# Beaufighter vs. Axis fighters



## tomo pauk (Jan 16, 2009)

Gents, how good/bad fared the Beau against the contemporary fighters he oposed?


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jan 16, 2009)

I believe it was successful as a nightfighter.


----------



## thewritingwriter89 (Jan 16, 2009)

The Beaufighter was pretty heavy, but It was fast (320 mph @ 10,000 ft) enough to catch most German bombers, and in the "maritime patrol suppression" role, it might have done quite well. I do know of several instances in which Beaufighters downed Messerschmitt's and 190s. These were perhaps flukes, where pilot experience was lopsided in favor of the Allied pilot, but happened nonetheless. I don't have the exact engagement's and their circumstances handy (I'm at work), but i will look them up when I get home. If I were a Beau pilot, I would stick to what the aircraft did best; annihilating anything on the ground.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jan 16, 2009)

thewritingwriter89 said:


> The Beaufighter was pretty heavy, but It was fast (320 mph @ 10,000 ft) enough to catch most German bombers, and in the "maritime patrol suppression" role, it might have done quite well. I do know of several instances in which Beaufighters downed Messerschmitt's and 190s. These were perhaps flukes, where pilot experience was lopsided in favor of the Allied pilot, but happened nonetheless. I don't have the exact engagement's and their circumstances handy (I'm at work), but i will look them up when I get home. If I were a Beau pilot, I would stick to what the aircraft did best; annihilating anything on the ground.


If the Bo had the initiative and altitude advantage on a 109 or 190, that would be a scary situation for any German.

I'm sure considering its weight it was very fast in a dive and it had guns galore.


----------



## thewritingwriter89 (Jan 16, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> If the Bo had the initiative and altitude advantage on a 109 or 190, that would be a scary situation for any German.



Maybe. However, I think that any German fighter pilot who found himself jumped by an angry Beaufighter _with a heigth advantage_ would be the butt-end of quite a few jokes in the mess hall. I suppose it could always happen in the middle of a fight. That's kind of an interesting scenario now that I think about it.


----------



## thewritingwriter89 (Jan 16, 2009)

O.K. Just got home and broke open a few books and confirmed my initial assumptions. In May of 1941, No. 252 Squadron (a Beaufighter unit) was tasked exclusively with the destruction of Fw 200s, one of the best maritime patrol aircraft of the war (this was in the Atlantic). They did very well and helped guard convoys coming from the United States. 

Tomo Pauk, to answer your question about its effectivness when it came to fighters...

This is an excerpt from the book The RAF In Action by Robert Jackson. (*None of the following was written by myself*).

We continued on course for about five minutes when we sighterd one Me110 flying east and jinking. We turned and followd him toward the coast, closing in on the aircraft until we were at 300 yards in range, 20 degrees starboard astern and a little below. Fire was opened with a two second burst from all guns and strikes were seen all over the enemy aircraft. Somke came from the port engine and the Me 110 dived to port. We gave him another burst from 250 yards and he caught fire and dived into the sea. Immediately afterwards, we saw a second Me 110 (which had been chasing us) a little above and turning gently to starboard on an easterly course. We gave a one-second burst of cannon and machine-gun at 50 yards in a gentle turn. The enemy aircraft appeared to blow up and we had to pull up and turn port to avoid ramming it. At that point, we saw one man bale out and his parachute open, and the enemy aircraft dived vertically to the sea in flames. 

-Wing Commander J.R.D. Braham of No. 141 squadron in night action off Ameland on 17/18/1943

*(End of excerpt from The RAF In Action)*


If you count the 1943 iterations of the Bf-110 as fighters, then yes; it did shoot down other fighters. The problem with twin-engine fighters is that they can't really do anything that a single-engine can't do equally well, if not better. The Bf-110 was designed as a heavy fighter, but found itself relegated to night duty, where manuverability was not as important as a stable and powerful platform, capable of hauling the heavy radar of the day aloft. 

The Beaufighter came out of the Bristol Beaufort, a purpose built torpedo bomber. While it too was designed as a heavy fighter bomber, the Beaufighter was best used as a fighter in the saftey of night. It was used extensively as a defence fighter, intercepting German bombers and it was very successful. It experienced similar success in the Pacific theater performing the same type of duty. 

I still can't find the particular engagement where the Beau shot down the 109s and 190s, but I'll find it eventually.

TWW89

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jan 16, 2009)

thewritingwriter89 said:


> Maybe. However, I think that any German fighter pilot who found himself jumped by an angry Beaufighter _with a heigth advantage_ would be the butt-end of quite a few jokes in the mess hall. I suppose it could always happen in the middle of a fight. That's kind of an interesting scenario now that I think about it.


Getting "bounced" from above can happen to anybody, and the bigger plane with the bigger gun battery is holding all the cards if it is diving on you.


----------



## Glider (Jan 17, 2009)

There were a number of actions involving Beaufighters in the fighter role and fighter JU88's over the Bay of Biscay in which the Beaufighters had the edge. However the Germans brought FW190's in to help and as you would expect the FW had a significant advantage. The only chance the Beau had was if they were not seen


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jun 19, 2022)

Beaufighter's did successfully engage A6M's several times. They also had many bloody engagements with BF 110s and Ju 88s over the Med, both inflicting and taking many losses.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 19, 2022)

Clay_Allison said:


> Getting "bounced" from above can happen to anybody, and the bigger plane with the bigger gun battery is holding all the cards if it is diving on you.


Surely failing to maintain situational awareness when some large aircraft is approaching counts for something?

