Kill Ratios

ricardo · Jun 24, 2005

Hi everybody.

I'd wish to know if someone has info about kill ratios (air to air victories). I understand that Hellcats has an astonishing 19:1 over the IJN. I've read that during BoB in fighter versus fighter dogfights, the Bf-109 was the undisputed champion. 333 Bf109 lost compared to the 272 Hurricanes and 219 Spitfires.

Against Spitfires: 219 to 180
Against Hurricanes: 272 to 153

GregP · Sep 17, 2005

The F6F Hellcat did have a 19 : 1 kill ratio. It was the best piston fighter kill ratio of all times. The next best was down around 12 : 1. That was the Corsair.

schwarzpanzer · Sep 17, 2005

Hi ricardo,

IJN

What is this sorry?

I've tried to simplify:

333 Bf109 lost compared to the 272 Hurricanes and 219 Spitfires.

Against Spitfires: 219 to 180

73 to 60 (common denomiator = 3)

or 109.5 to 90 (cd = 2)

Against Hurricanes: 272 to 153

136 to 76.5 (cd 2)

Against both Hurri Spit:

(Spits Hurris lost) 245.5 to 166.5 (109's lost)

I don't think thats right, surely?

It had a higher attrition rate than both?? (individually together)

lesofprimus · Sep 17, 2005

IJN - Imperial Japanese Navy

Jabberwocky · Sep 17, 2005

In the Battle of Britain the primary aim of the Hurricane and Spitfire was to intercept the bombers.

You consistently see the RAF scoring higher numbers if kills per day during the Battle, but losing higher numbers of single engined fighters doing so.

Couple of reasons

1. Hurricanes and Spitfires often had to climb into an intercept, facing foes that were already sun up and at better altitude.

2. British fighter tactics were inferior to German ones for much of the Battle; three man sections and 'fighting area attacks' were inefficient compared to the 'finger four'.

3. Dowding's and Park's policy of single squadron or paired squadron intercepts. Often British fighters were significantly outnumbered and had to take a lot of risks to get to the bomber streams.

4. British armament was often insufficient to get a hard 'kill', but did get plenty of 'damageds'. 8 .303s ensured a lot of German aircraft turned back with plenty of bullet holes but still in flyable condition. German armement of 2 cannon was better for ensuring destruction of a fighter sized target.

And if you want high fighter kill ratios look at the Finnish B-239 or the FM-2 Wildcat, you might be suprised just how high they were.

FLYBOYJ · Sep 17, 2005

In today's world the F-15 is something like 110 to 0!

GregP · Sep 18, 2005

Yes, well you have to take into account the rules of "kills". If we get shot, but don't go down immediately, then we consider the aircraft that went down later to be an "operational loss." The Russians consider it a kill.

To the F-15.

The Israleis have lost at LEAST one F-15 taht managed to land safely after being shot at, but never flew again. I'd call that a kill.

In any case, the ratio is might impressive in favor of the F-15 Eagle.

Hope the Raptor does as well.

plan_D · Sep 18, 2005

As has been said, the Hurricane and Spitfire were going after the bombers mostly. Overall they achieved a greater kill:ratio but against the Bf-109 it was lower due to obvious reasons; the Bf-109 always had the height and numercial advantage.

The Luftwaffe tactics were seriously flawed during the Battle of Britain. The fighter cover would hang around the bomber formation and would attack the British interceptors only when they rose to the formation itself. This would make the battle rage around the bomber formation allowing the interceptors to slip in and out of the formation shooting up the enemy bombers while the escorts just had to give chase and risk shooting their own bombers.

syscom3 · Sep 18, 2005

plan_D said:
The Luftwaffe tactics were seriously flawed during the Battle of Britain. The fighter cover would hang around the bomber formation and would attack the British interceptors only when they rose to the formation itself. This would make the battle rage around the bomber formation allowing the interceptors to slip in and out of the formation shooting up the enemy bombers while the escorts just had to give chase and risk shooting their own bombers.

Substitute Luftwaffe with 8thAF and British with German, and you have a repeat of the US bombers over Germany in early 1944.

plan_D · Sep 18, 2005

Only the British won, and the Germans lost.

schwarzpanzer · Sep 19, 2005

The P51's later gave top-cover to the B17's a much better and very effective tactic, also they didn't have to worry about fuel shortages.

