# Underappreciated Aircraft of WWII



## kration (Apr 1, 2010)

Not the catchiest title, I know. But I have been pondering which is the most underappreciated aircraft of WWII. The reason for this is from this link:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-2UAXblTUE_

The latter link shows just how useful the Walrus was. But it's not the most glamorous or remembered airplane.

I also listened recently to a great documentary on Radio 4 (in the UK) about the Night Witches who flew the Polikarpov PO-2 on the eastern front, and had a big impact on German morale. Not the most glamorous aircraft, but it was massively produced and effective. On the Axis side I'd include the FW 189.

Before posting this, I searched 'underappreciated' on this forum and the most common plane that cropped up was the P40 Warhawk.

So, to cut a long story short, what is the most underappreciated aircraft of WW2? 

My vote goes for the 'Shagbat'!


----------



## kration (Apr 1, 2010)

I should have searched 'underrated' as well 

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/most-underrated-aircraft-ww2-7720.html


----------



## Maximowitz (Apr 1, 2010)

Interesting thought. If you go to the modellers forum here you'll see tons of Fw 190's, Bf 109's, Spitfires, P51's...




Not much in the way of DC 3's or Fiesler Storch though. Very little in the way of nightfighters either.



I assume they are not glamorous enough.


----------



## zoomar (Apr 1, 2010)

kration said:


> I should have searched 'underrated' as well
> 
> http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/most-underrated-aircraft-ww2-7720.html



Sort of by definition we are not looking for a combat aircraft (which always get "appreciated" even if in a bad way), or any plane generally considered at the head of its class (like the C-47, Fi156, etc). Having given this less than a minutes thought, how about the Stearman trainer or Miles Magister?


----------



## Maximowitz (Apr 1, 2010)

Tiger Moth? A pre-war design I admit, but much used as a trainer.


----------



## Wildcat (Apr 1, 2010)

Vengeance, Hudson, Baltimore all come to mind, and then there's the trainers - Anson's, oxfords etc.


----------



## kration (Apr 1, 2010)

Wildcat said:


> Vengeance, Hudson, Baltimore all come to mind, and then there's the trainers - Anson's, oxfords etc.



I agree with the Hudson as well. It was put to great service in the early war years, but never seems recognised. It was also the subject of one of my favourite aviation books 'Norwegain Patrol'. Great aircraft, but the 'wet wings' were a hazard.

I understand people's comments re. the training planes. The Tiger Moth and Harvard may be underappreciated by the modellers, but in real life thare are still a lot flying around. Not many Magisters though.

Can't say the same for Shagbats, Hudsons or Skuas.


----------



## davebender (Apr 1, 2010)

The USN alone operated 977 of these aircraft. The U.K. operated about 3,500 B-24s, many of which were used in the maritime patrol role. 

One could argue that these 2,000 or so navalized B-24s were the most effective weapon for defeating the Axis submarine force.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 2, 2010)

"... One could argue that these 2,000 or so navalized B-24s were the most effective weapon for defeating the Axis submarine force.".

Great point and worthy candidate - plugged the North Atlantic air cover gap. And to the 1,000's in service add the unarmed transport versions that were the backbone of "communications" squadrons under Ferry Command.

Personally, I'd throw the Short Sunderland into the race for its role in war on U boats in the Bay of Biscayne etc. The Catalina deserves a role - great long range maritime patrol - and I'd add the P-39 Iron Dog Airacobra  - for its role on the Eastern Front.

MM


----------



## hawkeye2an (Apr 2, 2010)

I believe the most underappreciated aircraft are the L-4s and L-5s. Although not a 'combat' aircraft they were very much on the front line in the thick of things with nothing to protect them but the pilot's .45 or maybe an M-1 carbine. Nothing between them and their enemies but a very thin sheet of fabric and a few metal tubes. There are a few books out there on the subject, I recommend:

"THE FIGHTING GRASSHOPPERS" by KEN WAKEFIELD
"JANEY - A LITTLE PLANE IN A BIG WAR" by ALFRED"DUTCH" SCHULTZ
"LOW AND SLOW" - by DON MOORE
"GRASSHOPPER PILOT - A MEMOIR" by JULIAN WILLIAM CUMMINGS
"BOX SEAT OVER HELL" - by HARDY D CANNON

General Patton was quoted as saying that Artillery won the war. It was these brave pilots that helped make our artillery so effective.


----------



## Glider (Apr 2, 2010)

Germany - Fi156 Storch, British senior officers used these whenever they could which must count as a vote in favour.
British - Oxford, unloved and unmentioned but was even pushed into front line service.
America - Hudson served all over the world and was produced by the Japanese as a transport, again a vote in favour.
Russia - Polikarpov U-2 maid of all work in Russia
Italy - Macchi C200 often overlooked between the Cr42 and the Macchi 202.
Japan - Ki44, Everyone knows about the Ki43 and the Ki84 but in a similar manner to the Macchi 200 the plane in the middle isn't nearly as well known.


----------



## renrich (Apr 2, 2010)

PBY-Catalina- Served all over the world during the whole war for many countries. Recon, bomber, torpedo plane, anti-sub, air sea rescue, transport cargo. Ugly, slow and plenty useful.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 2, 2010)

"... Ugly, slow and plenty useful."

Gorgeous - I've often wondered why newer flying boats didn't continue with the retractable floats. The clean parasol wing is a beautiful thing to behold. 

MM


----------



## zoomar (Apr 2, 2010)

Glider said:


> Germany - Fi156 Storch, British senior officers used these whenever they could which must count as a vote in favour.
> British - Oxford, unloved and unmentioned but was even pushed into front line service.
> America - Hudson served all over the world and was produced by the Japanese as a transport, again a vote in favour.
> Russia - Polikarpov U-2 maid of all work in Russia
> ...



Good list, especially if we are also considering combat aircraft. My original thought was to automatically exclude any plane used extensively as fighter or bombe, but I can sea the reason to take a more inclusive route. So, following this format, here's another list that features bonafide front-line combat planes:

Britain - Armstrong Whitworth Whitley. Ugly as sin, relegated to second line duties as soon as more modern heavies appeared on the scene, yet was the first bomber to bomb Berlin.

USA - Bell P-63. Not a bad plane at all, but often given short shrift in general histories of WW2 aviation because they were a descendant of the supposedly lousy P-39 and only used by the USSR. It is also probably under appreciated in Russia because it was not a Soviet product.

Italy - Honestly, just about every Italian warplane with the possible exception of the SM-79 is probably underappreciated outside of Italy. But to choose, since the Macchis and Fiats occasionally get their due, I'd go with the Regianne series of fighters Re-2000 to 2005.

Japan - Ki-44 is a good choice. Another is Kawanishi H6K. Great plane but overshadowed by its more modern successor.

Germany - there really aren't any under appreciated German planes, because all seem to have legions of fans. But I'd go with the He-115 or Bv-138. Very important and useful floatplane/flying boats often ignored because one doesn't normally think "water" when thinking about German aviation.


----------



## Glider (Apr 2, 2010)

I like your choices for Britain and Germany over the ones I thought of. I think a passing mention to the Hampden with the Whitley would be in order.


----------



## renrich (Apr 2, 2010)

mm, beauty is as beauty does, right? Looking at her that way, the PBY was beautiful!


----------



## Markus (Apr 2, 2010)

Brewster Buffalo: The Dutch liked her, her perfomance in Finish hands was amazing but her reputation was ruined by a bunch of green Marines who lost one(!) air battle they should not have entred in the first place. Talk about bad press.


----------



## kration (Apr 2, 2010)

Glider said:


> Germany - Fi156 Storch, British senior officers used these whenever they could which must count as a vote in favour.
> British - Oxford, unloved and unmentioned but was even pushed into front line service.
> America - Hudson served all over the world and was produced by the Japanese as a transport, again a vote in favour.
> Russia - Polikarpov U-2 maid of all work in Russia
> ...



Great list! I'm intrigued by your reference to the Airspeed Oxford in front line service - what did that consist of?



zoomar said:


> Germany - I'd go with the He-115 or Bv-138. Very important and useful floatplane/flying boats often ignored because one doesn't normally think "water" when thinking about German aviation.



I like that because I've read some great accounts of 'dogfights' between Hudsons and Bv-138's (and JU88's), which lasted for about 30 minutes and consisted of each circling trying to get on each others tails. With no end result.



hawkeye2an said:


> I believe the most underappreciated aircraft are the L-4s and L-5s.



And that's a good suggestion too. I've always ignored the artillary spotters because they looked too much like private aircraft and weren't exciting enough for me. But they did extremely valuable work, and the pilots must have been extremely brave.

The idea of doing a list on a national basis is good though.


----------



## hawkeye2an (Apr 2, 2010)

kration said:


> Great list! I'm intrigued by your reference to the Airspeed Oxford in front line service - what did that consist of?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



In the case of the L-4 it WAS just like the civilian Piper Cub. The only difference was the extra glass behind the crew areas. No electrical system, the radios were battery operated. They ran on regular gas and they could and DID land just about anywhere.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 2, 2010)

Just to toss a totally unknown bird out there how about the Fleet 16 how many pilots in the Commonwealth and US air forces were trained on this virtually unknown trainer over 400 were made and was responsible for much intial training in the BCATP .Please note me beating off the crowds


----------



## Glider (Apr 2, 2010)

kration said:


> Great list! I'm intrigued by your reference to the Airspeed Oxford in front line service - what did that consist of?



In Iraq during the defence of the base at Habbaniya twenty six Oxfords were in the early stages a key component of the defence together with ten Audaxes, eight Gordons, one Blenhiem 1 and nine Gladiators.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 2, 2010)

good choice pdfoot. The " BCATP" was one of the first concrete signs that Britain and the Commonwealth were going to WIN.
It was the local "recruiting office" for lots of young Yanks,


----------



## billswagger (Apr 3, 2010)

I know this isn't as refreshing as hearing about some of the other planes, but i think the P-40 is as popular as it is under rated.


----------



## kration (Apr 3, 2010)

pbfoot said:


> Just to toss a totally unknown bird out there how about the Fleet 16 how many pilots in the Commonwealth and US air forces were trained on this virtually unknown trainer over 400 were made and was responsible for much intial training in the BCATP .Please note me beating off the crowds



Excellent suggestion PB. That's an aircradt I have never heard of, but it obviously did some great work. I like the way it looks like a cross between a Tiger Moth and a Harvard.

That's what I like about this forum, you ask a silly question, and you get some great well considered answers!


----------



## JoeB (Apr 3, 2010)

see next


----------



## JoeB (Apr 3, 2010)

Markus said:


> Brewster Buffalo: The Dutch liked her, her perfomance in Finish hands was amazing but her reputation was ruined by a bunch of green Marines who lost one(!) air battle they should not have entred in the first place. Talk about bad press.



The Buffalo conundrum is Finnish use v everybody else, not USMC v everybody else. The overall record of Brit and Dutch Buffalo's was around 10 Japanese fighters and 10 other types downed for 53 Buffalo air combat losses, all to fighters (counting only specific combats where both sides' losses are given in "Bloody Shambles", but that's most combats which occurred*). The single Marine combat was more disastrous v Japanese fighters, losing 13 F2A and 2 F4F for perhaps 2 Zeroes in air combat (1 missing, one recovered pilot DOW but possibly from CAP action on the way back, one recovered with 30 hits, plus 1 definitely to AA per both sides' accounts) a Type 99 Carrier Bomber and 6 Type 97 Carrier Attack Planes (at least 2 but possibly more of latter to AA), F4F's credited with 3 Zero's and 3 other, F2A's with 1 Zero and 4 other (per carrier group kodochosho v. USMC offiical victories list). So that's not really so different than the Brit/Dutch results in Pacific, nor interestingly are the results of that one combat far out of line with the generally better results of the F4F overall in 1942. Anyway it's not nearly as different from the Brit/Dutch results as it is from the Finnish results.

The FAA also briefly used the Buffalo in defense of Crete in 1941 but it had few opportunities for combat and no definitive results. It was preferred to the Fulmar by that unit (805 sdn) but that's not saying a lot.

*some people keep saying the JAAF losses in those campaigns aren't clear but I don't see much reason to believe the true results are much different than what I quoted. There's a recent thread on J-aircraft about that, for the Type 1 units the specific incidents in Bloody Shambles of the two regiments equipped with the a/c, and data on specific pilots in other Japanese sources, tie in pretty well. And Zero unit records for 1942 are pretty complete and accessible online, and show similar results to Type 1's. It is strange that the Buffalo did worse against the Type 97 than it did v Type 1 or Zero per the accounts in Shambles, but even the Zero and Type 1 results are a lot more similar to USMC than Finnish results.

Joe


----------



## kration (Apr 3, 2010)

JoeB said:


> The Buffalo conundrum is



Thanks for the extensive contribution Joe. But I feel that the 'Buffalo conundrum' is worth a seperate discussion in itself. It's one of those planes which is easily dismissed as being 'disatrous' but which was misused.

My idea for this thread was to identify the aircraft which fulfilled their function (especially in combat, but 'support/training' aircraft too) but which have been ignored or forgotten. And particularly the pilots that that flew them.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 3, 2010)

kration said:


> Excellent suggestion PB. That's an aircradt I have never heard of, but it obviously did some great work. I like the way it looks like a cross between a Tiger Moth and a Harvard.
> 
> That's what I like about this forum, you ask a silly question, and you get some great well considered answers!


I think that Blakesee and Gentile amongst others learnt on it


----------



## Markus (Apr 3, 2010)

JoeB said:


> The Buffalo conundrum is Finnish use v everybody else, not USMC v everybody else. The overall record of Brit and Dutch Buffalo's was around 10 Japanese fighters and 10 other types downed for 53 Buffalo air combat losses, all to fighters (counting only specific combats where both sides' losses are given in "Bloody Shambles", but that's most combats which occurred*).



I did not say that the Dutch were successful, just that they liked the plane. For success they would have needed a proper organisation on the ground; early warning, triple-A and so on. And the Marines should have escorted their bombers, not attacked the Japanese ones.


----------



## Maxrobot1 (Apr 3, 2010)

Hmm! underappreicated eh? How about the Lockheed PV-2 Ventura? Raiding Northern Japan from the Aleutians?
Or how about just any ship-borne catapult plane by Curtiss or Arado?
Another candidate would be the big Boeing flying boats ferrying vital personnel and cargo - when it absolutely, positively had to get there!


----------



## JoeB (Apr 3, 2010)

Markus said:


> I did not say that the Dutch were successful, just that they liked the plane. For success they would have needed a proper organisation on the ground; early warning, triple-A and so on. And the Marines should have escorted their bombers, not attacked the Japanese ones.


I don't see how that response backs up your original statement, which seemed to say the *results* of the single USMC combat spoiled the Buffalo's otherwise good reputation. But the actual results in both British and Dutch use v. the Japanese were basically similar to the Marine results at Midway: not good. 

The Buffalo was liked OK pre war in the USN, though VMF-221 (Marine fighter unit at Midway) disliked the F2A-3 v the F4F-3's with which they were also partially equipped, even before that battle. 

Who says the lack of success of British and Dutch Buffalo units was just because of factors like the ground organization or airfield AA, but not also pilots, or the airplane? 

Whether to defend key installations on Midway or try to escort bombers v the Japanese carriers is about replaying the strategy of the battle, not really here or there as to the capability of the Buffalo. For the mission chosen the Marine a/c got off the ground in plenty of time, were able to attack from above though somewhat outnumbered (25 Marine fighters, 36 Zeroes present). Brit and Dutch Buffalo's were not always caught at tactical disadvantage either.

I don't think my point has been effectively contradicted: the big difference in the Buffalo was between the Finns and everybody else, not the Marines and everybody else.

Joe


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 3, 2010)

Although JoeB is spot on, I believe the Buffalo's performance over Midway will always give the aircraft negative press and it seems that battle is told first in many "picture books" about WW2 rather than the success of the Finns. Additionally I think you also have lingering bad press about Brewster itself because of some the issues they dad during WW2. Aviation enthusiast who read the contemporary "stuff" about WW2 will always first hear how the Buffalo was slaughtered over Midway - Thanks Osprey!


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 4, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Although JoeB is spot on, I believe the Buffalo's performance over Midway will always give the aircraft negative press and it seems that battle is told first in many "picture books" about WW2 rather than the success of the Finns. Additionally I think you also have lingering bad press about Brewster itself because of some the issues they dad during WW2. Aviation enthusiast who read the contemporary "stuff" about WW2 will always first hear how the Buffalo was slaughtered over Midway - Thanks Osprey!



the Finnish Buffalos and the US F2F-3 also had rather different power loadings and wing loadings which might affect the actual performance of the planes in addition to the quality of the both pilots flying the planes and the quality of the pilots flying the opposing planes.