If I’m flying my Spitfire whilst reading my pilot‘s notes and get bounced by a Blohm & Voss BV 238, even though its forward battery of twelve mgs and twin 20 mm far outweighs mine, I may still take some rubbing if I survive the day.







“_You missed THIS in your mirror?_”

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 20, 2022)

From old Nikademus post
Beaufighter had 1 loss and 0 kill versus CR 42 over Malta
had 1 loss for 2 CR 42 in North Africa (victory in late time probably CR 42 were not more from fighter unit)
had 1 loss for 3 Bf 110 in North Africa
had 1 loss for 1 Bf 110 in Tunisia
had 2 loss for 1 Bf 110 in Malta

this came from data for the CR 42 and the Bf 110 so it's probable there are others fighter vs Beaufighter

Reactions: Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (Jun 20, 2022)

For all Beaufighter fans out at the end of the month from Air Britain. 





Bristol Beaufighter







www.air-britain.co.uk

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


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jun 20, 2022)

Vincenzo said:


> From old Nikademus post
> Beaufighter had 1 loss and 0 kill versus CR 42 over Malta
> had 1 loss for 2 CR 42 in North Africa (victory in late time probably CR 42 were not more from fighter unit)
> had 1 loss for 3 Bf 110 in North Africa
> ...



There is a lot more than that, I'll try to find some in the Mediterranean Air War series.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 20, 2022)

you are a new member so i add that are not claims


----------



## Glider (Jun 20, 2022)

I admit that my belief has always been that against a modern single engine fighter, the Beaufighter had little chance of surviving. 
Support for that comes from the Naval Strike Wings where they needed extra support as unlike the Mosquito, they couldn't run.

Against the twin engine fighters of the early war, Me110, Ju88, the Beaufighter had a good chance against the Me110 and a considerable advantage over the Ju88. Over the Bay of Biscay Ju88 units were specifically ordered not to attack the Beaufighter unless they had the tactical advantage or if they had a significant numerical advantage. 

In case your wondering, Ju88 units were ordered not to attack Mosquito's under any circumstances.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jun 20, 2022)

yes "Mediterranean Air War" (Shores) lists actual losses on both sides on a day by day basis, not just claims. I'll find an example or two & post today.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jun 20, 2022)

Glider said:


> I admit that my belief has always been that against a modern single engine fighter, the Beaufighter had little chance of surviving.
> Support for that comes from the Naval Strike Wings where they needed extra support as unlike the Mosquito, they couldn't run.
> 
> Against the twin engine fighters of the early war, Me110, Ju88, the Beaufighter had a good chance against the Me110 and a considerable advantage over the Ju88. Over the Bay of Biscay Ju88 units were specifically ordered not to attack the Beaufighter unless they had the tactical advantage or if they had a significant numerical advantage.
> ...



I don't think Beaufighters fared well against Bf 109s or C.202s but those had short range and didn't venture far out to sea. The open sea lanes were where these birds had their best days, though they were also used sometimes for strafing attacks on Axis troops and air bases. IIRC there was a 'night fighter' squadron of Beaus in the Med which flew a lot of maritime and strike missions and proved very useful.

I don't know as many details about fighting in the Pacific, except I remember there used to be a wonderful website called "Pacific Victory Roll" which listed all of the claims and losses for the Australian and New Zealand pilots, and there were quite a few claims by the Aussie Beaufighters, though no information about verified losses by the Japanese. Sadly that website is down now, which is a real tragedy. It was a gem. Very nicely put together with a ton of good information, including bios of many of the pilots etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jun 20, 2022)

This is from Mediterranean Air War volume III

15 Dec 1942, 3 Beaufighters from 227 sqn together claimed a Ju 88, the Germans actually lost 3 x Ju-88A4 (the other two to US P-38s)
18 Dec 1942, 2 Beaufighter IF each claimed a Ju 88, German losses were 1 x Ju 88A4 and 1 x Ju 88A1
19 Dec 1942, 3 Beaufighter VIF from 227 sqn and one from 272 sqn claimed Ju 88 and He 111s, losing 2 x Beaufighters shot down and 2 heavily damaged. Spitfire Vs also made claims in the same areas. German losses were 4 x Ju 88 (an A-14, a C-6, an A-4, and a D-1), plus a Do 24 and a Ju 52. Only the Do 24 seems to have made claims.
20 Dec 1942, 1 Beaufighter VIf from 255 sqn claims an He 111, 3 Beaufighter IF from 255 sqn claim two Do 217 and a Ju 89. Acutal losses were 1 x He 111 and two Ju 88 (A-14 and A-4 trop)

So that is just four days...There were much bigger fights though

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


----------



## fubar57 (Jun 20, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> I don't know as many details about fighting in the Pacific, except I remember there used to be a wonderful website called "Pacific Victory Roll" which listed all of the claims and losses for the Australian and New Zealand pilots, and there were quite a few claims by the Aussie Beaufighters, though no information about verified losses by the Japanese. Sadly that website is down now, which is a real tragedy. It was a gem. Very nicely put together with a ton of good information, including bios of many of the pilots etc.








Pacific Victory Roll - Home







web.archive.org

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jun 21, 2022)

Ah, that's great, I forgot about wayback machine.


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jun 21, 2022)

fubar57 said:


> Pacific Victory Roll - Home
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So thanks to Fubar for finding that on Wayback machine. I think we should convince whoever ran that, or their heirs or friends or somebody else who can, to revise that website it's a treasure.

Here is a brief example, I just literally opened up the Claims page for the Australians at random, and counted six Beaufighter claims for A6M claims plus a nate in about a 3 month period. Here you go:







Interesting to see there is a Wirraway claim in there!