I wouldn't want to be looking at my fuel guage every 3 seconds

However fatigue levels would be higher for the USAF?

GregP · Sep 22, 2005

I have a VERY good file of all air-to-air kills, but not a good file on air-to-air losses. My kills file does NOT state what aircraft was lost or what aircraft was used by the vivtor, only the name, nationality, # kills, and date.

Whish these data were a bit easier to come by!

Although there is tremendous interest, it seems the governments choose to keep data about vistories and losses as secret as possible.

Frustrating.

Erich · Sep 22, 2005

All air to air kills ? if they are German.........no you don't, sorry

GregP · Sep 25, 2005

I didn't say I had the absolutely accurate file of all times. I said I had a file of all kills, and I meant all aces. It covers 11,054 aces over 45 wars or conflicts, and includes pilots from 72 countries.

Is it complete? Can't say, and neither can you. I suspect not since many Japanese kills are not known.

Unfortunately for your claim above, most German kills ARE known, and I have the ace kills known to be German, and they total 2,463 aces. Collectively, they shot down 137,929 aircraft over all air wars up to about 1996 or so.

I do NOT claim it to be the absolute best list, but it is pretty damned good.

Do you have a better list? If so, would you share it?

I will, if asked.

lesofprimus · Sep 25, 2005

I will, if asked.

Would u please share ur list with us???

Erich · Sep 25, 2005

I can attest frm factual reference you do not have all the German kills down to an ace with 5. Have said this repeatedly on this board as well at least on another 6: the Luftwaffe quit the processing and officially awarding claims in the fall of 44, so you will not find an 'official' source for these claims othere than the pilots flugbuch or the unit KTB, and I can also tell you that not all the GErman single engine fighter units are correct. There is also no listing of twin engine fighter units kills. JG 7 Me 262 units kills are also not all confirmed

E

FLYBOYJ · Sep 25, 2005

GregP said:
Yes, well you have to take into account the rules of "kills". If we get shot, but don't go down immediately, then we consider the aircraft that went down later to be an "operational loss." The Russians consider it a kill.

To the F-15.

The Israleis have lost at LEAST one F-15 taht managed to land safely after being shot at, but never flew again. I'd call that a kill.

In any case, the ratio is might impressive in favor of the F-15 Eagle.

Hope the Raptor does as well.

I gave this some tought and recently discussed this with an instructor at the US Air Force Academy (I work there). He's some thought.....

If the "asset" (Plane, pilot or both) is totally destroyed, consider it a kill. If the asset returns and is able to fly again, no kill. If the "aircraft asset" is makes it back to it's base lands normally but never flies again, no kill. The thinking there that both assets returned and even if the aircraft don't ever fly again, components of it will be salvaged and used on another "asset." Make sence?!?!

schwarzpanzer · Sep 25, 2005

Sounds good!

However:

If the "asset" (Plane, pilot or both) is totally destroyed, consider it a kill

I suppose if another plane/pilot is available, then that's what really matters?

My reason being is if you can afford the losses, then it isn't really a loss.

ie. a German pilot dead in '39 is less significant than one in '44.

Likewise if a replacement plane is/isn't available (with fuel/ammo)

- That sounds a bit Stalinist doesn't it?

P38 Pilot · Oct 1, 2005

Hope the Raptor does as well.

Oh trust me; it will!

FLYBOYJ · Oct 2, 2005

schwarzpanzer said:
Sounds good!

However:

If the "asset" (Plane, pilot or both) is totally destroyed, consider it a kill

I suppose if another plane/pilot is available, then that's what really matters?

My reason being is if you can afford the losses, then it isn't really a loss.

ie. a German pilot dead in '39 is less significant than one in '44.

Likewise if a replacement plane is/isn't available (with fuel/ammo)

- That sounds a bit Stalinist doesn't it?

To me if the plane makes it back and it could no longer fly but you can cannabilize parts from it, it's not a kill. If it makes it back and is completely destroyed, it's a kill.

Kill Ratios

Airman

Major

Senior Airman

Brigadier General

Staff Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Major

Lieutenant Colonel

Pacific Historian

Lieutenant Colonel

Senior Airman

Major

the old Sage

Major

Brigadier General

the old Sage

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Senior Airman

Tech Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads