Hello!
I disagree. "Paper superiority" is a common real life occurance that happens all the time in historical subjects that compare one weapons device to another. It isn't restricted to airplanes either. Its often done vs. pretty much anything, tanks for example. I come from a website that has seen some of the biggest flame fests based on paper-stat comparisons....with the arguments often going into outworldly situations that bear little resemblence to the RL situation. One of my personal favorites is the "Any 76mmm equipped Sherman can take care of any garden-variety Tiger tank....just look at the penetration stats!!!!!!"
Yes...thank you. I am well aware of what "preformance" means and that when i look at preformance stats in a book or a website that they are theoretical best stats...that will not always be present in RL depending on condition of plane etc etc. Shores made point to mention that in Fighters Over the Desert. That doesn't mean such stats arn't useful but they should not be taken litterally. An example would be max speed. A much abused stat. The way some people (not here) wield it, you'd think all WWII fighter planes tool around at max speed all the time.
No. I am using preformance as an estimate and then factoring it in to RL obsevations of air combat.
Superior preformance definately gives an edge. And yes, it is indeed no gurantee and lack of definitive success (i.e. a Turkey shoot) is not an anomoly, its common place. The anomoly is actually when a very large disperity exists when the two opponents are not seperated by a wide gulf. Such an anomoly occured over Malta in the four month period of 2/41 through 5/41 when 7/JG-26 operated from Sicily.
For me personally...(someone else might coin a different stat), I would say first that a signifigant disperity starts at it's lowest level at above 3:1 ratio. A serious disperity would be roughly around 6:1. The F4U is alleged for example to have scored an amazing 11:1 ratio though its never been confirmed. Some sources use the rule of 2 and say maybe 6:1 ratio. If a more accurate ratio is 6:1 to use the example for a moment it would still not be soley due to the preformance stats of the Corsair but would be aided heavily by the fact that the quality of opposition faced was poor to very poor and the numerical disadvantages and the use of outdated tactics in some cases all contributed to such a slaughter as well.
First off, I didn't say the A6M2 pilots would prevail. I said it wasn't out of the bounds of possibility that they might repeat their preformance against the Spitfires as happened in real life, or etch a draw like the 64th Sentai managed initially vs. "much superior" Spitfire VIII's. I have in this discussion actually given the nod to the FW-190A, especially the mid-service life blocks because the 190 was more adaptible to the changing environment and was overall a younger design. My difference with your accessment which appears to be based on a simple paper stat comparison followed by a transposing of one unique battle sitaution from West to East is that I do not assume a "Turkey Shoot" with FW pilots leasurly flying around BnZing their helpless opponents while reading the morning paper.
Thus I'd put forth a theoretical 2:1 or even 3:1 ratio. I think given the the fact that many RL comparisons between even aircraft of somewhat disparant paper preformances fell under 2:1 in tactical engagement (sometimes even 1:1 or 1.5:1) like when P-40's initially faced "obsolete" Ki-27's in Burm, or when Cr-42's faced "superior" preforming Hurricanes over Malta (and traded almost 1:1), i'm being generous to the FW pilots.
They were edged on a regular basis yes....not Turkey Shoot levels however and the AVG's most common opponent were Ki-27's not Ki-43's. The tactical situation also had much to do with it as well. The AVG fought only when the situation favored them and they were geographically positioned to be able to do so. After mid 42 range was also their friend. In fact the P40 flying AVG/51st FG did better than even "superior" preforming planes like the P-38, Spit VIII and P-51A for a time because of this. Despite similar properties, the Hurricanes were owned by the Ki-43's and for a period of time the Spit VIII's were stalemated despite a major paper superiority. P-38's and P-51 engagements were far more fleeting but for a period of time the ratio was competetive there as well. What turned the game around directly had nothing to do with paper stats....it was a change in tactics, ever increasng numbers and lack of support for the Japanese because Burma was considered a backwater theater.
It shouldn't have lessened the Spitfire's ability either as displayed during the BoB. Yet it did.
Not downplaying it. I've read up on it and discussed what i saw as a chronic malise with some friends i considered more knowledgable on the subject. Yes FC had some great leaders but like the US, they did not keep them all in the cockpits while the Germans tended to do so. FC also continued to greatly expand to preform these offensive missions and as such many green pilots were behind the weel. Such as also the case for the WDAF and contributed to their being often bested by fhigh flying 109s using Friei Jagd tactics.
