kinda figured you would chime in, and hoped you would as I highly respect your knowledge of the war.

Greg, yeah, I didn't state what I was thinking very well at all so thank you for pointing that out. I did know there were many more 109's and 190's than P-51's produced over the coarse of the war. What I was thinking was the later stages of '44 through '45 when the Luftwaffe consisted of ill-trained "rookies" due to lack of oil/gas/time and the allied air forces had air superiority and were basically seeking out targets of opportunity.


----------



## JoeB (Apr 13, 2012)

GregP said:


> To get a kill ratio for type, you don;t pick a single unit or country, you lump all the aircraft of taht type together.
> 
> You must also define kill ratio, and here is where it gets fuzzy. Is kill ratio:
> 
> ...


Good questions with no absolute answers, but IMO it's most meaningful to compare strictly apples to apples as far as possible: a/c downed in air combat on each side. This still leaves some ambiguity in the definition of loss (personally I would include a/c which force or crashlanded away from their bases due to air combat damage as 'downed' by the other side even if, in rare cases, later salvaged and repaired; a/c which belly landed at a friendly base with air combat damage similarly; also a/c known to have landed on wheels at a friendly base but never repaired; and also fuel exhaustion losses *if* related to being chased by enemy a/c). I see no value in comparing AA losses on one side to air combat losses on the other, likewise accidents or ground losses. It's a separate issue whether a particular a/c had a high accident rate, and while some a/c were more vulnerable to AA than others, absolute AA loss rates had far more to do with the employment of the a/c and nature of AA opposition than characteristics of the a/c, and ground losses had almost nothing to do with the characteristics of a/c or pilots.

Also needless to say, a meaningful kill ratio should count kills and losses the same way on both sides. So, the 19:1 Hellcat ratio is essentially meaningless because it counts 'losses' as those recorded by the USN but 'kills' as those claimed by the USN. Any comparison of losses recorded by each side with kill claims by each side in the same combats shows that claims and actual losses are different things; the relationship between them varied widely. 

What this leaves us with I think is that in general it's impossible to calculate meaningful kill ratios for a whole type for the whole war. It is often possible though to calculate a meaningful ratio for particular units or fighter arms over particular periods, using the combat reports of both sides. In some cases it's quite easy (smaller more isolated theaters with complete records on each side, for example early Pacific campaigns involving JNAF) though others harder (huge theater like ETO in 1944) or impossible (1945 campaigns with lots of missing Axis records).

Also, in some limited cases it's meangingful to compare kill ratio's of fighters v bombers. For example, it might be for various German fighters against USAAF heavy bombers, which were tough targets, even unescorted. However in general modern WWII fighters could make quick work of most bombers and other non-fighters, and seldom suffer heavy losses doing so, if not seriously interfered with by opposing fighters. The fighter role that separated the sheep from the goats was combat against opposing fighters. So fighter v fighter kill ratios, calculated on the basis given above, are the most meaningful and interesting kill ratio statistic IMO. Calculating the ratio when Bf109E's went after unescorted Fairey Battles, v Hurricanes attacking unescorted Ju-87's, v F6F's attacking unescorted Type 99 Carrier Bombers, is not that interesting or informative IMO. Any modern WWII fighter would 'feast' against any of those targets. Accurately calculated kill ratio against opposing fighters is the statistic that really varied greatly, and which still delivers many surprises as compared to long quoted claims v losses ratio's.

Joe


----------



## GregP (Apr 13, 2012)

The reason I mentioned operational losses, such as losses to running out of fuel, mechanical failure, pilot got lost, midair collision with a friendly, landing gear failed to extend, etc. is because that on some types, operational losses are almost 10 times combat losses.

In fact, if you include operational losses in the kill ratio, MANY fightgers don't look so good on ALL sides.

Another sticky point is the definition of a "combat loss." If a plane got shot up badly in combat, but made it home, only to be scrapped, is that a combat loss? What about if he got shot up in combat and survived to disengage, but had to bail out on the way home ... is THAT a combat loss? The problem is, Germany considered these to be combat losses and the U.S.A. did not. In the the U.S.A., a combat loss is one that is lost in the heat of combat or in leaving combat in the immediate area, not on the way home after successful disengagement. Those were contained in "operational Losses" whereas some other countries considered them as combat losses.

What about if you are out of ammunition but dive on an enemy, he sees you and bails out! Did you get a kill and is that a combat loss or an operational loss? It happened and some people got credit for kills that way!

Things get pretty fuzzy for "kills" and "losses" when you dig into it. 

About you Brewster and FM-2 guys, my argument goes like this:

Does anyone try to break out the Allison-powered P-51 kills from the Merlin-powered ones? Do we differentialte between the Merlin-powered Spitfires and the Griffon-powered ones? What about the DB 601-powered Me 109s versus the DB 605-powered ones? Or the radial versus inline Fw 190's? If we don't differentiate these, then we should not differentiate the FM-2 from other Wildcats or the Finnish Brewsters from the American ones unless you want to looko at national kill ratios for all the planes, not just the Brewsters. If we are looking at kill ratio for a type, then look at the type as a whole. If you want to single out the Finns, how about a partitular P-51 unit operating in Europe for a period of, say, two months? Is that a fair grouping for an individual kill ratio? If not, then group the Finns in the rest of the Brrewsters and let it go. if it is, what are the limits of an individual kiill ratio? 

I KNOW I can find SOMEONE who shot down at least one enemy and was never himself shot down. Does he have an infinite kill ratio due to no losses?

In my book, a kill ratio is a fair comparion in the same theater of war, but it is fraught with difficulty to compare a Pacific kill ratio to a European one, and I tend to want to see an aircraft type as a whole for a kill ratio, not a particualr theater of operations. You, of course, have your own particular method of comparion and it is probably as valid in your book as my method is in mine.

Cheers!


----------



## JoeB (Apr 14, 2012)

GregP said:


> Another sticky point is the definition of a "combat loss." If a plane got shot up badly in combat, but made it home, only to be scrapped, is that a combat loss? What about if he got shot up in combat and survived to disengage, but had to bail out on the way home ... is THAT a combat loss? The problem is, Germany considered these to be combat losses and the U.S.A. did not. In the the U.S.A., a combat loss is one that is lost in the heat of combat or in leaving combat in the immediate area, not on the way home after successful disengagement. Those were contained in "operational Losses" whereas some other countries considered them as combat losses.


I mainly agree with the other points, non air combat losses were important. But, I still don't see the point in calculating a ratio of losses including many or most not caused by the other side's fighters, and calling it a 'kill ratio'. A meanigful kill ratio IMO counts kills, air combat losses.

Anyway to focus on the point I quoted:

'Kill ratios' calculated by one side as big totals for types in whole wars or whole big theaters over a long period are generally of limited use, I agree. They might be somewhat indicative. for example the USN calculated fighter v fighter kill ratio's of FM-2, F6F and F4U in Sep 44-Aug 45 period, in "Naval Aviation Combat Statistics" (where the very high FM ratio often quoted comes from). In that case, factors like definition of air combat loss and accuracy of claims would tend to be the same for each type, and thus drop out of the analysis. The FM met a somewhat different cross section of opposition, but still its higher claimed ratio (than F6F/F4U) tends to indicate that its aerodynamic performance, low speed especially, was not that grave a handicap in actual combat. Moreover, it shows that F6F (mainly -5 types in that period) and F4U (mainly still -1 types) ratio's were virtually identical, and those two types faced very similar fighter opposition in that period. Whatever performance advantage F6F or F4U was insufficient to create a noticeable difference in real world fighter combat results v basically the same opposition in the same period. That's a worthwhile insight from the NACS statistics.

However, to stick with this example, those claimed kill ratio's I agree cannot be directly compared to ones of other air arms in other theaters. And needless to say, if we had a Japanese document like NACS for the same period, the results given would be different.