Of course we can't assume that all those claims are valid, I'm sure they can be checked, some of them should be in "Pacific Air War" series I might be able to find some, but anyway I doubt they are all bogus.


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jun 21, 2022)

So here are a few more from Pacific Victory Roll, right up to the end of the war.
















I don't see this as such a surprise, because the Beaufighter is fairly fast down low near sea level where it operated, and I think competitive with the A6M on speed at that altitude. 

This chart shows a Beau Mk VI at 312 mph TAS at 4,000 ft, and that is at +8 lb boost. I'm not sure precisely the speed of the A6M2 or -3 at that altitude but Allied tests seem to indicate it's slower than that. For example this test shows an A6M3 at 280 mph at Sea Level. I know there were some problems with these tests so I can't be sure how accurate that is..

I think the key for a heavy fighter to have success against single engined types is to have a substantial speed advantage. That way it can hit and run. As soon as the single-engined types get to parity or better, the heavy fighter is no longer successful, and it's a pretty fast tipping point when the speeds change. This worked for example for the Bf 110 in the Battle of France and early days on the Russian Front, but by the BoB and early engagements with Hurricanes and Tomahawks in the Med it was no longer successful at an acceptable rate.

In the Pacific, a Beaufighter I think was a bit faster than an A6M2 or Ki-43 down at low altitude, and certainly could catch float planes and bombers operating down low. 

in the Med, a Bf 109 or MC 202 had such a speed advantage that the Beau was more challenged.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 21, 2022)

Yeah, there's a lot of floatplane fighters on that list. Not surprising, that, especially with that fearsome armament.


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jun 21, 2022)

yes but also a fair number of "Zekes". And a Rufe of course is a fairly formidable float plane version of a Zero. 

Anybody caught low and slow by a marauding Beaufighter is in big trouble, IMO

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wildcat (Jun 21, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> Interesting to see there is a Wirraway claim in there!


The Wirraway kill was an Oscar belonging to the 11th Sentai. The Wirraway, A20-103, still exists at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra.







Advanced Search | Australian War Memorial

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
5 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jun 21, 2022)

Badass!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 22, 2022)

That's the word I was looking for.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 22, 2022)

Wildcat said:


> The Wirraway kill was an Oscar belonging to the 11th Sentai. The Wirraway, A20-103, still exists at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra.



Here it is on display, the last time I was in Canberra.




DSC_5442 

I like the quote from the radio transmission notifying of the kill...

"Archer has shot down one Zeke, repeat one Zeke. Send six bottles of beer."

Only six?

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jun 22, 2022)

They had stronger beer then...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 23, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> They had stronger beer then...



It's still probably Foster's.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 23, 2022)

That's Australian for beer, Mate.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 23, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> That's Australian for beer, Mate.



"That's not a knife. _This_ is a knife."

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


----------



## 33k in the air (Jun 23, 2022)

"That's not a fighter. _This_ is a fighter."

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jun 23, 2022)

33k in the air said:


> "That's not a fighter. _*This*_* is a fighter."*

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 23, 2022)

Honestly, I don't care if the Beaufighter can't dogfight. If you don't love an attack aircraft with four -20s, six .303s, and eight HVARs, off to the doghouse with you.

Their mission in suppressing flak at Bismarck Sea alone would give them a page in history. They made the skip- and and masthead-bombing very successful indeed.

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


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jun 23, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Honestly, I don't care if the Beaufighter can't dogfight. If you don't love an attack aircraft with four -20s, six .303s, and eight HVARs, off to the doghouse with you.
> 
> Their mission in suppressing flak at Bismarck Sea alone would give them a page in history. They made the skip- and and masthead-bombing very successful indeed.



I mean, apparently they did shoot down enemy fighters.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 23, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> I mean, apparently they did shoot down enemy fighters.



Sure, no argument here. I'm just saying that I love 'em for an entirely different reason. I guess I have a thing for ugly attack aircraft armed to the teeth.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Denniss (Jun 23, 2022)

Always looked to me as a big brother of the Hs 129

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 23, 2022)

Denniss said:


> Always looked to me as a big brother of the Hs 129


But way meaner. Heck, the engines alone on the Beau couldn’t wait for the plane.

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


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 23, 2022)

Denniss said:


> Always looked to me as a big brother of the Hs 129



The -129 looked like a kid sister to me, but that's perspective, wot-wot.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BlackSheep (Jun 24, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> View attachment 674856





Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> View attachment 674856


Beau’s always remind me of those pod racers in the Star Wars movie with those huge engines pulling everything else…..also and this will probably sound strange af but for a couple of reasons I can’t put my fingers on 🤔 they remind me of Salma Hayek …. Never said I was from your planet lol

Reactions: Funny Funny:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jun 24, 2022)

BlackSheep said:


> Beau’s always remind me of those pod racers in the Star Wars movie with those huge engines pulling everything else…..also and this will probably sound strange af but for a couple of reasons I can’t put my fingers on 🤔 they remind me of Salma Hayek …. Never said I was from your planet lol














Hmmm.... ok I think maybe I can see where you are going with that...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 25, 2022)

Beaufighter versus single-seat fighter kills as mentioned in the text of the book Beaufighter Aces of WW2 by Andrew Thomas.

On 27 December 1941, a 235 Sqn Beaufighter Ic, operating out of Sumburgh, Shetland Islands shot down a Bf 109.

On 14 November 1942, a 227 Sqn Beaufighter piloted by American Plt Off Carl Johnson shot down a Bf 109 piloted by Uffz Hartmut Klotzer of III/JG 53 after Klotzer had shot down a couple of Beaufighters.