----------



## Markus (Apr 4, 2010)

JoeB said:


> I don't see how that response backs up your original statement, which seemed to say the *results* of the single USMC combat spoiled the Buffalo's otherwise good reputation. But the actual results in both British and Dutch use v. the Japanese were basically similar to the Marine results at Midway: not good.



Not good they were but the air combat in the DEI/Malaya is IMO off the general public´s radar screen, just like the immense success the Finns had. What they learn first is the defeat of the Marines at Midway. 




> Who says the lack of success of British and Dutch Buffalo units was just because of factors like the ground organization or airfield AA, but not also pilots, or the airplane?



With regard to Malaya, the RAF´s Buffalos had their flaws -the Dutch ones less so- but the RAF had only one AMU instead of two, not enough radar stations, their airfields lacked blast pens and triple-A was grossly insufficient, like a few Bofor´s guns in the best case or a handful of Vickers RCMG or nothing if my memory is right.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 4, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> the Finnish Buffalos and the US F2F-3 also had rather different power loadings and wing loadings which might affect the actual performance of the planes in addition to the quality of the both pilots flying the planes and the quality of the pilots flying the opposing planes.



Of couse, but again when you pick up many books (especially older ones) on the subject, the Midway slaughter is always spoken of first.


----------



## renrich (Apr 5, 2010)

The persistence of the "Committee to Resurrect the Reputation of the P40" is only exceeded by that of the "Committee to Resurrect the Reputation of the Buffalo". The fact is that the Buffalo was not well suited for combat use by the USN because of it's weak landing gear and because of the difficulty of installing SS fuel tanks. It had other performance handicaps in the Pacific which made it a poor match for Japanese fighters. How well it may have done in Finnish hands not withstanding, it was a failure in the Pacific and the US was fortunate that the Wildcat was available because the USN was able to hold it's own against one of the best fighters in the world, the A6M, in 1942 with the Wildcat.


----------



## Willszenith (Apr 5, 2010)

Lysander anyone?

multi role platform, abielt not a glamourous fighter nor heavy...

but to nip in and out of france for the resistance, artillery support, air sea rescue support, 

ok i know they had horrific loses at the start of the BOB but how many aircraft , succeded in alternative roles as well as the pluck lysander?


----------



## zoomar (Apr 5, 2010)

Willszenith said:


> Lysander anyone?
> 
> multi role platform, abielt not a glamourous fighter nor heavy...
> 
> ...



Good choice.

Another one might be the Hs-123 dive bomber


----------



## Nikademus (Apr 5, 2010)

I'd add the Ki-27 and I-16 to the list of underappreciated. Ki-44 i don't see underappreciated as much as cursed in regards to it's early career.


----------



## Markus (Apr 6, 2010)

renrich said:


> The persistence of the "Committee to Resurrect the Reputation of the P40" is only exceeded by that of the "Committee to Resurrect the Reputation of the Buffalo".



We need to make up what our darling plane lacked in succes. 




> it was a failure in the Pacific and the US was fortunate that the Wildcat was available because the USN was able to hold it's own against *one of the best fighters in the world, the A6M*, in 1942 with the Wildcat.



You call the F2A a failure but say this this flimsy, totally unprotected contraption was "one of the world´s best fighters"?


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 6, 2010)

Markus said:


> this this flimsy, totally unprotected contraption



Well, it did manage to totally dominate air combat in the Pacific/China theater for over 6 months and continued to be a threat for months more, At times while significantly out numbered. 

It could carry the armament of a Bf 109E and do it for a round trip from Formosa to the Philippines at the end of 1941.


----------



## magnu (Apr 6, 2010)

A further condemnation of the Buffalo was from No.71 Eagle squadron which were to be equipped with them in the BOB
The CO ordered his three best pilots to take off in the trio that had been delivered and land with the tail wheel unlocked, groundlooping them and totaling each one.


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 6, 2010)

To be honest, I don't think the Buffalo should be considered within this list of underappreciated aircraft. Whenever I think of aircraft that are underappreciated, I think of aircraft that did sterling service in roles that seldom get recognition. Army cooperation, ASR, training etc all fall into this category. A fighter with very mixed operational history isn't really underappreciated - it merely polarises people's opinions (as discussed at length in various threads on this forum!).

My vote - the Lizzie (Lysander) - it did all sorts of stuff from reconnaissance to army cooperation to agent drops (and how important was that from a strategic perspective - I believe it was huge compared to the relatively few resources involved) to bombing missions. A couple of pilots even claimed to shoot down a couple of Bf109s each using the Lizzie. Ugly (to some!), unloved, scarcely remembered but absolutely vital to the war effort.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 6, 2010)

renrich said:


> The persistence of the "Committee to Resurrect the Reputation of the P40" is only exceeded by that of the "Committee to Resurrect the Reputation of the Buffalo". The fact is that the Buffalo was not well suited for combat use by the USN because of it's weak landing gear and because of the difficulty of installing SS fuel tanks. It had other performance handicaps in the Pacific which made it a poor match for Japanese fighters. How well it may have done in Finnish hands not withstanding, it was a failure in the Pacific and the US was fortunate that the Wildcat was available because the USN was able to hold it's own against one of the best fighters in the world, the A6M, in 1942 with the Wildcat.



It isn't a matter of resurrect the reputation of either aircraft - it’s a matter of setting the record straight on each aircraft. Thanks to [email protected] and poorly written books both aircraft got judged unfairly in some situations and their positives were never emphasized.


----------



## Glider (Apr 6, 2010)

magnu said:


> A further condemnation of the Buffalo was from No.71 Eagle squadron which were to be equipped with them in the BOB
> The CO ordered his three best pilots to take off in the trio that had been delivered and land with the tail wheel unlocked, groundlooping them and totaling each one.



I do not believe that any CO would order such things and put his pilots at grave risk. 71 were asked fror an assesment and gave a withering one but there was never as far as I know any plans to equip them with the aircraft.


----------



## claidemore (Apr 6, 2010)

With a litttle thought I can probably come up with a 'most underapreciated' plane in any of the relevant categories, but since my primary interest is fighters, I'll cast my vote for the Hawk 75A/P36 series. 
Unlike the Buffalo, the Hawk was never a dismal failure in any theatre. France (Western Europe), Finland(Eastern Front), the RAF and the Dutch(CBI theatre) all used them with varying degrees of success. The US got it's first two confirmed kills at Pearl Harbor with P36's vs A6M2s. Hmmmm?


----------



## JoeB (Apr 6, 2010)

Yes I think Hawk/P-36 is a good choice, generally brushed off as 'second rate' (though I'm not saying it was ever the best fighter around) but had conspicuous lack of failure compared to a/c with better general reputations. For example in CBI British Mohawks achieved about an even ratio v Japanese Army Type 1's (8 kills for 7 losses) when the Hurricane was still going about 1:4 (12 kills for 55 losses in 1943, "Air War for Burma") against the same opposition, flown by same air arm, same time period. It's hard to see what the explanation for a difference like that would be except the Hawk was at least as good a fighter v that type of opponent, at least. The Hawk 75's record in Battle of France v Bf109E was also better than the Hurricane's though not to the same degree (23:38 v74:151 as counted in "The Battle of France Then and Now") and that was different air arms flying the two though v the same opposition at the same time. 

The minor exception to no failure was Dutch Hawks which achieved nothing v Zeroes with several losses, but in just a couple of engagements. Likewise the USAAF P-36 record of 2 kills to one loss in furball with Zeroes over Oahu doesn't prove a whole lot, though it is an interesting episode

Re: Buffalo, Zero as 'contraption', as flown by typical IJN units of 1942, is an amazingly ridiculous characterization. On the contrary, one obvious (though not necessarily the complete and total) explanation for Finn v. Western results with the Buffalo was flying v the Soviet air arms of early Great Patriotic War v flying against IJN (though the Buffalo did poorly v IJA fighters too) of 1942: big difference. And again as proxy, the Hurricane did about as badly v the Zero (and Type 1) as the Buffalo. I don't think the Buffalo deserves reputation as the No.1 bad fighter of all time, I just seek to set the record straight about who had success with the Buffalo: the Finns, exclusively.

Joe


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 6, 2010)

i've two considerations on Buffalo success only with Suomen/Finnish.

1st the success it's based on finns claims or it's cross checked with soviet admit losses?
2nd the Buffalos in Pacific go bad versus Oscars and Zeros that are same type of fighter (good turning and climbing, bad diving and mediocre level speed) maybe that the soviet fighter the Buffalos find a best target? relatively at its own capacity.


----------



## timshatz (Apr 6, 2010)

Another point about the Buffalos in the Pacific v the Finnish Birds. The Japanese Aviators in the IJN were amongst the most experienced pilots, definitely the most experience naval aviators as a group, in the world. They'd been fighting against the Chinese since 1937 and had their tactics all worked out. The Buffalo pilots of Singapore, East Indies and Midway were low time, inexperienced in every facit of the word, pilots.

The inverse was mostly true with Finnish pilots v Soviet pilots. Also, Soviet pilots of the Winter War were not known to show initiative. Made life easier for the Finns if the opposition doesn't change or adapt quickly.


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 6, 2010)

Joe,

As always, a useful contribution to the discussion. My only concern is that even "same aircraft, same opponent, same timeframe" is still something of an oversimplification. Individual combats are won and lost based on comparative aircraft performance, pilot ability and experience, and local tactical conditions at the time. An fighter climbing to attack an enemy fighter force is at a huge tactical disadvantage and the converse is true. 

We also need to be careful of extrapolating a statistically insignificant number of actions into a general trend. According to Beauchamp's "Mohawks Over Burma" only 3 of the type were shot down by IJAAF fighters. According to "Hurricanes Over the Arakan", some 37 Hurris were shot down between 1 Oct 42 and 1 Jun 43 in air combat (does not state whether this was with fighters or return fire from Japanese bombers). At first glance, this seems a huge discrepancy in losses but there was only 1-2 operational Mohawk squadrons (depending on timeframe) compared to 6 Hurricane units across the RAF and Royal Indian Air Force. Also, Mohawks were more commonly engaged in ground strafing which offers fewer opportunities for engagements. So an average of approx 6 combat losses per Hurricane squadron when they are providing front-line fighter support and are engaged more often than the Mohawk perhaps doesn't compare too badly against the Mohawk average of 1.5-2 losses per squadron over the same time period. 

Again, I'm not suggesting that the Mohawk didn't perform well (I agree with you it is underrated) but I worry that we're still not comparing apples to apples. 

Just a few thoughts...

Cheers,
Mark


----------



## Markus (Apr 6, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> Well, it did manage to totally dominate air combat in the Pacific/China theater for over 6 months and continued to be a threat for months more, At times while significantly out numbered.



Oh, yes they did beat the Chinese and some western air forces that were predominantly equipped with second rate and or defective fighters flown by not so well trained pilots who operated with poor or no early warning. That was merely a case of the one eyed being king among the blind. 




> It could carry the armament of a Bf 109E and do it for a round trip from Formosa to the Philippines at the end of 1941.



And be downed by a single burst of an RCMG. Plus the Me109 had better cannon by the way. 


The ZERO was without doubt one of the worst fighter designs ever as it sacrificed anything for low speed manouverability and climb rate. As long as the Japanese were fighting low intensity air wars against unpredared opponents the formidable japanese pilots could more than compensate the gross design flaws of the A&M but onec the IJN ran into cool headed professionals like the USN pilots their lucky days were over for good.


----------



## Markus (Apr 6, 2010)

I got a new underappreciated plane: The Douglas TBD!

Despite her weak 900hp engine she could carry a 2,000lb torpedo over the Owen Stanley Range, at Coral Sea TBD annihilated the CVL Soho with ¾ of her crew and like all US planes she was VERY hard to shoot down with a pair of RCMG. Still, most of the time one hears nothing about her but the slaughter of the TBD at Midway, which was caused not by the result of the planes obsolescence but by the lack of a fighter escort.


----------



## Nikademus (Apr 6, 2010)

I would agree that the Mohawk ratio loss comparison in Burma is so small that one should take it with a grain of salt. (I recorded it as 6 lost in exchange for 4 Ki-43) Not alot to compare in relation to the Hurricane and Spitfire experience. The plane's finest hour probably was in France. Shores commented that the Hawk was superior to the early D model of the 109 and a rough match for the Emil prior to the -3 varient when cannons became standardized. 

Dutch fighter preformance was pretty bad in terms of exchange but i view this primarily in terms of behind the cockpit. I got a distinct impression that the Dutch underestimated the Japanese badly.


----------



## Nikademus (Apr 6, 2010)

Markus said:


> You call the F2A a failure but say this this flimsy, totally unprotected contraption was "one of the world´s best fighters"?




Well it did hold a 5.4:1 ratio at the start of may 42. Comparable to the overall German ratio on the Eastern front latter half of 41. The F2A might be cited as an example of what men and circumstances can do with a machine. For me, I don't look at the kill ratio in regards to the Buffalo as much as i do it's manufacturing history. The early basic design appeared sound (and beat out the first Wildcat prototype) but later weight additions and shoddy quality control seemed to bedevil the machine. Brewster, IIRC was the only US air manufacturer to close shop during the war. That says something right there.


----------



## fastmongrel (Apr 6, 2010)

The Handley Page Harrow an aircraft that is hardly ever mentioned but was very nearly in service throughout the war.


----------



## Nikademus (Apr 6, 2010)

the CR-42 and Fulmar also tend to get rasberried. Both did pretty good in their respective roles however.


----------



## Markus (Apr 6, 2010)

Nikademus said:


> Well it did hold a 5.4:1 ratio at the start of may 42. Comparable to the overall German ratio on the Eastern front latter half of 41.



You sort of explained the reason for this success:



> Dutch fighter preformance was pretty bad in terms of exchange but i view this primarily in terms of behind the cockpit. I got a distinct impression that the Dutch underestimated the Japanese badly.



The Brits were no different and their Buffalos were even worse than the Dutch ones. USAAF fighter pilots in the PI had no clue about the Japanese too but their planes were mostly destroyed on the ground. 




> The F2A might be cited as an example of what men and circumstances can do with a machine. For me, I don't look at the kill ratio in regards to the Buffalo as much as i do it's manufacturing history. The early basic design appeared sound (and beat out the first Wildcat prototype) but later weight additions and shoddy quality control seemed to bedevil the machine. Brewster, IIRC was the only US air manufacturer to close shop during the war. That says something right there.



I could hardly agree more.


----------



## Nikademus (Apr 6, 2010)

The man behind the machine was certainly a major factor IMO. There are so many variables that go into air combat however that one can argue any number of points in different combinations. One really good example was the slaughter of Soviet bombers during Barbarossa's opening stages. Yes, the vulnerability of the SB bomber was one major factor, citable as a technical reference, and the lack of fighter protection another from an air tactics perspective......however one very major factor probably not often cited was that the crews were more afraid of the wrath of their own superiors...(and their superiors fear of Stalin) than the Germans hence wave after wave of unescorted bombers went to the slaughter in late June, early July...a facet which exploded the German Experten kill score. In a different situation, descretion probably would have been the better part of valor.

Shores made some interesting comments regarding the Zero legend at the end of Vol II of Bloody Shambles. He theorized that the whole "legend" came about mainly because it was easier for Allied pilots to swallow their defeat as being due to machine (the A6M) vs. the men flying them, of whom many a derogatory comment had been made before the shooting started. In the end though the Zero's attributes, along with the Oscar, were also important. Shore's point was that while the plane was very good, it was not a super-plane and that the pilots were just as much the reason for success as the machine (along with a superior operational plan). It was the same for the Germans during Barbarossa. Shores considered the British to be somewhat better off than the Dutch given they had a smattering of experirenced pilots however an important cavet to it was that this exp could in some cases hurt them as they were used to having a turning edge over their opponents. I'm not sure i'd agree that their Buffalos were "worse" than the Dutch B-339's. They were more weighted down but this was a facet much appreciated and commented on by more than a few Commonwealth pilots. Armor saves lives.


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 6, 2010)

Nikademus said:


> They were more weighted down but this was a facet much appreciated and commented on by more than a few Commonwealth pilots. Armor saves lives.



This is valid in so many ways. At least one Commonwealth pilot, Lambert, died because the aircraft he flew had yet to be fitted with armour behind his seat. Conversely, the Aussies were able to remove a considerable amount of surplus weight to improve performance of the aircraft. The question is how much of the additional weight in RAF Buffalos was operationally valid and how much was superfluous.


----------



## Marcel (Apr 6, 2010)

Markus said:


> I did not say that the Dutch were successful, just that they liked the plane. For success they would have needed a proper organisation on the ground; early warning, triple-A and so on. And the Marines should have escorted their bombers, not attacked the Japanese ones.