Yes...in an attritional war all sides lose men and have to replace them with rookies. Doesn't change the fact that JG-26 remained an elite formation and they were later helped by flying defensively and having the tables turned badly on FC who know found themselves faced against a very well running air defense network that often expertly vectored the Luft fighters onto their fighter sweeps.
I question any claim ratio until I've read a source along the lines of a Shores, or Lundstrom that devotes serious postwar research to the campaign. JG 26 was not any less immune to overclaiming as another airgroup though some historically did better than others. 64th Sentai for example was usually fairly accurate while 50th Sentai's claiming was reliant on whether or not they succeeded in their mission. In the Desert Shores actually credits the Luft with fairly accurate claiming (though sill vulnerable to the classic conditions that produce overclaiming) though also documented the unfortunate incidents involving II/JG53 that led to many Luft claims being held in high suspicion.
As for 3:1 I have accepted that as a theoretical poss over Darwin using 190's with good pilots vs experienced Zero pilots. However....because of what often happened in RL and what *specifically* happened with superior Spits in India as well as Darwin...I'm not discounting the possibility that they might not do as well as that.
Hi Nikademus,
"Paper superiority" is a propaganda term I'm not going to put up with. I concede you may have used it accidentally, but that was just the straw that broke the camel's back.
I disagree. "Paper superiority" is a common real life occurance that happens all the time in historical subjects that compare one weapons device to another. It isn't restricted to airplanes either. Its often done vs. pretty much anything, tanks for example. I come from a website that has seen some of the biggest flame fests based on paper-stat comparisons....with the arguments often going into outworldly situations that bear little resemblence to the RL situation. One of my personal favorites is the "Any 76mmm equipped Sherman can take care of any garden-variety Tiger tank....just look at the penetration stats!!!!!!"
Now you should be aware that "performance" has a well-defined meaning in an aviation context, describing technical aspects such as speed and climb.
Yes...thank you. I am well aware of what "preformance" means and that when i look at preformance stats in a book or a website that they are theoretical best stats...that will not always be present in RL depending on condition of plane etc etc. Shores made point to mention that in Fighters Over the Desert. That doesn't mean such stats arn't useful but they should not be taken litterally. An example would be max speed. A much abused stat. The way some people (not here) wield it, you'd think all WWII fighter planes tool around at max speed all the time.
I believe you are using it in its more general meaning here, which is roughly equivalent with "success".
No. I am using preformance as an estimate and then factoring it in to RL obsevations of air combat.
Now undoubtly success is not guaranteed if you have a significant performance (and firepower, and protection) superiority ... it's merely highly probable. The lack of success of the Spitfire V against the A6M2 is an anomaly, and you can't generalize from anomalies.
Superior preformance definately gives an edge. And yes, it is indeed no gurantee and lack of definitive success (i.e. a Turkey shoot) is not an anomoly, its common place. The anomoly is actually when a very large disperity exists when the two opponents are not seperated by a wide gulf. Such an anomoly occured over Malta in the four month period of 2/41 through 5/41 when 7/JG-26 operated from Sicily.
What kill-to-loss ratio do you require for applying the term "Turkey shoot"? Wouldn't make much sense to argue about something linguistically vague ...
For me personally...(someone else might coin a different stat), I would say first that a signifigant disperity starts at it's lowest level at above 3:1 ratio. A serious disperity would be roughly around 6:1. The F4U is alleged for example to have scored an amazing 11:1 ratio though its never been confirmed. Some sources use the rule of 2 and say maybe 6:1 ratio. If a more accurate ratio is 6:1 to use the example for a moment it would still not be soley due to the preformance stats of the Corsair but would be aided heavily by the fact that the quality of opposition faced was poor to very poor and the numerical disadvantages and the use of outdated tactics in some cases all contributed to such a slaughter as well.
That's where you have to be specific and present a hypothesis explaining how the out-classed A6M2 (flown by experienced IJN pilots) could prevail against the vastly superior Fw 190A-3 (flown by experienced Luftwaffe pilots). Truisms won't take us anywhere.
First off, I didn't say the A6M2 pilots would prevail. I said it wasn't out of the bounds of possibility that they might repeat their preformance against the Spitfires as happened in real life, or etch a draw like the 64th Sentai managed initially vs. "much superior" Spitfire VIII's. I have in this discussion actually given the nod to the FW-190A, especially the mid-service life blocks because the 190 was more adaptible to the changing environment and was overall a younger design. My difference with your accessment which appears to be based on a simple paper stat comparison followed by a transposing of one unique battle sitaution from West to East is that I do not assume a "Turkey Shoot" with FW pilots leasurly flying around BnZing their helpless opponents while reading the morning paper.