On 15 February 1944, 211 Sqn Beaufighter Xs operating to the north of Akyab were attacked by four Ki-43s, the sqn CO Wg Cdr Pat Meagher shot down two, after firing a salvo of rockets at them (!), the rockets didn't hit though!

A 211 Sqn Beaufighter piloted by Sqn Ldr Muller-Rowland shot down a Siamese Air Force Curtiss Hawk biplane fighter on 8 April 1944.

On 28 April 211 Sqn CO Meagher shot down another Ki-43.

On 22 November, 30 Sqn RAAF Beaufighter A19-8 piloted by Flt Lt Little shot down an A6M. Apparently when attacked by enemy fighters the Beaufighter pilots learned to dive for the ground and hightail it away by outrunning the enemy fighters, which worked. A6Ms struggled to catch the Beaufighters diving for the deck.

On 23 December 1942, 21 Sqn RAAF Beaufighter A19-9 piloted by Sgt Barnett shot down a Ki-27.

On 21 November 1943, 31 Sqn RAAF CO Sqn Ldr Gordon shot down a Nakajima A6M-2N float plane fighter, which proved a bit of a headache to the Beaufighters.

On 25 March 1945, 176 Sqn RAF Beaufighter piloted by Fg Off Forbes shot down a Ki-43 off the coast of Burma.


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jun 25, 2022)

Those are cool. But I think I've already posted more than that. I count 18 Japanese fighters from "Pacific Victory Roll" of which about 6 or 7 are those A6M2-N "Rufe" Floatlplane fighters.

I don't know the total amount of claims in the Med but it has to be dozens of Ju 88s and Bf 110s, and a few single engine types as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BlackSheep (Jun 25, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> View attachment 674994
> 
> 
> View attachment 674995
> ...


I’m glad someone out there shares my vision..and love of big radial engines..

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jun 25, 2022)

BlackSheep said:


> I’m glad someone out there shares my vision..and love of big radial engines..


Big Bristols

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Jun 25, 2022)

BlackSheep said:


> I’m glad someone out there shares my vision..and love of big radial engines..


Engines?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 1, 2022)

Reluctant Poster said:


> Big Bristols



When the Blenheim guys at Duxford first got their Blenheim flying again (after its first crash) they sold t-shirts with the slogan "Love is a big pair of Bristols" with the Blenheim on it!

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


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 1, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> Those are cool. But I think I've already posted more than that. I count 18 Japanese fighters from "Pacific Victory Roll" of which about 6 or 7 are those A6M2-N "Rufe" Floatlplane fighters.
> 
> I don't know the total amount of claims in the Med but it has to be dozens of Ju 88s and Bf 110s, and a few single engine types as well.


 Yeah, what I posted was what was mentioned in the book, not specifically _all _single-engined fighter kills by Beaufighters. By the looks of things, He 111s, Ju 88s and Bf 110s appear to be the types Beaufighters shot down the most of.


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jul 1, 2022)

And some SM 79, various CANT bombers and float planes, and plenty of various Japanese planes too!


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 1, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> And some SM 79, various CANT bombers and float planes, and plenty of various Japanese planes too!



Yup (serious wires being crossed here, Bill) the _most _aircraft Beaufighters shot down were He 111s, Ju 88s and Bf 110s...


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jul 2, 2022)

Well it would be nice to take a survey and figure that out based on some concrete numbers. I'm not sure I have the time myself though. But you might be right.


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jul 2, 2022)

Beaufighters were involved in some of those Ju-52 massacres over the Med as well IIRC so the numbers of those might also be pretty high.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Sep 18, 2022)

This video opens up with a great interview with a Beau pilot. I'm still watching it so no comment on the later sections, but this guy's pretty badass: 



ETA: Not going with the "Whispering Death" thing, that sounds like crap. But their experiences are something to listen to.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## WARSPITER (Sep 19, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> View attachment 674994
> 
> 
> View attachment 674995
> ...


Yeah, the earring does look like a propeller so it makes some sense.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Sep 19, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> yes "Mediterranean Air War" (Shores) lists actual losses on both sides on a day by day basis, not just claims. I'll find an example or two & post today.



Since no country other than the U.S.A> ever funded a post-war study of aerial victories, how are you sure these victories aren't claims? What exact criteria for validating a claim as an actual loss?


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Sep 19, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> This video opens up with a great interview with a Beau pilot. I'm still watching it so no comment on the later sections, but this guy's pretty badass:
> 
> 
> 
> ETA: Not going with the "Whispering Death" thing, that sounds like crap. But their experiences are something to listen to.




That was terrific, OUTSTANDING. Excellent interviews and nice footage, including some bits I hadn't seen before. Too bad so few, if any of those old guys are still around to tell these stories. Love the Beau, and the Aussies.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Sep 19, 2022)

GregP said:


> Since no country other than the U.S.A> ever funded a post-war study of aerial victories, how are you sure these victories aren't claims? What exact criteria for validating a claim as an actual loss?



I am a bit baffled by this question. Are you actually, genuinely unfamiliar with the books I was referring to? You never heard of Mediterranean AirWar, or Black Cross Red Star, or Pacific Air War etc.?

The books like MAW etc. just list whatever claims which are extant, by both sides, and then lists the losses by both sides - according to their own records. It's really pretty simple. The losses come from direct access to the records of all air forces in action in the given Theater.

I thought most of the regulars in these forums were familiar with these books and had been for years. 🤷‍♂️


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Sep 19, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> That was terrific, OUTSTANDING. Excellent interviews and nice footage, including some bits I hadn't seen before. Too bad so few, if any of those old guys are still around to tell these stories. Love the Beau, and the Aussies.



I really enjoyed it, so much so that I couldn't wait for the finish to share it here.  I'm glad y'all enjoyed it too!


----------



## Admiral Beez (Sep 19, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> Beaufighter's did successfully engage A6M's several times. They also had many bloody engagements with BF 110s and Ju 88s over the Med, both inflicting and taking many losses.


I’d give the Beaufighter good odds against any twin engined piston fighter fielded by the Axis, including the Kawasaki Ki-45 and Ki-102, IMAM Ro.57, Heinkel He 219, and Messerschmitt Me 210. Late war prototypes like the Mitsubishi Ki-83 likely would have bested the Beaufighter had they entered service.


----------



## GregP (Sep 24, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> I am a bit baffled by this question. Are you actually, genuinely unfamiliar with the books I was referring to? You never heard of Mediterranean AirWar, or Black Cross Red Star, or Pacific Air War etc.?
> 
> The books like MAW etc. just list whatever claims which are extant, by both sides, and then lists the losses by both sides - according to their own records. It's really pretty simple. The losses come from direct access to the records of all air forces in action in the given Theater.
> 
> I thought most of the regulars in these forums were familiar with these books and had been for years. 🤷‍♂️



Familiar. 

You said "not just claims." 

These books (Shores, ect) are *exactly* "claims and losses" with some other vetting but, again, you have to ask the exact definition of a victory. If a downed plane was recovered and flew again, it STILL got shot down and that victory should count.

Shores et al are great resources but are not as good as USAAF Study 85 in which claims were matched with flight reports and squadron records, all looked at by experienced military personnel with an eye toward accuracy. Again, there is no real possibility of matching with all vetted enemy loss records because some Axis records were lost.

I'd say Shores is a pretty decent source, as good as we are likely to get. I doubt he is 100% correct, but is a very good effort to be considered. But is definitely claims-and-losses-based.


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Sep 24, 2022)

GregP said:


> Familiar.
> 
> You said "not just claims."
> 
> ...



To what extent does USAAF Study 85 even incorporate Axis records? As far as I am aware, a lot of Axis records did not become available until long after the war (and long after that study was done). Some weren't available until after the Soviet Union fell. All I can say is it's also quite clear that the numbers I've seen posted in this thread are way off, notably for the P-40 victory claims, and I don't think that's the end of it (I just happen to have those numbers.

To me looking at the records on both sides is an order of magnitude more credible.


GregP said:


> I'd say Shores is a pretty decent source, as good as we are likely to get. I doubt he is 100% correct, but is a very good effort to be considered. But is definitely claims-and-losses-based.



I doubt it as well, but he's not the only one, the others I've mentioned have been doing this for the Russian Front and for the Pacific Theater, and they aren't the only ones either. I believe this new generation of assessment revolutionizes our understanding of what actually happened and specifically who shot down whom. Our understanding will only improve over time as more people do similar work and check and double-check the published data.

It's still not a time machine, and knowing that a particular unit lost 10 planes on a given day, vs. 30 claims made by the other side, doesn't actually tell us who got whom in many cases. Quite often battle is a confusion and it's hard to know what caused all the losses - there might for example be three or four different nations flying aircraft in a given engagement on a given day, from two dozen units. But if only 10 aircraft went down (KiA, MiA, forced landing, bail out etc.) then we know for sure that 30 claims is an overclaim. That doesn't IMO mean anything as far as aces victory counts, because that is based on the number of confirmed victories by their own air force during the conflict. But it helps us understand what really happened better in postwar analysis.

Shores, Claringbould, Bergstrom and so on give us the raw data, and to some extent their best guess as to what actually happened, with some corroboratory evidence. Sometimes they add an intepretation over that. The raw data is the most valuable part of all this, and the least subjective. We can't know for sure what happened in every case but we can get a much clearer picture of it thanks to the efforts of people like this.

As for what ultimately happened to an aircraft which was forced down or lost as the result of combat, I don't think that matters vis a vis a claim, but I guess it's up to whoever is telling a story about it, or performing an analysis. A pilot, defensive gunner or AA gunner has no control over what happens to a damaged aircraft after they hit it. I think the main thing when measuring one side against the other is that you just have to use the same criteria, whatever those are. And you should probably make a clear distinction between for example "shot down" or "missing" vs. crash landed. For the pilot or gunner who damaged an enemy aircraft though, it's all the same, and I think the credit goes to them regardless.


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 24, 2022)

I did a read of the appendix of the USAAF Study 1985, and there is no a word of check from axis source or better i don't find it, so invite some english speaking people to check


----------



## GregP (Sep 24, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> To what extent does USAAF Study 85 even incorporate Axis records? As far as I am aware, a lot of Axis records did not become available until long after the war (and long after that study was done). Some weren't available until after the Soviet Union fell. All I can say is it's also quite clear that the numbers I've seen posted in this thread are way off, notably for the P-40 victory claims, and I don't think that's the end of it (I just happen to have those numbers.
> 
> To me looking at the records on both sides is an order of magnitude more credible.
> 
> ...



Hi Wild Bill,

Study 85 was a follow-on to Project Ace, started in May 59 to compile a preliminary list of U.S. Fighter Aces, 1917 – 1953. Subsequently, the USAF Historical Division published USAF Credits for the Destruction of Enemy Aircraft, Korean War in Jun 63, and US Air Service Victory Credits, World War I in Jun 69. In Mar 74, the Albert F. Simpson Historical Research Center published U.S. Air Force Victory Credits, Southeast Asia.