But, if we have complete combat reports for each side for a particular theater and period we can cut not only the issue of claim v actual loss on the other side, but we can also eliminate a lot of the ambiguities of what each side designated an air combat loss in compiling larger totals. For example, fighter operations in New Guinea in 1942 are pretty clear. For much of the campaign only a single JNAF fighter unit was involved, and their detailed combat reports still exist for almost every day's operations, so do those of the other units involved at various times. The fates of a/c are generally clear with relatively few truly ambiguous cases. And though I've never directly studied the RAAF/USAAF records in the campaign (the Japanese ones are online, US/Aussies ones aren't!) detailed books exist based on such study which make pretty clear what the US/Aussie fighter losses were in each day's combat and what caused each, regardless of how they might have been included in larger totals. Calculating that kill ratio to a reasonable band of certainty is not hard, and not subject to vastly different answers among objective researchers, IMO. The main reason for the vast difference between claim v. loss ratio's on each side and loss v. loss ratio using both side's records, is overclaim. Ambiguity of own-loss numbers/causes is a much smaller factor. I think this is generally true.

Also though it's somewhat tangent, because again I doubt any kill ratio calculated 'top down' based on big totals rather than analyzing individual combats 'bottom up', it's not necessarily true that US air arms counted a/c lost away from the immediate combat area as 'operational loss'. That's often said about USAF in Korea for example. But I've studied that closely, and it's not true. A/c abandoned or crashlanded due to known air combat damage in Korea were almost invariably counted as air combat losses no matter where it happened, including B-29's; the ambiguity for B-29 losses in that war was mainly a/c which returned on their wheels but were never repaired (B-29's were mostly scrapped in 1954 anyway, and it's still not a large % of the losses). Although, it seems in WWII 20th AF did often count B-29's which ditched far from Japan as operational losses even though combat damaged; I haven't studied that as closely. I don't know the degree if any USN did this though, and AFAIK loss accounting varied by numbered USAAF and period. So I doubt how broadly your statement actually applies, though it might in some cases. But again, individual records generally allow a standard definition to be applied regardless of how totals might have been tallied at the time.

Joe


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 14, 2012)

GregP said:


> The Hellcat's kill ratio was slightly over 19 : 1, not 13 : 1. It has the highest kill ratio of any WWII fighter, the Finnish Brewsters notwithstanding. To get a kill ratio for type, you don;t pick a single unit or country, you lump all the aircraft of taht type together. If you lump the Brewsters in service with all countries togetehr, they fade into the bottom of the list quickly, and we are left with admiration for the Finns who employed an obsoescent aircraft so well.



Actually, I think you'll find the 26:1 ratio is for all Brewsters produced, not just the Finnish airframes. The Commonwealth and Dutch forces in the Far East achieved at least parity in kills to combat losses which leaves the USMC at Midway as the one major kill-loss deficit for the type.


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 14, 2012)

JoeB said:


> Accurately calculated kill ratio against opposing fighters is the statistic that really varied greatly, and which still delivers many surprises as compared to long quoted claims v losses ratio's.



But even then the bland statistics are unlikely to tell the whole story. There's an old saying that if you enter a fighter engagement on equal terms then you're doing it wrong, and there are plenty of factors involved in getting fighter units positioned to engage (amount of warning, ability of the command structure to make a decision etc). Even the simple factor of whether the fighter is on the attacking or defending side can make a huge difference in the outcome of a battle. Statistics are a measure but, per your other posts, it's very easy to twist them to suit an agenda.


----------



## GregP (Apr 14, 2012)

I don't think you will find that for the Brewsters at all ...


----------



## wuzak (Apr 15, 2012)

So, if you were in a Mosquito bomber, which has no guns, and an Fw190 or Bf109 is chasing you and they run out of fuel should you get credit for a "kill"?


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 15, 2012)

Finnish brewster got 478 claims for 23 losses almost for a old site now off line (FAF aircraft)


----------



## GregP (Apr 15, 2012)

what about all the rest of the Brewsters all put together? Tough to find their combat records, but the Buffalo was not a match for the Luftwaffe in most cases.

Hurray for the Fins! Wonder how they would have done if we had supplied them with good planes? Now there is a "what if !"


----------



## Glider (Apr 15, 2012)

wuzak said:


> So, if you were in a Mosquito bomber, which has no guns, and an Fw190 or Bf109 is chasing you and they run out of fuel should you get credit for a "kill"?



I think I am right in saying that a Mk IV bomber was awarded a kill when a 109 collided with it, the 109 went down and the Mosquito made it home.


----------



## JoeB (Apr 16, 2012)

buffnut453 said:


> 1. But even then the bland statistics are unlikely to tell the whole story. There's an old saying that if you enter a fighter engagement on equal terms then you're doing it wrong, and there are plenty of factors involved in getting fighter units positioned to engage (amount of warning, ability of the command structure to make a decision etc).
> 
> 2. Even the simple factor of whether the fighter is on the attacking or defending side can make a huge difference in the outcome of a battle.
> 
> 3. Statistics are a measure but, per your other posts, it's very easy to twist them to suit an agenda.


1. Kill ratio's in fighter combat are an important indicator of the relative effectiveness of the opposing fighter units or fighter arms involved, including but not limited to the quality of their a/c. There is no way to absolutely disentangle the effects of material and human factors in warfare, aerial warfare or any other kind. 'Counterpoints' which point this out as if it isn't already obvious are just knocking down a straw man.

2. Outcome of a single battle can be anything. But if your contention is that defense or offense in overall campaign was a clear and persistent advantage or disadvantage in kill ratio's, I don't know what your evidence would be. One contentious topic is Spitfire kill ratio over Australia in 1943 on defense, but it was clear in the plane's earlier career that it was more disadvantaged when forced to the limit of its short radius on offense, and more in its element on defense; same for the Bf109 (slightly lower Bf109 fighter kill ratio in BoB than BoF, much higher ratio against RAF sweeps over France later on, pretty effective right over Malta, but even large Bf109F escort forces caused remarkably little trouble for small FAA fighter contingents defending convoys at any distance from Malta). Other fighters (Zero, P-38 ) would not have been affected much by fuel constraints over those same distances. I don't see offense and defense per se as being big factors in fighter success. And 'we had to attack the bombers not worry about fighters' and 'we had to protect the bombers not worry about kills v fighters' were rationalizations, not rational arguments why fighters on offense or defense had any inherent advantage.

Anyway, the most contentious comparisons of kill ratio's we've had around here compare the differing kill ratio's of different Allied fighters/air arms on defense v the Japanese. And many air campaigns of WWII still resembled those of WWI with fighters meeting over a land front w. neither being consistently on offense or defense as far as the air fighting.

Again I think straw men are being bashed around if the idea is that statistical analysis of fighter campaigns typically draws strong conclusions when comparing highly different situations, or draws strong conclusions from small ratio differences even in similar situations. It seems to me it's more usual that the comparison is of fairly similar situations with big ratio differences, then some people stretch credulity in trying to wholly explain large ratio differences w/ relatively more minor situational differences.

3. I didn't say accurately calculated kill ratio's were easy to twist to suit an agenda, but rather that many conclusions have been reached based on innaccurate or meaningless ratio's. Or are you are saying I twist statistics with an agenda? If so please give some examples.

Joe


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 17, 2012)

Joe, 

I wasn't stating that defence or offence was consistently an advantage or disadvantage, merely observing that it makes a difference to the situation. Nor am I saying that you twist statistics with an agenda, simply that statistics can be easily misused - your posts earlier in this thread (back a page or two) agree with this statement.


----------



## renrich (Apr 18, 2012)

I think what Joe B is saying which seems valid is that "kill ratios" compare the number of EA credited to a certain fighter type in ACM versus the number of that fighter type destroyed by the enemy in ACM.

