michaelmaltby
Colonel
Out of curiosity ... Kashmir India-Pakistan ... whose flying what? .. and losing what? Anyone 
highest kill ratio
- Thread starter nimrod.michaeli
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
There was a website that had many if not all post WW2 conflicts documented pretty well. I think the IAF aircraft shot down the the other day was a late model MiG-21Out of curiosity ... Kashmir India-Pakistan ... whose flying what? .. and losing what? Anyone
michaelmaltby
Colonel
thank you
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
For the whole war or just the early years?
I think one or two F-16s have gone down. At least one in this case:
Aegean dispute
-
8 October 1996 – 7 months after the escalation of the dispute with Turkey over the Imia/Kardak islands, a Greek Mirage 2000 fired an R.550 Magic II missile and shot down a Turkish F-16D[29] over the Aegean Sea. The Turkish pilot died, while the co-pilot ejected and was rescued by Greek forces.[30] In August 2012, after the downing of a RF-4E on the Syrian Coast, Turkish Defence Minister İsmet Yılmaz confirmed that the Turkish F-16D was shot down by a Greek Mirage 2000 with an R.550 Magic II in 1996 after reportedly violating Greek airspace near Chios island.[31] Greece denies that the F-16 was shot down.[32] Both Mirage 2000 pilots reported that the F-16 caught fire and they saw one parachute.[33]
The Serbians also shot down an F-16 with a SAM but that is not air-to-air
2009 man, 2009...
Ask me about a post in this decade please. 10 years ago I said I was not sure.
My apologies, sorry the thread popped up and I started reading and replied without noticing the date... the reason I was asking is that early war (1941-43) German victories over the Russians (or other Allies too, but to a lesser extent) tend to be glorified but German losses to the Russians (and other Allies too but it's not as fraught of an issue) in say 1944-45 tend to be downplayed or rationalized because of the difficult conditions the Germans were operating under by that late date, in terms of training, logistics, manpower etc.
Not saying you were doing this but I have noticed it in other venues and it's kind of a pet peeve.
Not saying you were doing this but I have noticed it in other venues and it's kind of a pet peeve.
Yes never a air to air loss. Not one.
The numbers for allied fighter losses look mathematically impossible. The 262 must have had a straight line high speed attack with small maneuvers so as to hit the US bombers. Head on defense by US fighters and finishing off damaged 262s hit by bomber gunners were invariably
Yes they have the highest kill ratio. The old Russian bombers were open cockpit and open gunner positions. The Buffaloes 30 calibers could barely damage the rugged Russian planes so they shot the open exposed pilots. Some may say the numbers were not really fair since the Russian planes were so obsolete. The Me109 and Zero took those kills with no problem. The Corsair and Hellcats got mega kamikaze kills where the pilots did no evasive maneuvers. Everyone gets the credit whether it was a biplane seaplane or 262 all count the same.
CatTheCool
Airman
- 32
- Aug 28, 2018
Finish Brewster Buffalo 27:1
R Leonard
Staff Sergeant
That's nice.
The USN Eastern FM-2 credit to loss numbers were 422 to 13, or 32.46 to 1
The USN Eastern FM-2 credit to loss numbers were 422 to 13, or 32.46 to 1
buffnut453
Captain
Lots of myth in that statement. The Brewster achieved kills against the Tupolev SB2, Petlyakov Pe2, Hawker Hurricane, P-40 and even Supermarine Spitfire which were hardly open-cockpit, obsolete types (the SB2 is debatable but the others absolutely were not). Bottom line is that Finland developed a well-trained fighter force that optimized the strengths of the aircraft they operated.
Kevin J
Banned
I remember seeing some figures that said the fighters most shot down by the Germans were: LaGG-3, 5.5k i.e. most of those built; Spitfire, 3.3k, or 1 in 6; Hurricane, 2k, or 1 in 7. Also that damaged fighters are often used as decoys on airfields, so if you destroy one then you're probably claiming the same victory twice over.
I think you can also add about ~6,000 I-15 and I-153 open-cockpit biplane fighters, about ~6,000* obsolescent, open cockpit I-16 fighters, 3,000 second rate MiG 1and Mig 3 fighters, about 2,000 obsolete SB bombers, ~1,000 even more obsolete DB-3 bombers, about 800 antiquated open cockpit, fixed landing gear TB-3 bombers, something like 10 or 15,000 open cockpit, fixed landing gear Po-2 utility / recon biplanes, about 7,000 open-cockpit , fixed-landing-gear Polikarpov R-5 biplane and R-Z biplane light bomber / recon planes, and a myriad of a few thousand more miscellaneous not ready for prime time aircraft, most shot down during the first year or two of war on the Russian Front.