Yup that about sums it up. One should be very careful using the loss-to-kill ratio as a measurement for the Buffalo's capabilities. Vast area to defend with only about 70 a/c, no radar or other early warning, most of the time altitude-disadvantage etc. This is true for the British as well.


Nikademus said:


> Dutch fighter preformance was pretty bad in terms of exchange but i view this primarily in terms of behind the cockpit. I got a distinct impression that the Dutch underestimated the Japanese badly.


Once again, one should consider the circumstances. This was no Europe. No warning, defenses thinly spread, especially the a/c and there was no radar etc. One should remember the the NEI is vastly bigger than the whole of Europe, while being defended by only 200 a/c in total. Here the attacker has the advantage as he can concentrate on one point while the defender cannot, having no defense systems etc. This was not only true for the Dutch, but for the US (Philipines) and the British as well. This plus the fact that the Japanese were as good as any in the world in 1942.

On topic:
One unknown contender:
How about the Fokker C.X. Flew many dangerous missions (bombing and rec) for the Dutch ML without losses after the first day (with 200+ Bf109's around) and did well for the Fins as well.
I also propose the Miles Master as a training a/c.


----------



## JoeB (Apr 6, 2010)

Re: Mohawk v Hurricane record in Burma, on the details I counted in "Air War Burma" collision in combat, crashlanding, belly landing, etc on both sides as loss (as I do as standard). I just double checked it, 8 Type 1's (one a 'force land' but pilot died of wounds, I infer probable w/o), v. 7 Mohawks (one of which might have been an operational loss) in around 10 encounters.

But has anyone else studied statistics? Assume my counts are correct for the moment. Assume the number of kills and losses for both Mohawk and Hurricane v Type 1 is a flip of a fair coin, on average 1 heads (a kill) for every tails (a loss). 8 heads, 7 tails in 15 flips is then, obviously, quite a likely outcome if the underlying true probability is 1:1. But 12 heads and 55 tails in 67 flips OTOH is almost impossible to achieve by chance if the underlying probability is really 1:1, .000005%. The chance of even 24 or less heads (43 or more tails) in 67 flips, is only 1.3%, if the underlying probability is 1:1

By the same token if the real 'coin' is 4 times more likely to come up tails, ie 20% likely to come up heads, 12 and 55 is a pretty likely outcome, but 8 or more heads in 15 flips is only .05% likely.

So we can reject at a high level of confidence that the Hurricane and Mohawk chances of success were really the same but statistical noise, per se, made them appear that different. Even in that small a sample the difference is too big to be explained by statistical noise. OTOH we can't (and I didn't) say the Mohawk was 4 times as effective, because *some* of the difference could be explained by statistical noise. Systematic differences in the circumstances of Hurricane v Mohawk combats, not statistical noise per se, could explain the difference if it was the case, but I just don't see that in the book: it was basically similar operations v the same Japanese fighter units at the same time. Or, the Mowhawk pilots might have been better (though from the same AF, same time), etc... but it seems at that point we're grasping for straws to avoid the simplest conclusion from those results: the Hawk was at least as effective a fighter as the Hurricane. And that's what the larger sample in BoF also indicates v Bf109E (23:38 for Hawk, 74:151 for Hurricane, "Battle of France Then and Now"), but it's not AFAIK the general reputation of the Hawk.

Joe


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 6, 2010)

JoeB said:


> OTOH we can't (and I didn't) say the Mohawk was 4 times as effective...the Hawk was at least as effective a fighter as the Hurricane. And that's what the larger sample in BoF also indicates v Bf109E (23:38 for Hawk, 74:151 for Hurricane, "Battle of France Then and Now"), but it's not AFAIK the general reputation of the Hawk



Joe,

I entirely agree with the statements I've selected from your above posting. I thought you were inferring that the Mohawk was that much more effective than the Hurricane. I was obviously mistaken. Like you, I believe the general reputation of the Mohawk is poorer than the aircraft deserves. 

Cheers,
Mark


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 6, 2010)

One thing also worth throwing into the Mohawk and Hurricane mix was the relative positions of the airfields. The Mohawks were at Agartala whereas a number of Hurricane squadrons were forward-deployed to Chittagong. Don't know what impact that has on the figures but up-threat is typcially a more dangerous place to be.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 6, 2010)

Markus said:


> Plus the Me109 had better cannon by the way.



OK, I give up, how was a German MG/ff cannon better than a Japanese type 99-1 cannon?


And the fact that no other fighter at the time could have performed the mission at all is ignored completely.


----------



## claidemore (Apr 7, 2010)

Don't forget the Hawk 75's that were used by the Finns. 190 claims vs 15 losses. Finnish pilot interview says the Hawk did great against I-16 and I-153's but had a tough time against later types such as P39 and La5. 
virtualpilots.fi: WW2History-JarlArnkilEnglish.html


The downside of this, dang it all....is that Joe almost has me convinced as to the fallability of the Hurricane in the CBI. sigh.


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 7, 2010)

Ahhh, but that's Finland so it doesn't count (see numerous threads discussing the Buffalo...!)


----------



## Markus (Apr 7, 2010)

Nikademus said:


> Shore's point was that while the plane was very good, it was not a super-plane and that the pilots were just as much the reason for success as the machine (along with a superior operational plan). It was the same for the Germans during Barbarossa. Shores considered the British to be somewhat better off than the Dutch given they had a smattering of experirenced pilots however an important cavet to it was that this exp could in some cases hurt them as they were used to having a turning edge over their opponents. I'm not sure i'd agree that their Buffalos were "worse" than the Dutch B-339's. They were more weighted down but this was a facet much appreciated and commented on by more than a few Commonwealth pilots. Armor saves lives.



I concur with what you say about the pilots and the Japanese planning. The engines of the RAF Buffalos were not working right. In a climb they overheated so fast that a full power climb was not possible and the actual climb rate was at least twice of the one on paper. The Dutch planes had engines that worked like they were supposed to.


----------



## Markus (Apr 7, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> OK, I give up, how was a German MG/ff cannon better than a Japanese type 99-1 cannon?
> 
> 
> And the fact that no other fighter at the time could have performed the mission at all is ignored completely.



Ok, it was the ammo actually. The so-called Minengeschoss increased the muzzle velocity from to 700 m/s or so. The cannons of early Zeros had a lower muzzle velocity. Apparently so low even the very skilled IJN pilots found it hard to hit another plane.(see "Shattered Sword")


----------



## renrich (Apr 7, 2010)

I believe that the A6M at Midway was handicapped by only 60 rounds per cannon, not by inability to hit with the cannon, according to "Shattered Sword" In the A6M, the Japanese sacrifised armor and SS tanks for range, speed, climb and maneuverability. The late 1940, 1941 A6M had similar armament to the 109 and most "experts" rate it as one of the best fighters in the world at that time. The fact that it could do what it did off a carrier was a surprise to the world and enabled the IJN to accomplish almost unbelievable feats. A well handled Zeke, with two 50 cals, two 20 mms, more ammo, armored and with protected tanks, was still a formidable adversary in 1944-45. Quite a feat for a flimsy contraption.


----------



## Nikademus (Apr 7, 2010)

thats correct. (60 rounds per cannon) The A6M had to be designed as light as possible due to the limitation at the time on engine power (950hp) To be fair too....at the time (1940), most other contemporary fighter designs also did not have armor or self sealers, including the F4F. Ironically, the carrier based F4F would go into it's first battle equipped with makeshift boiler plate as "armor" due to the upgrade kits not yet being installed! 

IIRC, the Zero's designer, Jiro Horikoshi wrote in his book "Zero!" that it should be assumed anyway that any fighter deployed would have at most, a two year window where it would operate competetively. He further pointed out that ideally, one should be working on a sucessor design even as the current fighter design deploys for mainline service. The state of the Japanese air industry however retarded this effort and the Zero ended up fighting well past it's prime.

On Midway, I've always suspected that part of the reason why Thach scored such a great success with his 3 surviving wingmates was that at the time the Zeros on CAP had mostly or entirely exhausted their cannon ammo on the attacking bombers.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 7, 2010)

One should not confuse a bad design with bad details. Or confuse bad design with customer interference.

later Zeros increase ammo capacity for the cannon with larger drums and then with a belt feed. later versions also had thicker wing skins for increased dive speeds. 
Neither the thicker wing skins or the larger drum require much of a technological or design break through.
The Later model engine provided enough power for the summer of 1942. 
Customer refused the suggestion of changing to the Kinsei engine. While shortening the range this engine might have allowed for either higher performance or the same performance (except for turning) with increased protection. Since a later version of the engine was fitted in 1945 it shouldn't have been impossible to fit an earlier 1300hp version earlier in the war.
Nakajima's inability to increase power of the Sakae engine in a timely fashion is one of the reasons the Zero fell behind so quickly.


----------



## timshatz (Apr 7, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> One thing also worth throwing into the Mohawk and Hurricane mix was the relative positions of the airfields. The Mohawks were at Agartala whereas a number of Hurricane squadrons were forward-deployed to Chittagong. Don't know what impact that has on the figures but up-threat is typcially a more dangerous place to be.



Also, I think the Mohawk ended up in roles that led it to air combat less often. For instance, I don't think the Mohawks got bomber escort jobs, or were specifically put in the interceptor role. More ground interdiction. I could be wrong, but I think that was the gyst of what I read in "Bloody Shambles" (great series, btw).


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 7, 2010)

That was my thought, too, Tim but I could be wrong. The Mohawk fleet was one-sixth to one-third of the Hurricane force (depending on when you look at the ORBAT) and they were based further to the rear, so even if used in interception roles they had more time to climb to height than the forward-deployed Hurricanes. I still think statistical analysis is problematic because of the tactical variables that make such a huge difference on the outcome of combat.


----------



## JoeB (Apr 7, 2010)

Again I just don't see that difference in Mohawk v Hurricane ops in 1943 in Burma. Most missions of both a/c were interceptions of escorted bombers or patrols over frontlines...and anyway the usual story (for example to explain away poor performance of Spitfire v Zero at Darwin) is to say inteception of escorted bombers is the tough mission, not escorting your own bombers! Now that seems to be changing to explain Hurricane v Mohawk. With all due respect and all in good fun guys, the bias to find the 'silver lining' for Brit planes can get kind of obvious at times.  

In their most disastrous combat in the PTO, Hurricanes were caught at low altitude in the first raid on Ceylon by Japanese carrier planes in April *1942*, and lost IIRC 19 while shooting down 1 Zero. But here we're talking about engagements in Burma v the Japanese Army in*1943*, and none of those combats involved Hurricanes just taking off ambushed by Japanese a/c. The Hurricane interceptions of Japanese Army and Navy a/c raids v. Calcutta December 5 1943 are included in the numbers I gave (the kills by Type 1's are that is, there were also 3 Hurricane kills by Zeroes without loss which aren't included) but the rest are in operations over the front in Burma not really so different than Mohawk operations.

And for further context on Burma1943, Hurricane 12:55 v Type1, Mohawk 8:7, USAAF P-40's in 1943 v Burma/Thailand based Type 1's (though some of the P40's were based in southern China) was 21:7*. That of the P-51A and P-38 in 1943 in Burma OTOH was a surpisingly mediocre 6+ kills of Japanese fighters (there could be a few missing Japanese losses of Type 2 and Type 2 two seat units, 'Tojo' and 'Nick', in this case, which is not true in the other cases) for 8 P-51A and 2 P-38 losses most or all to air combat. Those were long range escorts of B-24's v Rangoon in November 1943, outnumbered by the interceptors and far from home if any trouble. But the Hurricane is still the outlier and again I think it's grasping at straws to try to explain that by different mission profile than Mohawk, wasn't that different.

*1942 record of Hurricane v Type 1 was 7:26, 1942 record of (AVG) P-40's was 11:3; most AVG fighter opponents were Type 97's of course, but the Type 1's were mainly of the 64th Regiment, the unit most commonly met in Burma by all the a/c discussed above throughout 1942 and 1943, though along with others.

Joe


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 7, 2010)

I read Mohawks over Burma and what surprised me was the actual lack of air to air combat, IIRC most of their work was interdicting barges and ground transportation . The Mohawks were in rough shaope for lack of spares and one comment intrigued me was the use of a wobble pump was constantly req'd over FL200


----------



## Nikademus (Apr 7, 2010)

I feel that had the British employed the Mohawk to the degree they did the Hurricane, it's losses probably would have been comprable over time given it's lack of armor though this was somewhat compensated for by the radial engine. Veteran Ki-43 drivers aimed for the radiators of Hurricanes knowing that a coolant leak would most likely result in the loss of the plane.


----------



## Markus (Apr 7, 2010)

The RAF used Hawks as "regular" fighters from mid-42 onwards, sometime in 43 the Hurricanes took over as the main fighter and the Hawks were used as fighter-bombers, with emphasis on bombers. Furthermore both sides stopped air raids during the monsoon periode and last but not least the RAF had rather few bases in the eastern parts of India early in the war. The Hurricane was probably closer to the action in larger numbers. Speaking of action, the Brits spend the rest of 42 licking their wounds, the first limited ground offensive was conducted sometime in 43. Maybe the Hawks saw less action for these reasons?


----------



## renrich (Apr 7, 2010)

Regarding "boiler plate" for armor in F4Fs, they also had SS tanks that polluted the gasoline and sometimes stopped up fuel lines and the pilot's survival kit sometimes included meat cleavers and kitchen knives from the ship's galley. In spite of that, based on what I have read online here and based on "The First Team" the F4Fs coped much better with the IJN's fighters than did the other allied fighters in the 1942 time frame.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Apr 7, 2010)

renrich said:


> Regarding "boiler plate" for armor in F4Fs, they also had SS tanks that polluted the gasoline and sometimes stopped up fuel lines and the pilot's survival kit sometimes included meat cleavers and kitchen knives from the ship's galley. In spite of that, based on what I have read online here and based on "The First Team" the F4Fs coped much better with the IJN's fighters than did the other allied fighters in the 1942 time frame.



Couldn't agree more ren. Got no problem with a fighter that has a 6.9:1 kill ratio, regardless of the opposition!

TO


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 7, 2010)

JoeB said:


> With all due respect and all in good fun guys, the bias to find the 'silver lining' for Brit planes can get kind of obvious at times.



Joe,

My problem is we can't seem to pin a reason on WHY performance of the Hurricane was so bad (assuming your figures are correct). Given that the Hurricane was at least as fast and manoeuverable as the Mohawk, why did it apparently do so badly? Was it lack of armament punch which resulted in many Japanese aircraft escaping damaged but not destroyed? Can it all be attributed to vulnerability of the engine cooling system? Was it a fundamental structural issue? If your stats are correct, then there has to be some underlying reason for the huge discrepancy. Relative aircraft performance (Hurri vs Mohawk vs P-40) doesn't provide the answer because none were particularly stellar performers by 1942 standards. So what was it? If we could identify the cause, we'd probably negate much of the debate.

KR
Mark


----------



## Nikademus (Apr 7, 2010)

renrich said:


> Regarding "boiler plate" for armor in F4Fs, they also had SS tanks that polluted the gasoline and sometimes stopped up fuel lines and the pilot's survival kit sometimes included meat cleavers and kitchen knives from the ship's galley. In spite of that, based on what I have read online here and based on "The First Team" the F4Fs coped much better with the IJN's fighters than did the other allied fighters in the 1942 time frame.



It helped that they wadded in after the first full round of fighting (some of the feedback did filter to them), and that their engagement level in 42 was limited. Most importantly though, thx mainly to their squadron leaders (like Thach) who emphasised gunnery, they were a well trained bunch.


----------



## Nikademus (Apr 7, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> Joe,
> 
> My problem is we can't seem to pin a reason on WHY performance of the Hurricane was so bad (assuming your figures are correct). Given that the Hurricane was at least as fast and manoeuverable as the Mohawk, why did it apparently do so badly?
> KR
> Mark



It was a bit of a mystery, so much so that the RAF itself investgated the matter. They sent Wg Cmdr Paul Richey to India and he filed a pretty damning report in May of 43. In his view the primary culprit was improper tactics. He saw no technical reason why similar results could not be produced in Hurricanes that were being seen in other similar aircraft of the time (like the P40). His report though was hotly disputed by local RAF chiefs who basically took a "thank you very much, but we bloody well know how to fly and fight" stance.