An example is that USN carrier based Hellcats flew 62240 action sorties in the war and lost 245 to EA in ACM but were credited with 4955 EA destroyed in ACM. Looks awfully one sided but hold the phone. We almost know for sure how many Hellcats were destroyed by EA in ACM but the number of EA destroyed in ACM by Hellcats is problematical. Late research has shown that overclaiming by both sides was endemic so those credits for the Hellcat are almost surely inflated, maybe by as much as 30-40%.

Here is another point. Someone earlier in this thread claimed that the Hellcat was matched against the "flimsy" Zeke which was an advantage over the comparisons with fighters in the ETO. Well, maybe and maybe not but the fact is that the Navy Hellcat is credited with kills of 3568 fighters and 1387 bombers so it did not spend all it's time against Zekes.

In contrast the Marine land based F4U type was credited with 300 bomber kills and 1100 fighter kills so it spent a little more time against fighters than against bombers than did the Hellcat.

One more question to muddy the water and I have no answer is that if a Zeke loaded with a bomb is making a kamikaze attack and it is intercepted and shot down by a Hellcat or Corsair or FM2, is that Zeke a fighter or bomber.

Another point to muddy the water is that the F4U went into action about six months before the Hellcat against probably more experienced IJN pilots. Does that factor in?


----------



## Randy (Mar 1, 2019)

Negative Creep said:


> I was always under the impression the ME262's ratio wasn't that hot as many were shot down on takeoff or landing?


me 262 kill ratio was 4:1 in the air. Almost all bombers protected by allied fighters. ME262 was not a dogfighter it was a bomber interceptor and fighter bomber. ME 262s often operated with FW 190s for protection especially during takeoffs and landings. The 4:1 ratio against escorted bombers was plent good enough for Germany to win the air war over Germany if only they had enough ME262s. They didn't. They had so few that their contribution was close to zero.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 1, 2019)

Randy said:


> me 262 kill ratio was 4:1 in the air. Almost all bombers protected by allied fighters. ME262 was not a dogfighter it was a bomber interceptor and fighter bomber. ME 262s often operated with FW 190s for protection especially during takeoffs and landings. The 4:1 ratio against escorted bombers was plent good enough for Germany to win the air war over Germany if only they had enough ME262s. They didn't. They had so few that their contribution was close to zero.


The 4:1 were claims and many unconfirmed when compared to combat loss records.

"German Jets in Combat" by Ethell and Price: "from a detailed study of British and American records it appears in the fighter role it caused the destruction of no more than 150 Allied aircraft-for the loss of about 100 Me 262 in aerial combat" 

I'm sure some of members have additional information on this subject.


----------



## Dimlee (Mar 1, 2019)

Probably those 100 lost included losses during landing and take off?
It would be interesting to now the ratio.


----------



## alsaad (Mar 1, 2019)

timshatz said:


> I think Soren got it right the first time. The F15 has no losses in air to air. I think the same is said for the F16 as well. I think both of them have over 100 kills with no losses.
> 
> So, the loss rate doesn't exist for them because there are no air to air losses. Technically, they have no loss rate.



F15D from IAF killed by Syrian MIG21MF with R60 missile on 09 of June 1982. So even IAF F15 score is much higher it is not true that no F15 was shoot down.


----------



## Randy (Mar 1, 2019)

Dimlee said:


> Probably those 100 lost included losses during landing and take off?
> It would be interesting to now the ratio.


The jet engines had a tendency to "flame out" at high speeds in high altitudes (bombers flew high). After flameout they were easy pickings for Mustangs unless FW190s were able to help


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 1, 2019)

alsaad said:


> F15D from IAF killed by Syrian MIG21MF with R60 missile on 09 of June 1982. So even IAF F15 score is much higher it is not true that no F15 was shoot down.



Hmmmm, I’m not so sure about that. You got any info on that? I’m not showing that in the list of losses...


----------



## soulezoo (Mar 1, 2019)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Hmmmm, I’m not so sure about that. You got any info on that? I’m not showing that in the list of losses...



Only a guess, but he may be referring to "Operation Mole Cricket". Officially 2 F-15's were damaged but repaired and returned to service. However, in Wiki, I found this quote:
"The Soviet military newspaper _Krasnaya Zvezda_ announced that "sixty-seven Israeli aircraft, including modern US-made F-15 and F-16 fighters, were downed" in the fighting. The newspaper also reported a meeting with a Syrian airman who recounted an engagement in which he shot down an Israeli F-15: "The victory had not been easy; the enemy had been subtle". Even within Soviet ranks, these claims met with great skepticism.[27]"


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 1, 2019)

soulezoo said:


> Only a guess, but he may be referring to "Operation Mole Cricket". Officially 2 F-15's were damaged but repaired and returned to service. However, in Wiki, I found this quote:
> "The Soviet military newspaper _Krasnaya Zvezda_ announced that "sixty-seven Israeli aircraft, including modern US-made F-15 and F-16 fighters, were downed" in the fighting. The newspaper also reported a meeting with a Syrian airman who recounted an engagement in which he shot down an Israeli F-15: "The victory had not been easy; the enemy had been subtle". Even within Soviet ranks, these claims met with great skepticism.[27]"



I am sure that is it as well, but there is no evidence to back it up.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Mar 1, 2019)

soulezoo said:


> "The Soviet military newspaper _Krasnaya Zvezda_ announced



I used to be avid reader of _Krasnaya Zvezda_ in late 1970s and 1980s. Now I consider the time spent on reading that newspaper as completely wasted.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Mar 1, 2019)

alsaad said:


> F15D from IAF killed by Syrian MIG21MF with R60 missile on 09 of June 1982. So even IAF F15 score is much higher it is not true that no F15 was shoot down.



Proof? 

This is news to MacAir and Boeing, as well as the IAF. Boeing advertises a 104 to Zero kill ratio. 

I sense a “we didn’t put a man on the moon” scale cover up. Or not...

If the Russians had truly brought down an Eagle they would advertise it, just like we do when we drop their stuff. It’s how you sell planes.

There was also a poster put out after Desert Storm stating every enemy fighter downed was by an airplane built by MacD.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 1, 2019)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
3 | Winner Winner:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## alsaad (Mar 2, 2019)

Here it is...Book, data and bibliography...it is in Bosnian language but I think you'll manage to get it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 2, 2019)

And where is the evidence to back it up? I can write anything I want.

The sun is green. There you go, it’s fact.


----------



## alsaad (Mar 2, 2019)

I just copied from the book just like mostly everyone here gains a knowledge from the literature. And also question can be asked where is the evidence that it didn't happened?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 2, 2019)

alsaad said:


> I just copied from the book just like mostly everyone here gains a knowledge from the literature. And also question can be asked where is the evidence that it didn't happened?



When someone makes a claim, the burden of proof is on them. Have you looked at IDF loss reports, and compared to this claim?

The book you posted is not evidence.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## alsaad (Mar 2, 2019)

Is there a possibility that for some reason Israelis might not publish a loss of F15?


----------



## fubar57 (Mar 2, 2019)

The June 9, '82 battle mentioned in the book above...

This dogfight between 200 Israeli and Syrian jets was one of the biggest of all time

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 2, 2019)

alsaad said:


> Is there a possibility that for some reason Israelis might not publish a loss of F15?



Why would the Syrians or the Russians who back them not show wreckage as evidence? It would have been in the best interest for them to do so. Look what the Serbs did when they shot down the F-117...

Why would family members not come forward over the years and grieve for their lost loved one?

Again the burden of proof lies in the person making the claim. No evidence? Then it’s just a claim and nothing else. Everything points to possible damage, being returned to service, if anything.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Mar 2, 2019)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Why would the Syrians or the Russians who back them not show wreckage as evidence? It would have been in the best interest for them to do so. Look what the Serbs did when they shot down the F-117...
> 
> Why would family members not come forward over the years and grieve for their lost loved one?
> 
> Again the burden of proof lies in the person making the claim. No evidence? Then it’s just a claim and nothing else. Everything points to possible damage, being returned to service, if anything.