In other words, counting the ~6,000 LaGG-3 fighters in Russia alone probably somewhere around 24,000 front line fighter and bomber aircraft that were obsolete and ill equipped (almost none of them had functional radios for example) not counting another ~20,000 second tier biplanes.
And even once the better Yak -1, 7 and 9, and La 5 series fighters came on line, during the first year or so they were plagued with serious production problems so in many cases they too were sitting ducks. And this is yet another reason why the Lend Lease and other Anglo-American aid was so important - Hurricanes, P-40s and P-39s with good functional radios, guns that didn't jam constantly, properly sealed fuselage skin, canopies that didn't have to be left off because they wouldn't open reliably, undercarriage that seated properly when retracted, wings that didn't warp and so on, were more valuable (at least until Winter) than Yak-1s that were perhaps better on paper but couldn't be made to military standard under the open sky in hastily relocated factories in Siberia.
In the rest of Europe in the early war, among the victims of the Luftwaffe we should also count about 500 or so fixed undercarriage Gloster Gladiator biplane fighters (and another ~500 similar but less capable open cockpit, fixed undercarriage Gloster Gauntlet, and Britsol Bulldog biplane fighters), a jumble of ~300 Boulton Paul Defiants, Blackburn Skuas and Rocs and so forth, probably nearly 500 Westland Lysanders, 300 Pzl P.11 fixed landing gear, open cockpit fighters, about 1,000 obsolete Morane MS.406 fighters, 500 second rate Bloch 150 fighters, ~2,000 obsolescent Fairey Battle bombers, ~4,000 obsolescent Bristol Blenheim bombers, 300 obsolete fixed undercarriage Bloch M.B 200 and 600 MB 210 bombers, and close to a thousand miscellaneous and mostly obsolete French, Polish, Dutch, and Belgian bombers and other lesser European types.
And in many if not most cases, not counting the British and some of the French, most of these these planes were flown by relatively inexperienced and / or poorly / hastily trained pilots and flight crews, and often suffering from maintenance and supply problems to boot.
In other words, a lot of the early German fighter pilot conquests in WW2 boiled down to very low hanging fruit. A squadron of well trained pilots flying Bf 109E's intercepting a squadron of I-153's escorting DB-3 bombers isn't much of a contest. I don't want to overstate it - there were more modern fighters in France and England of course. But we heap glory on these aces for shooting down dozens of obsolescent enemy planes in 1940 and 1941, especially in Russia. And then we start giving out excuses right and left later in the war in 1943 and 44 when the Luftwaffe, now lacking experienced fighter pilots and dealing with their own logistics problems, starts to lose in big numbers against Spitfires and Yak-9s and P-47s.
There are good reasons why countries such as Poland, France, and Russia were not fully ready for war around 1939 and 1940 - first they had their hands too full trying to deal with the Great Depression to go on a crash modernization and mobilization effort, and second they knew that the previous war, WW I, was a catastrophe for everyone involved, especially the Germans. So it was kind of hard to get your head around the idea that they were going to do this again. The assumption was that they wouldn't start another war because it was too risky for them. But the Germans had decided they were going to fight another war before everyone else did, so they had an initial advantage. In the long run of course, that is indeed how it turned out. Per google the Germans lost ~6-8 million soldiers & civilians due ultimately to their decision to start another war. But they got plenty of glory in the first year or two. Maybe that was worth it.
I think if they had been thinking clearly back in the 1930's they would have skipped the whole thing. But of course that would give us a lot less to discuss in places like this.
*3,300 I-15, 3,400 I-153, and 8,600 I-16 were produced, almost all of them shot down during the war, but I know some were exported to places like China, Spain etc.
In other words, counting the ~6,000 LaGG-3 fighters in Russia alone probably somewhere around 24,000 front line fighter and bomber aircraft that were obsolete and ill equipped (almost none of them had functional radios for example) not counting another ~20,000 second tier biplanes.
And even once the better Yak -1, 7 and 9, and La 5 series fighters came on line, during the first year or so they were plagued with serious production problems so in many cases they too were sitting ducks. And this is yet another reason why the Lend Lease and other Anglo-American aid was so important - Hurricanes, P-40s and P-39s with good functional radios, guns that didn't jam constantly, properly sealed fuselage skin, canopies that didn't have to be left off because they wouldn't open reliably, undercarriage that seated properly when retracted, wings that didn't warp and so on, were more valuable (at least until Winter) than Yak-1s that were perhaps better on paper but couldn't be made to military standard under the open sky in hastily relocated factories in Siberia.
