Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Bill I agree with the 100 plus given to the 8th AF alone, and then we have RCAF/RAF, 15th AF, etc............
JG 7 records are not as complete as one would hope nor are KG 54 when operating as a fighter and bomber unit with the jet
we need to get together my friend hopefully in June, my own dear Father had a quad-bypass several days ago and he looks and sounds like crap-ola. may have to go down south again before months end
E- you have all you can handle - the door is open and we have a lot of wine and 18 year old macallan
Right claims and actual losses seldom agree, but in that case they were relatively close. I counted incident by incident in Foreman and Harvey's "Me 262 Combat Diary" around 150 aerial credits by Allied fighters v Me 262's, vast majority USAAF, large majority P-51, and around 120 Me-262's actually lost in those same combats. Allied claims in that theater and time period tended to be among the more accurate in WWII. Around a dozen USAAF fighters were certainly or pretty certainly lost to jets counting in the same book, but a number of other cases are possible. In a number of other cases the book just notes losses, to some cause not necesarily jets or necessarily air combat, that might correspond to jet claims. But it doesn't seem likely a large % of those were really due to jets, with losses to operational, AA, and air combat with LW piston fighters happening all the time also. The air combat outcomes of Me-262 v. USAAF fighters was clearly heavily in favor of the USAAF fighters, in the particular circumstances, whatever the exact ratio.Lets us not forget that because 100 Me-262s were claimed shot down doesn't mean that many were actually shot down, it's probably lower as usual with all claims.
Lets us not forget that because 100 Me-262s were claimed shot down doesn't mean that many were actually shot down, it's probably lower as usual with all claims. But there's no doubt that 80 to 90% of all Me-262s shot down were so by the USAAF as it was predominantly these guys who met them, and shooting one down which was attempting to land or take off counted just as much as one hit at 30,000 ft.
I believe it most reasonable that around 100 Me-262 were lost in the air, with ~1,100 more being destroyed on the ground by various means.
For USN USMC fighters
The FM-2 credit to loss numbers were 422 to 13, or 32.46 to 1
The F6F-3, -3N, -5, -5N credit to loss numbers were 5163 to 270, or 19.12 to 1
The F4U-1, -1C, -1D, -2, -4, FG-1, -1D credit to loss numbers were 2140 to 189, or 11.32 to 1
The F4F-3, -4 credit to loss numbers were 905 to 178, or 5.08 to 1
Rich
OK, that makes no sense at all. The FM-2 was just a late-model F4F with a different manufacturer designation, should not be listed as a seperate type.
I've heard the Finnish Buffaloes edge out the Hellcat, but I've never heard the Buffalo's ratio when the kill/loss ratio for Buffaloes in the Pacific is factored into the total.
USN might have kept seperate statistics, and pilots might have referred to them by different names, but for purposes of this discussion, the F4F and FM2 should be grouped together. The FM2 is just an improved variant of the basic Wildcat design, made by another manufacturer.
Perhaps, but OTOH if you don't split up 109 or Spitfire by model or period, you're not only talking a range of pretty different a/c technically within each general subheadings ('Spitfire' or '109'), but you are also equating claims by Spits in say 1941 over France that were perhaps 5:1 overstatements of actual German losses, with claims in 1944-45 that were much closer to the truth. Similarly for 109 you'd be equating relatively accurate 1941 East Front claims with several:1 overstatements ca. 1944-45. There is or might be some official ratio for that whole series of a/c as a trivia fact, but it has hardly any real world meaning. Of course the same factors (varying claim accuracy, varying type of opponents etc) make comparison of claimed kill ratio's between types questionable in many cases, but the longer period of time and wider variation of circumstances you cover for one 'type', the more those factors make the numbers *internally* inconsistent even for that one 'type'.Otherwise we have to split up the 109s, the Spitfires, the FW's etc.
Rich, What a fascinating resume for your father shows up in his fighter hours. It must be(or must have been) quite an experience talking to him about it. I once spent quite a bit of time with Jim Swope. I bet they knew one another.