That's pretty much what I was thinking. If an F15 had indeed been shot down it would have been in Russian media for months. Heck, some of our own media tends to be a bit hostile to all things military and would have been more than happy to relay any Russian footage regarding such a loss.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 2, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> That's pretty much what I was thinking. If an F15 had indeed been shot down it would have been in Russian media for months. Heck, some of our own media tends to be a bit hostile to all things military and would have been more than happy to relay any Russian footage regarding such a loss.



It would have been all over our media.

“Soviet backed Syrian jets shoot down American built Israeli F-15!”

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 2, 2019)

alsaad said:


> I just copied from the book just like mostly everyone here gains a knowledge from the literature. And also question can be asked where is the evidence that it didn't happened?



Its funny - the author of that book seems to use several internet sources that show some of the same kills as unconfirmed and probables


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 2, 2019)

Out of curiosity ... Kashmir India-Pakistan ... whose flying what? .. and losing what? Anyone


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 2, 2019)

michaelmaltby said:


> Out of curiosity ... Kashmir India-Pakistan ... whose flying what? .. and losing what? Anyone


There was a website that had many if not all post WW2 conflicts documented pretty well. I think the IAF aircraft shot down the the other day was a late model MiG-21


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 2, 2019)

thank you

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 2, 2019)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Mar 7, 2019)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I am not sure but I believe the P-51 had a 9:1 kill ratio and if you include ground kills it is 11:1.
> 
> I believe the Bf 109 had a 12:1 against Russian aircraft.



For the whole war or just the early years?


----------



## Schweik (Mar 7, 2019)

timshatz said:


> I think Soren got it right the first time. The F15 has no losses in air to air. I think the same is said for the F16 as well. I think both of them have over 100 kills with no losses.
> 
> So, the loss rate doesn't exist for them because there are no air to air losses. Technically, they have no loss rate.




I think one or two F-16s have gone down. At least one in this case:

*Aegean dispute*







8 October 1996 – 7 months after the escalation of the dispute with Turkey over the Imia/Kardak islands, a Greek Mirage 2000 fired an R.550 Magic II missile and shot down a Turkish F-16D[29] over the Aegean Sea. The Turkish pilot died, while the co-pilot ejected and was rescued by Greek forces.[30] In August 2012, after the downing of a RF-4E on the Syrian Coast, Turkish Defence Minister İsmet Yılmaz confirmed that the Turkish F-16D was shot down by a Greek Mirage 2000 with an R.550 Magic II in 1996 after reportedly violating Greek airspace near Chios island.[31] Greece denies that the F-16 was shot down.[32] Both Mirage 2000 pilots reported that the F-16 caught fire and they saw one parachute.[33]
List of aircraft shootdowns - Wikipedia

The Serbians also shot down an F-16 with a SAM but that is not air-to-air


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 7, 2019)

Schweik said:


> For the whole war or just the early years?



2009 man, 2009...

Ask me about a post in this decade please. 10 years ago I said I was not sure.


----------



## Schweik (Mar 7, 2019)

My apologies, sorry the thread popped up and I started reading and replied without noticing the date... the reason I was asking is that early war (1941-43) German victories over the Russians (or other Allies too, but to a lesser extent) tend to be glorified but German losses to the Russians (and other Allies too but it's not as fraught of an issue) in say 1944-45 tend to be downplayed or rationalized because of the difficult conditions the Germans were operating under by that late date, in terms of training, logistics, manpower etc.

Not saying you were doing this but I have noticed it in other venues and it's kind of a pet peeve.


----------



## Csch605 (Mar 7, 2019)

Soren said:


> Highest kill ratio ever ? Try the F-15 Eagle.
> 
> As for during WW2, I believe maybe the Me-262.


Yes never a air to air loss. Not one.


drgondog said:


> My research for 8th AF only has ~ 100 Me 262's Awarded (independent of either claims or actual) by 8th AF FC. The ratio's for Mustangs was ~ 10.7:1, the P-47's ~ 7.5:1 and the P-38's were ~ 2.6:1
> 
> These are 1.) Air Awards as recorded first by 8th AF VCB, then revised by USAF Study 85., 2.) reflect air combat awards against both known air combat losses and 'unknown cause' for which enemy aircraft were noted in the area.. this ratio does include mid air collisioons between 8th AF fighters during a bounce, or a collision with a Luftwaffe fighter or its debris.
> 
> ...


The numbers for allied fighter losses look mathematically impossible. The 262 must have had a straight line high speed attack with small maneuvers so as to hit the US bombers. Head on defense by US fighters and finishing off damaged 262s hit by bomber gunners were invariably


----------



## Csch605 (Mar 7, 2019)

Negative Creep said:


> The Finnish Buffaloes gave a very good account for themselves as well


Yes they have the highest kill ratio. The old Russian bombers were open cockpit and open gunner positions. The Buffaloes 30 calibers could barely damage the rugged Russian planes so they shot the open exposed pilots. Some may say the numbers were not really fair since the Russian planes were so obsolete. The Me109 and Zero took those kills with no problem. The Corsair and Hellcats got mega kamikaze kills where the pilots did no evasive maneuvers. Everyone gets the credit whether it was a biplane seaplane or 262 all count the same.


----------



## CatTheCool (Mar 11, 2019)

Finish Brewster Buffalo 27:1

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## R Leonard (Mar 11, 2019)

That's nice.

The USN Eastern FM-2 credit to loss numbers were 422 to 13, or 32.46 to 1

Reactions: Winner Winner:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 11, 2019)

Csch605 said:


> Yes they have the highest kill ratio. The old Russian bombers were open cockpit and open gunner positions. The Buffaloes 30 calibers could barely damage the rugged Russian planes so they shot the open exposed pilots. Some may say the numbers were not really fair since the Russian planes were so obsolete. The Me109 and Zero took those kills with no problem. The Corsair and Hellcats got mega kamikaze kills where the pilots did no evasive maneuvers. Everyone gets the credit whether it was a biplane seaplane or 262 all count the same.



Lots of myth in that statement. The Brewster achieved kills against the Tupolev SB2, Petlyakov Pe2, Hawker Hurricane, P-40 and even Supermarine Spitfire which were hardly open-cockpit, obsolete types (the SB2 is debatable but the others absolutely were not). Bottom line is that Finland developed a well-trained fighter force that optimized the strengths of the aircraft they operated.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
6 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Mar 12, 2019)

Schweik said:


> For the whole war or just the early years?


I remember seeing some figures that said the fighters most shot down by the Germans were: LaGG-3, 5.5k i.e. most of those built; Spitfire, 3.3k, or 1 in 6; Hurricane, 2k, or 1 in 7. Also that damaged fighters are often used as decoys on airfields, so if you destroy one then you're probably claiming the same victory twice over.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Mar 12, 2019)

I think you can also add about ~6,000 I-15 and I-153 open-cockpit biplane fighters, about ~6,000* obsolescent, open cockpit I-16 fighters, 3,000 second rate MiG 1and Mig 3 fighters, about 2,000 obsolete SB bombers, ~1,000 even more obsolete DB-3 bombers, about 800 antiquated open cockpit, fixed landing gear TB-3 bombers, something like 10 or 15,000 open cockpit, fixed landing gear Po-2 utility / recon biplanes, about 7,000 open-cockpit , fixed-landing-gear Polikarpov R-5 biplane and R-Z biplane light bomber / recon planes, and a myriad of a few thousand more miscellaneous not ready for prime time aircraft, most shot down during the first year or two of war on the Russian Front.














In other words, counting the ~6,000 LaGG-3 fighters in Russia alone probably somewhere around 24,000 front line fighter and bomber aircraft that were obsolete and ill equipped (almost none of them had functional radios for example) not counting another ~20,000 second tier biplanes.

