Beaufighter vs. Axis fighters

[GregP]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.


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.

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.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

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]

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.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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

 

[GregP]

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.



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



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.



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

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]

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 !)

 

[33k in the air]

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.

 

[GregP]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

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.

 

[GregP]

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.

 

[Admiral Beez]

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

 

[BlackSheep]

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.