Since the establishment of Project Ace, research continued into victory credits of World War II. The civilian contract researcher was Wesley P. Newton under the supervision of Dr, Maurer, then chief of the Historical Studies Branch. Most of the primary research on 8th​, 9th​, and 10th​ Air Forces was done by Calvin F, Senning under Dr, Maurer's supervision. The second Phase was to record ALL fighter victory credits of World War II. The normal reserve tour was one day a month, 12 days a year, which is why it took so long.

Col. Benjamin B. Williams joined the project in 1967. Col. Williams did the research for the 5th​, 13, and 9th​ (in Africa) Air Forces, First Tactical Air Force, and Iceland Base Command. He also completed the inquiry into 8th​, 9th​, and 10th​ Air Forces started by Senning.

Lt. Col. Forrest B. Dowdy completed the 7th​, 11th​, and 14th​ Air Forces studies. Col. Alfred W. Goldthwaite USAFR, worked the latter stages of the project, including 20th​ Aire Force and VII Fighter Command credits.

Lt. Col. Light Maier USAFR started the 12th​ and 15th​ Air Forces in the Med. Major Donald B. Dodd completed that work, including the most difficult determinations made.

Since 1972, James N, Eastman has supervision of the project. Researches followed carefully-prepared guidelines for the project.

The nature of aerial combat makes exact determination of whether or not an enemy aircraft was destroyed difficult. The word of a claimant has never been accepted as sufficient. The "witness" has to be another pilot on that mission, gun camera film, or a ground witness. The competent authority must recognize such confirmation to get official sanction.

An aircraft was deemed destroyed if was heavier than air, expected to be armed, is as a result of air-to-air action, crashed into the ground or water, disintegrated in the air, or was abandoned by its pilot. Credit was also given for intentional ramming or for maneuvering in such a way as to cause the enemy aircraft to crash. As far as I know, no ground victories are included in Report 85.

As far as I can tell, no enemy records were used, but confirmation as detailed above negates that need. One victory was awarded in Iceland where a Ju 88 was damaged and the wreckage was later found confirming the victory. So, a plane can be "destroyed" and have some part of it recovered to fly again. That does not negate the victory gained when it was shot down. The military isn't concerned with closely fitting victories into admitted enemy losses; they are concerned about how many enemy aircraft were brought down that fit into the definition of "brought down." That is as it should be, IMO.

Probable and Damaged victories were not awarded, only filmed , witnessed, or substantiated as described above victories were counted. All researchers had access to ALL USAAF records, gun camera films, and witness statements.

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


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Sep 24, 2022)

GregP said:


> As far as I can tell, no enemy records were used, *but confirmation as detailed above negates that need.*



That just isn't true. Even with gun camera footage etc., it has been demonstrated that claims still get inflated. If it was that easy there would be no market for the books by Shores, Bergstrom, Claringbould etc.

But there are three distinct categories here, which are looking at different things.

1) Wartime claims - this is what matters when comparing the accepted victory claims of the pilots of one nation and another. Postwar analysis for determining things like ace status aren't really relevant. If you want to compare British vs German or US vs. Japanese _claims_, or one pilot vs. another, this to me is the criteria to use.

2) Whatever category you want to put this USAF-85 particular postwar analysis in, an 'enhanced' or curated version of the wartime claims.

3) And actual claims vs. losses such as in Shores et al. Completely different. Taken in aggregate, claims are _always_ more than actual losses, no matter what verification method you use, so long as the enemy records are not also consulted. These give us a much clearer picture of what actually happened, but they still can't tell us everything because in many cases while you can see that an aircraft was lost, you can't verify what caused it to be lost (shot down by a fighter, shot down by another fighter from a different unit and maybe a different country, shot down by a defensive gunner or flak, or just engine trouble or navigation failure).

The numbers you posted for P-40 victory claims aren't even in the ballpark. Unless the USAF-85 records invalidated just those claims by 75% which I highly doubt.


----------



## GregP (Sep 24, 2022)

That just IS true.

It's how all Militaries award victories. Historic apologizers and revisionists are the ones who want every victory to "match up" with some admitted loss. And it NEVER WILL. I have no use for historical revisionists myself and don't care at all if an awarded victory matches an admitted loss.

The ONLY reason the Navy / Marines revised Pappy Boyington's kill total was money and the political influence of the friends of Joe Foss when he was running for Governor of South Dakota. They wanted to be able to claim he was the USMC's highest-ranking Ace and he had more powerful and rich friends than Greg Boyington did.

Military services have very specific definitions of what a victory is and if an action meets that definition, it is a victory. If it doesn't, it isn't. It really IS that simple. I don't choose to recognize ground kills myself.

You do whatever you want to do and do it in good health and happiness. Really.

Mox nix to me, or macht nichts in German --> it doesn't matter. The victory list for any country or unit is what it is. Hartmann still has 352 in my book.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Sep 25, 2022)

GregP said:


> That just IS true.
> 
> It's how all Militaries award victories. Historic apologizers and revisionists are the ones who want every victory to "match up" with some admitted loss. And it NEVER WILL. I have no use for historical revisionists myself and don't care at all if an awarded victory matches an admitted loss.



You don't seem to understand what I keep writing here over and over. I never said that you or _anyone _should care whether claims match losses, and I'm certainly no kind of "apologizer" or revisionist. I never said victories had to match up to losses, (and I don't care if they do either). It's just the fog of war. Measuring victories and comparing _actual_ losses to those victories are just measuring two different types of thing. One is claims. The other is actual losses. Which one you want depends on your purpose.

The point I was making is that claims are always higher than losses. That is a fact. It doesn't matter how they were verified during the war. And when it comes to aces tallies and so on, it's the wartime credits that really matter. Again, in a nutshell it's just fog of war.



GregP said:


> The ONLY reason the Navy / Marines revised Pappy Boyington's kill total was money and the political influence of the friends of Joe Foss when he was running for Governor of South Dakota. They wanted to be able to claim he was the USMC's highest-ranking Ace and he had more powerful and rich friends than Greg Boyington did.



I never said anything about the scores of either pilot, both of whom I personally respect a great deal. I actually met Boyington once.



GregP said:


> Military services have very specific definitions of what a victory is and if an action meets that definition, it is a victory. If it doesn't, it isn't. It really IS that simple. I don't choose to recognize ground kills myself.



I agree, on both counts. And I've pointed out that a victory claim is valid as such, repeatedly, in this thread. I also don't think "ground kills" are the same thing.



GregP said:


> You do whatever you want to do and do it in good health and happiness. Really.
> 
> Mox nix to me, or macht nichts in German --> it doesn't matter. The victory list for any country or unit is what it is. Hartmann still has 352 in my book.



he has 352 victory _claims._ That is a big difference from saying he actually shot down enemy 352 aircraft.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 25, 2022)

As impressive as it was against Axis twins, how many Beaufighters were lost to enemy single-engine fighters?


----------



## GregP (Sep 25, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> You don't seem to understand what I keep writing here over and over. I never said that you or _anyone _should care whether claims match losses, and I'm certainly no kind of "apologizer" or revisionist. I never said victories had to match up to losses, (and I don't care if they do either). It's just the fog of war. Measuring victories and comparing _actual_ losses to those victories are just measuring two different types of thing. One is claims. The other is actual losses. Which one you want depends on your purpose.
> 
> The point I was making is that claims are always higher than losses. That is a fact. It doesn't matter how they were verified during the war. And when it comes to aces tallies and so on, it's the wartime credits that really matter. Again, in a nutshell it's just fog of war.
> 
> ...



It is YOU who doesn't understand. There are no complete actual Axis loss records and no complete Allied loss records either. The U.S.A. was not bombed, but our loss records weren't kept in the U.S.A., they were kept by the units and passed along upward at regular intervals. They all got bombed like anybody else in Europe, Africa, the Philippines, etc. did on occasion. So, you have some set of loss records but there are likely no complete sets. There are no 100% complete sets of whatever the people on either side in question called losses.

If a shoot down matched the military definition of a victory, it was awarded. If it didn't, it wasn't. Whether or not the enemy considered it a loss was and is immaterial. It's how aerial victory credits work, world-wide, with the possible exceptions of Romania (points and multiple awards for multi-engine planes), Japan (who didn't really track individual successes) and possibly the Soviet Union (succeed or 1] die or 2] go to Siberia for an unspecified period).

Now we all know there was SOME overclaiming as far as claims go, but there were also instances of not listing some planes as losses because they were being repaired or cannibalized or the Soviet Political Officer would not approve of telling Stalin the truth or the Romanian system would turn one victory into 3 just because the victory was over a 4 or 6-engine aircraft. So, there exists misinformation for claims, awarded victories, and losses. Hopefully, the vast majority of unjustified claims are never recognized by the cognizant authority, and you have to look at how certain countries awarded claims.

I reject points systems (there were a few) and victories awarded by the engine count (as Romania had). Romanian scores are very suspect due to strange rules for awarding victories. Nothing wrong with Romanian pilots, just their victory-tracking system. And there are several systems, including our own, where night fighter crew all get a victory for any awarded claim. So, that means in a two-man night fighter, both of then were awarded a victory if the fighter got one.

The Soviet system was never that good because Stalin required results or people got killed or sent to Siberia to forced labor camps. That tends to generate success as required. We all know the Soviet pilots and equipment got a lot better as the war went on, but Stalin was still around at the end and still demanded success or satisfaction.

But, hey, look at it however you want. I'm sure whatever I think won't affect your perceptions. I've developed mine over many years of interest in the subject and hanging around places where WWII pilots visited every month to give talks about specific planes and battles and by talking with them as the chances allowed. Most were brutally honest about it and the others were pretty easy to pick out. Sometimes, I could get a bit of time to ask a question or two. Other times not.

Cheers Wild Bill. We don't have to agree, and you could be right. Or not. Me, too. Or we could BOTH be wrong. Stranger things have happened.

I mean, Sandra Bullock married Jesse James once and we, as a country, bought the Bell P-39 as a fighter in WWII, nose armor and all. Who'da thunk it?


----------



## Timppa (Sep 25, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> Beaufighter versus single-seat fighter kills as mentioned in the text of the book Beaufighter Aces of WW2 by Andrew Thomas.
> ...


Checked some of these claims against Shore's book (Air War For Burma)



> On 15 February 1944, 211 Sqn Beaufighter Xs operating to the north of Akyab were attacked by four Ki-43s, the sqn CO Wg Cdr Pat Meagher shot down two, after firing a
> 
> salvo of rockets at them (!), the rockets didn't hit though!


Shores: 1 Japanese loss, probably against 607 or 136 Squadron Spitfires which both made claims of Ki-43's.




> On 28 April 211 Sqn CO Meagher shot down another Ki-43.


Shores: No losses



> On 25 March 1945, 176 Sqn RAF Beaufighter piloted by Fg Off Forbes shot down a Ki-43 off the coast of Burma.


Shores: Ki-21 possibly (Ki-21 "Sally" was a twin engined bomber though !)