And even once the better Yak -1, 7 and 9, and La 5 series fighters came on line, during the first year or so they were plagued with serious production problems so in many cases they too were sitting ducks. And this is yet another reason why the Lend Lease and other Anglo-American aid was so important - Hurricanes, P-40s and P-39s with good functional _radio_s, guns that didn't jam constantly, properly sealed fuselage skin, canopies that didn't have to be left off because they wouldn't open reliably, undercarriage that seated properly when retracted, wings that didn't warp and so on, were more valuable (at least until Winter) than Yak-1s that were perhaps better on paper but couldn't be made to military standard under the open sky in hastily relocated factories in Siberia.














In the rest of Europe in the early war, among the victims of the Luftwaffe we should also count about 500 or so fixed undercarriage Gloster Gladiator biplane fighters (and another ~500 similar but less capable open cockpit, fixed undercarriage Gloster Gauntlet, and Britsol Bulldog biplane fighters), a jumble of ~300 Boulton Paul Defiants, Blackburn Skuas and Rocs and so forth, probably nearly 500 Westland Lysanders, 300 Pzl P.11 fixed landing gear, open cockpit fighters, about 1,000 obsolete Morane MS.406 fighters, 500 second rate Bloch 150 fighters, ~2,000 obsolescent Fairey Battle bombers, ~4,000 obsolescent Bristol Blenheim bombers, 300 obsolete fixed undercarriage Bloch M.B 200 and 600 MB 210 bombers, and close to a thousand miscellaneous and mostly obsolete French, Polish, Dutch, and Belgian bombers and other lesser European types.

And in many if not most cases, not counting the British and some of the French, most of these these planes were flown by relatively inexperienced and / or poorly / hastily trained pilots and flight crews, and often suffering from maintenance and supply problems to boot.






In other words, a lot of the early German fighter pilot conquests in WW2 boiled down to very low hanging fruit. A squadron of well trained pilots flying Bf 109E's intercepting a squadron of I-153's escorting DB-3 bombers isn't much of a contest. I don't want to overstate it - there were more modern fighters in France and England of course. But we heap glory on these aces for shooting down dozens of obsolescent enemy planes in 1940 and 1941, especially in Russia. And then we start giving out excuses right and left later in the war in 1943 and 44 when the Luftwaffe, now lacking experienced fighter pilots and dealing with their own logistics problems, starts to lose in big numbers against Spitfires and Yak-9s and P-47s.


There are good reasons why countries such as Poland, France, and Russia were not fully ready for war around 1939 and 1940 - first they had their hands too full trying to deal with the Great Depression to go on a crash modernization and mobilization effort, and second they knew that the previous war, WW I, was a *catastrophe for everyone involved*,_ especially _the Germans. So it was kind of hard to get your head around the idea that they were going to do this again. The assumption was that they wouldn't start another war because it was too risky _for them_. But the Germans had decided they were going to fight another war before everyone else did, so they had an initial advantage. In the long run of course, that is indeed how it turned out. Per google the Germans lost ~6-8 million soldiers & civilians due ultimately to their decision to start another war. But they got plenty of glory in the first year or two. Maybe that was worth it.

I think if they had been thinking clearly back in the 1930's they would have skipped the whole thing. But of course that would give us a lot less to discuss in places like this.


*3,300 I-15, 3,400 I-153, and 8,600 I-16 were produced, almost all of them shot down during the war, but I know some were exported to places like China, Spain etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Mar 12, 2019)

I will say though, on the other hand the Russians should have known better because they quite deviously assisted the Nazi regime in secretly rebuilding it's air force against the Versailles treaty, in one of the more incredible sub-plots of the run up to WW2.


----------



## Kevin J (Mar 12, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I will say though, on the other hand the Russians should have known better because they quite deviously assisted the Nazi regime in secretly rebuilding it's air force against the Versailles treaty, in one of the more incredible sub-plots of the run up to WW2.


Franco did of course know that Germany would lose the war as his mate Admiral Canaris had told him!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Mar 12, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Franco did of course know that Germany would lose the war as his mate Admiral Canaris had told him!


Seriously, serious. Franco and Canaris were old friends, and Canaris had advised him at the beginning of WW2 that Germany couldn't possibly win it so the Spanish stayed out.


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 12, 2019)

Csch605 said:


> The numbers for allied fighter losses look mathematically impossible. The 262 must have had a straight line high speed attack with small maneuvers so as to hit the US bombers. Head on defense by US fighters and finishing off damaged 262s hit by bomber gunners were invariably


The majority of Me262s downed by Allied fighter were not in combat, but rather at their airfields either landing or taking off, where the Me262 was at it's most vulnerable.

As for being damaged or downed by bomber defensive fire, the Me262 was too fast for the turrets to train on them and the flexible-mount gunners had great difficulty leading on them. This is not to say that it didn't happen, but it was not all that common.
Far more piston types, like the Bf109, Fw190 and Zerstorers were downed because of their lower attack speeds.

And Allied fighters were not immune from the four 30mm cannon, the Me262 accounted for quite a few Allied fighters, too.

Considering that a fraction of the over 1,400 Me262s produced ever saw combat (lack of fuel, pilots, transport, damaged at factory, etc.) and even then, many of those were used as bombers and high speed recon, those limited numbers (roughly 300) that saw action inflicted a great deal of damage on the Allied bombing effort in the year that they were operational. So in the end, the Me262 has a record of roughly 509 Allied types downed for about 100 lost which is an impressive ratio all things considered.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Mar 12, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I think you can also add about ~6,000 I-15 and I-153 open-cockpit biplane fighters, about ~6,000* obsolescent, open cockpit I-16 fighters, 3,000 second rate MiG 1and Mig 3 fighters, about 2,000 obsolete SB bombers, ~1,000 even more obsolete DB-3 bombers, about 800 antiquated open cockpit, fixed landing gear TB-3 bombers, something like 10 or 15,000 open cockpit, fixed landing gear Po-2 utility / recon biplanes, about 7,000 open-cockpit , fixed-landing-gear Polikarpov R-5 biplane and R-Z biplane light bomber / recon planes, and a myriad of a few thousand more miscellaneous not ready for prime time aircraft, most shot down during the first year or two of war on the Russian Front.
> 
> View attachment 531485
> View attachment 531489
> ...


Neither the I-153 nor the I-16 were completely useless. The I-153 could be used for close escort where all you have to do is drive off attacking fighters and the later versions of the I-16 were fast enough to intercept and shoot down most German bombers and it was highly manoeuvrable too. In mixed units of I-16's and MiG-3's they scored the majority of victories. The MiG-3 had excellent high altitude capabilities which meant it was unsuited to the Eastern Front, but okay for top cover. The LaGG-3 is another story, overweight, under powered and shoddily built because the factories building them had been transferred East at the beginning of the war. There were only a few Yak-1's originally, but both this and the Yak-7 were inferior to the Bf 109F; okay for close escort though as they were highly manoeuvrable.


----------



## Schweik (Mar 12, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Seriously, serious. Franco and Canaris were old friends, and Canaris had advised him at the beginning of WW2 that Germany couldn't possibly win it so the Spanish stayed out.



Yes he was very wise due to channeling the ghost of Torquemada


----------



## Kevin J (Mar 12, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Yes he was very wise due to channeling the ghost of Torquemada


I don't understand your response. Perhaps you can explain.


----------



## Schweik (Mar 12, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> The majority of Me262s downed by Allied fighter were not in combat, but rather at their airfields either landing or taking off, where the Me262 was at it's most vulnerable.
> 
> As for being damaged or downed by bomber defensive fire, the Me262 was too fast for the turrets to train on them and the flexible-mount gunners had great difficulty leading on them. This is not to say that it didn't happen, but it was not all that common.
> Far more piston types, like the Bf109, Fw190 and Zerstorers were downed because of their lower attack speeds.
> ...



The problem attacking the heavy bombers was two things - one the escorts, obviously, the other the bullet streams from large formations or 'boxes' of bombers. Attacking B-17s wasn't just a matter of getting one plane (it could be against damaged or stragglers, and that was much easier of course) but rather a 'Combat box' with somewhere between 30 - 120 heavy machine guns shooting at you at any one time for each group of 12 planes. A lot more if there were say 6 or 7 of those clustered together. This was very, very dangerous for any airplane.







They did find solutions - attacking from the front reduced the number of guns shooting at you a lot at first, from 50 some odd to about 10 or 12 for that same 12 bomber box. But more gun turrets in the chin etc. partially negated that (back up to 24 then 48 guns), and the skill needed to take down a well armored, four-engined bomber in one pass with even an up-gunned Bf 109 was not exactly widespread. Attacking vertically from odd angles also helped. But ultimately they needed something other than a regular air superiority fighter to do the job.

I think with the clarity of hindsight we can say that the Me 262 had a potentially very valuable niche due specifically to it's effectiveness against the US heavy bombers. 






The Germans had Bf 109s and Fw 190s that could duel with Allied escort fighters, but while they could also shoot down the 'heavies' - they were not very efficient at it in terms of losses taken vs. knock down's achieved. Dealing with escorts and dealing with B-17s and their lesser cousin, the B-24 were two very different jobs. The Germans also had heavy fighters, night fighters and fast bombers converted into fighters and so on, Fw 190 with extra armor and guns, Bf 110 and 410, Ju 388 and so on- which had sufficient firepower (numerous heavy cannon, rockets etc.) to silence defensive gunners and quickly shoot down a bomber in a few seconds, but after a few initial successes (Schweinfurt and Regensburg were won largely due to these formidable beasts), when the Americans adjusted these turned out to be highly vulnerable to the fighters.

The Me 262 threaded that needle in that it combined the speed to evade the fighters and to present a limited target to the defensive gunners, but also lethal enough with four x 30mm cannon to take out a B-17 in one pass. It didn't hurt that the Me 262 units that were flying were mostly piloted by a hand picked elite of fighter pilot experten. It's perhaps less clear how well they would have done with less experienced or well trained pilots.

Nevertheless, the issue to me isn't so much that Me 262's got a 5-1 or 2-1 kill ratio or whatever it actually was, it was that they had 5-1 or 2-1 against four engined heavy bombers that were day by day blasting the homeland to dust. If they had more, with good enough pilots to fly them, they probably could have checked the Strategic bombing offensive and then perhaps, concentrated their air assets on their bigger problem of the _Raboče-krestjjanskaja Krasnaja armija_.



When talking about kill ratios in other words, quality of the target as well as the quantity matters. Shooting down 3 or 4 B-17s in a single sortie is a lot more impressive and has much more impact on the war (IMO) than shooting down 3 or 4 I-153s.


----------



## Schweik (Mar 12, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Neither the I-153 nor the I-16 were completely useless. The I-153 could be used for close escort where all you have to do is drive off attacking fighters and the later versions of the I-16 were fast enough to intercept and shoot down most German bombers and it was highly manoeuvrable too. In mixed units of I-16's and MiG-3's they scored the majority of victories.



I'm not saying they were crap fighters, but I am saying that they were obsolescent by the time of Barbarossa. Not useless by then, but obsolescent. The I-16 was a 1934 design, based on the older (1933) I-15 series and before that the (1931) I-5. The I-16 was basically the culmination of that long and mostly successful lineage. Of course the Bf 109 is an old design too but it was a forward looking one, a new branch in fighter development rather than the end of an old one. Much like the difference between the Spitfire and the Hurricane, only more so. The I-16 was agile and maneuverable, but it was an open cockpit fighter, it almost never had a radio, it was hard to fly and took a deadly toll on inexperienced pilots. Most I-16's only had two or four light machine guns (albeit very good ones), Only the last models had cannons (though admittedly those, from I-16 / 24 onward, were more formidable) and it had a top speed of barely 320 mph. That just wasn't enough for WW2. It also couldn't really dive to pick up much more speed because there was risk of tearing the plane apart as you approached 400 mph.

The MiG 3 would have been more useful if there had been much high altitude fighting (it could manage 398 mph at 25,000 ft) but for the Russian Front, it wasn't very good - the very heavy engine didn't perform well down low (top speed 314 mph at sea level) and the plane, designed as an interceptor, was not maneuverable unlike the I-16 so it didn't even have that ace in the hole. It was also prone to stalls, spins etc. like the I-16 and harder to recover from them.



> The MiG-3 had excellent high altitude capabilities which meant it was unsuited to the Eastern Front, but okay for top cover.



Top cover of the Russian front would usually mean just below a 5,000 ft. cloud ceiling so not so much. It was badly outrun by the Bf 109 up to 16,000 feet.



> The LaGG-3 is another story, overweight, under powered and shoddily built because the factories building them had been transferred East at the beginning of the war. There were only a few Yak-1's originally, but both this and the Yak-7 were inferior to the Bf 109F; okay for close escort though as they were highly manoeuvrable.



The problems with build quality were almost universal in the Soviet Union in the first year or two of the war, to a greater or lesser extent in different factories. Yak 1 and Yak 7 had the same kinds of production problems as did MiG-3 and a lot of the later built I-16 and I-153. All of the planes with wood components in particular (i.e. most of them) suffered from delamination and other problems with the special birch plywood they were using which especially early on was vulnerable to moisture.


----------



## Schweik (Mar 12, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> I don't understand your response. Perhaps you can explain.



Without delving into forbidden territory and discussion of religion, in a nutshell you have people who are Catholic and then you have people who are CATHOLIC!!!. The Spanish nationalists, falangists, Carlists etc. who made up Franco's support base and friends were very much in the latter camp and one of their cherished dreams was bringing back the Inquisition. Torquemada was a famous inquisitor, so that was a little joke.

Also an allusion to the fact that whatever he may have been told, and whatever we think today thanks to hindsight, nobody could have predicted the outcome of WW2 in 1939. I think Spain staying out of it had more to do with their having already lost a million people in the Spanish Civil War and feeling like they had done their bit. Maybe already a little bit weary of the glory of total war as well.

Franco was concentrating on getting revenge on the Republicans and Commies and consolidating his new severe empire.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Mar 12, 2019)

I also don't think the Yak-1 and Yak-7 were greatly inferior to the Bf 109 _for the Russian Front_, assuming you had a well built one which is a big assumption. The Bf 109 was a better fighter all around in that it was good in a very wide range of environments and Theaters, it could fly cover for CAS at 5,000 feet or intercept four engine heavy bombers at 25,000 ft or duel with Spitfires at 18,000 ft.

The Yak only had to do one thing - destroy relatively small planes at low altitude over a very, very big tank and infantry battle, operating from forward airfields year round in a place with very bad weather that got down into the 30 below range in the winter. It didn't need a lot of guns for that job and it didn't need very long range or a lot of fancy instruments. It did need to have simple enough controls and forgiving enough flying characteristics that relatively novice pilots could put it to good use an relatively inexperienced ground crew could keep it running.

What it also needed was a level speed well above 350 mph, good agility and roll, good climb and dive rate, and accurate guns. It had all these things and while it may not have been quite as good, depending on the specific model and making the big assumption that you had a properly built one, I think a Yak -1 was pretty close to parity. About as good as a Bf 109E, better than a Bf 110, slightly inferior to a Bf 109F or G. For the Russian front.

Even the much reviled LaGG-3, eventually had a lot of the design problems addressed and once the build issues were more sorted out, while it perhaps wasn't as good as a Yak-1B it was a lot better than an I-16 or a I-153, and by 1942 was better liked by the Soviet pilots than some of the lend-lease planes. There were a few high scoring aces on the LaGG-3, and quite a few on the Yak-1, IB and Yak 7.


----------



## Dimlee (Mar 12, 2019)

Schweik said:


> There are good reasons why countries such as Poland, France, and Russia were not fully ready for war around 1939 and 1940 - first they had their hands too full trying to deal with the Great Depression to go on a crash modernization and mobilization effort, and second they knew that the previous war, WW I, was a *catastrophe for everyone involved*,_ especially _the Germans



Not Russia but USSR, Soviet Union. Really, please...

USSR was almost immune to the effects of the Great Depression. Actually, it probably benefited of it as it could buy technologies at lower prices and hundreds (thousands?) foreign engineers arrived to participate in the (military) industrial program.
USSR leadership did not care much about WWI consequences and future threats of new war. The course was firm and consistent: get ready to another world war which will put an end to the Capitalism. It was the policy openly stated and written down in the Party documents.

As for the numbers of VVS aircraft destroyed, I'm not convinced. Need to check loss statistics again but there were no 7000 P-5 and P-Z in service in 1941, I'm sure.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Mar 12, 2019)

I don't know how many P-5 and P-z , there were 7,000 R-5 produced starting in 1930, and it said 1,000 R-Z produced starting in 1935 so probably plenty of those around by 1941, though I admit I don't know how many. Wikipedia says 20,000 - 30,000 Po-2 were produced between 1929 and 1952 so I took a wild guess.

I think the numbers I posted for I-15, I-153, and I-16 are correct, as are the other main combat types.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 13, 2019)

I would note that of the older Russian types, especially the I-16, there were a number of variations, usually as regards to engines and performance of the older ones could be way down from the later ones. The I-16 is all over the place as not only did the engines go from 715hp in 1936 to 1100hp in 1939/40 but the armament was all over the place. Once you get to 1936 or so it was often four RCMGs with small batches (for soviet planes) of planes with a pair 20mm guns but some of the early cannon armed fighters had the 715-750hp engines and performance in 1941 is rather suspect (speed under 270mph at altitude) . In order to get good performance many of the last series built used two 7.63mm guns and a single 12.7mm machine guns. Please note that even empty rocket racks could knock 12-18mph off the speed of the fighter. 

The DB-3 bomber also went through the Tumansky M-85 engine, the M-86, the M-87 and the M-88 on the last models (which continued on in the IL-4) the later versions got variable pitch propellers. 

It might be subject to question just how many of these older aircraft were really in active service when the war started. The Soviets tended not to throw anything away but how many of theses planes were available for use and not waiting for spare parts/maintenance or simply "in storage for future use" is certainly subject to question. I have never really read anything on this but the Russian tank park has been written about. The Russians "lost" over 20,000 tanks during the invasion but since in some areas over 50% of the tanks listed on the books were NOT runners (waiting for parts/repairs) the Germans did not kill them on the battlefield but but overran the supply depots/repair shops were these tanks were, they were still "lost" to the Russian forces they had not served as target practice for the German tank and anti-tank gunners.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Mar 13, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I don't know how many P-5 and P-z , there were 7,000 R-5 produced starting in 1930, and it said 1,000 R-Z produced starting in 1935 so probably plenty of those around by 1941, though I admit I don't know how many. Wikipedia says 20,000 - 30,000 Po-2 were produced between 1929 and 1952 so I took a wild guess.
> 
> I think the numbers I posted for I-15, I-153, and I-16 are correct, as are the other main combat types.



I drafted rather long message... before the black out happened.

OK, just briefly at the moment.
R-5/R-Z.
I agree with your numbers. So now we know that 10,000 were not destroyed in WWII.
As for real losses, it is difficult to find the numbers, but my assumption is that there were hardly more than 2,000 of them available in 1941, all modifications and all sources of supply counted, including what was mobilised from the clubs and from the passenger fleet. And we know that they were still used in 1945 in the campaign against Japan and in 1947 against Ukrainian insurgents and lasted in some services until mid 1950s. I'll try get more info from the books of V.Kotelnikov who was probably the only one who studied this aircraft type in details.

I-153/I-16.
12,000 shot down by LW? Sorry, not possible. The most pessimistic figure of *all* VVS fighters combat losses I remember was some 9,600-9,800 in 1941-1942.

MiG-1/MiG-3.
3,000? Highly doubtful, since total number built was about 3,500.

I have doubts about other figures as well but will not comment right now. Will revert later.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Mar 14, 2019)

Dimlee said:


> I drafted rather long message... before the black out happened.
> 
> OK, just briefly at the moment.
> R-5/R-Z.
> ...



IIRC, the VVS was losing far more fighters as a result of weather conditions than to actual combat. Yes, wood does actually rot, but if you're only expecting to get about 80 sorties out of each and every fighter, then I imagine that it must be quite a cheap way of building fighters in a wartime scenario.


----------



## Vic Nighthorse (Mar 14, 2019)

I'd posit that like most, if not all statistics, the kill ratio doesn't mean much without a lot of context.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Vic Nighthorse (Mar 14, 2019)

*
S
 Schweik
* "Dealing with escorts and dealing with B-17s and their lesser cousin, the B-24 were two very different jobs." Why do you call B-24s "lesser"? The number of machine guns? This is a sincere rather than rhetorical question.


----------



## Schweik (Mar 15, 2019)

The B-24 was structurally weaker, didn't handle as well, had a much higher wing-loading, had a much lower service ceiling, and yes carried fewer guns (and I think less armor). They were much more likely to break apart when ditching or crash landing.

On the other hand the B-24 had a longer range and at least potentially, a heavier bomb load, and was faster.

Which was better really depended on the mission. For maritime patrol, some version of the B-24 wins out for me, for daylight bombing or anything involving contending with fighters, the B-17 takes the cake.

To me a B-24 was like a UPS truck.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 15, 2019)

"Lesser cousin"??
The B-24 was on a par with the B-17.

It could carry the same amount of ordnance at comparable speeds at comparable altitudes with comparable ranges.
And "fewer guns"? You realize that the 3 extra guns of the B-17 were idle at one time or another, right?

The Cheek guns had to be manned by the same guy, much like the Ju88, where the radio operator had to jump between one or the other depending on threat. Only the Chin, Ball, Waist, Tail and upper turret on a B-17 were dedicated positions - that's 10, same as the B-24.

I can see the B-25 or the B-26 being a "lesser cousin", but not the B-24.


----------



## Kevin J (Mar 15, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The B-24 was structurally weaker, didn't handle as well, had a much higher wing-loading, had a much lower service ceiling, and yes carried fewer guns (and I think less armor). They were much more likely to break apart when ditching or crash landing.
> 
> On the other hand the B-24 had a longer range and at least potentially, a heavier bomb load, and was faster.
> 
> ...



I think if you're handling German fighters then the B-17 is definitely the better plane, but against the majority of Italian and Japanese fighters which were less heavily armed and in theatres that required overflying lots of water, then the B-24 is the better option even though it was not as rugged as the B-17. I imagine this is the reason that 50% more Liberators than Flying Fortresses were built.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## soulezoo (Mar 15, 2019)

Liberators were designed with mass production in mind and were easier to manufacture by far. They could be produced in greater numbers faster than the -17. Plus, one more factory doing the building. 
Which was more desirable to fly is a different kettle of fish.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Mar 15, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> "Lesser cousin"??
> The B-24 was on a par with the B-17.
> 
> It could carry the same amount of ordnance at comparable speeds at comparable altitudes with comparable ranges.
> ...



From what I understand, when Liberators and Fortresses were flying together, the Liberators had to fly at a lower altitude. That alone made them more vulnerable to fighters and flak. Pilots complained about the limited view from the cockpit, and the aircraft had a wartime reputation as being comparatively fragile. They also seemed to catch fire more easily than the B-17. The wing had less lift meaning it was riskier to fly with one or more engines out.

It is partly subjective but it is by no means a new or unique observation on my part - the B-24 was the lesser cousin of the B-17. Yes definitely easier to manufacture. A bit more efficient in certain respects. To me, it was one of those planes that really did qualify as a 'bomb truck'. A UPS truck to be specific.