Personally, I think Richey was closer to the mark than those disgruntled commanders will admit. The Hurricane could be effective and was at times. In Greece for example prior to the Crete phase The Hurricane portion of the RAF was holding 4.6:1 edge over the 109E(3 lost in trade for 14 x 109). By the end of the whole campaign their lead had shrunk down to 1.5:1, (12 for 18 ) 

Initially, the Hurr's were competetive against the Luft in North Africa maintaining almost 1:1 but this fell off as time went by. Tactics and experience played a large part here as well, followed later by mission profile. Hurricanes got majorly spanked over Malta but they were fighting a small but very elite Staffel that largely picked and chose when they fought using aggressive Freie Jagd tactics while initially the Hurricane pilots were a gaggle of mostly inexperienced pilots (7/JG26 scored an amazing 35:0 in a five month deployment period at the beginning of 41). The problem became such that a local C/O officially requested that more experienced ones be sent vs. the green drafts they were getting. The RAF system seemed to be more willing to throw them raw. Same plane....some very disparate results.

It was notable that even Spit pilots had problems with the 43 despite the tech superiority of their mounts, an aspect not readily apparant in the "numbers" but described in the pages of BS. (21 traded for 38 kills)


----------



## Juha (Apr 7, 2010)

I agree that P-36/Hawk 75A is underrated, it did good service in Europe, being the most effective fighter of French AF in 1939-40, did very well in Finnish AF in 41-42 after which it became progressively more handicapped against new Soviet fighters and Airacobras but could still survive thanks to it very good horizontal manoeuvrability and in Burma could hold its own against Ki-43s, which was in fact a dangerous opponent, another underrated fighter.

On Hawk 75A vs Hurricane, Now its odd that RAF used Hurri as escort fighter instead of longer ranged Hawk, maybe Hawk was too slow, Finns had that problem when Hawks escorted high flying Blenheim photo recon planes. But Hawk 75A-4/Mohawk IV was faster than Finnish AF Hawks, especially at higher altitudes.

Finns thought that Hawk was clearly better fighter than Hurricane Mk I, but Finns used 87 oct fuel, but RAE report from April 1940 concluded that “In a dogfight at 250mph the Curtiss (read Hawk 75A) is superior to the Spitfire…” Also Hawk’s aileron control was better than that of Spitfire, especially at higher speeds. 

Juha


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 7, 2010)

I tend to agreed that the Hurricane and Wildcat were comparable, I don't believe there was much to choose between in quality of aircrew but I do wonder if the Senior RAF staff were fighting a different war then the one they had . IMHO I feel the RAF tactics must have been flawed . I can't back this up with stats as some can but age and a 45 yr interest gotta count for something


----------



## Markus (Apr 7, 2010)

Nikademus said:


> It was a bit of a mystery, so much so that the RAF itself investgated the matter. They sent Wg Cmdr Paul Richey to India and he filed a pretty damning report in May of 43. In his view the primary culprit was improper tactics. He saw no technical reason why similar results could not be produced in Hurricanes that were being seen in other similar aircraft of the time (like the P40). His report though was hotly disputed by local RAF chiefs who basically took a "thank you very much, but we bloody well know how to fly and fight" stance.



It certainly could not have been firepower as the Hurricane II had twice the number of machine guns, neither speed. The Hurricane II was faster and had a better supercharger. I also exclude the vulnerability of the engine cooling system as an explanatio, after all the Hurricane was a big success as a fighter-*bomber*.

This raises one question however: Why were the RAF Hawk suadrons doing so much better than the Hurricane squadrons from the very same RAF? Isn´t everybody supposed to train and fight alike? Well, at least everybody in one theater of operations.


----------



## renrich (Apr 7, 2010)

Nikademus, I agree with your conclusion with the exception that it was not Thach or Flatley or any other squadron commander but rather the USN that insisted on pilots being trained to a very high standard with a lot of emphasis on gunnery, including full deflection shooting. This issue has been debated ad infinitum on this forum but I believe that the pilots trained by the USN prior to Pearl harbor were as well trained as any in the world. After the war began for the US, the training syllabus was streamlined for the USN but they still had superior training before being sent into combat. That may very well explain some of the success of the Wildcat against the Japanese. The tactics devised by USN and Marine commanders like Jimmy Thach also played a major role. Actually, from what I have read, tactics and training under Claire Chennault may have accounted for much of the success of the AVG during the period January, 1942 to July, 1942.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 7, 2010)

renrich said:


> Nikademus, I agree with your conclusion with the exception that it was not Thach or Flatley or any other squadron commander but rather the USN that insisted on pilots being trained to a very high standard with a lot of emphasis on gunnery, including full deflection shooting. This issue has been debated ad infinitum on this forum but I believe that the pilots trained by the USN prior to Pearl harbor were as well trained as any in the world. After the war began for the US, the training syllabus was streamlined for the USN but they still had superior training before being sent into combat. That may very well explain some of the success of the Wildcat against the Japanese. The tactics devised by USN and Marine commanders like Jimmy Thach also played a major role. Actually, from what I have read, tactics and training under Claire Chennault may have accounted for much of the success of the AVG during the period January, 1942 to July, 1942.


once again I dispute the indvidual skills of USN pilots being better then any one elses this crap about superior gunnery skills slays me


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 7, 2010)

I didn't include tactics in my last post because, logically, the same tactics ought to have been employed across the Command. That said, I believe RAF squadron commanders were afforded a fair degree of latitude in how they organised and trained their units. Photos of Buffalos flying over Singapore show they were still using 3-aircraft vic formations in late 1941 - and these were squadrons led by officers with extensive Battle of Britain experience. By late 1941, close-formation vics had largely been replaced by the battle pair in virtually all other operational theatres. Perhaps leadership, training and tactics at the unit level do form part of the answer but it still doesn't seem sufficient for me - there would have to be a consistent run of good leaders and tacticians for the 2 Mohawk units and an even worse run of poor leaders and tacticians within the Hurrican force for this single issue to have primacy, and that seems just too far removed from the realms of probability.


----------



## Nikademus (Apr 7, 2010)

renrich said:


> Nikademus, I agree with your conclusion with the exception that it was not Thach or Flatley or any other squadron commander but rather the USN that insisted on pilots being trained to a very high standard with a lot of emphasis on gunnery, including full deflection shooting. 1942.



Hi,

The situation described in Lundstrom did not come about till late 1942 whereby Deflection shooting received emphasis in the Training Command. Prior to that, DS and enhanced gunnery training was taught at the operational unit level as headed by C/O's such as Thatch.


----------



## Nikademus (Apr 7, 2010)

Markus said:


> I
> 
> This raises one question however: Why were the RAF Hawk suadrons doing so much better than the Hurricane squadrons from the very same RAF? Isn´t everybody supposed to train and fight alike? Well, at least everybody in one theater of operations.



Given that a mere two RAF squadrons flew the Mohawk in Burma, 5 and 155 squadron that they scored closer to a 1:1 situation in their limited battles, to me does not denote better performance by default. The overall ratio for Hurricanes in Burma is poor for the entire campaign but does not exclude instances of better tactical exchanges. 

for example on 11/20/42 155 squadron Mohawks got the bounce on some 64th Sentai Ki-43's while escorting a Blenheim strike on Akyab. The Ki-43's were at the time providing top cover for a convoy and had attempted to attack the bombers. The 155 escort attacked them from above while they were focused on the bombers and shot down one of the Ki-43's. In return however the Ki-43's shot down two of the Mohawks. Overall I'm showing only 14 Mohawks in total lost in Burma. Compared to the 198 Hurricanes lost, or the 80 Spitfire, that indicates a very light level of engagement in comparison when taking into account the entire Burma campaign. As such I would not draw any long ranging conclusions regarding comparisons of effectiveness.


----------



## Marcel (Apr 8, 2010)

Markus said:


> The Dutch planes had engines that worked like they were supposed to.


Nope, the B-339C's had G-105A engines, just like the British, they were left-overs from an order for Dorniers. The B-339D had second hand G-205A engines of 1200hp, taken from TWA a/c. They were old and had fuel probems at altitude. The B-339-23 had R-1280-G2 engines, 1000 hp, which were old KLM DC3 engines. The B-339-23 was seriously underpowered, the B-339C in a lesser degree as well. The B-339D had the right horsepowers but was unreliable.


----------



## claidemore (Apr 8, 2010)

Different roles for the Mohawk vs Hurricane should not affect the claim/loss ratio, just the number of aerial combats per sortie. Hurricanes might have flown a greater ratio of escort/interception missions, but they did fighter bomber work as well. 

Johnnie Johnson was surprised when he took over 144 Wing to find that they were still flying in the 3 plane vic, and they were pretty reluctant to try his four plane formation. This was in March of 1943! 

Heres an interesting post about the Burma Mohawks: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/p36-mohawks-vs-jaf-2922.html


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 8, 2010)

Nikademus said:


> As such I would not draw any long ranging conclusions regarding comparisons of effectiveness.



i don't think that this is statistically true, JoeB explain this in 61st post


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 8, 2010)

Again, statistics may provide a way of comparing figures but it doesn't tell us why things happened. An excellent aircraft flown by well-trained pilots will perform better than a mediocre aircraft flown by inexperienced pilots. However, life is more complex. You get inexperienced pilots in excellent aircraft (eg the Zero in 1943-44), you get excellent aircraft with excellent pilots being overwhelmed by other factors (eg Me262 in 1944-45). You also get mediocre aircraft doing very well when flown by experienced pilots (eg the Finns and their Buffalos). The challenge for the topic we're currently debating in this thread, the relative performance of the Mohawk and Hurricane, definitely falls into the complex category because, as has been pointed out by Joe, the pilot factor should have been a constant. Given that the 2 aircraft had similar aerodynamic performance, indeed the Hurricane probably had the edge in speed and manoeuverability, we need to determine why the Mohawk had such a better kill/loss ratio than the Hurricane.


----------



## Juha (Apr 8, 2010)

Hello Buffnut
Quote:” indeed the Hurricane probably had the edge in … manoeuverability”

On what you based your claim? Finns definitely thought that Hawk 75A-1 was better dogfighter than Hurricane Mk I. British (RAE) concluded that Hawk 75A-1 was better dogfighter than Spitfire Mk I. French Hawk 75As did better against Bf 109Es than RAF Hurricane Mk Is during the Battle of France in 1940 and then we have Burma where, even if Mohawk IVs participated rather few combats against Type 1, Mohawks did better than Hurricanes against Oscars. Hurricane was faster but there were most probably some areas where Hawk was better otherwise it is difficult to explain why Hawk did constantly better than Hurricane.

Juha


----------



## Nikademus (Apr 8, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> i don't think that this is statistically true, JoeB explain this in 61st post



The 'statistical set' so to speak, is too small in Burma in regards to the Mohawk. The limited engagement gave a 1.5:1 edge to the Ki-43 over the Mohawks but expanded out, it might have been radically different. Its speculation at that point. Comparing the two planes vs. their primary opponent type, I don't see them performing radically different if pilot exp and tactics remain the same. The Hurricane's technical advantages in speed would be impacted signifigantly by how the plane was used in combat while the firepower edge is somewhat less important vs. the lightly built Ki-43 of which the Mohawk could bring down easier than say vs. a tougher opponent.

The Sitzkrieg period is interesting but not suprising to me. Overall i don't think there was much difference to choose betweenst the three. The ratios are fairly close for all of them except in the case of the D. The British in the pre-Blitzkrieg period only entered combat near the end and suffered a couple of bad bounces which gave the Germans an edge in the ratio. 

losses (x/y)
H-75A:109D
(2:15)
H-75A:109E
13:15
Hurricane:109
(13:7)

For giggles, 

MS-406:109D
4:3
MS-406:109E
24:10

So were French fighter pilots better trained? use better tactics or simply more aggressive? Shores considered the H-75A to be clearly superior to the 109D and a match for the 109E prior to it being armed with cannon. The Hurricanes present at the time were early Hurricanes of lesser performance vs. later models. A newer model Hurricane tested against a captured 109E showed the Hurr to have a Mnvr edge and a speed edge at near ground level. Above that the 109E captured the edge in speed. Another interesting comment Shores made was that the early experiences against these early model 109's gave the Western Allies a bit of a false sense of security vs. the 109, a security which would be rudely shattered later in the war (post France)

I see this issue as similar to the differing experiences of Commonwealth pilots using export P-40's vs. American pilots using P-40's, as well as the Soviet experience using P-39's vs. Western experiences.


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 8, 2010)

Juha said:


> Hello Buffnut
> Quote:” indeed the Hurricane probably had the edge in … manoeuverability”
> 
> On what you based your claim? Finns definitely thought that Hawk 75A-1 was better dogfighter than Hurricane Mk I. British (RAE) concluded that Hawk 75A-1 was better dogfighter than Spitfire Mk I. French Hawk 75As did better against Bf 109Es than RAF Hurricane Mk Is during the Battle of France in 1940 and then we have Burma where, even if Mohawk IVs participated rather few combats against Type 1, Mohawks did better than Hurricanes against Oscars. Hurricane was faster but there were most probably some areas where Hawk was better otherwise it is difficult to explain why Hawk did constantly better than Hurricane.
> ...



Juha,

I did say the Hurricane "probably had the edge" - ie I wasn't stating as fact. I was postulating. I was also suggesting that neither aircraft had a huge advantage over the other - their aerodynamic performance was, on balance, broadly similar. 

Agree there are areas where the Mohawk was better than the Hurricane. I just wonder if the aerodynamic performance advantage was so great that it explains Joe's statistical chasm between Hurricane and Mohawk operational performance.

KR
Mark


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 8, 2010)

Nikademus said:


> The 'statistical set' so to speak, is too small in Burma in regards to the Mohawk.
> 
> The Hurricanes present at the time were early Hurricanes of lesser performance vs. later models.



can you demostrate your point (statiscal set to o small)?

same it's true for hawk 75, mohawk IV was a later model of hawk 75 in France


----------



## Nikademus (Apr 8, 2010)

I believe I already have.


----------



## Knegel (Apr 8, 2010)

Hi,

the succes of a plane type always depends to the tactical situation and the performence of the oponents.

Vs the japanese planes the P40 had the big advantage of a higher dive speed and "highspeed" manouverability.
The P40 was one of the best rolling WWII planes!!

The better turn manouverability of the Hurri vs the P40 didnt matter much vs the Ki43 or Zero, both was even more manouverable and while the Hurri wasnt able to dive away.

Vs the 109 both was in trouble, specialy vs 109F and G´s, while the P40 again could make successfull high speed attacks and evasive manouvers, while the hurri just could turn.

Speed and "high speed" manouverability was most important, and afaik still is, for a good fighter.

In this case i mean speeds between 300 and 600km/h IAS, not speeds close to or above the critical speed.

Greetings,

Knegel


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 8, 2010)

Nikademus said:


> I believe I already have.



where? sorry i don't see your demostration. i see only your opinion.


----------



## Timppa (Apr 8, 2010)

JoeB said:


> The Buffalo was liked OK pre war in the USN..


From AHT (Dec 3, 1941):
"VF-2 reported: that "it has ceased all operations until enemy contact became imminent. Progressive landing gear failures had started in 12 of the 17 aircraft."
(The landing gear problem was the most serious , but the arresting hook problem was severe also (possibly due to sabotage)).
I don't interpret this as "liked OK".


----------



## Nikademus (Apr 8, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> where? sorry i don't see your demostration. i see only your opinion.



I guess I don't understand what you are asking. Sorry.


----------



## claidemore (Apr 8, 2010)

The question isn't about what advantages the Mohawk had over the Hurricane, it's what advantages either plane had over their opposition. 

The Mohawk had a definite advantage in roll rate over the Hurricane, as confirmed by the RAE comparison and pilot anecdotes indicate that the Mohawk could outmanuever the Oscar, while the Hurricane could not. 
On two occasions Mohawks survived collissions with Oscars, (the Oscars did not), and the Wright radial engine of the Mohawk would have given it an edge in surviving battle damage over the liquid cooled Merlin in the Hurricane.

Some stats on the Hawk75A/Mohawk IV from the manual (sales brochure?):
max range, 1230 miles
max speed 323 mph
stalling speed 70mph
wing loading, 25.1 lbs/sq ft (29lbs for Hurricane II, 24.1 for Oscar)[edit: oops, should be 24.8 lbs / sq ft for Oscar]
power loading 6.23 lbs/hp
gross weight, 5922 (7600 lbs for Hurricane)
max dive speed 455 mph


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 8, 2010)

claidemore said:


> wing loading, 25.1 lbs/sq ft (29lbs for Hurricane II, 24.1 for Oscar)



So, according to your figures (rather than anecdotes) the Oscar ought to have been capable of outmanoeuvering the Mohawk due to its lower wing loading???

Does the greater relative manoeuverability of the Mohawk and its radial engine account for the huge disparity in kill/loss ratio between it and the Hurricane? If the consensus is that it does adequately explain it then I'm happy. My gut tells me it's not a sufficient explanation but I'm happy if others disagree.