In the rest of Europe in the early war, among the victims of the Luftwaffe we should also count about 500 or so fixed undercarriage Gloster Gladiator biplane fighters (and another ~500 similar but less capable open cockpit, fixed undercarriage Gloster Gauntlet, and Britsol Bulldog biplane fighters), a jumble of ~300 Boulton Paul Defiants, Blackburn Skuas and Rocs and so forth, probably nearly 500 Westland Lysanders, 300 Pzl P.11 fixed landing gear, open cockpit fighters, about 1,000 obsolete Morane MS.406 fighters, 500 second rate Bloch 150 fighters, ~2,000 obsolescent Fairey Battle bombers, ~4,000 obsolescent Bristol Blenheim bombers, 300 obsolete fixed undercarriage Bloch M.B 200 and 600 MB 210 bombers, and close to a thousand miscellaneous and mostly obsolete French, Polish, Dutch, and Belgian bombers and other lesser European types.
And in many if not most cases, not counting the British and some of the French, most of these these planes were flown by relatively inexperienced and / or poorly / hastily trained pilots and flight crews, and often suffering from maintenance and supply problems to boot.
In other words, a lot of the early German fighter pilot conquests in WW2 boiled down to very low hanging fruit. A squadron of well trained pilots flying Bf 109E's intercepting a squadron of I-153's escorting DB-3 bombers isn't much of a contest. I don't want to overstate it - there were more modern fighters in France and England of course. But we heap glory on these aces for shooting down dozens of obsolescent enemy planes in 1940 and 1941, especially in Russia. And then we start giving out excuses right and left later in the war in 1943 and 44 when the Luftwaffe, now lacking experienced fighter pilots and dealing with their own logistics problems, starts to lose in big numbers against Spitfires and Yak-9s and P-47s.
There are good reasons why countries such as Poland, France, and Russia were not fully ready for war around 1939 and 1940 - first they had their hands too full trying to deal with the Great Depression to go on a crash modernization and mobilization effort, and second they knew that the previous war, WW I, was a catastrophe for everyone involved, especially the Germans. So it was kind of hard to get your head around the idea that they were going to do this again. The assumption was that they wouldn't start another war because it was too risky for them. But the Germans had decided they were going to fight another war before everyone else did, so they had an initial advantage. In the long run of course, that is indeed how it turned out. Per google the Germans lost ~6-8 million soldiers & civilians due ultimately to their decision to start another war. But they got plenty of glory in the first year or two. Maybe that was worth it.
I think if they had been thinking clearly back in the 1930's they would have skipped the whole thing. But of course that would give us a lot less to discuss in places like this.
*3,300 I-15, 3,400 I-153, and 8,600 I-16 were produced, almost all of them shot down during the war, but I know some were exported to places like China, Spain etc.
Last edited:
I will say though, on the other hand the Russians should have known better because they quite deviously assisted the Nazi regime in secretly rebuilding it's air force against the Versailles treaty, in one of the more incredible sub-plots of the run up to WW2.
Kevin J
Banned
Franco did of course know that Germany would lose the war as his mate Admiral Canaris had told him!
Kevin J
Banned
Seriously, serious. Franco and Canaris were old friends, and Canaris had advised him at the beginning of WW2 that Germany couldn't possibly win it so the Spanish stayed out.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The majority of Me262s downed by Allied fighter were not in combat, but rather at their airfields either landing or taking off, where the Me262 was at it's most vulnerable.
As for being damaged or downed by bomber defensive fire, the Me262 was too fast for the turrets to train on them and the flexible-mount gunners had great difficulty leading on them. This is not to say that it didn't happen, but it was not all that common.
Far more piston types, like the Bf109, Fw190 and Zerstorers were downed because of their lower attack speeds.
And Allied fighters were not immune from the four 30mm cannon, the Me262 accounted for quite a few Allied fighters, too.
Considering that a fraction of the over 1,400 Me262s produced ever saw combat (lack of fuel, pilots, transport, damaged at factory, etc.) and even then, many of those were used as bombers and high speed recon, those limited numbers (roughly 300) that saw action inflicted a great deal of damage on the Allied bombing effort in the year that they were operational. So in the end, the Me262 has a record of roughly 509 Allied types downed for about 100 lost which is an impressive ratio all things considered.
Kevin J
Banned
Neither the I-153 nor the I-16 were completely useless. The I-153 could be used for close escort where all you have to do is drive off attacking fighters and the later versions of the I-16 were fast enough to intercept and shoot down most German bombers and it was highly manoeuvrable too. In mixed units of I-16's and MiG-3's they scored the majority of victories. The MiG-3 had excellent high altitude capabilities which meant it was unsuited to the Eastern Front, but okay for top cover. The LaGG-3 is another story, overweight, under powered and shoddily built because the factories building them had been transferred East at the beginning of the war. There were only a few Yak-1's originally, but both this and the Yak-7 were inferior to the Bf 109F; okay for close escort though as they were highly manoeuvrable.
