highest kill ratio

lol Cocloz, I did bring forth a reference, the most accurate one there is, Reschke's own book (Wilde Sau). And that is despite your completelæy ridiculous dismissal of it as a reliable source. You see Reschke actually flew the a/c and was around when these losses occured, and thus he has first hand information on the subject, completely unlike the dubious references you bring forth.

Also why do you call Hermann a Ta152 fan ? He's a writer researcher, not a fan. And his knowledge is mostly on the technical aspect of these a/c, not unit histories. Oh and btw, where in his book does he conclude anything even approaching what you're claiming in your article ?

Soren said:

lol Cocloz, I did bring forth a reference, the most accurate one there is, Reschke's own book (Wilde Sau). And that is despite your completelæy ridiculous dismissal of it as a reliable source. You see Reschke actually flew the a/c and was around when these losses occured, and thus he has first hand information on the subject, completely unlike the dubious references you bring forth.

Also why do you call Hermann a Ta152 fan ? He's a writer researcher, not a fan. And his knowledge is mostly on the technical aspect of these a/c, not unit histories. Oh and btw, where in his book does he conclude anything even approaching what you're claiming in your article ?

Click to expand...

Sorry to burst your bubble but:

1) Reschke has been found to be highly unreliable (and, yes, that by serious researchers) and I reported all the references. For example, he reports three victories by Walter Loos on Ta152 that Loos himself denied! (just look at Pilots who flew the Ta152 - Luftwaffe Experten Message Board)
And, BTW, his tale about Ludwigslust dogfight is plagued by inconsistencies when compared not only to RAF reports but to other German witnesses reports too, from the number of planes involved to Sattler's flight path.
So, he is unreliable both about events he was involved in and about other pilots' events. In the light of those researches his tales are "good" just for people that stubbornly want to believe to them.

2) Harmann is both a writer AND a Ta152 fan, as quite clearly demonstrated by his overpraising of that plane. So, for sure he doesn't conclude anything near to my conclusions!
Iin fact I'd never write things such as "The pilots of the Tank also did not have to fear P47 Thunderbolts or Hawker Tempests, as several victories proves [...] it must actually have brought many P-47 and Tempests pilot to the point of desperation" (please note: 1 (one) downed P47, 1 (one) downed Tempest) ...
Anyway, even such a fan reports a couple of losses that (added to others) fully deny your unproven 11-0 statement ...

Vincenzo said:

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

Click to expand...

>I'll dig into my files and give you one example I have already published.

>In the meantime you dig up (or do the research and present your results) an example to support your thesis.

Summary

April 24, 1944 is on Mike Williams website - one that Erich and I (and several others) collaborated on as documented in overview. I have since completed the LW loss list to the extent that it can be completed... and will post tomorrow. The LW loss list was incomplete with respect to times but locations and types have narrowed down the probable killers and victims.

This was one in which two fighter groups of the 8th AF were engaged with a force of 200+ German fighters in a very concentrated area around Munich in a specific time span - permitting conclusions regarding 'claim to award to loss'

The Battle Over Munich – April 24, 1944

Plus OberstLeutnant Joerge Deutsch's and Frank Olynyk's further additions. I have about seven of these but this will serve for the moment. I did not include Tony Wood's consolidated LW list for 4-24 Awards as this page is getting a little crowded! If you have trouble finding it I will post it later. For Frank O's list, strip out the stuff that is not in a 50 mile radius from Munich as the others (Worms, Lake Constance, etc) were on the inbound run and not relevant to this documentary.

Now Vincenzo - go forth and present yourown research and perspectives

CloCloZ said:

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.

Click to expand...

CloClo, I see you have now been introduced to Soren's "discussion" style. I think he is just a troll, with a Third Reich axe to grind. Just put him him on your ignore list, he really has nothing to contribute.

Your analysis of the Ta152 vs. Tempest fight is quite good.

Timppa said:

CloClo, I see you have now been introduced to Soren's "discussion" style. I think he is just a troll, with a Third Reich axe to grind. Just put him him on your ignore list, he really has nothing to contribute.

Your analysis of the Ta152 vs. Tempest fight is quite good.

Click to expand...

You're the troll here Timppa, with your own clear bias to deal with, as you have so solidly proven over and over again.

But you and Clocloz can go ahead and believe in your fairytale fantasies all you wish, I couldn't care less.

But next time bring forth a reliable source for once, not just some guy who never flew during the war and bases all his conclusions on rumors. In short: Try to contribute!

CloCloZ said:

Sorry to burst your bubble but:

1) Reschke has been found to be highly unreliable (and, yes, that by serious researchers) and I reported all the references. For example, he reports three victories by Walter Loos on Ta152 that Loos himself denied! (just look at Pilots who flew the Ta152 - Luftwaffe Experten Message Board)
And, BTW, his tale about Ludwigslust dogfight is plagued by inconsistencies when compared not only to RAF reports but to other German witnesses reports too, from the number of planes involved to Sattler's flight path.
So, he is unreliable both about events he was involved in and about other pilots' events. In the light of those researches his tales are "good" just for people that stubbornly want to believe to them.

2) Harmann is both a writer AND a Ta152 fan, as quite clearly demonstrated by his overpraising of that plane. So, for sure he doesn't conclude anything near to my conclusions!
Iin fact I'd never write things such as "The pilots of the Tank also did not have to fear P47 Thunderbolts or Hawker Tempests, as several victories proves [...] it must actually have brought many P-47 and Tempests pilot to the point of desperation" (please note: 1 (one) downed P47, 1 (one) downed Tempest) ...
Anyway, even such a fan reports a couple of losses that (added to others) fully deny your unproven 11-0 statement ...

Click to expand...

Listen up Clocloz/FalkeEins, it's you who wrote the hogwash on that forum isn't it ? And unsurprisingly no links or accurate references are given to the wild claims made there. I wonder why ?

But you've openly declared Reschke a liar, fine, but I'd sure like to see the evidence you claim to have which will prove this! Why is it that I suspect you have absolutely nothing of the sort ?

Sure gotta love it when people start pouring dirt on the brave men who actually took part in that horrible war some 64 years ago. I mean, what do they know right ? They only lived and fought in the battles we talk about so often.

I think Reschke should've been invited to this discussion. I'd sure like to hear what he has to say.

Quit hijacking these threads with your bullshit childish flame wars.

All of you need to play nice! Some of you have already received warnings before stating what will happen if you don't. I don't care who started it!

Soren said:

Listen up Clocloz/FalkeEins, it's you who wrote the hogwash on that forum isn't it ? And unsurprisingly no links or accurate references are given to the wild claims made there. I wonder why ?

But you've openly declared Reschke a liar, fine, but I'd sure like to see the evidence you claim to have which will prove this! Why is it that I suspect you have absolutely nothing of the sort ?

Sure gotta love it when people start pouring dirt on the brave men who actually took part in that horrible war some 64 years ago. I mean, what do they know right ? They only lived and fought in the battles we talk about so often.

I think Reschke should've been invited to this discussion. I'd sure like to hear what he has to say.

Click to expand...

"no links or accurate references" ...

I know that you dislike what I said with a lot of links and references on that page (unlike what you did) but at least you should try to pretend you read that page ...

About Reschke, I didn't say he is a liar, I said his reports are just unreliable tales on many accounts. I don't know if he is a liar, still wants to defend Tank's and Ta152 reputation or just has bad memories, the fact is that his tales very often "doesn't stand up to scrutiny".
And, better, it wasn't just me to have said that, but researchers such as Lorant. Again, if you had really read my page you had easily discovered that.

So, it's quite "odd" that at first you ask for "serious researchers" and when I point out that I used data from researchers (Lorant and even Harmann) you ignore that and go on babbling about "no references, no links, no serious researchers, just your assumptions" ...

It's quite obvious Timppa is fully right.
So I'll let you peacefully continue to believe in what you want to believe, in spite of any evidence.
Only thing I'm sure it will disturb you: that page and all its links and references will stick around ...
But, after all, I wrote that page just for smart people, not for trolls!


P.S.: I'm not FalkeEins (I don't even know him or her), so please don't try to involve me in squabbles you probably had with other users (and it's now quite easy to me to understand why ...).

Soren said:

Listen up Clocloz/FalkeEins, it's you who wrote the hogwash on that forum isn't it ? And unsurprisingly no links or accurate references are given to the wild claims made there. I wonder why ?

But you've openly declared Reschke a liar, fine, but I'd sure like to see the evidence you claim to have which will prove this! Why is it that I suspect you have absolutely nothing of the sort ?

Sure gotta love it when people start pouring dirt on the brave men who actually took part in that horrible war some 64 years ago. I mean, what do they know right ? They only lived and fought in the battles we talk about so often.

I think Reschke should've been invited to this discussion. I'd sure like to hear what he has to say.

Click to expand...

As many of you know - Soren and I have had a LOT of spririted debates.

I will be the first to say he has brought out the best (and worst) of me.. but will further say that even if I feel he has a point of view that does not match mine he is a very sharp individual and we find ourselves 'agreeing to disagree' where the past was 'Patience Hell - kill the SOB"

I have found Reschke somewaht uncredible on the claims side but only because I had access to the actiual losses. By the same token questioning him on actual LW losses takes on the same dimension.

I have no stomach for assertaining a warriro's persepctive as BS when the ones that question it weren't there to question it or validate it.

Investigate, research, make your own determinations but back it up!

>I'll dig into my files and give you one example I have already published.

>In the meantime you dig up (or do the research and present your results) an example to support your thesis.

Vincenzo - this is the kind of research you need to duplicate to remotely approach a dialogue of matching claims to awards......

Summary

April 24, 1944 is on Mike Williams website - one that Erich and I (and several others) collaborated on as documented in overview. I have since completed the LW loss list to the extent that it can be completed... and will post tomorrow. The LW loss list was incomplete with respect to times but locations and types have narrowed down the probable killers and victims.

This was one in which two fighter groups of the 8th AF were engaged with a force of 200+ German fighters in a very concentrated area around Munich in a specific time span - permitting conclusions regarding 'claim to award to loss'

The Battle Over Munich – April 24, 1944 The Battle Over Munich – April 24, 1944

PlusI added OberstLeutnant Joerge Deutsch's and Frank Olynyk's further additions.

I have about seven of these 'specific research tasks completed -but this will serve for the moment.

I did not include Tony Wood's consolidated LW list for 4-24 Awards as this page is getting a little crowded! If you have trouble finding it I will post it later. For Frank O's list, strip out the stuff that is not in a 50 mile radius from Munich as the others (Worms, Lake Constance, etc) were on the inbound run and not relevant to this documentary.

Now Vincenzo - go forth and present yourown research and perspectives

From my understanding of research over the past few years, the combat record of the Ta-152 is not as clear cut as some would like to make out. Several of the Ta-152 "kills" are less than certain, and there are at least one, probably two, combat losses of the Ta-152.

In contradiction to Walter Reschke's book, Walter Loos stated in a 1979 interview that he never shot down an enemy aircraft while flying the Ta-152. This potentially rules out three of the 11 kills, two Yak-9s on 24-Apr-1945 and another on 30-Apr-1945.

There is also some contradiction as the whether Josef Keil claimed a P-51 or a P-47 on 10-Apr-1945, and the claim doesn't match USAAF ETO loss lists, although its impossible to rule out RAF or USAAF MTO units.

Still, a positive K/L ratio during the mid-1945 period is an impressive achievement, given the pressure that Luftwaffe units were under at the time, both in term of numerical disadvantage and pilot experience.

The best kill-to-loss of any fighter in the Second World War (26-to-1) was garnered by an aircraft that is widely considered the worst fighter of the war - the Brewster B-239 (U.S. Navy designation F2A) used by the Finnish AF against the Ruskies. Although it barely saw service with the U.S. Navy, the little Brewster was used to great effect by the Finns.

According to chuckhawks.com, "Although the Soviets had the advantage of numbers and some of its fighter aircraft were technically superior, for the most part Soviet pilots were mediocre. The best Russian flyers were thrown against the Luftwaffe, which was understandably considered the bigger threat.

Also, the bulk of the modern Soviet fighters were employed in the attempt to stem the German invasion. This meant that the Russian pilots on the Finnish Front mostly had to make due with out-dated types such as the I-15 biplane fighter. Furthermore, the experienced, skilled, and determined Finnish pilots refused to bow to their Soviet rivals."

i never put in doubt that in several "battles" awards are near to real loss.
however i'm happy to read the docs

sorry i've reply a 90th topic

drgondog said:

The LW loss list was incomplete with respect to times but locations and types have narrowed down the probable killers and victims.

Click to expand...

Bill, if I summarize correctly you give German fighter (a/c) losses as 60 and the awards, of 'destroyed' to three 8th AF groups as 12 (4th), 20 (355th) and 23 (357th), total 55. "Mighty 8th War Diary" by Freeman gives the total of awards to the P-51 groups was 64 so implying 9 for the 354th and 363rd, then 4 for P-38 groups, 2 to P-47 groups and a surprisingly modest 20 for bombers, given their relatively heavy losses. I just add that to point out that as far as credit/loss accounting, there wouldn't be a large overclaim (by most standards), even assuming 60 was the total German loss to all those units, even including the bomber credits at face value.

My main question though is how we know the LW losses to be 60 if we don't know all the specific pilot names, a/c or units (unless I'm mistaken the loss list is much less than 60)? Is that broken down by unit but without the more detailed info in some cases, or is there some general German summary that separately just gives the total?

Joe

JoeB said:

Bill, if I summarize correctly you give German fighter (a/c) losses as 60 and the awards, of 'destroyed' to three 8th AF groups as 12 (4th), 20 (355th) and 23 (357th), total 55. "Mighty 8th War Diary" by Freeman gives the total of awards to the P-51 groups was 64 so implying 9 for the 354th and 363rd, then 4 for P-38 groups, 2 to P-47 groups and a surprisingly modest 20 for bombers, given their relatively heavy losses. I just add that to point out that as far as credit/loss accounting, there wouldn't be a large overclaim (by most standards), even assuming 60 was the total German loss to all those units, even including the bomber credits at face value.

Yes - if that in fact was to' roll up - but that isn't the way I approached it as noted below, nor does the above summary reflect current data. Freeman is simply wrong in comparison to Olynyk and USAFHRC.

The overclaim, I would argue is in the bomber column'


My main question though is how we know the LW losses to be 60 if we don't know all the specific pilot names, a/c or units (unless I'm mistaken the loss list is much less than 60)? Is that broken down by unit but without the more detailed info in some cases, or is there some general German summary that separately just gives the total?

Joe

Click to expand...

Joe - I'm not sure which records you looked at, or whether you looked only at what I posted?

On a general note for 9th AF and RAF Mustangs, the 354FG scored one air claim north of Ingolstadt, the 363rd did not score and the RAF did not score.

From USAFHRC (latest)

The P-38 Group air awards were 20th FG= 5, 55th=1
The P-51 Group air awards were 4FG=12, 352nd=1, 355th=20, 357th=22
The P-47 Group air awards were Zero



The LW loss list I posted above specified both pilots and units and in most cases the Werk No of the fighter recorded as destroyed in the Augsburg to Munich to Leipzig area - 45 Fighters, pilots and crews in a 50 mile radius of Munich where this battle took place. It doesn't touch the JG 11 losses to 4th, 20th and 55th from Worms to Lake Constance before 1215 on inbound leg.

What is not in that Loss list are the fighters that crash landed but not specifically written off.

Roger Freeman did a very nice job in Mighty 8th as well as 8th War Diary - but there are many instances where he is at variance with USAF 85 in fighter claims and losses. Kent Miller for example is a much more relaiable source for both.

Caldwell and Muller(Luftwaffe over Germany) referenced 60 fighters lost, referencing Prien among others, as well as noting that 3 German fighters fell to B-17 gunners over Munich as well as citing 39 KIA, 12 WIA - in the 60 total combat losses for the day, including Worms/Lake Constance battles.

Summary - USAAF/RAFFighter awards = 60, LW losses = 60 destroyed (but no knowledge of disposition of crash landed fighters - presumably not all repairable)including at least 3 to B-17s.

The 45 pilots/units/fighters cited in my list match pretty closely to the Mustang awards to the 352, 354, 355, 357 (The Munich claims) total of 45 but that leaves us with the 3 'known' losses to B-17s... so we have a variance of at least 3/45 for the award total to the fighters over Munich area.

Did I cover your points?

Tony Woods has 13 (8 with reference to award/film no. plus others in supplemental list ) Mustang awards given to German fighter pilots over Munich(plus a "P-47" which was impossible - for actual total losses in air combat of 6. This is not to denigrate Tony's compilation as I am sure that I will find comparable overclaiming on US side sooner or later.

JoeB - forgot to mention that the 357FG claimed (and was awarded) 9 Me 110s and one "Ju 88" but I can only find 9 Me 110s from ZG76 and no Ju 88's.. there were no other FG claims for Me 110's so the 357 claim to award on them at least was correct.

nimrod.michaeli said:

what is the highest kill ratio ever

i will assumed either p-51 or hellcat

what is that ratio

what was the highest killing ration during vietnam

whats the ratio

Click to expand...

Nimrod,

Excellent questions but let me ask one in return. Are you interested in kill ratio's as a sign of a great fighter alone or as part of a whole?
There is more to the whole picture than kill ratio's alone, some aircraft were difficult to fly even though they achieved phenominal kill rates (Bf-109 lost 1/3 of all aircraft in accidents). The Bf-109 is a conversation all itself due to it's longevity and the number of kills scored by it. However, pilot versus pilot comparison also comes into play (pilot production towards the end of the war in both Japan and Germany suffered in quality). Or how about maintainability, as logistically some planes are much easier to fix in the field than others?

Biff

My dad is Robert Bruce Ogilvie in some of the photos....... Bob

The highest kill ratio has little to no meaning. The Hellcat with it's 13:1 kill ratio was fighting Mitsubishi Zeros. The Mitsubishi zero was a generation below the Hellcat and exactly why the some of the air battles where called turkey shots. The kill ratio only has merit when comparing two planes to one another and not determining the best plane, but it still has only small value. Would the Hellcat be 13:1 against a German w190 -- no way. Most German aces racked up hundreds of kills on the eastern front only to get switched to the defense of the fatherland on the western front to be shot down by P-51 flying in high numbers over Germany.

The best plane of WW2 was the P-51. Why you might ask. The P-51 had two things that were revolutionary. 1) laminar flow airfoils that allowed larger wings that gave it the incredible 2,300 mile range compared to the German ME 109 and W190 500 mile range. 2) It had a gyroscopic gun sight allowing even new pilots to be 50% more accurate. The Germans only used the Gyroscopic sights after inspecting a downed Ally plane and used them just before the end of the war.

The P-51 with it's 2,300 range and a the P-51 being as capable as the W190. Hundreds of P-51 could take off from all over Britain. When they flew over Germany the range of the German planes allowed only a fraction as many plane to intercept resulting in numerical mismatches. A majority of the Eastern front German aces where shot down in the first few months. The Number one German ace ever was forced to bail out on his fifth mission after running out of gas with 8 P-51 on his tail. 17% of all German planes where shot down in the first week that the P-51 was allowed to engage at will.

After the German planes had to return to base for fuel the P-51 would follow and bounce them (shot them on landing, taking off, or refueling). 1/2 of ALL planes killed by P-51 where on the ground resulting in no addition the kill ratio of air combat and a direct result of the P-51 incredible range. The P-51 had 1/2 of ALL ally kills in the WW2 Europe. The ridiculous range meant the P-51 was the only offensive fighter plane in Europe. To top it off it was cheap to make at 50k a pop. Only 1 P-51 fighter ace was ever shot down in the air and most where shot down by ground fire as the P-51 weakness was the air cooling system on it's belly.

If you don't believe me about how effective the P-51 was read the wiki on the top 50 German aces and see what plane shot them down (more than half where shot down by P-51). The 1943 P-51 with Royal Royce Merlin engine, Gyroscopic gun sight and incredible 2300 mile range won the air battle over Europe. The W190D (long nose) and ME 262 were great planes but had little effect on the war due to their late entry and the P-51 shot down most of the know ME 262 kills and hundreds on the ground where they get no credit.

In order for Germany to beat the P-51 they would have had to produce a plane with a 2300 mile range to allow mass intercepts which they never did.

There are people on here that know the statistics much better than I, but I can't see how range is one of your major determining factors in making the P-51 the greatest plane the allies had. What does range have to do with firepower, survivability, rate of climb, maneuverability, etc. These are true combat statistics, not how far it can fly.

Also, the P-51 had far greater numbers and better trained pilots than the Luftwaffe, which sure helped the allies gain air superiority.

I do agree with you about kill ratio's not meaning it's the greatest plane, but the two reasons you give, IMO, certainly don't mean it's the greatest either. The P-51 was a fine aircraft and gets all the glory in the ETO, but many members on this board, myself included, believe the F4U was a superior aircraft in most aspects.