----------



## Juha (Apr 8, 2010)

Hello Knegel
I agree with your post #100, only like to add 2 more important qualities for a good fighter: good acceleration and good climb rate. Hurricane had poor acceleration and neither Hurri nor Hawk were great climbers.

Juha


----------



## timshatz (Apr 8, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> Does the greater relative manoeuverability of the Mohawk and its radial engine account for the huge disparity in kill/loss ratio between it and the Hurricane? If the consensus is that it does adequately explain it then I'm happy. My gut tells me it's not a sufficient explanation but I'm happy if others disagree.



That is a really good question. 

The problem with the Mohawk sample size is it is so small that one good, onesided battle could skew the results decidedly in the Mohawks favor while the Hurricane had, generally, better results throughout. 

For instance, if a squadron of Mohawks bounced a Squadron of Oscars, knocking down 5, without loss. Then lose 8 over the succeeding battles while only getting 3, the numbers won't show it (going on an 88 spread for Oscars V Mohawks).

I guess my bottom line is it is dangerous to draw conclusions from so small a sample without a lot more data about how they got there.


----------



## JoeB (Apr 8, 2010)

Nikademus said:


> The 'statistical set' so to speak, is too small in Burma in regards to the Mohawk.
> 
> The Sitzkrieg period is interesting but not suprising to me.


I explained the stats math in post above. By my count 8:7 (as I said includes 'crashland', 'belly land' collisions in air combat and the specific cases I noted) in favor of Mohawk is statistically significantly different than Hurricane's 12:55 at a very high level of confidence. Even if we go with your count, if the true underlying ratio of kills/losses is 12/55=.22, it's still only 9% likely you'd get a 4 or more kills v 6 losses, not so far away from statistical significance at 95% (but I don't know how you get that smaller count).

On Hurricane and Hawk v 109, that's a good additional set of info from Fledgling Eagles but you seem to be discussing it as if it's the only data set. See my previous post, Hurricane v 109 in the much larger sample of Battle of France from May 1940, as counted in the "The Battle of France Then and Now", was similar to the sitzkreig period, 74 Bf109's downed for loss of 151 Hurricanes in air combat. In that period Hawk went 23:38 v Bf109, all opponents 'E' type. Actually that difference is *not* statitistically significant at 95% confidence, there's about 25% chance of getting 23:38 randomly if the true probability is reflected by 74:151. Adding in the sitzkrieg numbers, it would be Hurricane 81:164, Hawk, 36:53, .50 v .68:1, with then only about 8% chance of achieving the Hawk's ratio by random if the true ratio were equal to the Hurricane's, IOW that's around as significant as the Burma result to reject the hypothesis that the two had equal chance of success (even per your count with which I respectfully disagree).

As far as Hurricane's other episodes v Bf109E seems "Air War for Yugoslavia Greece and Crete" is the outlier, and I don't understand why we'd discount the Malta 109E results* for elite Germans when smaller Greece result included a number of kills by perhaps the best British fighter pilot of WWII, Pattle. I would just keep aggregating to a bigger sample, and if so the ratio of Hurricane to 109E is not going to improve from 1:2 in well documented episodes, probably less including all of France 1940, Malta, North Africa and Greece. Others sometimes refer to better Hurricane results in other North Europe periods (BoB, sweeps over France later on, etc) but I don't know of books which allow you to count air combat results granularly in those periods, as opposed to reading tea leaves of total periodic losses. 

Re: Buffnut that 'we'd accept the Hurricane's lack of success if you gave a reason' I don't really see the logic in that, with all due respect. The results are what they are*. The tendency seems to be to just say differences from whatever it is that people expect *must* be due to the situations of combats. But how really likely is it that Hurricanes were in unfavorable situations continously in FE throughout 1942 and 43 campaigns? Firstly, I just don't see that in aggregate in the books mentioned. And even if so, isn't *always* being in disadvantageous position at *some point* a reflection on the a/c? I just don't accept the logic that somebody presenting results has to have a complete explanation or else there's something wrong or irrelevant about the stats.

I doubt it's generally possible to *prove* why one a/c did better than another in combat, but it has to be shown IMO that there was a some 'unfair' difference causing that, not just assuming it.

*I get 30:0 for Hurricane v Bf109E over Malta in "Hurricanes over Malta", you said 35. I took notes on "Air War for Yugoslavia Greece and Crete" a long time ago but never added it up...I suppose in every case there will be differences due to error or interpretation, but they don't seem that dramatic in general.

Joe


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 8, 2010)

Joe,

As always your arguments are well presented. However, the sample set is absolutely relevant. A single combat where a formation of K-43s was bounced by Mohawks, the latter having a tactical advantage, which resulted in the downing of 4 Japanese fighters would hugely skew the stats. I'm not saying such an event happened, merely pointing out that sample size IS relevant to the discussion.



JoeB said:


> Re: Buffnut that 'we'd accept the Hurricane's lack of success if you gave a reason' I don't really see the logic in that, with all due respect. The results are what they are.



I'm interested in the reason because that's how we discover more about the topic under discussion. Causal factors are pivotal to a deeper understanding of issues. Good/Bad, Black/White, Right/Wrong simply isn't good enough for me - there are degrees and shades to all issues and it's the exploration of those shades that I find fascinating. I'm not being revisiosnist, I'm simply trying to understand things in ways that are often under-represented in published works.

KR
Mark


----------



## JoeB (Apr 8, 2010)

timshatz said:


> That is a really good question.
> 
> The problem with the Mohawk sample size is it is so small that one good, onesided battle could skew the results decidedly in the Mohawks favor while the Hurricane had, generally, better results throughout.
> 
> ...


Again, please see the post with statistics analysis. If there wasn't a systematic difference in conditions, then 8:7 and 12:55 are statistically significantly different results at a very high level of confidence. So the issue would be systematic difference, not randomness per se.

The actual cases as I counted were, only combats with one or more real kills, there were a few inconclusive ones, are:
Nov 10 '42: 2 Mohawks, 3 Type 1 (1 Type 1 to collision and 1 Type 1 pilot returned but DOW, I counted)
Dec 5: 1 Mohawk, 1 Type 1
Jan 19: 1 Type 1
Jan 22 '43: 1 Type 1
Feb 12: 1 Type 1
Mar 29: 1 Mohawk (might be operational, but I counted)
Mar 30: 1 Mohawk
Apr 20: 2 Mohawks, 1 Type 1

So the individual outcomes were all pretty close too, and of 8 decisive combats 4 came out in Mohawk's favor, 3 in Type 1's and 1 'tied'. The Hurricane results are a lot to type in case by case, but likewise the variance in results wasn't that great from combat to combat: 4 combats in Hurricanes's favor, 22 in Type 1's favor, 9 tied. 

Both stats analysis and a general feel when you look at the details tells you aren't looking at two similar sets of results there. The small sample limits how much you can *quantify* the difference. You can't say the Mohawk was 4 times more effective, the sample *is* too small for *that*. But it's not too small a sample to reject the hypothesis that Hurricane and Mohawk results were really equal but just appear different due to statistical noise.

Joe


----------



## Nikademus (Apr 9, 2010)

JoeB said:


> I explained the stats math in post above. By my count 8:7 (as I said includes 'crashland', 'belly land' collisions in air combat and the specific cases I noted) in favor of Mohawk is statistically significantly different than Hurricane's 12:55 at a very high level of confidence.



As I've said, IMO, the limited engagement of Mohawks in Burma is too small to draw any definitive comparison betweenst it and fighter types based on that Theater. Only 14 Mohawks were lost in total in my calcuations (of which 6 were lost to Ki-43's) A far smaller # than the total losses of Hurricanes and Spitfires. 



> On Hurricane and Hawk v 109, that's a good additional set of info from Fledgling Eagles but you seem to be discussing it as if it's the only data set.



Don't know why you'd think that. 



> As far as Hurricane's other episodes v Bf109E seems "Air War for Yugoslavia Greece and Crete" is the outlier, and I don't understand why we'd discount the Malta 109E results* for elite Germans when smaller Greece result included a number of kills by perhaps the best British fighter pilot of WWII



I don't recall discounting Malta's results. I find it odd though that you'd mention that some of the 109 kills scored by the RAF iin Greece were done so at the hands of one of Britian's better fighter pilots as if this somehow takes away from the fact that it was done from the cockpit of a Hurricane. I mentioned the 7/JG-26 period specifically, along with the results from Greece to emphasis that Hurricane ratios could vary substantially from Theater to Theater. In the former case, the high level of experience and cohesiveness of the German staffel played a major part in their dominance over the ad-hoc Hurricane units stationed at Malta. The Greece fighting, along with the BoB show that the Hurricane could and did achieve competetive and/or a positive kill ratio against enemy fighters along with other forms of success not touched on in this thread. (which seems to focus exclusively on fighter vs fighter)


----------



## claidemore (Apr 9, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> So, according to your figures (rather than anecdotes) the Oscar ought to have been capable of outmanoeuvering the Mohawk due to its lower wing loading???



The wingloading figures of the Oscar and Mohawk are very close, and wingloading is an 'indicator' of turning ability and agility, but not a' measurement' of turning ability. The high speed roll ability of the Mohawk would IMO be a more important factor. 
I for one do not discount the anecdotal evidence, particularly when it is supported by data such as the 25 lb wing loading figure and the RAE report comparing roll rates vs Hurricane and Spitfire. If the Mohawk pilots say they could outturn the Oscar, I believe them. 
Those pilots also said that visibility was better from the Mohwak than the Hurricane (or Spitfire). 
It would be silly to say that one or two factors are responsible for the results of the Mohawk in combat, there are too many factors, some measureable, some not. 
The ones we can measure are: 455 mph dive speed, 25.1 lbs/sq ft wing loading (24.8 for Ki43, the figure I gave in previous post was incorrect), max weight under 6000 lbs, roll rate at higher speeds (sorry don't have the RAE report in front of me). 
Basically the Mohawk was about the same weight as an Oscar, the same wing area, same horsepower engine, similar armament (slightly better with wing guns added). It should be no surprise that they achieved basic parity in combat vs each other.
The Hurricane II was bigger, heavier(1500 lbs with similar horspower engine), less agile, and had a lower climb rate (+2500 for IIc, 2750 for IIb compared to 3280ft/min for Mohawk). Should be no surprise that RAF pilots who had a long standing paradigm of relying on turning ability would have a tough time flying the Hurricane vs more agile planes.
Statements to the effect that the Hurricane and Mohawk were basically similar in performance are erroneous and misleading. They were in fact quite different planes.


----------



## timshatz (Apr 9, 2010)

JoeB said:


> So the individual outcomes were all pretty close too, and of 8 decisive combats 4 came out in Mohawk's favor, 3 in Type 1's and 1 'tied'. The Hurricane results are a lot to type in case by case, but likewise the variance in results wasn't that great from combat to combat: 4 combats in Hurricanes's favor, 22 in Type 1's favor, 9 tied.
> 
> Both stats analysis and a general feel when you look at the details tells you aren't looking at two similar sets of results there. The small sample limits how much you can *quantify* the difference. You can't say the Mohawk was 4 times more effective, the sample *is* too small for *that*. But it's not too small a sample to reject the hypothesis that Hurricane and Mohawk results were really equal but just appear different due to statistical noise.
> 
> Joe



Joe,

Good post. Do you have the same information for the Hurricane losses?


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 9, 2010)

JoeB said:


> Again, please see the post with statistics analysis. If there wasn't a systematic difference in conditions, then 8:7 and 12:55 are statistically significantly different results at a very high level of confidence. So the issue would be systematic difference, not randomness per se.
> 
> The actual cases as I counted were, only combats with one or more real kills, there were a few inconclusive ones, are:
> Nov 10 '42: 2 Mohawks, 3 Type 1 (1 Type 1 to collision and 1 Type 1 pilot returned but DOW, I counted)
> ...



Joe,

I may have missed it but I couldn't find the Ki-43 loss on 22 Jan 43 so I ended up with a total of 6 Ki-43 "kills" by Mohawks (I didn't count losses where the aircraft return to its operating base). However, 2 of those were due to mid-air collisions with Mohawks while another resulted from the Ki-43 crashing into the ground while chasing the Mohawk at low level. These accidental losses had nothing to do with the Mohawk's ability as a fighter and hence must be discounted - accidents happen but they cannot be said to contribute to the combat performance assessment of the Mohawk (or any other aircraft). So my earlier comment about data potentially being skewed was correct - Mohawks only shot down 3 Ki-43s. Of interest, on half of the engagements you listed, the Mohawks engaged Ki-43s with the former having greater numbers and operating at higher altitude; the Mohawk only achieved kills when it had these tactical advantages.

Now, that said, I haven't been through the Hurricane data (just haven't the time) to do a similar analysis of that aircraft's combats with Ki-43s. I want to compare apples to apples - work out kills directly attributed to gunfire - and determine the combat conditions at the time. It may take me some considerable time to do that for the Hurricane but I'm interested in finding out how it compares.

Kind regards,
Mark


----------



## claidemore (Apr 9, 2010)

After checking the pilots notes for the Hurricane II models, I found the dive speed limitation to be 390 mph. Don't know how I never found that before. 
They also mention that speed builds up slowly in a dive. It would appear that diving away from Japanese planes would not be to the Hurricanes advantage.


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 10, 2010)

Nikademus said:


> As I've said, IMO, the limited engagement of Mohawks in Burma is too small to draw any definitive comparison betweenst it and fighter types based on that Theater. Only 14 Mohawks were lost in total in my calcuations (of which 6 were lost to Ki-43's) A far smaller # than the total losses of Hurricanes and Spitfires.




the point it that too small can't be a opinion the statistics give the instruments...


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 10, 2010)

Vicenzo,

The problem is sample size. When using statistics, small sample sizes mean the results are prone to wide variation depending on how the data was collected. For example, in a political election, a survey may ask 10 people how they will vote. If they ask 10 rich suburbanites, they will likely get a different answer than if they ask 10 poor inner-city dwellers, and a change of one person either way results in a 10% swing in the results. To be reliable, surveys should be taken over as wide a sample set as possible to ensure the results represent the overall view and are not subject to wide swings due to a small number of changes. 

The problem with the Mohawk, as I believe I've pointed out, is that it achieved relatively few "kills". Definition of what constitutes a "kill" therefore becomes important, per my previous post - of the 6 known losses suffered by the Ki-43s in combat with the Mohawk, 50% were due to accidents not RAF fire. 

I'm in the process of evaluating Hurricane data for the same time period and will post those results when I have them.

Cheers,
Mark


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 10, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> Vicenzo,
> 
> The problem is sample size. When using statistics, small sample sizes mean the results are prone to wide variation depending on how the data was collected. For example, in a political election, a survey may ask 10 people how they will vote. If they ask 10 rich suburbanites, they will likely get a different answer than if they ask 10 poor inner-city dwellers, and a change of one person either way results in a 10% swing in the results. To be reliable, surveys should be taken over as wide a sample set as possible to ensure the results represent the overall view and are not subject to wide swings due to a small number of changes.
> 
> ...



Sorry is not a problem of sample size.


----------



## JoeB (Apr 10, 2010)

Nikademus said:


> I don't recall discounting Malta's results. I find it odd though that you'd mention that some of the 109 kills scored by the RAF iin Greece were done so at the hands of one of Britian's better fighter pilots as if this somehow takes away from the fact that it was done from the cockpit of a Hurricane. I mentioned the 7/JG-26 period specifically, along with the results from Greece to emphasis that Hurricane ratios could vary substantially from Theater to Theater. In the former case, the high level of experience and cohesiveness of the German staffel played a major part in their dominance over the ad-hoc Hurricane units stationed at Malta. The Greece fighting, along with the BoB show that the Hurricane could and did achieve competetive and/or a positive kill ratio against enemy fighters along with other forms of success not touched on in this thread. (which seems to focus exclusively on fighter vs fighter)


It seemed you were discounting the Malta results, still does actually in this more recent post. I was simply pointing out that the 'but' you are mentioning for Malta (the qualities of particular German unit) could be answered by a 'but' for Greece (fairly small sample in which a number of the 109 kills were by a single excellent pilot). Of course there's a human factors 'but' in every case of combat between air arms, and when comparing different air arms' results v common enemy . The general advantage of German fighters over British (and almost everybody else's) in 1939-42 obviously had to do with factors besides just the a/c, though also was affected in degree by the a/c (eg the Spitfire was generally more successful than the Hurricane v the Bf109). Again, I would just aggregate all the well two-side documented Hurrican v 109E examples, with no special 'asterisks' or weighting for any particular case besides their relative numbers in the average.