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Sep 26, 2022)

GregP said:


> It is YOU who doesn't understand. There are no complete actual Axis loss records and no complete Allied loss records either. The U.S.A. was not bombed, but our loss records weren't kept in the U.S.A., they were kept by the units and passed along upward at regular intervals. They all got bombed like anybody else in Europe, Africa, the Philippines, etc. did on occasion. So, you have some set of loss records but there are likely no complete sets. There are no 100% complete sets of whatever the people on either side in question called losses.



Even without enemy action there is the matter of simple administrative or clerical errors causing numbers to be incorrect or missing.

Heck, even today, with the internet and computerized record-keeping, you can, for example, still find the occasional data error in a sports league's statistics. I can only imagine how much more frequent that would sort of thing would be when everything was calculated by adding machine and typed up on a typewriter.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Sep 26, 2022)

I have entered many of the tables from the Statistical Digest of World War II into Excel, and I can tell you these guys made a LOT of math errors when totaling the columns and rows. I'm pretty sure that nobody ever did a check of the total lines after someone added them up the first time.

I am, of course, assuming Excel isn't making any errors in addition. I take the stance that the error is very likely in summing, not the table entry. I could be mistaken, but I have nothing to check the numbers against. I have found similar math errors in many WWII documents in the total and grand total rows.

Seems systemic.


----------



## Snautzer01 (Sep 26, 2022)

Gi-go. That what makes it so difficult. One has to work with so-so work at the time and other smoke blowing. It is a mine field.


----------



## 33k in the air (Sep 26, 2022)

GregP said:


> I have entered many of the tables from the Statistical Digest of World War II into Excel, and I can tell you these guys made a LOT of math errors when totaling the columns and rows. I'm pretty sure that nobody ever did a check of the total lines after someone added them up the first time.



Sometimes that sort of thing can be due to rounding issues


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Sep 26, 2022)

There is also, in historical documents in general, the "_somebody already figured this out_" phenomenon. People will just repeat certain data as if it's gospel (especially if it agrees with an overall theory or assessment they themselves like), without ever checking the original data or thinking behind the interpretation. That's why we have some many incredibly persistent myths and tropes about WW2 airpower and everything else. I've seen cases where somebody admitted they were guessing about something or even making it up, but their words (skipping that part) were repeated as if written in stone literally for centuries after that, over and over and over again, sometimes without even attributing who the original source was.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 26, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> There is also, in historical documents in general, the "_somebody already figured this out_" phenomenon. People will just repeat certain data as if it's gospel (especially if it agrees with an overall theory or assessment they themselves like), without ever checking the original data or thinking behind the interpretation. That's why we have some many incredibly persistent myths and tropes about WW2 airpower and everything else. I've seen cases where somebody admitted they were guessing about something or even making it up, but their words (skipping that part) were repeated as if written in stone literally for centuries after that, over and over and over again, sometimes without even attributing who the original source was.


Like the original AVG fought against Zeros

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Sep 26, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Like the original AVG fought against Zeros



Yes. Or that the Russians used the [fighter not to be named] exclusively for ground attack, or that the P-40 was "slow and unmaneuverable" or "didn't have a supercharger", or that this or that plane was called "whistling death" "whispering something" or "devil" something or other by Axis forces, or that this or that plane had a 10-1 "Kill ratio", or that rockets destroyed thousands of tanks, or that rockets didn't destroy any tanks, that German superweapons like the Jets almost won the war for them, or could have done except for XYZ... etc.

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


----------



## GregP (Sep 26, 2022)

Lots of that in play. The errors I'm talking about are simple addition ... add up the columns or rows. They didn't HAVE spreadsheets back then and many people who make a mistake ... make the same mistake when they try again.

People are notoriously inefficient at checking their own writing, but they have no trouble catching errors in someone else's writing because they have no expectations about the wording, and so actually LOOK at spelling, wording, and punctuation.

Historcialy, it has been difficult to check yourself in math or writing.

So, when I entered the Statistical Digest tables, I entered the data only and let Excel do the sums. It was eye-opening. If a sum didn't match, I checked the entire column or row at least twice to be sure the data were correct.

Cheers.

Hey Wild Bill, I've been around here for about 20 years and have posted some things you may never have seen just because old thread titles do not always convey the subjects discussed. We managed to wander off-subject frequently, and I've done my share of contributing to it. So, I attached a World Ace List spreadsheet I did some time back, just to share.

Again, Cheers.

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


----------



## Admiral Beez (Sep 28, 2022)

This pic of an early Beaufighter just looks modern and lethal.












Bristol 156 Beaufighter


Bristol's heavily armed night fighter and anti-shipping strike aircraft.




www.baesystems.com

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


----------



## BlackSheep (Sep 28, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> I’d give the Beaufighter good odds against any twin engined piston fighter fielded by the Axis, including the Kawasaki Ki-45 and Ki-102, IMAM Ro.57, Heinkel He 219, and Messerschmitt Me 210. Late war prototypes like the Mitsubishi Ki-83 likely would have bested the Beaufighter had they entered service.


From what I have read, the Ki-83 would have been a real beast and not only Beau pilots would have had something to worry about. Imagine if Japan had managed to get several squadrons up to oppose the B-29s? 400mph+, good maneuverability, 20mm and 30mm cannons would have spelled trouble for anything except a P-39……. The gauntlet has been thrown down. 😂

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 28, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> This pic of an early Beaufighter just looks modern and lethal.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Modern surely, lethal.. i don't see weapons


----------



## Admiral Beez (Sep 28, 2022)

Vincenzo said:


> Modern surely, lethal.. i don't see weapons


Aren't there four 20 mm cannons visible underneath?


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 28, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> Aren't there four 20 mm cannons visible underneath?


R2052 is one of the first four Beaufighter (Bristol 156) prototypes.

It was unarmed in that 1939 photo.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