Thus I'd put forth a theoretical 2:1 or even 3:1 ratio. I think given the the fact that many RL comparisons between even aircraft of somewhat disparant paper preformances fell under 2:1 in tactical engagement (sometimes even 1:1 or 1.5:1) like when P-40's initially faced "obsolete" Ki-27's in Burm, or when Cr-42's faced "superior" preforming Hurricanes over Malta (and traded almost 1:1), i'm being generous to the FW pilots.
Not consistently ... the Ki-43 pilots fighting against the Flying Tiger's P-40 were losing on a regular basis, and the reason is that Claire Chennault drilled high-speed hit-and-run tactics into his men that worked very well against the slower, poorly protected Japanese aircraft. This reinforces my point that the poor success of the Spitfire is an anomaly since the superiority of the Spitfire V as a fighter over the P-40 is well established.
They were edged on a regular basis yes....not Turkey Shoot levels however and the AVG's most common opponent were Ki-27's not Ki-43's. The tactical situation also had much to do with it as well. The AVG fought only when the situation favored them and they were geographically positioned to be able to do so. After mid 42 range was also their friend. In fact the P40 flying AVG/51st FG did better than even "superior" preforming planes like the P-38, Spit VIII and P-51A for a time because of this. Despite similar properties, the Hurricanes were owned by the Ki-43's and for a period of time the Spit VIII's were stalemated despite a major paper superiority. P-38's and P-51 engagements were far more fleeting but for a period of time the ratio was competetive there as well. What turned the game around directly had nothing to do with paper stats....it was a change in tactics, ever increasng numbers and lack of support for the Japanese because Burma was considered a backwater theater.
Fighting defensively over Australia instead of France would not have lessened their ability to exploit the strenths of their aircraft (and the weaknesses of the enemies').
It shouldn't have lessened the Spitfire's ability either as displayed during the BoB. Yet it did.
I would not downplay Fighter Command's tactical flexibility or the experience of their fighter leaders and pilots - they had learned from their 1941 mistakes and had much improved by 1942. In 1942, JG 26 still claimed better than 6:1.
Not downplaying it. I've read up on it and discussed what i saw as a chronic malise with some friends i considered more knowledgable on the subject. Yes FC had some great leaders but like the US, they did not keep them all in the cockpits while the Germans tended to do so. FC also continued to greatly expand to preform these offensive missions and as such many green pilots were behind the weel. Such as also the case for the WDAF and contributed to their being often bested by fhigh flying 109s using Friei Jagd tactics.
They were about the only fighter group on the channel front, and they were having serious losses too, and using rookies to fill up their ranks. Fighter Command's worst hour was 1941, they had learned a lot by 1942.
Yes...in an attritional war all sides lose men and have to replace them with rookies. Doesn't change the fact that JG-26 remained an elite formation and they were later helped by flying defensively and having the tables turned badly on FC who know found themselves faced against a very well running air defense network that often expertly vectored the Luft fighters onto their fighter sweeps.
The Butler/Caldwell figures I have seen indicate that they claimed just above 5:1 in the 1940 and just above 6:1 in 1942. If you accept 3:1 in 1940 you should have no problems with the same figure in 1942 when the possiblities of verifying the claims were better due to much of the fighting taking place over friendly territory.
I question any claim ratio until I've read a source along the lines of a Shores, or Lundstrom that devotes serious postwar research to the campaign. JG 26 was not any less immune to overclaiming as another airgroup though some historically did better than others. 64th Sentai for example was usually fairly accurate while 50th Sentai's claiming was reliant on whether or not they succeeded in their mission. In the Desert Shores actually credits the Luft with fairly accurate claiming (though sill vulnerable to the classic conditions that produce overclaiming) though also documented the unfortunate incidents involving II/JG53 that led to many Luft claims being held in high suspicion.
As for 3:1 I have accepted that as a theoretical poss over Darwin using 190's with good pilots vs experienced Zero pilots. However....because of what often happened in RL and what *specifically* happened with superior Spits in India as well as Darwin...I'm not discounting the possibility that they might not do as well as that.