----------



## Dimlee (Mar 22, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> IIRC, the VVS was losing far more fighters as a result of weather conditions than to actual combat. Yes, wood does actually rot, but if you're only expecting to get about 80 sorties out of each and every fighter, then I imagine that it must be quite a cheap way of building fighters in a wartime scenario.



True. I can not speak for all war period, but statistics of some regiments in some months indicated up to 60% lost due to non combat reasons, not including vague "did not return from the mission" which could mean anything.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 27, 2020)

What I found more interesting is Me 262 jet claims against allied fighters.
Heinz Bar, probably the best Me262 _Experten_, claimed 18 daylight victories whilst flying the Me262, of which 16 were confirmed. Of those 18 claimed, only 2 were B-24's and 3 were B-26's. All the rest were fighters, 5 x P-51's and 8 x P-47's. AFAIKT Me 262 probably shot down 85 allied fighters.


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 27, 2020)

Csch605 said:


> The Corsair and Hellcats got mega kamikaze kills where the pilots did no evasive maneuvers.



Hmm, not sure how 'mega' is defined here, but it must be understood that the first officially coordinated Kamikaze mission didn't occur until October 25th, 1944 (during the Battle of Leyte Gulf). Yes, there were isolated cases before this date where Japanese pilots purposely crashed their aircraft into allied targets but the facts surrounding each attack are not very clear and some were most certainly products of Japanese propaganda.

According to NACS, by the end of October 1944 F6F and F4U pilots claimed a combined total of 4,076 victories and it's safe to assume that a very small percentage of these aircraft were actually being utilized in a dedicated suicide role. During the period of sustained Kamikaze attacks (November '44 - EOW) the two fighters claimed a total of 3,229 enemy aircraft. According to a USAF source there were approximately 2,800 Kamikaze attackers and of these it is estimated that 14% (392 aircraft) were successful at hitting their targets. The US Navy performed a study concerning the effectiveness of their anti-aircraft defenses during the period of Kamikaze attacks and came up with 1,192 suicide planes making it to the ships, and of this total 878 were effectively destroyed by AA gunners. What's more interesting to me is that during this same period there were almost 2.3 times more enemy aircraft attacking ships in a conventional manner (bombs, torpedoes, machine gun fire, ect.):

Dr Richard P. Hallion, 1999, "Precision Weapons, Power Projection, and The Revolution In Military Affairs" (USAF Historical Studies Office).

HyperWar: Antiaircraft Action Summary--World War II

This would leave approximately 1,500 aircraft that were lost to causes not attributed to intentional crashes or US anti-aircraft fire. It must be remembered that British ships were also targeted during these same 2,800 attacks but I have not seen any data concerning the success rates of their AA gunners or aircraft. Factor in suicide planes brought down by USAAF fighters over the Philippines, Okinawa, and the Japanese home islands and the original number of Kamikaze aircraft "available" to be shot down by F6F and F4U pilots dwindles even further (army pilots claimed almost 700 enemy aircraft during the Philippine campaign alone). There were also 194 claims made by FM-2 pilots from November '44 onward so those need to be considered as well.

I wish there was an easy way to uncover an accurate number of claims which were actual Kamikaze pilots and which were on conventional missions but there really isn't. The data is all over the place depending on your source. If we were to rely on what I presented earlier and use the US Navy's ratio of Kamikaze to non-Kamikaze attacks on ships we would end up with a figure of 1,345 suicide planes being claimed by F6F and F4U pilots (3,229 divided by 2.3), with F6Fs scoring roughly two-thirds of them. But this is assuming that the ratio of Kamikaze to conventional attacks stayed relatively constant throughout the war which I'm sure it didn't.

Has anyone here ever tried to nail-down these figures before? After looking at just a small sampling I'm overwhelmed concerning how to approach such a monumental task.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## R Leonard (Jan 29, 2020)

You might find this interesting on the subject of defense against the Kamikazes. The link goes to the Defense Technical Information Center and calls “Defense Against Kamikaze Attacks in World War II and its Relevance To Anti-Ship Missile Defense; Volume I - An Analytical History of Kamikaze Attacks Against Ships of the United States Navy during World War II” by Nicolai Timenes, Jr. A PDF of about 114 pages.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/725163.pdf

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 30, 2020)

R Leonard said:


> You might find this interesting on the subject of defense against the Kamikazes. The link goes to the Defense Technical Information Center and calls “Defense Against Kamikaze Attacks in World War II and its Relevance To Anti-Ship Missile Defense; Volume I - An Analytical History of Kamikaze Attacks Against Ships of the United States Navy during World War II” by Nicolai Timenes, Jr. A PDF of about 114 pages.
> 
> https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/725163.pdf



Thank you for the link, it looks interesting. I'll have to take a closer look at it.


----------



## DarrenW (Feb 7, 2020)

DarrenW said:


> Thank you for the link, it looks interesting. I'll have to take a closer look at it.



Well I had a look at the report and on page 73 I found what I think explains fairly well the _estimated_ number of Kamikaze aircraft brought down by fighters flying the CAP mission:







So after careful analysis of both Japanese and allied sources it was estimated that 1,118 kamikaze planes were most likely destroyed in the air by US Navy and Marine Corps fighters during the Philippine and Okinawa campaigns (which include both mass attacks and those of modest size, plus additional sorties flown from Formosa). This number isn't far off the estimate I gave in my earlier post (1,345 suicide airplanes _claimed _by F6F and F4U pilots). The report only considers those aircraft which left base and were on their way to attack US Navy ships and not those destroyed on the ground during fighter sweeps:











The data isn't broken down to individual fighter types (F6F, F4U, or FM-2) so determining how many were attributed to each type is problematic to say the least. But seeing that the F6F was the primary fleet fighter throughout the Kamikaze campaigns it would be a safe bet to assume they got the lion's share of these victories (up to two-thirds).

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## oldcolt357 (Feb 29, 2020)

DarrenW said:


> Well I had a look at the report and on page 73 I found what I think explains fairly well the _estimated_ number of Kamikaze aircraft brought down by fighters flying the CAP mission:
> 
> View attachment 568986
> 
> ...


----------



## oldcolt357 (Feb 29, 2020)

First a few general comments - Good kill ratio data is tough to come by. It seams to be better (more accurate) for the pacific theater than Europe.
It's also almost impossible to get good apples to apples comparisons. The two top groups - the 56th fighter group - P47 vs the 4th fighter group - P51 might be a good place to start.
In Europe the German pilots of 1942-43 were better than 44-45. The early P38 and P47 pilots were fighting a tougher foe. I love the Mustang but it arrived a year later than the P47 and faced lesser trained enemy pilots. 
When you look at the "Big Week" (February 20, 44) the campaign to cripple the German air force prior to the Normandy landings the P47 was used in numbers double that of the P38 and P51 combined. You can safely say, of the 3 fighters, the P47 contributed the most in breaking the German air force. 
Also, again to try and get an apples to apples comparison if you only look at 8th air force fighter group kill / loss data you see that the fighter loss rates go up after switching over to the Mustang. The 8th converted to the Mustang because of it's longer range not that it was better at air to air combat.
Remember all fighter aircraft went through dramatic performance increases as the war went on. People who want to believe the P51 out performed the P47 are usually comparing the Mustang of 1944 with the Thunderbolt of 1943 and completely ignoring the P47s of 1945. 
Finally, I've seen kill ratios for the Mustang as high as 11:1 when you look at the data it's no where near that, unless you're including aircraft destroyed on the ground. As you study kill loss ratio data for the 8th., as imperfect as it is, the P47 looks better and also is why it developed the reputation for bringing the pilots home.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## eagledad (Feb 29, 2020)

Oldcolt357

You may find this article, courtesy of Bill Marshall on Mike William's website, of interest;

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/marshall/SUMMARY_OF_COMBAT_OPERATIONS.pdf

Eagledad

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