As far as BoB, like I said, I don't know of a 'granualar level' analysis that allows counting of Hurricane v 109 kills/losses comparable to the books we've been discussing. I've read general statements that it was something like 1:1.7 (IIRC) in favor of 109 but again I don't know exactly what's behind that (daily totals, weighting them, all causes...it can be pretty murky). Same was true of BoF until "BoF Then and Now" book appeared recently. Anyway, I'm not sure there are well documented examples of Hurricane v 109E a lot better than 1:2 except Greece. Though usual disclaimer, 1:2 kill ratio doesn't mean abject failure depending on a lot of other factors (what else is being accomplished, ability to replace losses v that of enemy, etc).

Re: Buffnut, I always count the same way*. The Hurricane results are counted the same way. In many or most cases stuff like flying into ground 'accidentally' isn't agreed by both sides; and in this particular case the Mohawks 'engaged' the Type 1's first, who is to say they didn't hit and wound Major Yagi? And as you see the British in second case of Type 1 collision believed that a/c turned violently and hit a Mohawk after being hit by gunfire from another Mohawk. Rather than go through this every time with dozens of 'asterisks' in bigger samples, I just ask: was the a/c lost as a direct result of an air combat? The answer in all three of those cases is clearly 'yes'. As far as giving benefit of doubt to reduce Japanese losses (as in not counting as a loss 'managed to force land at Akyab but died in hospital') I could imagine the howling from some if Hurricane/Spitfire claims were ruled 'overclaims' in cases like that. 

As far as 'asterisking' altitude, I see that as counter logical: which plane had altitude advantage is clearly at least partly a function of the plane, and/or the operating practice of the air arm.

*subject to vagueness of info in books, and my own mistakes, like counting Jan 22 which was a bomber kill, scribbled notes, sorry. 7:7 per my method.

Joe


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 10, 2010)

JoeB said:


> And as you see the British in second case of Type 1 collision believed that a/c turned violently and hit a Mohawk after being hit by gunfire from another Mohawk.



Need to double-check, but IIRC it was the authors' who suggested that the Ki-43 might have been hit by gunfire. Agree we can't asterisk every time we come up against something unusual, hence why I'm sticking to confirmed casualties on both sides that were, without question, the result of gunfire (it ensures we're measuring apples and apples when there's such a small sample set for the Mohawk).



JoeB said:


> As far as 'asterisking' altitude, I see that as counter logical: which plane had altitude advantage is clearly at least partly a function of the plane, and/or the operating practice of the air arm.



Partly a function of the plane, but also a function of the amount of warning available which, depending on the defence network, is usually less for forward airfields than for those in the read (eg 11 Gp during BoB). I need to complete my analysis of the Hurricane figures but one thing that immediately leaps out at me for the early engagements thru the end of Feb 43 is that many Hurricane sorties were scrambles against IJAAF combined bomber and fighter attacks against the airfields they were operating from. Agartala never had to endure these attacks. These IJAAF raids were also not small affairs - bombers escorted by 30 Ki-43s from both 64th and 50th Sentais were not uncommon. So the Hurricane's tactical operating environment WAS different to that of the Mohawk. 

I'm not suggesting one causal factor for the poor performance of the Hurricane - I want to go through the entire period thru end Dec 43 to ensure I've been even-handed in my treatment of both aircraft types. 

Cheers,
Mark


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 10, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> Sorry is not a problem of sample size.



So what is the problem? Why is sample size not relevant given the huge complexity of variables in air combat? The relative altitudes of the aircraft alone is sometimes sufficient to decide the outcome of an engagement. If one aircraft type, because of circumstance, consistently found itself at higher altitude and in greater numbers than the enemy for a small total number of engagements, it should have a better combat record than a type that had far more engagements but was routinely outnumbered and caught flying below the enemy.


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 11, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> So what is the problem? Why is sample size not relevant given the huge complexity of variables in air combat? The relative altitudes of the aircraft alone is sometimes sufficient to decide the outcome of an engagement. If one aircraft type, because of circumstance, consistently found itself at higher altitude and in greater numbers than the enemy for a small total number of engagements, it should have a better combat record than a type that had far more engagements but was routinely outnumbered and caught flying below the enemy.



because we have not take samples, we have two distribution to compare, we have not take two sample from a universe or people, and try to know the results from intere universe or people, i'm sorry my english is already bad and idk the english statistician words, i hope if some english speacking statistic learned can hep me in explanation


----------



## claidemore (Apr 11, 2010)

I'm not a statistician, but I do know that we are not looking at a sample of the Mohawks combat record, we are looking at the entire Mohawk combat record. 
No one doubts the ability of the Ta-152, which had fewer actual engagements than the Mohawks in Burma, so why doubt the Mohawk? 
As I mentioned before, there isn't a case where the Hawk/Mohwak was employed where it had a particularly poor showing, so success (or relative success) in Burma isn't an anomoly, it's part of a pattern. France, Finland, Burma; three completely different theatres against completely different plane types and airforces where the plane achieved either parity or a positive kill ratio.


----------



## fastmongrel (Apr 11, 2010)

Were Hurricanes in the East lumbered with the enormous Vokes Air filters like the Hurricanes in the desert. If they were that could explain the poor showing of the Hurricane. I have read that they killed the top speed and climb speed, which was not too great anyway at that time in the war.


----------



## Juha (Apr 11, 2010)

Very good point fastmongrel, probably one of the reasons why Hurricanes did rather poorly in Asia,
All I can say, that Finnish AF Hurricanes didn’t have Vokes filters and that some of the Soviet ones had and other didn’t have,

Juha


----------



## Nikademus (Apr 11, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> the point it that too small can't be a opinion the statistics give the instruments...



If i'm understanding you correctly, I most heartily disagree.


----------



## Nikademus (Apr 11, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> Joe,
> 
> I may have missed it but I couldn't find the Ki-43 loss on 22 Jan 43 so I ended up with a total of 6 Ki-43 "kills" by Mohawks (I didn't count losses where the aircraft return to its operating base). However, 2 of those were due to mid-air collisions with Mohawks while another resulted from the Ki-43 crashing into the ground while chasing the Mohawk at low level.
> Kind regards,
> Mark



Hi,

I rechecked 22 Jan43 and do not see a Ki-43 loss either. I'm showing 2 x Hurricane lost to AA, a Ki-21 lost to a Mohawk, and another Hurricane lost to a Ki-43.

22 Nov 42 is one of those examples of ambiguity that can frustrate a researcher. Usually I do count mid-air collisions as kills but in some cases this can be dicey, esp if the collision seems accidental vs. intentional (A Russian specialty as it turns out!) or in this case, the collision had nothing to do with the plane being attacked! For consistency's sake however I did count Ito's death as a kill though there were grounds not to do so.

I did not count Yamada as a kill because he did successfully force land at Akyab airfield and in such cases i usually do not count success airfield landings by damaged planes as kills *unless* they are deadstick landings. Given that Yamada died later (unspecified time period) in a hosptial makes that too dicey for me personally to count it. Thus my total for that day is 2 x Mohawk (Ki-43), and 2 Ki-43(Mohawk (including the dicey "Collision" 'self kill' by Ito), 2 x Blenheim (ki-43) and 1 x Blenheim (AA)


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 11, 2010)

Nikademus said:


> If i'm understanding you correctly, I most heartily disagree.



as you want but you aren't disagree with me but with statistics


----------



## Nikademus (Apr 11, 2010)

JoeB said:


> It seemed you were discounting the Malta results, still does actually in this more recent post.



Nope. I mentioned Malta and 7/JG26's achievement 'and' the results from Greece specifically to show how the overall ratio for a period of time can vary with essentially the same aircraft in different settings. (and in this case, the same primary opponent.) Its not a discount, its an emphasis of my point that yes indeed, there's alot more going on vis-a-vis exchange ratios than just the aircraft themselves. In the case of Malta, citing an incredible 35:0 exchange ratio demands that more detail be explained in why it happened. The Greece example was cited simply to show again the difference that can be seen in the exchange ratio (with the same opponent types over Malta) and no....it wasn't due to one pilot's efforts.





> As far as BoB, like I said, I don't know of a 'granualar level' analysis that allows counting of Hurricane v 109 kills/losses comparable to the books we've been discussing.



Which is still no reason to dismiss such a major battle in which the Hurricane was not only a major contributor, but the majority contributor. (it shot down the most planes on the British side and was present in larger #'s than the Spit though the latter gets all the glory from most accounts)
I'm showing an approximate 1.28:1 exchange ratio in favor of the Luftwaffe overall in just fighter vs. fighter exchanges. (1.33:1 in favor of the UK for total airframe losses)**

I've yet to document in any BoB book yet that does not give the advantage in training, experience and tactical doctrine to the Luftwaffe, particularly in fighter tactics. The RAF of course had key advantages in early warning and command control but suffered greatly from outdated tactics and were deficient in experience and adequately trained replacements. However one wants to look at it though it was a fine performance by both the Spit and especially the Hurricane. 

**these figures use 8/6/40 - 9/15/40 as the primary BoB period


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 11, 2010)

for the Mohawk and Hurricane comparation, idk but there were hurricane units in fight over east africa?


----------



## claidemore (Apr 11, 2010)

Nikademus said:


> Hi,
> 
> I rechecked 22 Jan43 and do not see a Ki-43 loss either. I'm showing 2 x Hurricane lost to AA, a Ki-21 lost to a Mohawk, and another Hurricane lost to a Ki-43.
> 
> ...



I agree that Itos death should be included. It's not like both planes were cruising along enjoying the scenery totally unaware of each other and just happened to cross each others flight path. This is no civil aviation accident. These planes were in combat, manuevering to keep from getting shot or to get a shot, and one or both pilots screwed up and they collided. That's a combat loss anyway you look at it, and the surviving plane is the instrument of the others destruction. The airforce in question might not choose to award a pilot a kill for an accidental collission, but we who are comparing the combat effectiveness of a plane cannot choose to simply ignore a situation where one plane showed a clear advantage (structural strength) over the other. For me this is not a dicey kill at all, and you are absolutely correct to include it. 

I disagree with your rationalization for Yamadas 'kill'. His plane was claimed by the RAF pilot initially. Later research showing that the pilot managed to land but died of his wounds makes that a confirmation. The pilot is dead, due to wounds recieved in combat, if that does not constutue a 'kill', then what does? The RAF pilot successfully removed the enemy pilot from the war, and in all likelihood the plane as well, at the very least temporarily. This is clearly a successful encounter for the RAF pilot and his plane.


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 11, 2010)

claidemore said:


> but we who are comparing the combat effectiveness of a plane cannot choose to simply ignore a situation where one plane showed a clear advantage (structural strength) over the other.



But an event where 2 aircraft are manoeuvering and the tailplane of one happens to hit the wingtip of another (the former aircraft crashing due to the loss of its tailplane, the latter aircraft landing albeit with damage) says nothing about the either combat effectiveness or structural strength of either aircraft. Hate to be a killjoy on this but when we're using kill/loss as a metric of aircraft performance, it needs to be based on a sensible set of criteria to ensure we're comparing like with like. Happenstance accidents (irrespective of the fact that both aircraft were manoeuvering in combat) is irrelevant to the argument.

FWIW, I had the privilege of meeting Wg Cdr Ken MacKenzie who famously knocked off the tail of a Me109 after he'd expended all his ammo trying to shoot it down. Whilst undoubtedly a kill that would be credited to the pilot, when taken in the context of other aerial combats involving the types, does it really help understanding of the combat performance of either type?


----------



## claidemore (Apr 12, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> FWIW, I had the privilege of meeting Wg Cdr Ken MacKenzie who famously knocked off the tail of a Me109 after he'd expended all his ammo trying to shoot it down. Whilst undoubtedly a kill that would be credited to the pilot, when taken in the context of other aerial combats involving the types, does it really help understanding of the combat performance of either type?



Yes this does reflect on the combat performance of MacKenzies plane, because MacKenzie was able to manuever his plane into position to take the 109s tail off. If his plane was not capable of staying with the 109 he could not have done it. If his plane was too slow, or not agile enough, the 109 would have escaped. 
Obviously his plane was the equal, or better of the 109 in that combat. 

Following the logic of not counting collisions we would have to discredit all the VI flying bombs that were taken out by tipping their wings. I don't think anybody wants to do that. 

Really, if we are discounting claims that are not supported by loss records, and we are not factoring in ground attack, escort effectiveness etc, we are in fact comparing combat losses to combat losses. 

The fragilty of the Ki-43 is well documented, and the strength of the Curtiss planes (P36 and P40) is well documented. For those reasons the two collissions involving Mohawks/Oscars serves as supporting evidence about the structural strength advantage of the Mohawk, even if two collisions are not by themselves definitive proof. They definately do not disprove the strength advantage of the Curtiss plane. 

I did finally find the RAE comparison of the Hawk 75 and Spitfire. Consensus of opinion by all pilots who flew both planes in the tests was that the Hawk was a much better dogfighter than the Spitfire, with considerably better aileron effectiveness at high speeds (3/4 deflection for Hawk compared to 1/5 deflection for Spitfire at 400 mph)[note:Spitfires and Hurricanes exhibit almost identical roll rates at high speeds]. 

From the RAE report:


> The Curtiss H75 is undoubtedly the best of these three aircraft (Spitfire,Hurricane, Hawk 75A) for any form of aerial combat in which manoeverability is of prime importance.


 In other words, a dogfight against Ki-43 Hayabusas. The Hurricane couldn't do it, the Spitfire couldn't do it, but the Hawk 75 could.


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 12, 2010)

claidemore said:


> Yes this does reflect on the combat performance of MacKenzies plane, because MacKenzie was able to manuever his plane into position to take the 109s tail off. If his plane was not capable of staying with the 109 he could not have done it. If his plane was too slow, or not agile enough, the 109 would have escaped. Obviously his plane was the equal, or better of the 109 in that combat.



Yes, after he'd emptied all his ammo into it and still not managed to shoot it down. The Me109 was heading for home, not manoeuvering and with a damaged engine. Great courage shown by MacKenzie in knocking off the tail - and it was a deliberate act rather than an accident - but by your logic re Mohawk vs Ki-43 the Hurricane should be classed as being structurally superior to the Me109. 



claidemore said:


> Really, if we are discounting claims that are not supported by loss records, and we are not factoring in ground attack, escort effectiveness etc, we are in fact comparing combat losses to combat losses.



The whole thrust of this thread has been relative performance of the Mohawk and Hurricane against the Ki-43. It's not about absolute victories but those where the performance of one aircraft resulted in a victory over the other. An accidental collision or an aircraft crashing due to its own pilot's error obfuscates rather than clarifies the matter, and when 50% of the Mohawk's "victories" come from these accidental causes, it leads to incorrect extrapolation. I'm not talking generically, I'm talking for this specific operational environment.



claidemore said:


> YThe fragilty of the Ki-43 is well documented, and the strength of the Curtiss planes (P36 and P40) is well documented. For those reasons the two collissions involving Mohawks/Oscars serves as supporting evidence about the structural strength advantage of the Mohawk, even if two collisions are not by themselves definitive proof. They definately do not disprove the strength advantage of the Curtiss plane.



I'm not disputing that the Ki-43 had structural weaknesses. However, any WWII fighter which lost it's tailplane due to a mid-air collision was destined to crash out of control shortly thereafter. Conversely most WWII fighters could be successfully (force-)landed without a wingtip, depending on how much area of wing was removed. The accidental crashes between RAF Mohawks and Ki-43s prove nothing in terms of combat performance of either type.



claidemore said:


> I did finally find the RAE comparison of the Hawk 75 and Spitfire. Consensus of opinion by all pilots who flew both planes in the tests was that the Hawk was a much better dogfighter than the Spitfire, with considerably better aileron effectiveness at high speeds (3/4 deflection for Hawk compared to 1/5 deflection for Spitfire at 400 mph)[note:Spitfires and Hurricanes exhibit almost identical roll rates at high speeds].
> 
> From the RAE report: In other words, a dogfight against Ki-43 Hayabusas. The Hurricane couldn't do it, the Spitfire couldn't do it, but the Hawk 75 could.



Ok, then we have one good, solid reason for explaining the difference in performance between the Mohawk and Ki-43. I suspect there are others, and (as I keep repeating) we need to compare apples to apples given the small number of Mohawk victories. I've almost finished the Hurricane review from "Air War for Burma" which I hope to post later today. I believe this will present an argument that the Mohawk was superior to the Hurricane but not to the extent indicated by the statistics Joe put forward.

Once again, I'm not knocking the Mohawk - I am actually very fond of the type. I do want to understand WHY it's performance was better and to do that we have to remove accidental "victories" from the equation.

KR
Mark


----------



## Markus (Apr 12, 2010)

fastmongrel said:


> Were Hurricanes in the East lumbered with the enormous Vokes Air filters like the Hurricanes in the desert. If they were that could explain the poor showing of the Hurricane. I have read that they killed the top speed and climb speed, which was not too great anyway at that time in the war.



They did! I quickly checked Vol.3 of "Bloody Shambles", all pics of Hurricanes I saw show the distinctive air intake.


----------



## Nikademus (Apr 12, 2010)

claidemore said:


> I disagree with your rationalization for Yamadas 'kill'. His plane was claimed by the RAF pilot initially. Later research showing that the pilot managed to land but died of his wounds makes that a confirmation.



One can make a case for it. For the sake of consistancy however i disallowed it because by definition, Yamada was able to successfully land at Akyab airfield in a wounded state. Had he recovered from his wounds, it would not be a kill. However he did die at some later unspecified time after the "battle". Why exactly and from what complications cannot be stated. It might have, for all we know been due to the services available at the hospital. The point being for me, is that many pilots were wounded in battle who successfully landed. We may not have all information on which lived and which later died and why. (complications? etc) As such, again from a consistancy standpoint, I did not count it because normally, i do not count successful force landings at friendly airfields as kills unless in a Deadstick situation. You can argue that Yamada was the "deadstick" in this case but again...his death might have been due to other complications apart from his combat. 

This is but one example of many a grey area when it comes to classifying "kills" Definitions vary by nation and circumstances arn't always black and white. One ends up making judgement calls. Best one can do is try to apply a consistant process to each kill. Each researcher has his own system, which is why estimates vary even when using the same source! 

Ito, as mentioned is another example of a judgement call. As a rule I "do" count collisions as combat kills and as such, for the sake of "consistancy" i counted it, but given the specific points made in this thread. (re: Mohawk effectiveness vs Hurricane effectiveness), its in reality not a valid kill to compare the two planes since the Mohawk did not account for Ito, rather Ito accounted for himself by running into the tail of the Mohawk he was pursuing!

So while i'd count it....in the context of this thread i'd turn around and point out that you can't really rate that "kill" as due to any particular attribute of the Mohawk. The Mohawk pilot fortunately recovered from his spin and thus doesn't get counted but he very well might have replay that scene over again.


----------



## Nikademus (Apr 12, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> for the Mohawk and Hurricane comparation, idk but there were hurricane units in fight over east africa?



Yes. Hurricanes fought in East Africa.

I recorded 21 lost, 

4 to Cr-42's
3 to Cr-32's
1 to S-79
6 to AA
1 on the Ground (air attack)
6 operationally.

In return, they scored:

7 x Cr-32
18 x Cr-42
4 x S-79
2 x S-81
6 x Ca-133


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 12, 2010)

I agree with Nikademus about the incident involving Yamada. We need to carefully define what constitutes a kill to ensure we're comparing similar data sets. Yamada's aircraft was damaged. It landed successfully. Therefore it was not a confirmed kill. The fact that he died is irrelevant to the discussion of kills/losses (although, of course, it was of great significance to Yamada's family and friends). There are countless stories of damaged aircraft flying all the way back to base where they land but are subsequently written off as being beyond economic repair. It is impossible to identify all of these so, for sake of consistency, I used the following criteria in my assessments:

A kill is caused by hostile gunfire from an enemy fighter aircraft which results in the victim aircraft failing to return to a friendly airfield. Details of losses on both sides must be available for the combat to be included in the evaluation. 

Cheers,
Mark


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 12, 2010)

imho a damaged aircraft flying all the way back to base where they land but are subsequently written off as being beyond economic repair it's a loss


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 12, 2010)

Nikademus said:


> Yes. Hurricanes fought in East Africa.
> 
> I recorded 21 lost,
> 
> ...



good data,
so C.R. 32 was more difficult for Hurricanes that most recent C.R. 42, 

and for Mohawk someone has data?


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 12, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> imho a damaged aircraft flying all the way back to base where they land but are subsequently written off as being beyond economic repair it's a loss



Yes, it's a loss but it's not a kill. There's a difference. We simply don't have the records to determine which aircraft were deemed beyond economic repair and hence it introduces huge scope for interpretation and subjectivity. I identified the criteria i used in evaluating Mohawk and Hurricane performance against the Ki-43 which I believe is fair, consistent and as objective as it possibly can be.


----------



## Nikademus (Apr 12, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> good data,
> so C.R. 32 was more difficult for Hurricanes that most recent C.R. 42,
> 
> and for Mohawk someone has data?



I wouldn't say that. Rather the Cr-42 had a greater level of engagement vs. the older Cr-32. Hurricanes became prevalient closer to the later part of the campaign when Cr-42's were the primary Italian fighter. While intiially fairing well against the new British fighter, the Hurricanes began scoring more as time went on. Good example of how kill ratio estimates can be misleading. 

I show two Mohawk IV op losses for East Africa.


----------



## Nikademus (Apr 12, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> imho a damaged aircraft flying all the way back to base where they land but are subsequently written off as being beyond economic repair it's a loss



I do count immediate write offs due to combat damage as a kill as long as it's clearly documented as such. Similar to a Deadstick landing situation.


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 12, 2010)

Nikademus said:


> I do count immediate write offs due to combat damage as a kill as long as it's clearly documented as such. Similar to a Deadstick landing situation.



Yes, but that's damned hard to define clearly. I remember a photo of a Spitfire with a broken back following a wheels-up landing which was ultimately returned to service. The repair of damaged aircraft depends hugely on available second and third-line maintenance resources which, again, may confuse the kill/loss picture rather than clarify.


----------



## Nikademus (Apr 12, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> Yes, but that's damned hard to define clearly. I remember a photo of a Spitfire with a broken back following a wheels-up landing which was ultimately returned to service. The repair of damaged aircraft depends hugely on available second and third-line maintenance resources which, again, may confuse the kill/loss picture rather than clarify.




I agree. Its tricky. It was fully possible to get a "kill" in more than one situation but have the aircraft in question be repaired and returned to service. One way to look at it is that a "kill" is a definition of success, not simply a matter of a destroyed aircraft that never again flies. To use another example,In the European definition, a Kill could and did include instances whereby a pilot surrendered by dropping his gear and landing. The pilot who forced the other pilot to conceed would be awarded the kill or score.


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 12, 2010)

Nikademus said:


> I agree. Its tricky. It was fully possible to get a "kill" in more than one situation but have the aircraft in question be repaired and returned to service. One way to look at it is that a "kill" is a definition of success, not simply a matter of a destroyed aircraft that never again flies. To use another example,In the European definition, a Kill could and did include instances whereby a pilot surrendered by dropping his gear and landing. The pilot who forced the other pilot to conceed would be awarded the kill or score.



Agreed, hence my definition of a kill being achieved if the victim aircraft doesn't reach a friendly (to him) airfield. In the WWII context, aircraft typically didn't surrender unless they've been fired upon so my first requirement still applies.


----------



## Juha (Apr 12, 2010)

One more underappreciated a/c, Allison Mustangs. IIRC RAF liked them very much in army co-op work and would have kept all their Mustang I/IA/II sqns running at least to the end of 44 but when Mustang production switched to P-51B and USAAF wanted most of them source of replacement a/c dried up and RAF had to convert many Mustang I/IA/II sqns to Spits because of attrition. IIRC some sqns flew with Allison Mustangs to the end. Anyway, the plane suited well in low level tac recce role.

Juha


----------



## kration (Apr 12, 2010)

Juha said:


> One more underappreciated a/c, Allison Mustangs. IIRC RAF liked them very much in army co-op work and would have kept all their Mustang I/IA/II sqns running at least to the end of 44 but when Mustang production switched to P-51B and USAAF wanted most of them source of replacement a/c dried up and RAF had to convert many Mustang I/IA/II sqns to Spits because of attrition. IIRC some sqns flew with Allison Mustangs to the end. Anyway, the plane suited well in low level tac recce role.
> 
> Juha



Good suggestion. I'm impressed that this thread has as many posts as it has, and the forensic discussions above are excellent. But it's suggestions like the Allison Mustangs which go back to the reason i asked the question i.e. forgotten or disparaged aircraft which actually fulfilled a useful role.

In relation to the Allison Mustangs, I've always been a bit puzzled re. the army co-op work. They are often referred to as being good at low level, but were they any better than contemporary aircraft? And I would also have thought that visibility (a prime requirement for army co-op?) wasn't that brilliant in the non-teardrop canopy mustang. What were the characteristics that made them so suitable for army co-op/tec recce role?


----------



## Markus (Apr 12, 2010)

kration said:


> In relation to the Allison Mustangs, I've always been a bit puzzled re. the army co-op work. They are often referred to as being good at low level, but were they any better than contemporary aircraft? And I would also have thought that visibility (a prime requirement for army co-op?) wasn't that brilliant in the non-teardrop canopy mustang. What were the characteristics that made them so suitable for army co-op/tec recce role?



The were very fast at low/medium altitudes. [email protected],000ft in case of the P-51A. They could also fly all the way to the Ruhrgebiet from base in the UK, an early P-47 could not.


----------



## JoeB (Apr 12, 2010)

Nikademus said:


> Which is still no reason to dismiss such a major battle in which the Hurricane was not only a major contributor, but the majority contributor. (it shot down the most planes on the British side and was present in larger #'s than the Spit though the latter gets all the glory from most accounts)
> I'm showing an approximate 1.28:1 exchange ratio in favor of the Luftwaffe overall in just fighter vs. fighter exchanges. (1.33:1 in favor of the UK for total airframe losses)**


"Spitfire Special" quotes BoB Spitfire v Bf109 180:219 (1:1.2), Hurricane v 109 153:272 (1:1.8 ). And those figures are often seen, said to be known air combat losses in known encounters between those types. But, they are not AFAIK as robust as the kind of results we're debating otherwise, where books give all the results of each combat, even though the more detailed works rely on authors' interpretations of the records, and counters' interpretations of the books!  The figure you quoted seems closer to the ratio of losses to all causes, which is potentially important of course, but obviously apples and oranges to compare to case by case results of head to head air combat.

I'm not 'dismissing' the BoB but just saying the data is less detailed in published works that I've familar with. But the commonly quoted 1:1.8' isn't all that different from BoF result, albeit very different from Malta result, of course.

And I'll repeat, I have not at any time said the Jagdwaffe's general advantage over British fighters (and everybody else's) in 1939-42 was due entirely to their a/c. That wouldn't be the starting assumption in any case of any air arm's fighter success and would seldom be provable even if true, if the a/c were at all comparable. So that's all a straw man argument, that nobody denies the LW tended to have the advantage in human factors in first half of the war... nobody including me so I don't see the point in mentioning it.The relevance of establishing that the Hurricane's record v Bf109E, while indeed somewhat variable, was in general on the short end of the stick by a considerable margin, is two fold: to illustrate that Hurricane travails in the Far East were worse on average but not outside the range of its record v Bf109E; and to illustrate that the Hawk 75's somewhat better record v Bf109E in the BoF is not being compared to a totally uncharacteristic record for the Hurricane in the BoF, though the Hurricane did do better (and a lot worse) in some other episodes v Bf109E than it did in the BoF.

Joe


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 13, 2010)

Ok, here's the result of my analysis re Mohawks and Hurricanes over Burma. I hope it will prove interesting, even though slightly divergent from the thread theme. Firstly, the criteria I used to determine a kill was:

"A kill is caused by hostile gunfire from an enemy fighter aircraft which results in the victim aircraft failing to return to a friendly airfield. Details of losses on both sides must be available for the combat to be included in the evaluation."

This was applied to both sides, so an aircraft that crash-landed at its home base was not considered a kill. I used the same period for both the Mohawk and Hurricane (18 June 1942 thru 31 December 1943). I also only considered fighter-on-fighter combat so any kills against bombers or recce aircraft were not counted.

Now for the stats:

Mohawk:

Number of Days of Valid Engagements: 5
Kills achieved by Mohawk: 3
Kills achieved by Ki-43: 6

Hurricane:
Number of Days of Valid Engagements: 30
Kills achieved by Hurricane: 11
Kills achieved by Ki-43: 45

So the Mohawk achieved a kill-to-loss of 0.5:1 whereas the Hurricane's was 0.24:1. On this measure, the Mohawk did indeed perform better (roughly two times better than the Hurricane), and the better manoeuverability of the type (coupled with the performance-sucking Vokes filter on the Hurricane) may well have played a role. 

BUT some other interesting statistics came out during the analysis. 

Two of the 3 Mohawk kills were achieved when the RAF fighters outnumbered the opposition and had the height advantage (8v6 on 10 Nov 42 and 10v6 on 9 Nov 43), the third kill occurred when the Mohawks were outnumbered 6v15 but still had an altitude advantage (5 Dec 42): during these 3 combats 3 Mohawks were shot down. 

The Hurricane combats typically involved an entirely different scale of fighting being routinely outnumbered by a much larger number of Ki-43s: on only 2 dates (26 Mar 43 and 15 May 43) did the Hurricane meet the Ki-43 with a numerical superiority. The Hurricanes also faced larger numbers of their adversary - on only 3 occasions were fewer than 10 Ki-43s engaged (with one instance of 101 Japanese fighters (Ki-43s and A6Ms) being engaged by both Spitfires and Hurricanes). It was not uncommon for a squadron of Hurricanes to meet 2 Sentais of Ki-43s - 30+ Japanese fighters against a dozen from the RAF, with the Japanese having the altitude advantage as the Hurricanes were scrambled (often late) to intercept. 

Why were the combats so different? The Hurricanes were deployed right in the forward area to take the brunt of the IJAAF offensive, and so had less warning and their airfields were the targets for concerted IJAAF attacks by bombers and fighters. Although in the same operational theatre, the tactical employment and combat conditions faced by the Mohawks and Hurricanes were markedly different - the Hurricanes were engaged at an entirely different level of effort and, under combat conditions, routinely faced 4-5 times the number of Ki-43s than were engaged by Mohawks. 

One final interesting point - on 9 Nov 43 2 Hurricanes shot down a Mohawk which the Hurricane pilot had misidentified as a Japanese fighter. I throw this in as a point of whimsy primarily because it seems that, thankfully, the Mohawk pilot survived.

Which aircraft was really better? I think it's still very difficult to tell. The Mohawk achieved better results but had a much more favourable combat environment. The Hurricane undoubtedly didn't perform as well by the kill/loss metric but it also faced, on a daily basis, considerably more enemy fighters and was frequently at a tactical disadvantage because of its more central forward location. 

So, you pays your money and you takes your choice...

Sorry for monopolizing the thread but I hope the above was of interest. Now, back to the real topic which was under-appreciated aircraft. Have we had the Hudson? How about the Sunderland?


----------



## rochie (Apr 13, 2010)

what about the Curtis C-46 Commando


----------



## timshatz (Apr 13, 2010)

Good analysis Buff, had a feeling that was the case. That is the problem with the statistics of the situation. Putting too much stock in them without the supporting story makes the Mohawk a better airplane. While I have nothing against the Mohawk, I didn't think the stats rated the superior position given to it by the same stats. 

You can rely too much on the numbers in some cases. I have found that out, to my own dismay in the Market. You have to know why the math is the way it is. 

Good post.


----------



## claidemore (Apr 13, 2010)

Buffnut:, I get 1 Ki43 on Nov 10/42 (2 if you count the pilot who died of wounds later). 
1 Ki43 on Dec 5, 
1 on Feb 16, 
2 on April 20 and 
1 on Nov 9.
Total of 6 kills by gunfire in 5 engagements. (There was one other engagement on Jan 19/43 where a probable is listed.) 
I get two Mohawk losses on Nov 10, 1 Mohawk that crash landed on Dec 5 which according to your system used above would not be counted, and 2 Mohawk losses on April 20 for a total of 4 losses. What losses on what day am I missing? 
If I'm not missing anything, that would be a 3/2 kill/loss ratio for the Mohawk?


----------



## Nikademus (Apr 13, 2010)

> =JoeB;658619
> 
> And I'll repeat, I have not at any time said the Jagdwaffe's general advantage over British fighters (and everybody else's) in 1939-42 was due entirely to their a/c. That wouldn't be the starting assumption in any case of any air arm's fighter success and would seldom be provable even if true, if the a/c were at all comparable. So that's all a straw man argument, that nobody denies the LW tended to have the advantage in human factors in first half of the war... nobody including me so I don't see the point in mentioning it.
> 
> Joe



I cited the Jagdwaffe's reputation sans 1940 because your past discourses re: the Hurricane suggest that there's something about the _plane_ in your opinion that makes it an inferior fighting machine in comparison to other near-contemporaries (allied), such as the F4F based on kill ratio comparisons. My viewpoint, in past discussions and as now, is that the discussed kill ratio estimates are influenced by far more factors as well as plane attributes. You agree with this in principle as you wrote above but where we differ is on the emphasis and on outside conditions. While we don't have specific details on the Hurricane for this battle, the general kill ratio estimates still prove that the plane was competetive and performed admirably even if the 109E had the edge overall in performance, more so given it was the majority player on the RAF side.

From my viewpoint the differing kill ratio estimates in the career of the Hurricane bear out the influence of outside conditions and tacticss as well as pilot experience. The various P-40/Tomahawk/Kittyhawk experiences of the Commonwealth and USAAF also make for an interesting comparison as does relevent comments made by Shores in his Tunisia book (and interviews with current RAF personell listed in the back section of it) 

The Hurricane experience in Burma was, and does remain controversial with differing professional opinions on why. I do personally believe that WgCmdr Richey's salient points had more to do with it than the local RAF commanders would admit and don't see why the Hurricane, better employed couldn't have done better.


----------



## Nikademus (Apr 13, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> Ok, here's the result of my analysis re Mohawks and Hurricanes over Burma. I hope it will prove interesting, even though slightly divergent from the thread theme. Firstly, the criteria I used to determine a kill was:
> 
> "So, you pays your money and you takes your choice...
> 
> Sorry for monopolizing the thread but I hope the above was of interest. Now, back to the real topic which was under-appreciated aircraft. Have we had the Hudson? How about the Sunderland?



Nice post. As i mussed prior, i feel that had the Mohawk been employed in similar fashion and scale to the Hurr squadrons their experiences would have been similar. From a technical standpoint there's not a huge amount to choose between them, though the Hurr's better speed should theoretically be better able to be capitalized on.

Has the P-39 been added yet? I'm starting to appreciate this plane more as i continue studying it under Russian tutiledge.


----------



## JoeB (Apr 13, 2010)

Nikademus said:


> 1. I cited the Jagdwaffe's reputation sans 1940 because your past discourses re: the Hurricane suggest that there's something about the _plane_ in your opinion that makes it an inferior fighting machine in comparison to other near-contemporaries (allied), such as the F4F based on kill ratio comparisons.


Based on kill ratio comparisons of the Hurricane to other Allied fighters against the same Axis opposition. For example F4F and Hurricane v same or similar Japanese oppostion, Hawk v Hurricane v the same German or Japanese opposition. So it has nothing to do specifically with how Axis air arms stacked up against Allied in respects other than a/c. That's why I see your point about LW and RAF as both obvious and not relevant to my point. The results of Hurricane v other Allies might also be affected, obviously, by differences among Allied air arms (though it would not be in case of Hurricane v Hawk or P-40 types in British/CW service). But there's less reason to believe that Western Allied air arms varied as greatly from one to the next as they did v Axis air arms. 

And anyway we can examine how much other factors differed compared to how much the results differed, why not? IMO (I don't disagree with your characterizing it as just my opinion) there's a tendency to overstate the difference in circumstances between say F4F and Hurricane/Spitfire in PTO. And I've backed my opinion with facts about points like what USN/USMC formal tactics really were in 1942, whether there were really consistent big differences in warning times and tactical situations (not as much as some seem to want to believe) etc.

I didn't say I never draw any inference from combat results if *any* other factor besides airplanes differs even a little. I'm just saying your specific point or example, about LW v RAF, is obvious and at the same time not relevant because I'm not trying to draw an inference about Hurricane's v Bf109's, just using results against the Bf109 as a point of comparision, as in:
1. French Hawks did at least as well v Bf109 in 1940 than Hurricane (measureably better but not to a highly statistically significant degree).

2. Hurricane results in PTO are not as far out of line with Hurricane results v the LW as some seem to initially assume. So the Hurricane results in PTO are not as strange and in need of extraordinary explanations as they would be if the Hurricane units really had been typically fully competitive with the German fighter units, which is again seems to the common reputation among some.

To summarize my response re: Mohawk v Hurricane in PTO. I don't disagree that it's limited data nor do I find the specific points and/or nitpicks about the various incidents without any merit (as I posted above, I misread my notes about the Jan 22 case, my mistake on that one; otherwise I would stick by what should count as kill though I respect varying opinions). But, the arguments against considering that sample still contain a form of logical double counting. A relatively small sample can have relatively a lot of noise. That's what we can see, roughly, by calculating the binomial probability of achieving 7:7, in 14 'throws' if the real probability was .5 or .25. It's small in case of .25, but the chances of achieving 70:70 when the underlying probability was .25 would be nanscopic, that's the effect of sample size. But if we examine the sample and identify the incidents we think are the 'noise' then remove them and look at the smaller sample that's left and say 'well wow that's *tiny*, that could have all kinds of noise'...that's double counting the randomness. That sample is big enough statistically, *given how different it is from Hurricane's* to indicate an advantage for the Mohawk. I'll say for probably 5th time, it's not a big enough sample to say the Mohawk's advantage was as big as the difference in the ratio's; it is too small for that. But too small to be at all meaningful? I don't agree.

Joe


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 13, 2010)

claidemore said:


> Buffnut:, I get 1 Ki43 on Nov 10/42 (2 if you count the pilot who died of wounds later).
> 1 Ki43 on Dec 5,
> 1 on Feb 16,
> 2 on April 20 and
> ...




I agree on the following:

1xKi-43 on 10 Nov 42
1xKi-43 on 5 Dec 42
1xKi-43 on 9 Nov 43

I don't count the death of the pilot of the damaged Ki-43 on 10 Nov 42 as a kill because it doesn't meet the criteria I applied (any aircraft that is witnessed leaving the flight with some damage is, at best, classified as a "probable" or, more likely, "damaged"). According to "Air War for Burma" there was no combat involving Ki-43s and Mohawks on 16 Feb 43 - indeed, there isn't even an entry for that date. Also, no Ki-43s were lost in the combat on 20 Apr 43 (although 2 Mohawks were shot down).

I'll stick with my measuring stick - by all means apply yours if it works for you.

Regards,
Mark


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 13, 2010)

JoeB said:


> But, the arguments against considering that sample still contain a form of logical double counting. A relatively small sample can have relatively a lot of noise. That's what we can see, roughly, by calculating the binomial probability of achieving 7:7, in 14 'throws' if the real probability was .5 or .25. It's small in case of .25, but the chances of achieving 70:70 when the underlying probability was .25 would be nanscopic, that's the effect of sample size. But if we examine the sample and identify the incidents we think are the 'noise' then remove them and look at the smaller sample that's left and say 'well wow that's *tiny*, that could have all kinds of noise'...that's double counting the randomness. That sample is big enough statistically, *given how different it is from Hurricane's* to indicate an advantage for the Mohawk. I'll say for probably 5th time, it's not a big enough sample to say the Mohawk's advantage was as big as the difference in the ratio's; it is too small for that. But too small to be at all meaningful? I don't agree.



Joe,

I think we're in violent agreement. I was simply seeking to ensure the same measure was applied to both. Small samples can be significant - I absolutely agree. But, given the massive number of variables in air combat, they are also prone to being inadvertently skewed by one or two "unusual" events (like mid-air collisions) which have much less impact on a larger sample size.

My main gripe was the statement that the 2 aircraft operated by the same air arm against the same adversary provided a level playing field for comparison purposes. Tactical situation is pivotal and, again, can skew statistics one way or another. By ensuring a consistent (and relatively objective) definition of what constitutes a "kill" we are able to examine the tactical conditions for each combat against a common frame of reference and hence determine what factors were, or were not, relevant in influencing the outcome.

As always, it's a pleasure jousting with you Joe because you do think and research before you post. I have a tendency to "Ready--Fire--Aim" but I think I'm getting better!

Cheers,
Mark


----------



## Nikademus (Apr 13, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> Joe,
> 
> I think we're in violent agreement. Mark




I love that term.


----------



## Nikademus (Apr 13, 2010)

JoeB said:


> Based on kill ratio comparisons of the Hurricane to other Allied fighters against the same Axis opposition. For example F4F and Hurricane v same or similar Japanese oppostion, Hawk v Hurricane v the same German or Japanese opposition. So it has nothing to do specifically with how Axis air arms stacked up against Allied in respects other than a/c.



I think this thread alone shows that there is indeed more to consider than just a/c. 



> 1. French Hawks did at least as well v Bf109 in 1940 than Hurricane (measureably better but not to a highly statistically significant degree).
> 
> 2. Hurricane results in PTO are not as far out of line with Hurricane results v the LW as some seem to initially assume. So the Hurricane results in PTO are not as strange and in need of extraordinary explanations as they would be if the Hurricane units really had been typically fully competitive with the German fighter units, which is again seems to the common reputation among some.



It would seem that in both Sitzkrieg and BoF period the statistical edge rests with the H-75A though it also appears that the level of Hurricane engagement was greater which is a factor to consider. (I look forward to reading the source you used, been wanting one covering that period!) The Sitzkrieg period figures show the H-75 in better light until it is realized that the bulk of Hurricane/109 engagements were much more limited, occuring near the end of the period, further exaserbated by the tactical situations, two of which went badly for the RAF thus impacting the summary. For me, I find the results interesting more for what they might indicate about the state of French fighter pilot exp and training vs. the machines (which were similar). For the Burma example, I maintain that its just too limited to do more than a cursory comparison and B's recent analysis shows that within this limited scope the Mohawk drivers enjoyed better odds than their Hurricane compatriots.

On point 2, I do consider it out of line as i've found that any summary result over 3:1 to be an exception vs. a rule and one that indicates an imbalance of one or more factors.(usually more than one) Thus an explanation is indeed warented. It may not be as extreme as the 35:0 (or 30:0 as you calculated) experienced during a five month period over Malta, but it was still considered unusual enough that the RAF sent a troubleshooter to Burma to try to get to the bottom of it. Regading the F4F comparison, I guess we'll have to continue to disagree on the situation being similar for the Hurricane/F4F in the critical periods.


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 14, 2010)

Don't think we've had this one yet...Vickers Wellington. Absolute workhorse that seldom gets a mention among the heavy bombers (and it was considered "heavy" when it was designed).


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 14, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> Don't think we've had this one yet...Vickers Wellington. Absolute workhorse that seldom gets a mention among the heavy bombers (and it was considered "heavy" when it was designed).


plus its work with electronics it might almost qualify as the 1st AEW and another option for aircraft might be the Halifax


----------



## claidemore (Apr 15, 2010)

Ditto on the Halifax pbfoot.


----------



## kration (Apr 15, 2010)

pbfoot said:


> plus its work with electronics it might almost qualify as the 1st AEW and another option for aircraft might be the Halifax



Good call re. the Halifax. I recently went to the Yorkshire Air Museum in the UK where the only existing Halifax(ish) is kept and it was great to see a semi-forgotten aircraft in the flesh. I just wish there was a Short Stirling somewhere too.

This is a bit of thread drift, but the Yorkshire Air Museum is superb - not too slick/sterile and has some superb aircraft and displays (including an extensive collection of gun turrets which I found fascinating). Another fact I picked up there was that there was a Handley Page designed aircraft in service with the RAF since it's formation until the last Jetstream was decommissioned. Handley Page does seem one of the most underappreciated aircraft manufacturers, I suppose because they never made glamorous fighters.

Also, excellent suggestion re. the Wellington. It was the RAF's first heavy bomber in WWII, and also did great work in Coastal Command. I'm intrigued by the reference to it possibly being the first AEW - any evidence to back that up? It was a Barnes Wallis design and I'm sure he would have been fascinated with the technology in modern AEW's - so if the Wellington was the first one then thats a nice chronology. More info. please.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 15, 2010)

kration said:


> Also, excellent suggestion re. the Wellington. It was the RAF's first heavy bomber in WWII, and also did great work in Coastal Command.




Aren't you forgetting the Armstrong Whitworth Whitley


----------



## Juha (Apr 15, 2010)

If we talk on Wimpy we can then think also He 111, it also soldiered throughout the war.

Juha


----------



## fastmongrel (Apr 15, 2010)

kration said:


> I'm intrigued by the reference to it possibly being the first AEW - any evidence to back that up? It was a Barnes Wallis design and I'm sure he would have been fascinated with the technology in modern AEW's - so if the Wellington was the first one then thats a nice chronology. More info. please.



I found a bit on wiki its the only reference I can find at the moment. There is a website that gives descriptions of WWII radar that also mentions it but I cant find it at the moment, will keep looking

(from wikipedia) In late 1944, a radar-equipped Wellington was modified for use by the RAF's Fighter Interception Unit as what would now be described as an Airborne Early Warning and Control aircraft[1]. It operated at an altitude of some 4,000 ft (1,219 m) over the North Sea to control de Havilland Mosquito fighters intercepting Heinkel He 111 bombers flying from Dutch airbases and carrying out airborne launches of the V-1 flying bomb.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 15, 2010)

kration said:


> Good call re. the Halifax. I recently went to the Yorkshire Air Museum in the UK where the only existing Halifax(ish) is kept and it was great to see a semi-forgotten aircraft in the flesh. I just wish there was a Short Stirling somewhere too.
> 
> This is a bit of thread drift, but the Yorkshire Air Museum is superb - not too slick/sterile and has some superb aircraft and displays (including an extensive collection of gun turrets which I found fascinating). Another fact I picked up there was that there was a Handley Page designed aircraft in service with the RAF since it's formation until the last Jetstream was decommissioned. Handley Page does seem one of the most underappreciated aircraft manufacturers, I suppose because they never made glamorous fighters.
> 
> Also, excellent suggestion re. the Wellington. It was the RAF's first heavy bomber in WWII, and also did great work in Coastal Command. I'm intrigued by the reference to it possibly being the first AEW - any evidence to back that up? It was a Barnes Wallis design and I'm sure he would have been fascinated with the technology in modern AEW's - so if the Wellington was the first one then thats a nice chronology. More info. please.


101 Sqn operated the Wellington as a electronic warfare bird , but I'm thinking of one flight in particular whereby an RCAF crewed Wellington set itself up as a target so as to determine what the LW was using for frequecies and such I'll did around my crap and find the article . The only *fully *restored Halifax resides in Canada at CFB Trenton


----------



## kration (Apr 15, 2010)

pbfoot said:


> 101 Sqn operated the Wellington as a electronic warfare bird , but I'm thinking of one flight in particular whereby an RCAF crewed Wellington set itself up as a target so as to determine what the LW was using for frequecies and such I'll did around my crap and find the article . The only *fully *restored Halifax resides in Canada at CFB Trenton



My apologies re. the complete Canadian Halifax - I hadn't realised that there was another restored one. But it's good that there's a couple of examples of this warbird!


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 15, 2010)

I'd say that the Arado Ar196 has been pretty much overlooked.

For an aircraft that was produced from 1938 through 1944 (and in service to war's end), you don't see or hear much about it.


----------



## Juha (Apr 16, 2010)

Hello GrauGeist
yes, and Ar 196s directed fire of KM's heavy units during the desperate fighting in Baltic states, East-Prussian and Pommern in late 44-45.

Generally you don't see much material on float planes, even if especially of those of JNAF saw much service and did much important work. My favourities are Ar 196 and Mitsubishi F1M2 Pete, even if Aichi E13A1 Jake was probably the most important float plane because of its sterling work as long range naval recon a/c. But there are many others from Fairey Seafox to He 115

Juha


----------



## gjs238 (Apr 17, 2010)

I know someone else brought this up earlier in this long thread with many tangents...

The Allison powered P-51 (Mustang Mk I/P-51/P-51A) were certainly "underappreciated" by the USAAC.
Imagine how events would have unfolded had the USAAC "greatly appreciated" these planes!

These planes, pre Merlin, had the potential to supplant the P-40 and perhaps even the P-38 for many applications.


----------



## ralphwiggum (Apr 25, 2010)

How about the Italian Ro-37 "Romeo"? In 58 years I've only heard about it once I think it was an observation or recon aircraft


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 26, 2010)

Juha said:


> Hello GrauGeist
> yes, and Ar 196s directed fire of KM's heavy units during the desperate fighting in Baltic states, East-Prussian and Pommern in late 44-45.
> 
> Generally you don't see much material on float planes, even if especially of those of JNAF saw much service and did much important work. My favourities are Ar 196 and Mitsubishi F1M2 Pete, even if Aichi E13A1 Jake was probably the most important float plane because of its sterling work as long range naval recon a/c. But there are many others from Fairey Seafox to He 115
> ...



Agree with both, though i like He-115 Fiat RS.14 best 

Too bad Brits didn't have this baby aboard of both CAM combat ships (cruisers better), as early as 1939 (though they trialed Spit as hidroplane). Perhaps six of these would've made Battle of Kuantan to never happen (stretch, I know  ):


----------

