highest kill ratio

[VG-33]

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

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

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

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

Regards

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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

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

Regards

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

 

[VG-33]

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

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

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

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

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


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

Regards


VG-33

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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

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

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

 

[VG-33]

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

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

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

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



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

Regards

VG

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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

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

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



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

Regards

VG

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

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

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

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

 

[renrich]

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

 

[Soren]

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

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

 

[drgondog]

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

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

Regards

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

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

 

[Vincenzo]

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

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

 

[CloCloZ]

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

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

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

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

 

[drgondog]

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

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

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

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

 

[Soren]

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

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

 

[Vincenzo]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[CloCloZ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Well, this could interesting...

 

[Daviducus2]

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

 

[JoeB]

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

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

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

Joe

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Good info there Joe.

 

[drgondog]

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

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

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

Joe

Totally agree.

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

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

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

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

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

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